7X05 The Angels Take Manhattan (Grading/Discussion) (SPOILERS!)

[Allyn Gibson]

Iamnotspock wrote:

---

Yes, that was indeed Bidmead's argument about Russell T Davies, not Moffat.

Ah, you and Starkers are right. I had the "first draft" critique conflated in my mind with the Bidmead/Moffat feud on Twitter last year where Moffat took umbrage at Bidmead poking fun at his work.

[StCoop]

Captain_Amasov wrote:

---

The events in the first episode must have happened otherwise why would Amelia's mother mention that they sent her to countless psychiatrists about her obsession with the "Raggedy Doctor", if the Doctor had never visited her in the first place to become obsessed with?

And yet it's stated in AGMGTW that the first time she and Rory stepped aboard the TARDIS in the current Universe was on their wedding night, meaning that while they remember the events of Series 5 they didn't physically happen to them.

Plus what Alan said above.

[Captain_Amasov]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

More importantly, we see in "The Big Bang" that she didn't wait outside all night, as in the time rewind the Doctor went outside, picked her up off the suitcase, put her to bed, and told her a story. In the rebooted universe, she spent the night snug in her bed.

The issue there is that in all of the proceeding scenes of the Doctor traveling backward through his own timeline, we're shown that he couldn't physically be observed by anyone in the those events, due to him traveling in the opposite direction in time to everyone else. It appeared that he also couldn't physically interact with anyone either, which makes it rather odd that he can even pick young Amelia up at the end there.

[Allyn Gibson]

StCoop wrote:

---

And yet it's stated in AGMGTW that the first time she and Rory stepped aboard the TARDIS in the current Universe was on their wedding night, meaning that while they remember the events of Series 5 they didn't physically happen to them.

Yet "A Good Man Goes to War" also tells us that the incident with the Atraxi from "The Eleventh Hour" happened since the Thin/Fat Gay Married Anglican Marines talk about the Doctor calling them back to Earth and scolding them. To be fair, though, Amy and Rory don't set foot in the TARDIS in "The Eleventh Hour" so that's not exactly a discontinuity.

Now I understand why time travel gives Geordi La Forge nosebleeds.

[Lonemagpie]

Still thinking the "finality" doesn't work:

They don't even *have* to be buried in NYC - they just *have* to have the gravestone with that inscription placed there. That's *it* - that's all that their "utterly final" fate actually requires. They canl be back if the actors feel like it.

It's what I said about needless arc and hype - if they'd just done the episode and moved on we'd all be thinking "cool, they live out their lives in the past" but by going on about the finality of how they can never see the Doctor again, it just makes us go "but they can if..." Moffat's a great scripter, but their grasp of publicity and guiding the audience is totally borked.

[Allyn Gibson]

Captain_Amasov wrote:

---

The issue there is that in all of the proceeding scenes of the Doctor traveling backward through his own timeline, we're shown that he couldn't physically be observed by anyone in the those events, due to him traveling in the opposite direction in time to everyone else. It appeared that he also couldn't physically interact with anyone either, which makes it rather odd that he can even pick young Amelia up at the end there.

He physically interacted with Amy twice in the rewind. First, during "The Time of Angels" -- he holds her hands, talks to her, and kisses her on the forehead. Then, when he reaches events from "The Eleventh Hour," he picks her up and puts her in bed. Arguably there's a third time -- he shouts at Amy after events in "The Lodger" and she hears him but can't see him.

If you want an explanation, I'd venture that the closer the Doctor approached "The Eleventh Hour" in his personal timeline, the more physically present he was with the rebooted universe.

[Starkers]

Iamnotspock wrote:

---

Yes, that was indeed Bidmead's argument about Russell T Davies, not Moffat. I'm inclined to agree with him (although it's a tad hypocritical!), in that generally speaking I think that label applies much more to Davies than Moffat. That said, last night felt to me in many ways the most "RTD" that Moffat has ever been; the Statue of Liberty being able to go walkabout Ghostbusters II-style without anyone noticing in the city that never sleeps, for example. That kind of "spectacle over plot logic" was very Russell IMHO.

well I've always said the two of them aren't that different in that both place story above logic, RTD just dazzles you with bright lights and loud music while Moffat relies on sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

He physically interacted with Amy twice in the rewind. First, during "The Time of Angels" -- he holds her hands, talks to her, and kisses her on the forehead. Then, when he reaches events from "The Eleventh Hour," he picks her up and puts her in bed. Arguably there's a third time -- he shouts at Amy after events in "The Lodger" and she hears him but can't see him.

