I'd also point out it's valid to compare to previous people if the argument is just that this is what Doctor Who "does."
7X05 The Angels Take Manhattan (Grading/Discussion) (SPOILERS!)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
I don't have a problem with the Cyberking wandering around... it wasn't bound by the rule when someone was LOOKING at it, it couldn't move. Like the Angels are. If there are going to be rules, self imposed rules, one should play by them.
We did see Amy's family, the others just had the decency not to travel with them.
Except the person you were responding to hadn't mentioned RTD, I think you might need to keep up.
But then in your world all us Brits are hate filled racists aren't we?
Clearly not
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G73w7VHP0l8[/YT]
Since when did people start getting possessive of "Doctor Who" being only for the British?
Are you saying expansion of the show's audience to an emerging market is bad?
I just met about 7 or 8 Doctor Who fans at my local community college here in Iowa. When we have free time we watch the latest episodes.
A "Doctor Who" club was just approved by some students.
I'm sorry. I am not a New Yorker, and even though I was aware it was Central Park, I just got that from "New York" and "Park". The shot where they are sitting on a rock? Thats the easiest composite ever. The shot where the Doctor sits down? I don't remember seeing that in the episode, although I guess it takes place after Rory is first taken? It certainly never happened at the end.
Doctor Who has done this before though - why the fuck did they send an entire London bus to Dubai when every single shot of it was simply on a nondescript sand dune with a CG backdrop ANYWAY. The only times filming abroad seemed valid was last year in Utah and the Western Episode this year. At least in those locations the production value appeared on screen and was believable.
You should visit Central Park, in the fall, beautiful. And you can go to the fountain, the tunnel where Rory is taken--it's right next to the fountain, the bridge, even that rock they sat on. I've sat on it. It's lovely. And then, of course, see the rest of the city.
For me, it's really great they shot in New York. SO MANY shows made in America that are set in New York are shot here in LA. Castle being one. And it's VERY clear it's not New York. Their "Central Park" is ... meh.
Sometimes it's better to shoot in the actual location. It's visceral, it's... well, REAL. It adds something to a show. Law and Order wouldn't quite be the same if they shot it in Toronto.
I would love to visit New York, but the point I'm trying to make is that I didn't see enough of it on screen to warrant filming there. And the shots of Central Park did look devoid of life.
Watching the opening again, I'd say theres at most 5 shots which NEEDED to be filmed in New York, and any of the rest could easily have been faked in post, and to be honest probably were.
Doctor Who isn't set in New York every week though, and won't be again thanks to that little line of dialogue about if he went back in the Tardis it'll be blown up. Soo...what was the point? 5 shots of Rory holding coffee walking through a park? Theres a few in London that could easily have doubled for those. I just don't see the money on screen like I'd expect an episode filmed in New York would look like.
Watching the opening again, I'd say theres at most 5 shots which NEEDED to be filmed in New York, and any of the rest could easily have been faked in post, and to be honest probably were.
Doctor Who isn't set in New York every week though, and won't be again thanks to that little line of dialogue about if he went back in the Tardis it'll be blown up. Soo...what was the point? 5 shots of Rory holding coffee walking through a park? Theres a few in London that could easily have doubled for those. I just don't see the money on screen like I'd expect an episode filmed in New York would look like.
If Matt Smith had his way, they'd shoot every episode of Doctor Who in New York. He's not shy about saying so, either.
And no, I have no idea how filming Doctor Who in New York permanently would work.
Why does everyone think that the TARDIS can never land in New York again?
I took it with "there" teh Doctor meant that specific point in space time when/where the paradox happened and MAYBE anything that is causally connected to that.
I took it with "there" teh Doctor meant that specific point in space time when/where the paradox happened and MAYBE anything that is causally connected to that.
I don't understand how when you have a show about a Tardis that can go anywhere at all people think it should stay in the UK.
Because he is already dead of old age in that timeline. They cant change that now. The Gravestone places him dead THERE at 86 years of age. The Doctor cant alter it, it would create another paradox. How would they know to go get him without the gravestone, but there would be no grave if they went and got him.
On top of the paradox already in play with them jumping, the new one would blow a hole in space time. Maybe the size of Belgium.
