Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan  (Read 11823 times)

Satanist

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4168
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #30 on: 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?
Hmm, just pretend I wrote something witty eh?

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14069
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #31 on: 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
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Zanti Misfit

  • Member
  • Page Numbering Droid
  • **
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #32 on: 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.

gufnork

  • Member
  • Sub Basement Sewer Unit
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #33 on: 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, 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...


qtwerk

  • Member
  • Page Numbering Droid
  • **
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #35 on: 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.

gufnork

  • Member
  • Sub Basement Sewer Unit
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #36 on: 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. ;)

Richard

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3056
  • Beast Code WWW
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #37 on: 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.

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 #38 on: 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."

JamesC

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4248
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #39 on: 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*

Richard

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3056
  • Beast Code WWW
    • View Profile
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #40 on: 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.

Jimmy Baker's Assistant

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 935
    • View Profile
    • Massacre For Boys
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #41 on: 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.

M.I.K.

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3467
    • View Profile
    • Mal Comix
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #42 on: 30 September, 2012, 05:17:18 PM »
Maybe David Copperfield was in town.

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 #43 on: 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.

Jimmy Baker's Assistant

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 935
    • View Profile
    • Massacre For Boys
Re: Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan
« Reply #44 on: 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.  :(