2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Film & TV => : Trout 29 September, 2012, 08:23:15 PM

: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Trout 29 September, 2012, 08:23:15 PM
 :'( WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!  :'(
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: mogzilla 29 September, 2012, 08:25:26 PM
and they all died happily ever after
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Trout 29 September, 2012, 08:26:35 PM
and they all died happily ever after

 :'( WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! :'(
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Taryn Tailz 29 September, 2012, 08:28:35 PM
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. But wait...I have more to say than that.  :lol:

Now that really was very good indeed. Easily the best episode of this series and a fitting send off for the Ponds. The episode looked absolutly gorgeous and had a perfectly pitched ominous tone throughout.

When Amy and Rory jumped off the roof of the hotel I was feeling very mixed emotions. Very sad on the one hand, but very happy they were getting such a dramatic exit on the other hand. Then when they woke up in the graveyard I was very annoyed, thinking that their exit had just been ruined. But then of course Moffat saved the day by having them ripped away from the Doctor when he was least expecting it. Excellent stuff.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Colin YNWA 29 September, 2012, 08:29:35 PM
What a great ending for two great characters. I didn't get on with the story so much, I'm no fan of River Song and the Angels have become so contrived in the way they work as to really annoy me, rather than scare me they way they should. That said the over all story and way it deal with Amy and Rory was superb, wonderful...

...oh and Mike McShane hey... and Winter Quay was that meant to be the opposite of Summer Bay or am I just looking for meaning in the wrong things these days????

My wife bloody loved it mind.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Taryn Tailz 29 September, 2012, 08:36:21 PM
Oh...and what a great performance from Matt Smith throughout. Particularly his reaction to seeing Amy's name appear on the gravestone.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: M.I.K. 29 September, 2012, 08:42:38 PM
Music was annoyingly overblown.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Van Dom 29 September, 2012, 08:49:43 PM
Ive pretty much been of the opinion that this series has been cack so far. But that was very good episode, really got me at the end. Great way to finish off the story of the Ponds. Could have done without River to be honest but she had to be there. Just hope we dont see her again for a loooong time.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Zarjazzer 29 September, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
And the Ponds had taken slo-mo during their almost death dive.Too convoluted for me flash, and clever storytelling but the heart was there , just enough not too make it over sickly. That said it was sad to see them go but the still slightly creepy Angels are becoming like Daleks with over use. Wouldn't frighten a puddy-cat.

Still Christmas special was that Richard E Grant?
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Dandontdare 29 September, 2012, 08:56:31 PM
Music was annoyingly overblown.

and that's taken you 7 years to notice?  ;)

I really liked this one. Emotional without being too OTT and shouty about it; I too wondered if the angels could be scary again so soon, but those babies - oh yeah, I'll be sleeping with the lights on tonight BRRRR! plot-wise, a very clever twist - I think I actually released a pent up 'ah' when Amy's name (+3 yrs) appeared on the gravestone.

A great 'end of an era' episode. I expect SBT hated it (unless this is one of those freaky once every millennium occurrences where our  mutual love of Who coincides on the same episode!  :lol:)
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Charlie boy 29 September, 2012, 08:59:56 PM
Really, really enjoyed that.
Still Christmas special was that Richard E Grant?
Ha, no need for the spoiler alert, mate- it's been revealed he's in the Christmas special! Roll on Christmas (that was Clara/Oswin, right?) and then the anniversary year so we can find out if the rumours are true about Omega being the big villain behind The Silence et al.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 29 September, 2012, 09:01:31 PM
I think you lot need your eyes tested and a good slap! That was blinkin' terrible- a flabby mess that made little sense, seemingly made up as it went along and topped off with the least-affecting leaving scene since Dodo Chaplet drifted away halfway through The War Machines.

Matt Smith was the best of a bad lot, but the story and script were thin and dull. Always good to see River, as she enlivens an increasingly dismal tv programme. And what the hell was that trailer for xmas supposed to be? Ha! Each week now i feel as if the bbc are showing us cut-down versions of dr who- mediocre 'highlights' shows missing any meat or subtlety or anything except people shouting jokes at each other. It's like Russell Howard's Good News with a plot.

And to make it just that bit worse this week- kids heroes have to kill themselves to beat the badguys in children's programme. Fuck you moffat.

SBT
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Daveycandlish 29 September, 2012, 09:04:06 PM
Well.

That was a bit of a downer (which I admit I was expecting).

I'm going to miss the Ponds.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Dandontdare 29 September, 2012, 09:04:50 PM
ah well, maybe in 2112...
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Zarjazzer 29 September, 2012, 09:05:20 PM
Really, really enjoyed that.
Still Christmas special was that Richard E Grant?
Ha, no need for the spoiler alert, mate- it's been revealed he's in the Christmas special! Roll on Christmas (that was Clara/Oswin, right?) and then the anniversary year so we can find out if the rumours are true about Omega being the big villain behind The Silence et al.

I'm behind the times as ever.  :) Still the tiny bit we saw looked good.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Trout 29 September, 2012, 09:36:49 PM
Fuck you moffat.

This is unworthy of you.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: BPP 29 September, 2012, 09:38:30 PM
The BAD -
Couldn't make head nor tails of it at all. Totally baffled.

The MIXED -
1 of us likes River, 1 of us can't abide her.

The GOOD -
Despite not understanding ANYTHING to do with Angels / Time / Fixed time / Why the Doctor can see young amy not 'we had a nice life' amy etc etc (got the Paradox bit okay)... it really DID know how to push the buttons.

 Overall - Matt Smith is much better than the scripts he's being given. Still hurrah and roll on Xmas Day.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 29 September, 2012, 10:02:17 PM
Fuck you moffat.

This is unworthy of you.

Please don't, Trout. And no, it isn't.

SBT
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Danbell 29 September, 2012, 10:08:32 PM
why can't the ponds just wait a few years, leave New York, and then hook back up with the Doctor?

: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Leigh S 29 September, 2012, 10:12:29 PM
Because he knows that Rory at least dies there, from the gravestone... so to take them away again would be another paradox which would be one too far... but why he cant nip in and say hello, I dont know - also, the rewriting tombstone seems to suggest Amy had already rewritten things, which made a bit of a mockery of it... would ahve been better if her name ahdnt appeared, and the Dr only knew she got back with Rory from the book...

But used to them not thinking these things through/changing the rules to suit the schmaltz by now!  Certainly the best this series... Mercy being the low point and Dinosaurs second best.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Leigh S 29 September, 2012, 10:13:51 PM
Of course, he could also go back, whisk them off as per usual and drop them back in the appropriate time period that the gravestone would still be right...
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Mardroid 29 September, 2012, 10:34:52 PM
why he cant nip in and say hello, I dont know - also, the rewriting tombstone seems to suggest Amy had already rewritten things, which made a bit of a mockery of it...

I thought that too, but on thinking further, but then I remembered Amy stating to the Doctor that they could rewrite history, and he clarified that they couldn't if it involved something in their own timeline. I.e. in short, if you know your future you can't change it. Or actually you can, but it could result in a major paradox. And require a lot of energy to do so. (The power of love will do it tough apparently. Dear me, that's cheesy.)