There were also shots in Times Square, of the Brooklyn Bridge. Sure, coulda been done in post... but what's the problem, I guess.... So they shot in New York versus trying to find things that sorta might be able to pass for New York in a bland way.
And Times Square, the Hudson, the Brooklyn Bridge. The point is to make it look real. But, what's the PROBLEM with that?
I guess you're right, they could've used a generic park some where and not shown anything specific from Central Park... but then... what's the point in that? At least you shoot in New York, you get the press, you get the attention... which for your show, isn't that what you want? to be talked about?
Except that all they and we know is there's a stone with their names on it. There's zero proof that they're under it. And even if there was, that just means they'd need to hold the funeral there.
It's no more a definite finality than the Doctor's gravestone in Revelation Of The Daleks was.
Well, i know and you know its not a great written scenario. After all, all the Doctor needs to do is go back to a few years after they got there, and continue to visit them. Its not like theyre out of reach to him.
So that's the end of the Amelia Pond era. There was a distinctly fairy-tale quality to most of the episodes, and now I'm wondering how much of what we saw was stuff that actually happened and how much was the story the Doctor told little Amelia when he went back. Did the Doctor really travel with Amy and Rory, or was it all just a tale told to a little girl?
Throughout the fifth season, I wondered if the show was actually taking place in Amy's imagination. There was the timing glitch in "Victory of the Daleks" where Bracewell's plans for an oxygen/gravity bubble and blaster rays were implemented on Spitfires and launched into space in a mere twenty-two minutes. The story-book improbable Starwhale and its kindness towards children. That staple of children's nightmares, vampires. A history lesson in a visit with a great artist and the sad tragedy of a misunderstood monster. And through it all, that crack in time and the goofiness of the "Big Bang".
I will be very impressed if Moffat planned all this from "The Eleventh Hour". If he always intended the whole thing to loop back on that one scene with Amelia waiting and the subterfuge that led us all to believe it was just a dream.
If this is the case, who knows how much of what we've seen so far of Doctor Eleven has been real? Maybe he never came back for Amy and Rory twelve years later. Maybe he never married River Song.
The eleventh Doctor might be a different person when he's not telling tales about himself.
It's just idle speculation. I'm probably wrong. But if the Doctor seems more serious in the rest of the season; if he seems somehow more constrained by reality; if he never again mentions the Ponds or his marriage to River Song, the explanation just might have something to do with a Timelord filling a little girl's head with whimsical stories like a crazy old grandfather.
Throughout the fifth season, I wondered if the show was actually taking place in Amy's imagination. There was the timing glitch in "Victory of the Daleks" where Bracewell's plans for an oxygen/gravity bubble and blaster rays were implemented on Spitfires and launched into space in a mere twenty-two minutes. The story-book improbable Starwhale and its kindness towards children. That staple of children's nightmares, vampires. A history lesson in a visit with a great artist and the sad tragedy of a misunderstood monster. And through it all, that crack in time and the goofiness of the "Big Bang".
I will be very impressed if Moffat planned all this from "The Eleventh Hour". If he always intended the whole thing to loop back on that one scene with Amelia waiting and the subterfuge that led us all to believe it was just a dream.
If this is the case, who knows how much of what we've seen so far of Doctor Eleven has been real? Maybe he never came back for Amy and Rory twelve years later. Maybe he never married River Song.
The eleventh Doctor might be a different person when he's not telling tales about himself.
It's just idle speculation. I'm probably wrong. But if the Doctor seems more serious in the rest of the season; if he seems somehow more constrained by reality; if he never again mentions the Ponds or his marriage to River Song, the explanation just might have something to do with a Timelord filling a little girl's head with whimsical stories like a crazy old grandfather.
It's certainly a good episode, and definitely the best of the season. But I wouldn't call it the masterpiece that much of the advance reviews did. Really, it's at times a bit derivitive of Moffat's previous work, and there's shades of Blink there, particularly with the book standing in for the DVD easter egg.