If you want an explanation, I'd venture that the closer the Doctor approached "The Eleventh Hour" in his personal timeline, the more physically present he was with the rebooted universe.

I always figured Amy heard his speech to her while she was sleeping as well, subconsciously at least.

[Plain Simple]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

It's what I said about needless arc and hype - if they'd just done the episode and moved on we'd all be thinking "cool, they live out their lives in the past" but by going on about the finality of how they can never see the Doctor again, it just makes us go "but they can if..." Moffat's a great scripter, but their grasp of publicity and guiding the audience is totally borked.

That explains things. I haven't been following any hype or whatnot, so I just went with what the episod showed us. It was clear during the episode what they were going for, which was a definite sense of finality, so that's what I went with. And I don't think I've ever seen a time travel story, without the possibility of shooting gaps in it, so I'm not going to be bothered too much by the typical time travel wackiness.

Perhaps Lost, season 5, came close to doing time travel without plot holes, but they didn't keep that up for the full show, I think.

[Captain_Amasov]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

He physically interacted with Amy twice in the rewind. First, during "The Time of Angels" -- he holds her hands, talks to her, and kisses her on the forehead. Then, when he reaches events from "The Eleventh Hour," he picks her up and puts her in bed. Arguably there's a third time -- he shouts at Amy after events in "The Lodger" and she hears him but can't see him.

If you want an explanation, I'd venture that the closer the Doctor approached "The Eleventh Hour" in his personal timeline, the more physically present he was with the rebooted universe.

Ah, good point, I'd forgotten about that. Still, is it possible that it's Amy's memory of events, and not how they actually happened for us the viewers, that's unfolded. Amy's parents and the Doctor were brought back because she remembered them. The events in "The Eleventh Hour" where she was left alone outside all night might be all based off of how she remembered how it happened the first time round.

[Admiral2]

Not that great an episode. I didn't cry at the loss of Rory and Amy either time, but I was never in love with either of them anyway, and the Weeping Statue of Liberty was just stupid. No way in hell a skyscraper sized statue changes position from Liberty Island to a couple blocks inland in Manhattan and NOBODY looks at it until it reaches its destination.

[Mr. Adventure]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

It's what I said about needless arc and hype - if they'd just done the episode and moved on we'd all be thinking "cool, they live out their lives in the past" but by going on about the finality of how they can never see the Doctor again, it just makes us go "but they can if..." Moffat's a great scripter, but their grasp of publicity and guiding the audience is totally borked.

What bothers me is they've been building up three themes with Amy and Rory. One deals with the danger, the Doctor had left them once because he felt he might get them killed and we built up a whole new character in Brian to solemnly ask the Doctor to keep them safe. The second deals with Amy and Rory aging with their travels, lines showing, reading glasses, wanting to settle down. Finally, there's been all the stuff regarding wanting to raise a child and the obstacles there.

So how do we resolve these threads? They get stranded and isolated in old New York. The end.

I just feel it could have been more satisfying dramatically.

[Photoman15]

I say in Time of Angels that Amy could only hear the Doctor. There was a reason her eyes had to be closed. They also filmed it like scenes from The Sixth Sense. Amy has her hands in a position that the Doctor COULD be holding them or not. She sways slightly during the scene so that we don't know if she moved slightly when the Doctor kissed her forehead. We know from when he woke up on the Tardis and called out to Amy that she could hear him. How he was able to pick her up and bring her (little Amelia) into the house, I don't know. But he did sit there while she drifted into sleep and tell her the story of the old man and the blue box he stole.

[Worf2DS9]

I enjoyed the episode for the most part. Aside from the silliness of the Statue of Liberty gag (it's not even stone!), my main issue is why Amy blinking at the end would allow the angel to zap her back in time. Both the Doctor and River were both looking towards Amy and therefore the Angel. Even if they weren't looking directly at the Angel, focussing their attention on Amy, they'd still see the Angel in the corner of their eye, thus keeping it solid. Surely Amy's slim frame wasn't blocking it entirely from view.

Something else that bugged me (and this has nothing to do with the episode itself) was SPACE cutting to commercial after the opening titles! I don't recall them ever doing that before.

[Kai "the spy"]

Iamnotspock wrote:

---

That said, last night felt to me in many ways the most "RTD" that Moffat has ever been; the Statue of Liberty being able to go walkabout Ghostbusters II-style without anyone noticing in the city that never sleeps, for example. That kind of "spectacle over plot logic" was very Russell IMHO.

Davies would have at least used the "Angel of Liberty" in a pivotal way.

[Iamnotspock]

Kai "the spy" wrote:

---

Davies would have at least used the "Angel of Liberty" in a pivotal way.

That I have to concede.