Moffett doesn't quite understand the concept of consistency for the angels(or anything, really, for that matter). Every time they appear, they operate by totally different rules.thaluikhain said:
Why didn't Doctor save Amy and Rory from the weeping angel?
- Thread starter DudeistBelieve
- Start date
The real reason it happened was that the show's Poochie needed shooting. As someone on here posted a while ago it stopped being Doctor Who and became 'the Ponds and their wacky friend go travel in time'.
The fake reason is that the TARDIS couldn't ever go back to that year and that place and that the Doctor was aware that Amy and Rory were falling out of love with the Doctor lifestyle. He'd kind of already said his goodbyes to them and so rather than using River, a car and a wrist unit he just decided to let them go. He probably could have got them back without too much effort but decided that they'd be happy enough where they are and let them go.
The fake reason is that the TARDIS couldn't ever go back to that year and that place and that the Doctor was aware that Amy and Rory were falling out of love with the Doctor lifestyle. He'd kind of already said his goodbyes to them and so rather than using River, a car and a wrist unit he just decided to let them go. He probably could have got them back without too much effort but decided that they'd be happy enough where they are and let them go.
I actually don't mind that too much since they're shown to be highly intelligent beings, it wouldn't surprise me if there were things they learned to do or tricks they may choose not to employ. For example, they're trying to capture people alive to farm for potential time energy, it wouldn't surprise me that they choose not to make another Angel inside someone's visual cortex.Dalisclock said:
The doctor doesn't break it, part of the fixed point was that he was always in the teselecta. We never hear about this beforehand because most of the universe didn't know that he carried on living.Zachary Amaranth said:
Episode's still rubbish for tons of reasons, but that isn't one of them.
Except that doesn't explain how one is able to zap Amy and Rory when everyone, even the camera, is looking at it. Just because she blinks doesn't mean nobody else is looking.ForumSafari said:
And don't get me started about the rest of the angels in "Manhattan", some of which were "imprisoned" in the dark.
At this stage please be aware that I'm playing Devil's Advocate and that I'm genuinely stunned at both how stupid that episode was and how such a promising writer went so completely insane as director.Dalisclock said:
As far as I remember Amy touched the Angel and then closed her eyes, the Doctor also looked away as did River. Rory was nabbed because everyone looked at the Angel after it had touched him but before he'd been sent back in time, he stood up into the Angel and it didn't move to touch him.
This was stupid. The only possible answer I can think of is that an Angel doesn't really mind being put in the dark and so saw no reason to leave.
Because in Doctor Who, the rules function according to what creates better drama, and the parting of the Doctor and Amy/Rory was thematically appropriate, foreshadowed, tied up an interesting character arc, and allowed the story to progress. Doctor Who is filled with enough crazy, wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff that you can throw a whole bunch of random gibberish out there and still seem credible as long as it serves the story. Looking for plot holes is kind of like questioning why a king would be so invested in saving an egg that fell off a wall. It's easy to not look for plot holes, and it makes the story better, more enjoyable, and more meaningful when it has that leeway.
That was Smith, not Tennant.step1999 said:
Tennant's one was where he lets lots of people on Mars die because he can't change time, but they changes his mind and saves some.
Annoying, that he took the one really good monster he'd done, and then brought it back without what made it good.Dalisclock said:
