Page 1 of 8

Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:40 pm
by MadAmosMalone
http://sfdebris.com/videos/doctorwho/s33e05.php

I think Chuck nailed this one, a real "mixed bag" episode. I agree about the convenience of regeneration power especially. It bugs me when a new ability that might have been really handy in previous episodes just materializes outta nowhere for expediency and is never mentioned again.

Also I can't wrap my brain around the idea the TARDIS can't ever land in New York again. The Doctor can never again see Amy and Rory because of this. What, he can't land the TARDIS in Jersey and take a train?

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:55 pm
by Dînadan
Yeah the whole can't see them again is one of those things that doesn't make sense when you think about it. Not being able to travel to New York during a set time period again sorta makes sense because of timey-wimey goings on, but that doesn't explain why he's not able to go elsewhere and meet them outside of New York (and iirc the episode specifically says it's just New York he can't go to). And it doesn't explain how he was able to go to New York during that time period previously (unless the whole rebooting the universe thing means all that stuff happened in a parellel universe and this universe is a blank slate...)


As an addendum, there's a 'deleted scene' for this episode out there. It's a short scene of storyboard images narrated by Rory's actor that served to give closure for Rory's dad which features Amy and Rory's son (or maybe grandson, don't recall offhand which) visiting Brian in the 'present' where he gives Brian a letter from Rory explaining what happened. Don't have a link, but fairly sure it's easy to find in YouTubr if you go looking.

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:52 pm
by CrypticMirror
I agree with Chuck, I don't mind the whole can never see Amy and Rory again part -that is explainable in character terms: it is always goodbye eventually for the Doctor- but the rest of the episode does suffer from the kind of story cancer that would end up consuming the show in the Capaldi era. The cool ideas and cool scenes take precedence over the actual story. It is basically a few cool scenes with filler inbetween to get to the next cool scenes.

I still forgive the moon dragon egg episode though. I'm a sucker for those. I kinda wish Moffat had left a lot earlier though. Had given someone else a shot at Capaldi's Doctor. I've bailed on the show now and might not even go back to it even when he does leave. Almost certainly will not be returning for the next Doctor after Capaldi and am now waiting for the one after that who will hopefully be under a different showrunner even from Moffat's handpicked successor. Moffat started his run with so much promise, but burned out spectacularly and has managed to do what not even JNT and Colin Baker's coat did. He made me hate watching Doctor Who. I think this episode is where the cool vs story balance finally tipped the wrong way.

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:05 pm
by Rocketboy1313
I think it is less not being able to go to New York in the geographic sense and more that he is able to go back to the particular time.

But, not time.

This goes back to the "It's like a big ball" explanation. I think this amount of criss crossing time travelers created some kind of tangent or pocket universe. That if the Doctor were to go back then it would be a different then.

This would be easier to understand if you have ever read about Hypertime from the DC universe. Amy and Rory are split off from time in a stream that eventually ties back into the main river.

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:37 pm
by Arkle
Is this a good episode? No. Did I ugly cry the first time I saw it? Yes.

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:22 pm
by Fixer

youtu.be/XWU6XL9xI4k

A bonus scene for extra tears.

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:26 pm
by yamiangie
I'm still not over how stupid the weeping angel Statue of Liberty is.

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:36 pm
by Dînadan
yamiangie wrote:I'm still not over how stupid the weeping angel Statue of Liberty is.
Could've been worse - at least it wasn't Mount Rushmore. ;)

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:56 pm
by MadAmosMalone
yamiangie wrote:I'm still not over how stupid the weeping angel Statue of Liberty is.
Completely agree! I didn't think "angels" were made of metal. Also, if they don't move when you (or anyone ~ including the audience) is looking then how did it get to that building without anyone in the whole city noticing? In a show about a man with two hearts who can travel in time in a phone booth that's larger inside than out, there is obviously a certain amount of suspension of disbelief required on the part of the viewer. But this kinda gaping logical defect requires a "twin I-beam" suspension of disbelief.

Re: Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:01 pm
by Durandal_1707
Am I the only one who actually likes River Song? I would have been just fine with her as a regular companion, snarking over time and space with the Doctor. Would have been better than Clara by miles.