Therefore changing other people's futures is fine. And since it's unlikely that she carved her name on the tombstone herself... that's somebody else's future - the stonemason's.

I'm sure there's a hole in that logic, but anyway.

I liked that episode a lot, although I was doing other things (cooking etc.) so missed the odd snippet here and there. Not as much as last week's episode where I actually fell asleep.

I'm not so sure of the sudden introduction of the idea that paradoxes will destroy angels, I guess that since these creatures are influenced by time, i.e. they eat it, and are quantum locked, it's not too much of a stretch. Just a bit out of nowhere. . Also, if these paradoxes are as potentially destructive as the Doctor feared, it seems a bit dodgy that the Ponds would commit suicide as they're risking a lot of other people as well. Of course it turned out all right (well, until it didn't. Great twist by the way.) but still,what a chance to take.

It was great to see the Angels back to their time guzzling selves. I didn't dislike the previous episode they were in, but I did dislike the fact that rule was dropped. (Okay it wasn't dropped, it was explained during the episode but to put away what seemed to be their modus operandi seemed a bit of a shame.)

Oh, and I still find the Weeping Angels scary, but then I had a fear of statues as a kid. (Silly I know.  I don't have that fear any more, but I remember it, and I still find those hard blank white eyes a bit unsettling. And yeah, those little cherubs. Brrr.) And they've only been in three episodes. That's not too many.

Oh and the Statue of Liberty. "You gotta be kidding me!" Heh.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: DrJomster 29 September, 2012, 11:08:43 PM
Blimey, just blimey.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Taryn Tailz 29 September, 2012, 11:12:13 PM
Apparantly the Melody Malone book (which was featured heavily in this episode) is actually going to be released.

http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2012/09/melody-malone-270912171508.html
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: M.I.K. 29 September, 2012, 11:22:12 PM
And to make it just that bit worse this week- kids heroes have to kill themselves to beat the badguys in children's programme. Fuck you moffat.

A horrible thing it may be, but there is absolutely nothing new about that 'noble sacrifice' guff in children's entertainment generally, or even Doctor Who specifically.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Bat King 29 September, 2012, 11:26:59 PM
I agree with what seems to be general concensus - thoroughly enjoyed this episode.

Not sure why people constantly question the fact little things don't always match up in Dr Who. Continuity in most tv shows is pants. It isn't always constant in 2000AD, and is non-existent in most DC or Marvel comics. Dr Who is fairly consistent, for a tv show... For one thing it is proven in many episodes that what we were told is a rule inothers isn't so. The Doctor is an unreliable narrator, that is consistent.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Trout 29 September, 2012, 11:27:22 PM
And to make it just that bit worse this week- kids heroes have to kill themselves to beat the badguys in children's programme. Fuck you moffat.

A horrible thing it may be, but there is absolutely nothing new about that 'noble sacrifice' guff in children's entertainment generally, or even Doctor Who specifically.

Also it's not as simple as that. They spent a lifetime together.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 29 September, 2012, 11:34:07 PM
There certainly is something new in the blatant 'to beat monsters we must jump off a building'- this isn't 'i will stay behind and be blown up by the dalek bomb' or 'i'll wrestle the evil alien out of the airlock' or 'i'll get caught in the daleks time-destructor ray and age to death', this was prosaic suicide of the kind that hundreds of people do each year.

Look, i hate moffat's writing. Ive briefly met him and he was a smug, obnoxious twat before he got the dr who gig- grud knows what he's like now, but his work has become ugly and lazy and it has become horribly obvious dr who is something he writes when he takes a piss during sherlock storylining meetings. I would very much like him to stop writing it- and until he does, i think i'll just let the kids dictate whether we watch or not. And judging by this series, where they've not remembered it's been on once- that wont be often.

SBT
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: BPP 29 September, 2012, 11:34:21 PM
I think the point is more 'hey kids you too can jump off high walls and be fine'. Which did strike me at the time of watching it but well, ya know.... no expert on kids here.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Radbacker 30 September, 2012, 08:01:53 AM
 :'( snnnfff, scuse me something in my eye.

yes a tad over blowin score wise but a perfect ending to two of my favorite Nu Who companions, nearly overtaking Rose as fav of the new lot (sorry Billie Pipers cute little chipmunk cheeks get me everytime).
Abd those Baby Angels  :o

CU radbacker
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Satanist 30 September, 2012, 08:58:06 AM
Rorys dad is gonna go apeshit when hes told!

Thats the first bit of telly that upset my kids...

"what he cant see Amy ever again?" sniff.

As for me it was alright but River Song can just GTF please?
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Jim_Campbell 30 September, 2012, 09:13:03 AM
Look, i hate moffat's writing. Ive briefly met him and he was a smug, obnoxious twat before he got the dr who gig-

I think it's Moffat that pressing your buttons here, rather than what he's actually writing. Otherwise, I can't explain why a calculated risk that would be suicide if it didn't work has sent you off the deep end, but Capt Lindsay Duncan shooting herself in the head at the end of the risible Waters of Mars for no better reason than to make Tennant-Doc even more of a mopey emo bastard than he already was elicited not a peep.

Bah.

Jim
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Zanti Misfit 30 September, 2012, 09:17:51 AM
Not really my cup of tea.  I find Amy and Rory the least irritating of Nu Who companions (though that's not the same as genuinly like), but still thought they deserved better than this mawkish, overwrought slop. Each time the Weeping Angels return, their power to scare or impress diminishes. Agree that the suicidal leap was unpleasant and perhaps irresponsible to show children , and moreover, was uncomfortably reminiscent of the resolution to last January's Sherlock episode; "The Reichenbach Fall"
River Song is a awful character, I cringe everytime she says anything.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: gufnork 30 September, 2012, 10:24:07 AM
Apparantly the Melody Malone book (which was featured heavily in this episode) is actually going to be released.

http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2012/09/melody-malone-270912171508.html

Oh man, I am sooo there already.

As for the episode itself, I thought like all the episodes this series that it felt a little rushed, but then maybe that's just a result of my penchant for cliff-hangers. On the whole, yes there were a few liberties taken, what with the Angels and the paradox thing. A little too much deux ex machina to be entirely comfortable with that. Did love the novel part though(see above), very... well, novel! I must say though, the Angels aren't giving me the willy's like they used to and I can't quite work out whether that's to do with the stories getting weaker(don't think it's this) or what really. Anyway, even though I enjoyed this episode, I think the Ponds deserved a little better. Can't believe Moffat claims he re-wrote the script for this 10 times before deciding upon this one. On another site/forum, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81012437&postcount=25 (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81012437&postcount=25), someone comes up with what to my mind would have been a wonderful ending to the Ponds, albeit a lot sadder.

All in all a very good episode with some really nice touches but like all the episodes this series felt rushed and this one in particular really would have benefitted from a double episode.

Can't wait for that novel to enter cyberspace now...
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Steve Green 30 September, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
Sorry, are you expecting a major landmark to be able to walk unnoticed, where the entire premise is that the angels can't do shit if they're watched? Rigggggght.

