So, who wants to talk about new Doctor Who (spoilers likely)

[horacethegrey]

Wow. What an episode. Here be my thoughts.



SPOILERS AHEAD!




Episode 5: THE ANGELS TAKE MANHATTAN

LIKES:

- The Weeping Angels back in form. I wasn't sure of the Angels appearing again. Season 5's two parter, while good didn't exactly reach the level of Blink. But by God did the Moff pull through with this outing. Not only are they creepy as always, but the 'farm' at the Winter Quay shows what a bunch of evil sadistic bastards the Angels are. They're worse than the Daleks.

- River Song. Unlike many, I like Alex Kingston's guest appearances as River. And it's fitting she shows up, as it brings her story with Amy and Rory full circle.

- Amy and Rory's farewell. I have to say, I wasn't sure if Amy and Rory's exit would move me so, but this one certainly did. And I'm surprised how that went down. Very good writing by Moffat there.


DISLIKES:

- I really can't put anything here. That was a perfect sendoff for Amy and Rory. I really can't complain.

Final word. Awesome episode. And looking forward to the Christmas Special.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Flickering lights were back again. Didn't notice any eggs or references to Christmas. But I might have been out of the room.

 

[Morrus]

It was good except for two plot flaws that are so major that they just ruin the episode for me:

1) Nobody in New York looked at the Statue of Liberty as it strode down the streets? Nobody? I went into this episode having seen the spoilery image of the statue with it's teeth bared, so I knew it was an Angel - but I was expecting something (very mildly) clever like "It was always an Angel; the French wanted it put in that location as it is one of the only spots on the planet where it will have somebody looking at it every second of the day, 24/7/365"; and then some clever reason why nobody is looking at it right now. But no. Nothing.

2) No logical reason The Doctor can't see Rory and Amy again. Sure, I'll accept that 1938 New York is inaccessible to a TARDIS now (but not River's bracelet, since she can go back and get Amy to write an afterword and act as publisher for her). 1938 Boston, Rio, London, Chicago, Moscow - they're all accessible still, right? So catch a bus. OR if 1938 is just out completely everywhere, try 1939. They'll still be there. They're around until, what, the 70s? The 80s?

The first thing I can ignore more easily than the second. That just doesn't work logically.

Oh wait - plus the new "rule". If you read about it you can't change it. OK.... so The Doctor should travel far into the future where Earth is happy and intact, read a newspaper headline, and need never have to save the world again. Simple!

Good points - the Angels were nice and creepy. And I'm glad to see the Ponds go - I think they'd run their course. I'm hoping the new companion brings out a diffeent side of The Doctor; manic child is wearing a little thin.

 

[RangerWickett]

Yeah, I wasn't really sold on this episode. I mean, why would you assume the book was telling the truth? A video recording of events, sure, maybe (or it could just be an elaborately staged TV show about time travele- . . . anyway). But a book? What kind of fool time traveler write a book about her own past and tries to make it true? That's just asking for trouble.

I wasn't creeped out by the angels, even. They didn't really play around with the challenge of keeping them in line of sight. But at least they're still inscrutable. The moment one of them starts talking (like the ghost soldier in the wreck of the Byzantium), they become much less interesting.

 

[Nellisir]

2) No logical reason The Doctor can't see Rory and Amy again. Sure, I'll accept that 1938 New York is inaccessible to a TARDIS now (but not River's bracelet, since she can go back and get Amy to write an afterword and act as publisher for her). 1938 Boston, Rio, London, Chicago, Moscow - they're all accessible still, right? So catch a bus. OR if 1938 is just out completely everywhere, try 1939. They'll still be there. They're around until, what, the 70s? The 80s?

I already repped you for this, but...exactly. As soon as I started thinking about this episode, I thought.."so he can't reach New York...what about Brooklyn? Long Island? New Jersey? How do they make a living? Can the Doctor pop into Chicago and wire them funds?"

Also, what about Brian's dad? The complete lack of wrap-up there is disappointing. And there's still the "beginning-middle-end: but not necessarily in that order" issue I don't feel is satisfied.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Well we may have seen the last of Amy and Rory, but that doesn't mean we've seen the end of their story. There may be wrapping up to be done in future episodes.

 

[Krug]

I enjoyed it, despite the plotholes, but just wondering about the Angels apartment complex. Do they cook? (Stone soup must be a favourite). Do they order take out for their prisoners? Make the bed? Do they have intercourse so you get those weeping cherubs?

 

[Fast Learner]

Oh wait - plus the new "rule". If you read about it you can't change it. OK.... so The Doctor should travel far into the future where Earth is happy and intact, read a newspaper headline, and need never have to save the world again. Simple!

Not a new rule: River Song insisted that The Doctor must not read her diary due to "spoilers", that doing so will lock them in.

It's a Moffat thing, yes, but it's four years old.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It was good except for two plot flaws that are so major that they just ruin the episode for me:

1) Nobody in New York looked at the Statue of Liberty as it strode down the streets? Nobody? I went into this episode having seen the spoilery image of the statue with it's teeth bared, so I knew it was an Angel - but I was expecting something (very mildly) clever like "It was always an Angel; the French wanted it put in that location as it is one of the only spots on the planet where it will have somebody looking at it every second of the day, 24/7/365"; and then some clever reason why nobody is looking at it right now. But no. Nothing.

2) No logical reason The Doctor can't see Rory and Amy again. Sure, I'll accept that 1938 New York is inaccessible to a TARDIS now (but not River's bracelet, since she can go back and get Amy to write an afterword and act as publisher for her). 1938 Boston, Rio, London, Chicago, Moscow - they're all accessible still, right? So catch a bus. OR if 1938 is just out completely everywhere, try 1939. They'll still be there. They're around until, what, the 70s? The 80s?

The first thing I can ignore more easily than the second. That just doesn't work logically.

Oh wait - plus the new "rule". If you read about it you can't change it. OK.... so The Doctor should travel far into the future where Earth is happy and intact, read a newspaper headline, and need never have to save the world again. Simple!

Good points - the Angels were nice and creepy. And I'm glad to see the Ponds go - I think they'd run their course. I'm hoping the new companion brings out a diffeent side of The Doctor; manic child is wearing a little thin.

i agree with this assesment (though to be honest plotholes like this don't really ruin a movie or film for me as they just make discussion afterwards more fun--i find i can overlook them while watching and after it starts to eat at me). One bothered me, but I figured if there was a black out or something (cant recall if there wasat that exact moment) then I suppose that is a kind of explanation (not a particularly good one, but at least there would be one). Still, the statue of liberty wasn't as gaping a flaw as him not being able to see rory and amy again. I really can't see how that works.

But that said, i very much enjoyed the episode. Great noire feal. The book was a cool element. Statue of liberty aside the angels worked for me. Got to see Rory and Amy take out twice. Managed to remove them in a way that satisfied both te side of me that likes them and the side that has gotten tired of them.

 

[Morrus]

Not a new rule: River Song insisted that The Doctor must not read her diary due to "spoilers", that doing so will lock them in.

She refused to share spoilers, yes, but she didn't say that would lock them in.

Two years ago Moffat couldn't stop saying "time can be rewritten". Now he's saying "time cannot be rewritten".

Why was The Doctor worried when the Daleks turned up in WW2? He's seen writing in time periods post-WW2; ergo, the Daleks can't change anything. He should just leave them to get on with it.