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

[Gep Malakai]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

Some emotional stuff, absolutely, but almost unearned.

Moffat in a nutshell, really. He tries, but he's far better at the intellectual stuff and never seems able to pull off the emotional side. The show has continued in the style of Davies', but Davies was somehow very good at invoking feelings and Moffat is not.

Still, I enjoyed it overall, despite it playing a bit like "Moffat's Greatest Hits." The business with novel was a regurgitation of the DVD business from "Blink," River and the Doctor communicating across time via written material was from "Time of Angels" and so forth. But the Angels were interesting again, which was sorely lacking in their prior appearance. So that was a plus. And Rory deciding on suicide as the way to cause a time paradox was very effective. Too, I really liked how the ending tied things all the way back to that unexplained TARDIS sound effect in "The Eleventh Hour."

So, it was fun, albeit not perfect.

[Starkers]

Gep Malakai wrote:

---

Moffat in a nutshell, really. He tries, but he's far better at the intellectual stuff and never seems able to pull off the emotional side. The show has continued in the style of Davies', but Davies was somehow very good at invoking feelings and Moffat is not.

Of all the criticisms of Moffat this is the one I never get. For me RTD's idea of emotion was overly simplistic, and mainly relied on A/ Murray Gold telling us to be sad, and B/Rose/Martha looking like they're going to cry. Personally I find Moffat's notion of emotion deeper and more effective, but horses for courses and all that...

[Deckerd]

I don't think you need to protest too much Starkers. The vote count shows how many people thought the emotion was well done.

[Lonemagpie]

for all the nitpicks I still voted it 5/5

[Haggis and tatties]

Fantastic episode once again.......i cant believe we have to wait 3 months now for more Who.........talk about leave them wanting more.

[Pindar]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

And they never did say where the book came from.

River said she would give the book to Amy to get her to publish it, so River must have some future contact with them.

[Saul]

So if he can't go to 1938 can't he go to 1939?

Hasn't the Doctor watched Bill and Ted. He could have gone back in time and put that gravestone there himself. If Amy can put her name on it, the Doctor could surely make it disappear. Or do a Back to the Future on it and it's erased. What's the point of having a Time Machine if you don't make good use of it. The magic headstone tells me Rory and Amy weren't originally part of that timeline so where's the paradox? It's not like Rose's Dad. It's not a fixed point. Or even consider the Butterfly effect of having two people from 2012 living in 1938 who never should have been there to begin with.

And we still don't know why the Doctor uses Guns now and kills people.

Edit. Not a bad episode. Again, not great but Ok.

I think having an episode with the Angels in it and the fact it was to be the Ponds teary goodbye it's not too much of a surprise ending for them.

[I am not Spock]

tomalak301 wrote:

---

If I were to rank the companions from favorite to least favorite:

Donna
Rory
Rose
Captain Jack
Amy
Martha

Hopefully I'm not forgetting any.

My order:

Amy (going to miss her )
Donna
Captain Jack
Rory
Martha





Rose

[I am not Spock]

Starkers wrote:

---

Of all the criticisms of Moffat this is the one I never get. For me RTD's idea of emotion was overly simplistic, and mainly relied on A/ Murray Gold telling us to be sad, and B/Rose/Martha looking like they're going to cry. Personally I find Moffat's notion of emotion deeper and more effective, but horses for courses and all that...

I also think Moffat is good at the emotional stuff, in fact, much more so than RTD was.

This episode was truly sad, and tear-jerking, at least for me.

It seems the majority of people here voted it 5/5, though, so most agreed with me

[Lonemagpie]

Pindar wrote:

---

River said she would give the book to Amy to get her to publish it, so River must have some future contact with them.

I mean they never explained how it appeared in the Doctor's pocket

[Alidar Jarok]

I don't think the Doctor is prohibited from visiting them, but he is prohibited from having adventures with them and adventures have a habit of finding the Doctor. So it's more a thing of prudence to avoid them than a hard and fast rule (hence why River was able to visit them).

BTW, for all those who are complaining about the Statue of Liberty. I was too busy thinking "Oh shit, the Statue of Liberty is trying to get them too" to think of whether it made sense. Seriously, possibly the most iconic structure in America is trying to kill them (with the iconic angry angel face). That's worth including even if the only logic is "they're both statue-like things."

[Timelord_Victorious]

What I found interesting about it, that the Angels gained a new ability.

Apparently they can sort of possess existing statues?

Cause not all statues in this episode had the typical weeping Angel appearance and some statues clearly were man made with a documented history.

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, apparently. I did notice that was a chance. Previously, the Angels appeared to look like statues, but be their own thing.

It might have to do with the fact that they had such a steady food supply that it allowed them to do this.

[Kai "the spy"]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

Yeah, that's pretty much the feeling I get from Moffat-Who. Thinking about the episodes under his guard actually makes them worse (with one or two exceptions). Why can't Moffat use on DW the same standard for good writing he uses on 'Sherlock'?

[The Mirrorball Man]

Kai "the spy" wrote:

---

Why can't Moffat use on DW the same standard for good writing he uses on 'Sherlock'?

He can, and he does, as far as I'm concerned. That being said, suspension of disbelief has never been a problem for me.