Someone on the NOTBBC forum pointed out it would have been more satisfying to have the angels trapped in a statue that someone is watching at some point, 'the city that never sleeps' etc.

It was just a cool looking image that didn't really make much sense, but that's Who for you...
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: qtwerk 30 September, 2012, 12:51:34 PM
No more Amy Pond!

noooooooooooo

Ah well, it was a decent, emotional send-off, only slightly spoiled by the execrable River Fucking Song.

I do agree that the Angels have been overused and get less creepy. I'm not sure I even understand what it is they do - touch you, send you back in time, and feed off.....er, something?

It was certainly a much better episode than the stupid invasion of the Rubik's cubes.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: gufnork 30 September, 2012, 02:57:41 PM
No more Amy Pond!

noooooooooooo

Ah well, it was a decent, emotional send-off, only slightly spoiled by the execrable River Fucking Song.

I do agree that the Angels have been overused and get less creepy. I'm not sure I even understand what it is they do - touch you, send you back in time, and feed off.....er, something?

It was certainly a much better episode than the stupid invasion of the Rubik's cubes.

I don't know why people dislike her so much. I think she's great. I wouldn't kick her out of bed either. Always cheers me up when I see her coming. ;)
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Richard 30 September, 2012, 03:58:04 PM
I agree. River Song is the most interesting supporting character in the entire series. I especially like that the first story she ever appeared in revealed what is finally going to happen to her, and her denunciation of the Doctor when she realises that his future self must have known all along.

I can't see any reason why the Doctor can't still visit Rory and Amy in the past, especially if River can write a book and then send it to Amy -- in the past -- to publish it and get Amy to write the afterword.

Genuinely suprised by what happened to Rory at the end though, so I think overall it was a good episode.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Grant Goggans 30 September, 2012, 04:22:18 PM
I think people complaining about the Statue of Liberty moving were not watching the episode closely.  Didn't you notice?  1938 New York City is a ghost town, almost entirely unpopulated.  Since nobody lives there, the Statue can walk about freely.

This isn't a constant problem with Moffat Who, but it is a recurring one.  The directors seem determined to avoid paying for extras or costumes, and so we keep having these spaces with no sense of scale.  Sometimes, you can tell that the script has been written with this in mind - God Complex, Curse of the Black Spot, Girl Who Waited - and sometimes, it's evident that the writers intended for something more and the directors did not deliver - this, Night Terrors.  Power of Three was better, but UNIT still had only two individuals with speaking parts, and I think that one was named "Glasses."  Even this week, Grayle's henchmen completely vanished.

Compare this NYC to the one that the Daleks were in back in series three.  I've said before that it really feels like Doctor Who had its budget cut, badly, after Matt's first season, and outings like this confirm it.  The show needs a sense of scale and life greater than "oh, one-third of the planet might have had heart attacks."
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: JamesC 30 September, 2012, 04:40:28 PM
No more Amy Pond!

noooooooooooo

Ah well, it was a decent, emotional send-off, only slightly spoiled by the execrable River Fucking Song.

I do agree that the Angels have been overused and get less creepy. I'm not sure I even understand what it is they do - touch you, send you back in time, and feed off.....er, something?

It was certainly a much better episode than the stupid invasion of the Rubik's cubes.

I don't know why people dislike her so much. I think she's great. I wouldn't kick her out of bed either. Always cheers me up when I see her coming. ;)

I'd kick her out of bed. In fact I'd kick her into a threshing machine if I got the chance.

This was an okay episode but I don't think it really made much sense.

To be honest it epitomises the problem I have with all modern Who. People have such good-will toward it but I really don't think that from an objective point of view it deserves half of the mania it generates.
I wish someone at the BBC would realise that, although the series has massive potential, and it makes plenty of money, it really isn't all that when it comes to script or drama.


In an ideal world I'd have the series rested for a couple of years and get some ideas people in to knock the concepts around a bit and make some serious changes.
Get some real sci-fi advisers in. Even some comic writers. Pat Mills, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, Warren Ellis, Neil Gaiman - even Alan Moore. Pay them for an hour of their time and ask them their vision for Doctor Who.
Lets face it, the best episode of original Star Trek was written by Harlan Ellison.
It seems to me it would be easier to train Sci Fi writers to write for TV than it is to train TV writers to write good, original sci-fi.

This version of Who has settled into a rut as far as I'm concerned. The emotional beats are so overplayed and over used that they no longer have any impact.
I think it's time for some changes. Lets have an assistant that isn't a modern day youngster. Bring back Romana or have a witch finder as the assistant or something (anything different and interesting).
Why not mend the chameleon circuit? Perhaps knock out the navigational controls at the same time.

How about some Tardis centric episodes? Let's see some of the other rooms.
How about having a stowaway on board? Or maybe even an old companion who's been lost in the Tardis and forgotten by the Doctor after a regeneration? Maybe Grace from the TV movie was in the TARDIS when McGann turned into Eccleston and she got lost and was never seen again?



Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that with so many possibilities why do we end up with the same old shit every week?
As one of the BBC's flagship programmes they should be trying to constantly improve it, not just resting on their laurels and accepting any old thing because it's popular enough as it is.


*rant over*
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Richard 30 September, 2012, 04:45:09 PM
I hadn't even noticed it was supposed to be a ghost town. When Rory and Amy were standing on the ledge you could see traffic driving past on the street below them, like normal.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Jimmy Baker's Assistant 30 September, 2012, 05:00:37 PM
I think the idea New York was supposed to be empty is very charitable. What about all those people looking our of the windows as the Private Investigator approached Winter Quay?

To my mind, Moff just thought the Statue of Liberty would make a cool Weeping Angel, and the problem that it'd never be able to move was quietly forgotten about.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: M.I.K. 30 September, 2012, 05:17:18 PM
Maybe David Copperfield was in town.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Grant Goggans 30 September, 2012, 05:22:48 PM
My intent was obscured by my attempt at humor.  The city was not *intended* to be a ghost town, but the directors' failure to populate the streets or provide background characters and small speaking roles gave it that feel.

Another comparison might be to Victorian-era Cardiff in series one.  Look at those streets and the theater, and compare to this story, which, I think, had three speaking parts outside the main four: Grayle, the PI, and a henchman.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Jimmy Baker's Assistant 30 September, 2012, 05:35:03 PM
I don't think the budget's the problem so much as the writing.

Moff was a genius when he did one story a season, but as soon as he moved up to 6-7, the quality has declined to the point where the Chibnall episodes are no worse.

Massive shame, I really thought this would be a golden era for the show.  :(


: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Taryn Tailz 30 September, 2012, 06:05:51 PM
Personally I think that the Producer and the Head Writer should be two different jobs filled by two different people. Both RTD and Steven Moffat have done both at the same time and I can't help but feel that having a seperate Head Writer would make for better scripts, as they wouldn't have to be doing everything a Producer has to do as well.

Although as I said earlier in the thread I did really enjoy this particular episode. But on the whole this half series we've had has been pretty underwhelming.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: IndigoPrime 30 September, 2012, 06:07:59 PM
I think the writing's mostly fine. The problem is a lack of emotional heft and a person to say "erm, that doesn't work". In RTD's run, he had the emotional bit sorted, but went for crazy epics and a bit of his own "erm, that doesn't work". What both of these things showcases—and this isn't a Who thing, but a modern TV thing—is that there's no script editor with some power working on the show.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: JamesC 30 September, 2012, 06:15:21 PM
Personally I think that the Producer and the Head Writer should be two different jobs filled by two different people. Both RTD and Steven Moffat have done both at the same time and I can't help but feel that having a seperate Head Writer would make for better scripts, as they wouldn't have to be doing everything a Producer has to do as well.

I agree completely. I think an experiment of working in the American system may be worth a shot actually - where you have a 'show-runner' and a staff of writers who sit around and brainstorm together.
As the show is getting a bit stale, even a few golden rules like 'every episode has to feature a setting we've never seen before' or 'no established baddies allowed' would aid originality and creativity.

For a show that was once so original and groundbreaking it really has been stale for a while.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Grant Goggans 30 September, 2012, 06:17:05 PM
One thing that I really did enjoy, and this may just be the way that Smith and Kingston chose to play it, was that this was the first time that we saw the Doctor and River interact and the Doctor really did act as though he was smitten and in love with her.  This could mean a really fun series of episodes as we revisit River getting younger and, eventually, to a point where she doesn't know him and his heart gets really stomped upon.

I do hope that Moffat starts writing one or two male-female relationships that are not defined by constant flirting.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Grant Goggans 30 September, 2012, 06:18:47 PM
I like 'every episode has to feature a setting we've never seen before'.  Getting away from Earth completely for a series would be a really nice thing.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Charlie boy 30 September, 2012, 08:58:06 PM
I think Moffat's fault with this series was he didn't surround himself with enough heavy hitters. Sure, it was only 5 episodes long but such a small run could be a great opportunity to give Richard Curtis or Simon Nye another crack at writing an episode. On the back of Human Nature alone, Paul Cornell is always welcome at the writing desk as far as I'm concerned. If just 2 of the 5 episodes had been offered to either of those three writers, it could have been a lot better. Another writer who I think Moffat should really, really get around to approaching (be it for Who or Sherlock) is Kim Newman. Newman is a talented yet overlooked writer with much love and knowledge for both subjects.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Taryn Tailz 30 September, 2012, 11:00:51 PM
I feel I should point out to everyone saying that this series was only five episodes, that this is only the first half of the series. The second half will air early next year as far as I know.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Colin YNWA 01 October, 2012, 08:18:21 AM
Francavilla's genius again

http://francesco-francavilla.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://francesco-francavilla.blogspot.co.uk/)
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Tiplodocus 01 October, 2012, 09:15:46 AM
I felt most of it hung together liked the twistiness at the end and as a send off for the Ponds was pretty darned good.

I was really getting to like Rory and I'll also miss the chemistry between The Doctor and Amy. Really good that she sacrificed herself for Rory and not the Doctor.   Agree River is getting a bit tired now though Matt Smith's reactions to her get better and better.

The big (really big) problems for me were
- STATUE OF LIBERTY which made absolutely no sense. Absolutely none. And you could see it coming a mile away.
-  and maybe I missed a line explaining why Rory got dragged back to 38 the first time and then only shunted in space when the cherubs in the cellar got him
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: bluemeanie 01 October, 2012, 10:08:52 AM
Do we really have to put stuff in spoilers? GAH!

Ok...

Statue of Liberty - yup, made NO sense. If there was only one person in all of New York they'd hear the fucking thing and go look. But I like to think the script meeting ended with "Yeah, but if you were a 10 year old kid watching the episode, how COOL would it be?". Job done. The LAST thing I want from Doctor Who is for them to come up with something fun or cool and leave it out because the internet will complain about the logic. Wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-fuckey-offey. As long as it's entertaining, which is subjective obviously, that's all I care about. I knew they'd have to do it. Still made me smile when they did.

River Song? Had to be in this one really. It's her parents send off. Liked how the Doctor was so involved in how HE couldnt see them again that he forgot how it would be for her. Nice character moment. And I like the character anyway so glad she'll still be a recurring one. Always good to see the Doctor sparring against someone on his level and I can see how the flirting annoys people but I grew up loving Moonlighting so I dont mind it.

The Pond's send off? I liked it more than I thought I would. Firstly the timing of it was really cool. We went in knowing this was the end for them but they still managed to catch me at least offguard for the Rory part. I'd almost forgotten that's what this episode was all about. Also, and this is VERY girlie of me, I loved how Amy's departure was due to her choosing Rory over The Doctor. They didnt milk it too long either which some of the RTD character ends were guilty of.

Oh yeah, and on the roof the "If it was me. Could you do it if it was me?" bit when you thought he'd fold because he's always seemed weak compared to her but he came back with "For you I could do anything" was REALLY cool. Go Rory!

And cherubs. Real babies freak me the fuck out so yeah...  :o
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Buddy 01 October, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
Is that the end of the series... seemed very short... is there more in the new year?
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Dandontdare 01 October, 2012, 11:15:10 AM
yes, this series has been split into two parts, either side of the christmas special.

I thought the statue of liberty thing could've been a great shock moment (however implausible), if they hadn't telegraphed it so obviously in the opening sequence. And does this mean that the angels are some kind of deismbodied spirits that posses existing statues, rather than beings who just happen to look a bit like stone angels?
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: IndigoPrime 01 October, 2012, 11:20:02 AM
This could mean a really fun series of episodes as we revisit River getting younger and, eventually, to a point where she doesn't know him and his heart gets really stomped upon.
Well, we already saw where they met in her timeline. So we have the start and the end (in the library). Still, if they do want more episodes with a younger River, they should probably get on with it, given that Alex Kingston's not getting any younger.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: bluemeanie 01 October, 2012, 11:36:42 AM
I wouldnt put it past them to regenerate her.... even though they already said she cant.

wibbly wobbly etc

Could see them do it as a replacement for the Sarah Jane Adventures
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Spaceghost 01 October, 2012, 12:08:22 PM
As usual with Doctor Who, I enjoyed it whilst watching it with the kids and going "Oooh! Look! A massive weeping angel!" and getting into the scares and excitement.

The problems start the minute I apply even the tiniest amount of scrutiny to the plot, at which point it crumbles to messy pieces like a wet cake.

I simply don't understand why the Doctor can't see Amy and Rory again. There's no reason at all why that would have to be the case. Once you've realised that, it sucks all the emotion and power out of the episode.

Also, it occured to me and the lad that Moffat got the idea for the Weeping Angels from playing Mario. Think about it, Weeping Angels = the 'Boo' ghosts.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: JamesC 01 October, 2012, 12:57:28 PM


Also, it occured to me and the lad that Moffat got the idea for the Weeping Angels from playing Mario. Think about it, Weeping Angels = the 'Boo' ghosts.

If that's the case someone should send him a copy of Manic Miner - then we can get to see the Dr up against killer ostriches and rampaging toilet seats.



Doctor: Brace Yourself Amy - I think we've landed in Eugene's Lair!
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Spaceghost 01 October, 2012, 01:50:07 PM
There certainly is something new in the blatant 'to beat monsters we must jump off a building'- this isn't 'i will stay behind and be blown up by the dalek bomb' or 'i'll wrestle the evil alien out of the airlock' or 'i'll get caught in the daleks time-destructor ray and age to death', this was prosaic suicide of the kind that hundreds of people do each year.

I could understand you not liking the way it was handled from a storytelling point of view (I did, but I wouldn't have a problem with anyone condemning the scene on those grounds), but you seem to be suggesting that the method used is in some way 'bad taste' and shouldn't have been in the story for that reason, which I can't agree with.

I doubt, for instance, that you have a problem with Judge Dredd shooting himself in the heart to fool the Sovs during the Apocalypse War storyline which was the exact same kind of risky suicide ploy and also happened in a story aimed at children.

Amy and Rory didn't want to die. They only jumped because they hoped that their deaths would cause a paradox, causing the whole episode to reset itself. It was a calculated risk and the scene played, in my opinion, beautifully.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: IndigoPrime 01 October, 2012, 02:06:15 PM
I wouldnt put it past them to regenerate her...
Perhaps, but we've seen the start and end of her story. It'd be a bit odd if she had a different body in the middle of it.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Bat King 01 October, 2012, 02:29:30 PM
Of course we could see a different River. There could easily be a generation or two between the girl we see with the Silence and Mels. We know Mels regenerates as River but who else could she have been? And I love River! Of course any other generation we see of her needs to be different.

Statue of Liberty - well obviously it couldn't happen, but ignore that part at least. It was there for fun. It is a family program, some things can be accepted with artistic license.

Spoiler tags... it's a review thread. I wouldn't read a review if I didn't want spoilers - which means I don't read reviews till I've seen something cos I hate spoilers.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Rog69 01 October, 2012, 02:52:03 PM
I can buy the part with the statue of liberty. Liberty island to Battery park is water all the way so it could have snorkeled over unnoticed while everyone in New York was so distracted by the Chrysler building moving itself around to be in the background of every scene  ;).
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: M.I.K. 01 October, 2012, 03:29:10 PM
Also, it occured to me and the lad that Moffat got the idea for the Weeping Angels from playing Mario. Think about it, Weeping Angels = the 'Boo' ghosts.

I just assumed they both got the idea from games like Peek-a-boo and What's The Time Mr. Wolf.

If the next time they show up there's a variation that can only move when music is playing, you'll know I'm right.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Grant Goggans 01 October, 2012, 03:34:58 PM
I really don't understand the BBC's recent decision to split a series into even smaller chunks for transmission, and then call it "series seven, part one" and "series seven, part two."  I mean, why not "series seven, which is five episodes" and "series eight, which is eight episodes."

I mean, that's very nice that we have eight episodes to look forward to in February or March, one of which is written by Neil Gaiman - and, apparently, another two or three "specials" in November 2013 - but call 'em what they are, really.  There's also the behind-the-scenes docudrama set in 1963 about the early days of the show.  I wonder who they'll cast as Verity Lambert, the hero of the piece?  2013 should be lots of fun.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: M.I.K. 01 October, 2012, 03:40:53 PM
I really don't understand the BBC's recent decision to split a series into even smaller chunks for transmission, and then call it "series seven, part one" and "series seven, part two."  I mean, why not "series seven, which is five episodes" and "series eight, which is eight episodes."

Probably just so the DVD and Blu-ray box sets are the same format as the rest of them.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Dudley 02 October, 2012, 02:14:50 PM
The Statue's footsteps weren't constant - it seemed to manage one or two steps then pause, presumably as people saw it.  Assuming really big strides, that could've got it anywhere it needed to be.

Alternatively, maybe this super-Angel can move even when people are looking.  Or maybe it's got the power to make people not perceive it.  Or it can turn invisible.  C'mon, this is sci-fi/fantasy, people, use your imaginations!

Oh, and

The LAST thing I want from Doctor Who is for them to come up with something fun or cool and leave it out because the internet will complain about the logic. Wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-fuckey-offey. As long as it's entertaining, which is subjective obviously, that's all I care about. I knew they'd have to do it. Still made me smile when they did.
This
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: shaolin_monkey 02 October, 2012, 03:17:22 PM
Well, good riddance to Amy Pond.  I actually quite like River.  Very sexy. 

Not the greatest episode, but not the worst.  Some fun bits.

I still say the Canary Wharf one was the best of the new series so far.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Jimmy Baker's Assistant 02 October, 2012, 08:29:13 PM
The Statue's footsteps weren't constant - it seemed to manage one or two steps then pause, presumably as people saw it.  Assuming really big strides, that could've got it anywhere it needed to be.

Alternatively, maybe this super-Angel can move even when people are looking.  Or maybe it's got the power to make people not perceive it.  Or it can turn invisible.  C'mon, this is sci-fi/fantasy, people, use your imaginations!

Even sci-fi/fantasy needs to demonstrate some internal logic. Indeed, the original Blink episode was a masterpiece in this regard.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Steve Green 02 October, 2012, 09:20:17 PM
It's a problem I have with Who.

If you can reboot the entire universe it doesn't really help any sense of jeopardy.

Still, kids programme and all that.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Buttonman 03 October, 2012, 07:57:10 PM
The Who fans on here may like today's Tee Fury offering - gone tomorrow.

(http://www.teefury.com/products_large_images/1346720766_BOTTOM_dRwHO.jpg)
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Professor Bear 05 October, 2012, 02:41:17 AM
Wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-fuckey-offey. As long as it's entertaining, which is subjective obviously

Well, "a wizard did it" is perfectly good rationale within the context of a fantasy series, but when you establish mere minutes before saying "a wizard did it" that there are no wizards in your fantasy world, this breaks the internal logic that you have created and rely upon to generate tension and drama.  It's not the nerds and continuity police who'll pick up on stuff like this, it's anyone with an attention span of more than fifteen minutes.

Speaking of: The very first time the show established that the Tardis couldn't land in 1938 New York, I just wondered why they didn't land in New Jersey and take a cab upstate.  When Rory and Amy went back in time, I likewise thought "meet up, take a cab to Jersey and meet up with the Doctor" and also "a gravestone is your basis for giving up and doing nothing?  Have River pay someone in the past to erect a fake gravestone for your future self to come along and see, then land in New Jersey and get a cab."  Seriously, is the Doctor allergic to non-Tardis forms of travel?  If so, can't he just land in 1937 and wait around a bit, or in 1939 and see how they're getting on?  It's almost like this concept they've come up with for writing these characters out of the show doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.  If you're going to write characters out, wouldn't it have been less ambiguous to just have someone shoot them in the head?
Statue of Liberty was stupid.  All those booming footsteps and nobody goes to have a look and see what's going on?  If it sounded like bombs were going off, people would line the streets to rubberneck.  The fucking thing couldn't get five meters before it'd be stuck forever in the middle of some road.
Has it ever been explained why no-one takes a sledgehammer to the Angels?  It's not like they can run away.
What's this "fixed time" nonsense?  Isn't the whole premise of this show that the Doctor changes time every week?  If he found Daleks about to shoot JFK or plant a bomb in Omagh market, does that mean he can't stop them?