You know, way back when I first read spoilers for The Eleventh Hour revealing the Doctor would first meet Amy as a little girl, I just knew that when it came time to write Amy out of the show, her final episode would involve the Doctor visiting her as a child again. I don't mind, it is the logical way to end her storyline. Still, it was October 2009 I read that spoiler. If I had made a $20 wager with $5 interest per year, I could have made an easy $35 right now. Missed opportunities.
Continuity yet again takes a back seat. It's specifically stated in dialogue that the modern day scenes of this episode are set in 2012, even though the modern day stuff this season should be in I think 2016 by now (there's a post where I figure all this out in the discussion thread for The Power of Three). This could be explained by the Doctor just choosing to stop off in New York in 2012 after taking Amy and Rory to I don't know, the Boeshane Peninsula in the 51st century. But the whole surprise that Amy's wearing glasses kind of implies he's just picked them up from their lives again. Whatever, keeping consistent track of the dates never has been Doctor Who's strong suit anyway.
It still stands, the Doctor has never actually defeated the Weeping Angels. In Blink, it was Sally Sparrow who defeated them, in the two parter in S5 they got sucked into a crack, and here it was the paradox created by Rory jumping off the roof. I like this, being the one foe the Doctor hasn't ever defeated helps sell them as a serious threat.
So why does the grave have Rory's full name on it, but not Amy's? It's really weird, considering Amy's middle name was established back in The Beast Below (Jessica) and Rory's had to be created for this episode. Well, created probably isn't an accurate term, since it's Arthur. Also, I doubt it's coincidence that Rory aged 82 (Arthur Darvill was born in 1982) and Amy aged 87 (Karen Gillan was born in 1987). A bit odd there were no dates for either one.
Amy and Rory's fate is permanent enough, though there is a work around if they ever want to bring them back. That's fine, I guess. Can't River just go back with a vortex manipulator and visit them? Or did the paradox make it impossible for even that to work?
You know, way back when I first read spoilers for The Eleventh Hour revealing the Doctor would first meet Amy as a little girl, I just knew that when it came time to write Amy out of the show, her final episode would involve the Doctor visiting her as a child again. I don't mind, it is the logical way to end her storyline. Still, it was October 2009 I read that spoiler. If I had made a $20 wager with $5 interest per year, I could have made an easy $35 right now. Missed opportunities.
Continuity yet again takes a back seat. It's specifically stated in dialogue that the modern day scenes of this episode are set in 2012, even though the modern day stuff this season should be in I think 2016 by now (there's a post where I figure all this out in the discussion thread for The Power of Three). This could be explained by the Doctor just choosing to stop off in New York in 2012 after taking Amy and Rory to I don't know, the Boeshane Peninsula in the 51st century. But the whole surprise that Amy's wearing glasses kind of implies he's just picked them up from their lives again. Whatever, keeping consistent track of the dates never has been Doctor Who's strong suit anyway.
It still stands, the Doctor has never actually defeated the Weeping Angels. In Blink, it was Sally Sparrow who defeated them, in the two parter in S5 they got sucked into a crack, and here it was the paradox created by Rory jumping off the roof. I like this, being the one foe the Doctor hasn't ever defeated helps sell them as a serious threat.
So why does the grave have Rory's full name on it, but not Amy's? It's really weird, considering Amy's middle name was established back in The Beast Below (Jessica) and Rory's had to be created for this episode. Well, created probably isn't an accurate term, since it's Arthur. Also, I doubt it's coincidence that Rory aged 82 (Arthur Darvill was born in 1982) and Amy aged 87 (Karen Gillan was born in 1987). A bit odd there were no dates for either one.
Amy and Rory's fate is permanent enough, though there is a work around if they ever want to bring them back. That's fine, I guess. Can't River just go back with a vortex manipulator and visit them? Or did the paradox make it impossible for even that to work?
That's an interesting theory, Psion. It might also go to explaining the lack of mention of the events of The Miracle. On the other hand, if they pull that, it would lead to the inevitable comparison to the dream season of Dallas.
According to Moffat:
According to Moffat:
The shots where Rory walks through the city are something much harder to do through a composite and certainly wouldn't have the same feel. It reminds me of the City of Death - it just feels different when filming in the actual city in question.
Plus, you have no idea how much David Tennant was bitching about how he couldn't go to New York for the Dalek episode.
