Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan  (Read 11817 times)

JamesC

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4248
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #60 on: 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!

Spaceghost

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 2655
  • A bastard with no manners.
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #61 on: 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.
Raised in the wild by sarcastic wolves.

Previously known as L*e B*tes. Sshhh, going undercover...

IndigoPrime

  • Administrator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11232
    • View Profile
    • http://www.craiggrannell.com
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #62 on: 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.

Bat King

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 2813
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #63 on: 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.

Rog69

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 857
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #64 on: 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  ;).
« Last Edit: 01 October, 2012, 02:55:11 PM by Rog69 »

M.I.K.

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3466
    • View Profile
    • Mal Comix
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #65 on: 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.

Grant Goggans

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3391
  • About that Revolution Robotique, Mr Tharg...
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #66 on: 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.

M.I.K.

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3466
    • View Profile
    • Mal Comix
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #67 on: 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.

Dudley

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9498
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #68 on: 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

Quote
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

shaolin_monkey

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4254
  • Bananas For The Win!
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #69 on: 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.

Jimmy Baker's Assistant

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 935
    • View Profile
    • Massacre For Boys
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #70 on: 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.

Steve Green

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 8659
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #71 on: 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.

Buttonman

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6007
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #72 on: 03 October, 2012, 07:57:10 PM »
The Who fans on here may like today's Tee Fury offering - gone tomorrow.


Professor Bear

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7725
  • "Why, Black Dynamite? WHY?"
    • View Profile
    • Your Friends and Neighbors
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #73 on: 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. 

The Enigmatic Dr X

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 5950
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #74 on: 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.
Lock up your spoons!