Apart from that, an okay episode. 
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: The Enigmatic Dr X 05 October, 2012, 08:42:43 AM
Re "fixed time":

I recall that the Dr Who role-playing game wittered on about Temporal Nexus Points: events that had to happen to ensure time existed, or something. I think there is an issue about a Time Lord knowing for sure that something is going to happen that creates one of these, and I think it was established in The Invasion of Time?

That said, I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about it. Just a working recollection, y'know - enough to pass myself off in company, but also so little that I can be caught out.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: JamesC 05 October, 2012, 09:32:44 AM
it'd be easier if the Doctor and his assistants just decided to stop traveling with each other - like what used to happen.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: IndigoPrime 05 October, 2012, 12:28:29 PM
Seriously, is the Doctor allergic to non-Tardis forms of travel?
The abbreviation is the problem. One more scene, with the Doctor trying desperately to get into New York and Rory/Amy trying to get out, but all being blocked from doing so, could have sorted all this. A bit like when Rose got stuck (temporarily, as it turned out) in that other universe. That would also have added the emotional clout that Moff's scripts too often lack.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: JamesC 05 October, 2012, 12:54:01 PM
Seriously, is the Doctor allergic to non-Tardis forms of travel?
A bit like when Rose got stuck (temporarily, as it turned out) in that other universe. That would also have added the emotional clout that Moff's scripts too often lack.

But that was emotional in the same way the that Diana grieving, wailing, floor-rollers were emotional: an unconvincing mawkish embarrassment.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 05 October, 2012, 03:54:38 PM
Was it? With Rose's 'departure' we got a definite (at the time, anyway) end to the story- if we went along with the storyteller's intentions, and why would we not, as we had been entertained for two years at that point with the show scarcely putting a foot wrong- although it was obvious the story was not over, it felt like it was because of the skill by which it was told. In short, dr who was a communal saturday night experience and still 'watercooler tv', which it hasnt been now for a while. The audience was played beautifully by a writer who can move people and a cast with appeal across generations and sexes. You can argue all you like that RTD became a lazy shyster after this, i wont disagree- but those first three years are tv gold, especially tennant's first two seasons. The audience cared about the dr and rose in a way they've not since about the show in any iteration. It's an abberation as far as the show goes- like when fans note the ratings for city of death without mentioning the itv strike (cont)
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Proudhuff 05 October, 2012, 03:58:02 PM
That cellar scene reminded me of this:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2EqT10snRew/Sk8W83Sw1NI/AAAAAAAAAg4/yoZSoDOwd5g/s400/1643.jpg)

I'm in agreement with SBT about the whole suicide thing, I thought that was badly handled especially given the complex rational behind it and the age of kids watching, suicide is a painless solution? I think not. 
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 05 October, 2012, 03:58:25 PM
(cont) or the mccoy ratings without mentioning ken and deirdre. Arguably what came after this was more like 'proper' dr who, and moffatwho especially is niche and cult and celebrates this with timey wimey plots that trade off the early rtd-goodwill to ensure audiences dont switch off- but who under moffat has never been emotionally affecting at all.

SBT
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Proudhuff 05 October, 2012, 04:01:30 PM
Bah! another filling in the SBT sandwish!!
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Professor Bear 05 October, 2012, 04:05:41 PM
SBT: I think your beef with Moffat has skewed your ability to be objective.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: JamesC 05 October, 2012, 04:18:47 PM
(cont) or the mccoy ratings without mentioning ken and deirdre. Arguably what came after this was more like 'proper' dr who, and moffatwho especially is niche and cult and celebrates this with timey wimey plots that trade off the early rtd-goodwill to ensure audiences dont switch off- but who under moffat has never been emotionally affecting at all.

SBT

The whole 'water-cooler TV' thing always seemed like propaganda to me. Certainly at my work place the only people who have ever watched Doctor Who are the same people who watch it still - those with a passing interest in Sci-Fi or those with kids. None of my family have ever watched it and it isn't easy to start a Dr Who conversation in mixed company at the pub without 70% of the group not knowing what you're talking about.
The BBC were surprised at the level of success Doctor Who achieved after it's return and there's a huge amount of affection for it and kids love it etc. In my own experience it has no more cross-over appeal than something like Merlin or Primeval.

As for Rose Tyler - in my experience people were fed up with her and her family.
It's also easy to mistake people's fondness for Billie Piper with their fondness for Rose Tyler.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 05 October, 2012, 04:30:32 PM
I have no 'beef' with moffat, other than all his characters sound the same, he really wants to write american sitcoms (notably 'friends') but no one will let him, and he really does not have a clue how real people act or talk. The last point i can let him have, as it's dr who and 'real people' have no place in it, but i will not forgive his blatant disregard of logic and celebrating of the fact by the invention of glib and lazy get-outs such as 'timey wimey'. I maintain that dr who has been unwatchable shit since he took over, with very few exceptions.

As far as 'beef' goes, I was in the room with the man a couple of times, back when he was just a fan himself. The one thing he is not, i think, is the persona he presents to the public in his columns in dwm. I also thought 'jekyll', 'chalk' and 'coupling' were awful, and much earlier i hated 'press gang'. The sooner he goes off to the states and writes some californian sitcom the better. I also dont see anything special in 'sherlock'.


SBT
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Jim_Campbell 05 October, 2012, 04:51:37 PM
I have no 'beef' with moffat,

Except that you've said more than once that you can't stand the man and have ignored (charitably, missed) at least one post of mine that points out a fairly hefty Moffat/RTD double standard.

Don't get me wrong: not liking Moffat is a perfectly valid reason for not liking his output (I had some brief dealings with Shane Meadows before he became a well-respected independent film-maker and I still can't bring myself to watch one of his movies) just stop dressing it up as an objective qualitative criticism. You don't like the man, you don't like anything he writes. We get it!

Cheers

Jim
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Professor Bear 05 October, 2012, 05:00:49 PM
My bad.  You don't have a beef, you just hate him and everything he does.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Dandontdare 05 October, 2012, 05:55:49 PM
I had no idea he did Coupling - which was brilliant - so he's already written Friends, just a British version! Press Gang was top too. (don't know jekyll or chalk)

blatant disregard of logic and celebrating of the fact by the invention of glib and lazy get-outs such as 'timey wimey'.

