Angels Take Manhattan (DW)

[Maximara]

Maximara, I don't see the contradiction.

Especially when you throw in the quirk that Smith's Doctor tends to under explain things via analogy, "It's nothing like that, but if that helps."

The Doctor has explained things far better in his previous incarnations so unless the very nature of the universe got change thanks to The Pandorica Opens the Doctor is still spouting nonsense.

To take an example, in Genesis of the Daleks the Time Lords wanted the Doctor to avert the creation Daleks from existing or "affect their genetic development so that they evolve into less aggressive creatures."

But the Doctor had met Daleks in his three previous incarnations so the "avert their creation" idea was nonsense out of the gate and the Doctor knew exactly how aggressive the Daleks were so that idea was also nonsense.

In the previously mentioned Day of the Daleks the Doctor is brought to the 22nd century where he is told that Auderly House blew up killing the peace delegation Sir Reginald Styles had set up. This incident falls into "once you know history you're a part of that history and thats a fixed timeline" nonsense and yet the Doctor was able to change it.

DALEK: The Daleks have discovered the secret of time travel. We have invaded Earth again. We have changed the pattern of history.

But to do that the Daleks would have to know history and therefore wouldn't be able to change history.

I should point Day of the Daleks actually names this limitation and how it works.

JO: I just don't understand. I mean, why don't they go back to September the 12th if that's where they want to be. You know, have another go.
DOCTOR: Ah, that's the Blinovitch limitation effect.

Father's Day gives us more information on what happens if you do cross your own timeline and change things.

However, The Waters of Mars shows that small changes can be made without the mess seen in The Wedding of River Song happening.

[Nessus]

Why isn't there a huge BUMBUMBUMBUM sound when a half-ton statue runs on a wood floor?

Because that noise is a product of gait, not mass/weight. Normal human gait works partly by controlled falling onto the leading foot, but that's not the way one has to walk (apart from by instinct), and there are many ways to walk without making footfall impact noises. A very large person (or thing, if you like) can move very fast across such surfaces without making any noise (barring creaking of structural beams) if they're using a gait where the center of mass is shifted forward after the leading foot is set down.

Personally, given the other things we do know/see about how the Weeping Angels work, I like to imagine they don't physically move at all, but rather when they aren't observed they're in a kind of quantum superposition state, and observing them causes the state to collapse with them in the position/location they would have been in if they had been moving. They naturally exist in Schrodinger's cat limbo, but are able to dictate their own probability enough to move via "leapfrogging" from observation to observation. Their form is constant though, so they can't just "teleport" willy-nilly: they can only collapse into a state consistent with what their physical form could've done in the unobserved interval. Since their natural state is a superposition state, being collapsed via observation is like being frozen in time for them.

Their statue form isn't matter, much less stone, but more like a kind of space-time hologram: it's the 3-dimensional shape of the n-dimensional hole they have to interact with us through. And since that projection/hole is stabilized by observation, it's also shaped and limited by it... but also sometimes empowered by it. An image of an Angel, if recognized by an observer, could cause a superposition collapse effectively "teleporting" the Angel to that form. Clever angels can (and as we see in the show, do) travel by exploiting this.

This might make the "Angel of Liberty" possible, if:
1) Someone were to misidentify the Statue of Liberty as an Angel, then
2) that person were to see an image of the statue (say on a postcard or a poster or something) right outside the building, so the "Angel of Liberty" could manifest right there without having to navigate all the way from the harbor unobserved.

The Angels probably put some effort into cultivating the misidentification of ordinary statues as Angels specifically so they can move about more freely. Which loops us back around to that original "Blink" outro.

[professor_iago]

I continue to be disappointed in how the episode end, and it reminds me that Moffat is not very good at writing endings.
My favorite companion is Rory Williams. He is what Mickey Smith should have been. There's something enriching about a person, couple or family joining forces to question the Doctor and call him out on some of his antics. From the beginning, Rory was not impressed by the TARDIS or the Doctor, knowing how much the latter psychologically scarred his girlfriend/fiancee/wife and how much Amy is still allured. More importantly, he had a rich character development spanning multiple series from a meek nurse to The Lone Centurion, never relinquishing his humanity and his heart, but growing in tenacity and courage. This is a man who has faced angels, demons, and Time Lords and said, "I am willing to wait 2,000 years to be with the woman I love. What are you willing to do?" When the legend says that demons run when a good man goes to war, it was referring to HIM.
It was a disservice to end his character so nonchalantly in "Angels Take Manhattan."
Just as Mr. Sonnenberg suggested ways to remedy certain plot holes, there was a simple way to end the episode on a triumphant note, give Amy and Rory great closure, and be true to their characters: have their jump off the skyscraper kill them. Make the paradox stick. It allows them to control their destiny, save the lives of their daughter and son-in-law, reaffirm their love for each other, and give a big middle finger to not only the Weeping Angels who tried to dictate their future but the Doctor who was powerless to control such future. Instead, Moffat gave us a Diabolus Ex Machina that was unsatisfying. It didn't help that afterwards the Doctor and River were like:
Doctor: I lost them. I'm alone.
River: You'll travel again with others.
Doctor: Travel with me.
River: I can't
Doctor: Why not?
River: Reasons.
Doctor: What reasons?
River: REASONS!

[FaxModem1]

Here's another question. What happens to the Statue of Liberty Angel when people go inside it for tours?