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

[Professor Zoom]

Saul wrote:

---

Surely them disappearing from their own timeline would be a bigger blunder to their personal timeline.

But they didn't disappear from their own timeline. It could be they were ALWAYS destined to go back and live the rest of their lives in the past.

[Saul]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

But they didn't disappear from their own timeline. It could be they were ALWAYS destined to go back and live the rest of their lives in the past.

Season 5's 'The Hungry Earth' seems to contradict that even if it is from a universe that doesn't exist anymore.

[Photoman15]

How does it contradict it?

[RoJoHen]

I assume he means because of the "old Amy" that present-Amy sees at the end of the episode, which clearly shows that Amy still exists in the future.

[Orac Zen]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

[...] But I think it lessens the emotional impact of the story to introduce a timey-wimey out as a way of getting around the story's ending.

This is why, as much as I dislike the Ponds being removed permanently, I want it to stick. Don't present viewers with a "this can never, ever be undone" scenario then promptly undo it. It was irritating enough when Rose, a character I disliked, reappeared after we'd been assured she'd never ever ever ever be able to return; my annoyance would go off the scale if there was a similar sort of cop-out with characters I genuinely enjoy.

[RoJoHen]

I would have no problem with the Ponds showing up again in the show, but it would need to be done right. What needs to be permanent is that the Doctor never sees them again and that they can't be returned to their own time. But we already know that River will at least see Amy again in order to give her the book she's written.

It might be fun to give them another adventure on their own or where they leave clues for the Doctor to find in order to solve some other mystery...or something. Or maybe an adventure with River and Captain Jack (I still want them to have an episode together).

[Professor Zoom]

Saul wrote:

---

Season 5's 'The Hungry Earth' seems to contradict that even if it is from a universe that doesn't exist anymore.

Well... there you go... that universe doesn't exist anymore, as you said.

[Starkers]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

Do we know it for a fact? No. We only have the letter to go by.

But I think it lessens the emotional impact of the story to introduce a timey-wimey out as a way of getting around the story's ending. The point of the story was that Reinette was on the Slow Path while the Doctor wasn't. Stripping that away for the Doctor to come back for her doesn't make much sense.

Oh I agree, and I'm not suggesting it was a get out, I was just making the point that if a gravestone isn't incontrovertable evidence neither is a letter.

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

Well... there you go... that universe doesn't exist anymore, as you said.

But the Hungry Earth shows us time being rewritten anyway, given that at the start of the episode Amy and Rory are seen in the distance, but at the end it's only Amy.

[Bob The Skutter]

^Which only goes to prove the rule wrong. It was part of their person timeline, that means they can't change it... Oh wait, it changed, never mind.

[Starkers]

Unfortunately Who as a show falls apart if you think about it too much, I used to think it should have rules and canon, but now I understand what Paul Cornell said all those years ago, it's just impossible.

The only solution that works is that the Doctor percieves things differently, I'm not a huge fan of The Waters of Mars, but I think that cemented in my mind this notion that the Doctor sees some things as immutable, there are things that are set in stone and things that aren't. The Hungry Earth is one that wasn't set in stone, the end of Angels, quite literally, was.

[Bob The Skutter]

Judge Death wrote:

---

Unfortunately Who as a show falls apart if you think about it too much, I used to think it should have rules and canon, but now I understand what Paul Cornell said all those years ago, it's just impossible.

The only solution that works is that the Doctor percieves things differently, I'm not a huge fan of The Waters of Mars, but I think that cemented in my mind this notion that the Doctor sees some things as immutable, there are things that are set in stone and things that aren't. The Hungry Earth is one that wasn't set in stone, the end of Angels, quite literally, was.

I totally agree with that point of they can't have a set of hard and fast rules or the show just doesn't work. Like I don't give a shit that the chronovores or whatever they were called don't show up every time there's a paradox. I don't care that sometimes a paradox will rip open the universe and need a TARDIS to sustain one without that happening and other times they just have 10 paradoxes in a row to make a fun episode. But what bothers me is they throw about "This is a fixed point." "We know this so it has become fixed in our timelines" so much, so often, even within the same episode that they then ignore it in.