True enough, but RTD was even more guilty of this. He was even quite candid that he didn't care about logic or narrative consistency, he just wrote roller-coaster adventures, throwing things in whenever they'd be cool for da kidz, and not worrying whether it made any sense. I think Moffat's scripts are much more sensible and better thought out than RTD's were.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 05 October, 2012, 06:22:40 PM
Ive ignored it jim, because im really not interested in getting into an rtd vs moffat debate- rtd was by far the better writer, up to the time i have noted. You just have to look at his early output such as QAF. He was a far, far better writer. Dr who, however, seemed to break him somewhat, and post- 2007 his work is mostly of such lesser quality that you'll never find me defending him. I have no personal feelings toward moffat at all- other than a dislike when i was in the same room. That happens- im not very fond of nick briggs either. But my dislike of his work is entirely unrelated and based purely on the fact it's so soulless and flimsy that it makes me scream. Let me make this very clear: i dont much go for either moffat or rtd's dr who scripts or showrunning. But forced to make a choice, id take 'midnight' and 'gridlock' over anything moffat has done- especially awful tosh like last week's, wherein he rewrote the rules of his monsters again and gave the audience an ending that made no sense, again.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: M.I.K. 05 October, 2012, 06:32:53 PM
To be fair, Jekyll was terrible.

True enough, but RTD was even more guilty of this. He was even quite candid that he didn't care about logic or narrative consistency, he just wrote roller-coaster adventures, throwing things in whenever they'd be cool for da kidz, and not worrying whether it made any sense. I think Moffat's scripts are much more sensible and better thought out than RTD's were.

...and Moffat didn't devise an 'adult' spin-off from the kids' show in which one of the character's was a lovable date-rapist, every character fancied/snogged/had sex with every other character, regardless of current relationship status, and the hero assisted in the suicide of someone transported from the past to the present, for no other (expletive deleted) reason than he was lonely and missed his friends and family, despite the fact the 'hero' was well aware that time travel was quite common and if the lonely bloke just hung around a bit, some other bloke in a blue box would probably turn up before too long and be able to take him back to his loved ones.

It's like making a sequel to Catweazle set in a brothel run by serial killers or something.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Charlie boy 05 October, 2012, 06:39:47 PM
Torchwood... It really was Hollyoaks Later but with some kind of alien threat involved.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 05 October, 2012, 07:16:29 PM
To be honest, i never had a problem with torchwood- burn gorman's character was never supposed to be 'loveable' at the start. He was a cunt who used an alien device to get laid. Yes, the characters had sex a lot more than they did in dr who, but people (not dr who fans) like to see sex on tv, and that was the point. That many dr who fans couldnt accept characters who fucked each other without emotional connections says more about dr who fans than torchwood the series. But yes, it wasnt a particularly good show in the end (though i confess to finding series one and two just as, if not more, enjoyable than the parent show, and 'children of earth' was the best thing on tv than year by a mile. Didnt bother with the american series after part one- it seemed to be just another american scifi show). But as attachments to tv characters go, id much prefer to see jack, gwen and the rest on tv than most- they were great fun.

SBT
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Proudhuff 05 October, 2012, 07:21:17 PM
It's like making a sequel to Catweazle set in a brothel run by serial killers or something.

brings a whole new meaning to the term Telling-bone
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: IndigoPrime 05 October, 2012, 08:28:36 PM
...and Moffat didn't devise an 'adult' spin-off from the kids' show in which one of the character's was a lovable date-rapist, every character fancied/snogged/had sex with every other character, regardless of current relationship status, and the hero assisted in the suicide of someone transported from the past to the present, for no other (expletive deleted) reason than he was lonely and missed his friends and family
Mm. The whole THIS IS ADULT vibe really made me shudder with Torchwood. It was a 14-year-old's version of adult, and the date-rape thing made both my wife and I very uncomfortable.

He was a cunt who used an alien device to get laid.
Thing is, the scripts even then were trying to somehow make you sorry for him, and later on you were supposed to feel sorry for a guy that should have been jailed for life.

That many dr who fans couldnt accept characters who fucked each other without emotional connections says more about dr who fans than torchwood the series.
Not really, because the point is that the show's sense of logic was even looser than Doctor Who's. People just did things seemingly at random. No characters were particularly fleshed out. Even Captain Jack turned from being a really interesting idea (in the future, everyone's equal and so sexuality is a wider ideal that encompasses practically everything and everyone) to being this miserable gay guy.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Jimmy Baker's Assistant 05 October, 2012, 08:57:03 PM
I also thought 'jekyll', 'chalk' and 'coupling' were awful, and much earlier i hated 'press gang'. The sooner he goes off to the states and writes some californian sitcom the better. I also dont see anything special in 'sherlock'.

Crikey.

I don't think the last couple of years of Moffat on Who have been much cop, but all those other shows were amazingly good.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Taryn Tailz 05 October, 2012, 09:14:58 PM
Has it ever been explained why no-one takes a sledgehammer to the Angels?  It's not like they can run away.

Well you would actually have to be carrying a sledgehammer at the exact time you happened to ran into one of them. Otherwise the moment you went to get a sledgehammer the Angel would get you.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Albion 05 October, 2012, 09:46:33 PM
I didn't realise Moffat wrote Coupling. It was hilarious until Jeff (Richard Coyle) left the show. It wasn't quite the same after that.

As for Dr Who......I think I'm only watching it these days because its there. When it returned I thought it was the best thing on TV but now I'm not sure what to make of it. I find it all to quick and too much is crammed into one episode.
I watched some old Tom Baker stories awhile back and the old format of a story lasting for four or five episodes was much better. They just seem to try to cram too much into 45 minutes now and for me it usually doesn't really work.

Having said that I barely watch TV these days anyway so what do I know?
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Professor Bear 05 October, 2012, 10:35:09 PM
Has it ever been explained why no-one takes a sledgehammer to the Angels?  It's not like they can run away.

Well you would actually have to be carrying a sledgehammer at the exact time you happened to ran into one of them. Otherwise the moment you went to get a sledgehammer the Angel would get you.

It needn't be an actual sledgehammer, it can be anything heavy and blunt like a bit of pipe, a crowbar, a brick, and so on.

Also, were the unexplained flickering lightbulbs in all the previous episodes meant to be foreshadowing of the flickering lightbulbs in the hotel in this episode?  It would make sense seeing as they only seemed to flicker when Rory/Amy were onscreen.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Charlie boy 06 October, 2012, 12:20:32 AM
Also, were the unexplained flickering lightbulbs in all the previous episodes meant to be foreshadowing of the flickering lightbulbs in the hotel in this episode?  It would make sense seeing as they only seemed to flicker when Rory/Amy were onscreen.
I'm not sure what the flashing lightbulbs were about for certain but a friend of mine reckons it could be to suggest The Silence are still about because in The Impossible Astronaut, they made the lights flicker before killing somebody and electrical disturbances were used with them at the end of the last series.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Proudhuff 08 October, 2012, 10:24:34 AM
or it could be a handy plot device, so we don't have to stare at the victim staring at the angel until the vic falls asleep?  ::)
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Goaty 12 October, 2012, 01:56:50 PM
Doctor Who "P.S."

Find out what happened to Rory's dad and the Ponds in this unshot scene by Chris Chibnall.

I cry!  :'(

http://youtu.be/XWU6XL9xI4k (http://youtu.be/XWU6XL9xI4k)
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Dandontdare 12 October, 2012, 02:22:51 PM
To be honest, i never had a problem with torchwood- burn gorman's character was never supposed to be 'loveable' at the start. He was a cunt who used an alien device to get laid. Yes, the characters had sex a lot more than they did in dr who, but people (not dr who fans) like to see sex on tv, and that was the point. That many dr who fans couldnt accept characters who fucked each other without emotional connections says more about dr who fans than torchwood the series. But yes, it wasnt a particularly good show in the end (though i confess to finding series one and two just as, if not more, enjoyable than the parent show, and 'children of earth' was the best thing on tv than year by a mile. Didnt bother with the american series after part one- it seemed to be just another american scifi show). But as attachments to tv characters go, id much prefer to see jack, gwen and the rest on tv than most- they were great fun.

SBT

This must be one of those once-per-millenium planetary alignment things as it's a who-related post by SBT and I agree with every word of it!
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 12 October, 2012, 02:39:30 PM
Rock on! :thumbsup:

SBT
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: shaolin_monkey 12 October, 2012, 02:58:17 PM
I watched some old Tom Baker stories awhile back and the old format of a story lasting for four or five episodes was much better. They just seem to try to cram too much into 45 minutes now and for me it usually doesn't really work.

Having said that I barely watch TV these days anyway so what do I know?

I agree 100% mate.  They are trying to come up with something new, original and fun for each episode.  They end up ramming ideas in, not developing/explaining them, and coming to a rather unsatisfactory conclusion as the Dr does something 'Wibbly-fucking-wobbly' to save the day.  What a crock of shite!

I also have revisited a lot of the Tom Baker, and some Pertwee and Troughton stuff.  The pacing is excellent - there's a real sense of danger, the cliffhangers are marvellous, and there's a feeling of the Dr having to struggle to solve the situation.  Within each 4 or 6 parter, you get a better feel for the supporting characters and even feel *shock horror* empathy and sadness when one of them gets bumped off.

These latest episodes just feel like belly button fluff.  Interesting to pick at briefly, but carried away forever on a whimsical breeze.

That said, it's Dr Who, innit.  I'm never going to not watch it.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Professor Bear 12 October, 2012, 03:00:40 PM
Doctor Who "P.S."

Find out what happened to Rory's dad and the Ponds in this unshot scene by Chris Chibnall.

I cry!  :'(

http://youtu.be/XWU6XL9xI4k (http://youtu.be/XWU6XL9xI4k)

Why was Chris Chibnall writing an epilogue to someone else's script?  And how did they adopt with no identities?  And "I am in New York but will never travel anywhere else" really does need some form of explanation if they're going to go to the bother of mentioning it.

That is one clumsy and mawkish scene.  Thank goodness they didn't shoot it.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: LARF 12 October, 2012, 06:06:08 PM
That should have ended the episode.

BTW - Who has jumped the shark, don't know when, but it's all a bit 'meh' now.

: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Leigh S 12 October, 2012, 06:13:15 PM
I can see why people might criticise Moffatt for his unrealistic dialogue - but thats about the only criticism that Ive seen that RTD wasnt twice as guilty of.  Its pretty atrocious at times, especially the women who are all flirty flirty quipy quipy, fantasy "might be lesbi if youre nice to me" kind of suggesting a quite creepy attitude from the writer stereotypes.

As far as that makes RTDs more real though...  Just heaping a lot of emoting into things doesnt actually emotion make.  And arguing that logic is weaker under Moffatt, when logic took a holiday if it meant someone could cry *even* harder under RTD... And I'm not sure that RTDs kitchen sink style was any more realistic than any era of Who.. possibly less so under the circumstances that the characters found themselves in.

And Torchwood was just atrocious - the idea it was jealous/repressed fans upset that people had sex...  And atrocious isnt a bad thing, except when you think you are a groundbreaking work of genius.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Professor Bear 12 October, 2012, 07:31:06 PM
I didn't have a problem with Torchwood characters having sex because they're made up and thus not only will I always be having more sex than them, I won't have to settle for doing it with a Welsh person like they have to.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Dandontdare 12 October, 2012, 10:43:12 PM
And Torchwood was just atrocious - the idea it was jealous/repressed fans upset that people had sex...  And atrocious isnt a bad thing, except when you think you are a groundbreaking work of genius.

I have no idea where that shit about about jealous/repressed fans come from! Not that Who fans can't show you twenty flavours of Crazy, I'm just unsure what you mean here. 

Torchwood was simply grown up Who - what could we do with Dr Who ideas if we didn't have to be a children's or "family friendly" (god I hate that term) show?

I can't remember anyone EVER claiming that it was " a groundbreaking work of genius." - where are you getting that from?
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Leigh S 12 October, 2012, 10:51:12 PM
..... but people (not dr who fans) like to see sex on tv, and that was the point. That many dr who fans couldnt accept characters who fucked each other without emotional connections says more about dr who fans than torchwood the series. .....

SBT

I was what I was referring to, but its a fairly common Torchwood defence to say its prudish fandom objecting on moral rather than rubbish grounds.

As for work of genius, that was certainly the tone I got from the writing, both on Who and Torchwood - like they were a bit drunk on the success of the relaunch and giddy with their own brilliance - see the various confidential type shows at the same time.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: SmallBlueThing 12 October, 2012, 11:09:29 PM
And having been surrounded by dr who fans since i was fifteen years old- on a personal level (bezzie mate's a hardcore fan) as well as being active in local groups (dwas and otherwise) in various parts of the country between 1985 and 1996  and having met many of the folk who are 'famous in fandom' and some who went on to work on the show in various capacities- i'll stand by my characterisation of those fans! But that's a whoooole other conversation!

SBT
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: IndigoPrime 13 October, 2012, 12:00:31 AM
Torchwood was simply grown up Who - what could we do with Dr Who ideas if we didn't have to be a children's or "family friendly" (god I hate that term) show?
See, I never got that feeling from Torchwood. To me, Torchwood felt more like a 14-year-old's idea of what a grown-up version of Who might be like, but it certainly wasn't a mature and adult series for the most part. It was just Who with swearing and fucking.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: M.I.K. 13 October, 2012, 04:51:03 PM
Ditto. Like they'd cut out the middle man and went straight to the internet fan fiction.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: judgefloyd 14 October, 2012, 01:11:25 AM
No more Amy Pond!

noooooooooooo

Ah well, it was a decent, emotional send-off, only slightly spoiled by the execrable River Fucking Song.


[/quote/]

I am not alone.  I can't stand RiverSong She reminds me of several of my ex girlfriends
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Professor Bear 14 October, 2012, 09:52:01 PM
My one hope to avoid eventually putting my boot through the tv is that because River has to get older/younger, they might recast her with an actress I can stand.
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: Richmond Clements 14 October, 2012, 10:17:16 PM
My one hope to avoid eventually putting my boot through the tv is that because River has to get older/younger, they might recast her with an actress I can stand.

Shut your cake hole! She's wonderful!
: Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
: shaolin_monkey 17 October, 2012, 12:28:22 PM
My one hope to avoid eventually putting my boot through the tv is that because River has to get older/younger, they might recast her with an actress I can stand.

Shut your cake hole! She's wonderful!

Seconded!  She's sexy as hell!