The Doctor perceives time in such a way as he can tell, fair enough, but how come he can then ignore and trick his way round it to save his own life, but not to work round this? How come knowing Reinette died without seeing him means he can't go back again, but Amy seeing herself and Rory on that hill top doesn't have to happen? They saw it for themselves? It just leave it all ringing hollow and leaves me with nothing really holding my interest. In much the same way the shifts in Voyager's character's personalities and everything else left Voyager being so unsatisfying.

[Starkers]

Isn't this the curse of pretty much all science fiction/fantasy though? The use of cheats and get out causes, the fact that characters rarely die and stay dead. Sometimes I almost understand why the mundanes can get so dismissive of the genre. *

At least Who has the decency to throw the odd knowing wink at the audience, "we know this is guff, you know it's guff, but just ignore it and enjoy the ride". I realise that isn't perfect but damn its preferable in my view to something sniffy like Nu BSG "Oh we'd never pull that kind of crap." and then they do...

*Although in fairness regular TV pulls this kind of crap all the time, we just notice it less.

I do think Who needs to show a bit more internal consistency, and drop some of the timey wimey stuff (and I think they have this year) but I don't want it to ever be so constrained by rules that it ceases to be fun.

[The Wormhole]

Of course, any attempt to make sense of when Amy and Rory are from in season 7 is a whole mess itself. But if we assume Amy and Rory were born in 1989 (in order to be 21 in season 5) and that when Rory said he was 31 in Dinosaurs on a Space ship he was giving his actual age (his father didn't correct him) then that episode was set in 2020, which is what year The Hungry Earth takes place. Take into consideration that there is at least one year before The Angels Take Manhattan (The Power of Three) and there's plenty of time for Amy and Rory to go to Wales and meet their S5 selves, we the audience just didn't see it from their perspective.

Or maybe what we saw in The Hungry Earth were Gangers or two Tessalectas?

[Photoman15]

Winnie The Pooh wrote:

---

I totally agree with that point of they can't have a set of hard and fast rules or the show just doesn't work. Like I don't give a shit that the chronovores or whatever they were called don't show up every time there's a paradox. I don't care that sometimes a paradox will rip open the universe and need a TARDIS to sustain one without that happening and other times they just have 10 paradoxes in a row to make a fun episode. But what bothers me is they throw about "This is a fixed point." "We know this so it has become fixed in our timelines" so much, so often, even within the same episode that they then ignore it in.

The Doctor perceives time in such a way as he can tell, fair enough, but how come he can then ignore and trick his way round it to save his own life, but not to work round this? How come knowing Reinette died without seeing him means he can't go back again, but Amy seeing herself and Rory on that hill top doesn't have to happen? They saw it for themselves? It just leave it all ringing hollow and leaves me with nothing really holding my interest. In much the same way the shifts in Voyager's character's personalities and everything else left Voyager being so unsatisfying.

You're assuming that Amy & Rory (or Amy alone) didn't go back to that hill during a time they weren't with the Doctor (or with him since it was in 2020, to fulfill the destiny) off screen.

NOTE: Had this page open, didn't see post above mine which basically says what I say.
Maybe the gaps in traveling for A&R were purposely put there by Moffat to explain this. He's shrewder than we think

[DWF]

Photoman15 wrote:

---

You're assuming that Amy & Rory (or Amy alone) didn't go back to that hill during a time they weren't with the Doctor (or with him since it was in 2020, to fulfill the destiny) off screen.

NOTE: Had this page open, didn't see post above mine which basically says what I say.
Maybe the gaps in traveling for A&R were purposely put there by Moffat to explain this. He's shrewder than we think

There's nothing in the ep. to suggest that the graveyard scene was in the year 2020.