# Doctor Who "The Angels Take Manhattan" 9/29/12



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I thought that this was the best use of Amy and Rory this season, and a fine farewell.

The Angels were a little wasted in my opinion, used just as a means to an end (Farewell to Amy/Rory) instead of being the real focus of the episode.

The idea of the Statue of Liberty being an Angel is amusing, but I don't think it would ever be able to get anywhere, especially to a building in the city. I imaging there are not that many opportunities for movement when no one is looking at the statue.

Nice to see River again, I hope that she stays for the Christmas episode.

Since when can the Doctor whip out some regeneration energy whenever he feels like it?

I read that any scenes that they actually filmed in NY had the Angels/Tardis added in Post - http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-09-23/doctor-who-the-angels-take-manhattan-preview


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

While not an angel, I did like the appearance of the Statue of Liberty showing her angry face. Does she have wings hiding under her robes? The little angels were nice and creepy, I expected to see a little stone cupid arrow go flying at some point.

Some small nits:
In the opening scene, when the P.I. is trying to escape, we see two angels approaching from opposite ends of the hallway that end up looking at each other. At first one of them is covering it's eyes, but they do end up with eyes uncovered facing each other, so they should be frozen until someone carts one away.

The Winter Quay sign is not consistent with the NYC location. I have a feeling the only reason to have it set in NY was to be able to use the Statue of Liberty gag ( or the title maybe )

The teary goodbye seemed to there since they wanted there to be a teary goodbye. I got the impression that the Doctor can't take the Tardis to 1938 Manhattan again. Fine, but Amelia and Rory knowing that could go somewhere else to be met by the Doctor ( with River coordinating ) or he could go to 1939, 1940 or some other year in the 50+ years before they died.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

This was the only, and I mean only, piece of fiction that genuinely moved me to tears.
Not because of the story, but both Matt Smith and Karen Gillan's acting making it believable.

The last time that I was this tearful was at my mother's funeral in 2003.

Back to the story, and the impossibility of Amy & Rory escaping Manhattan within that timeline was sort of explained, in that anyone who escaped Manhattan was zapped back, a point shown by "the babies' moving Rory to Winter Quay.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Idearat said:


> The teary goodbye seemed to there since they wanted there to be a teary goodbye. I got the impression that the Doctor can't take the Tardis to 1938 Manhattan again. Fine, but Amelia and Rory knowing that could go somewhere else to be met by the Doctor ( with River coordinating ) or he could go to 1939, 1940 or some other year in the 50+ years before they died.





pteronaut said:


> Back to the story, and the impossibility of Amy & Rory escaping Manhattan within that timeline was sort of explained, in that anyone who escaped Manhattan was zapped back, a point shown by "the babies' moving Rory to Winter Quay.


I think it was a lot darker than that. In the original timeline, Rory was trapped in the Winter Quay by the Angels for 40 years while they fed on the chronal energy caused by his being moved through time. I would assume that now it is just the same, only Amy is with him. I don't think escaping the hotel, much less Manhattan, was ever an option.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think it was a lot darker than that. In the original timeline, Rory was trapped in the Winter Quay by the Angels for 40 years while they fed on the chronal energy caused by his being moved through time. I would assume that now it is just the same, only Amy is with him. I don't think escaping the hotel, much less Manhattan, was ever an option.


No. Amy and Rory were successful at "poisoning the well," and killing off most of the Weeping Angels. Winter Quay was successfully removed as a threat. However, the angel at the end was "a survivor" of that, as the Doctor pointed out. It can still send Amy/Rory back, but just to feed on that one-time energy.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

As a Detroit Lions fan I had to laugh at this


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Idearat said:


> The Winter Quay sign is not consistent with the NYC location. I have a feeling the only reason to have it set in NY was to be able to use the Statue of Liberty gag ( or the title maybe )


I had a feeling they'd use the Statue of Liberty when they first showed it, but it is very impractical. Plus apparently it gets stuck on its own anyway since no one was looking at it while Amy and Rory were staring at each other for nearly a minute.

Overall it was an okay episode of the Amy and Rory Show, but not that great an episode of Doctor Who. The whole paradox thing didn't really fit based on what we know of paradoxes. For example River ended the universe by not killing the Doctor, yet Rory's dead and not dead paradox simply removes a building? Also the Doctor says creating a paradox requires a huge amount of energy, but apparently the potential energy gained by climbing stairs is enough. 

Looking past the many flaws, it was a nice way of permanently getting rid of Amy and Rory. I'm not sure why that was necessary though. Though considering the writers managed to bring Rose back from an alternate dimension, I suppose they could bring back Amy and Rory.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Kamakzie said:


> As a Detroit Lions fan I had to laugh at this


If they don't win, does that create a paradox.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Idearat said:


> The teary goodbye seemed to there since they wanted there to be a teary goodbye. I got the impression that the Doctor can't take the Tardis to 1938 Manhattan again. Fine, but Amelia and Rory knowing that could go somewhere else to be met by the Doctor ( with River coordinating ) or he could go to 1939, 1940 or some other year in the 50+ years before they died.


I thought the same thing.

Also, I was annoyed about the whole "breaking something" issue. If the book was that ambiguous, then why worry about breaking River's wrist? He already broke a vase when the Tardis came in. Or he could break any number of things that won't worry anyone much.

The time-travel aspects were poorly written this episode.

So, poor Rory's dad. I wonder if the Doctor will even tell him what happened or if he will just die wondering what happened to his son and Amy.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

"Will return this christmass"... Ack! Who dreampt up this cockamamie schedule...


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

morac said:


> I had a feeling they'd use the Statue of Liberty when they first showed it, but it is very impractical. Plus apparently it gets stuck on its own anyway since no one was looking at it while Amy and Rory were staring at each other for nearly a minute.


You were looking at it 

Have you ever seen an "Angel" move?


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

morac said:


> Looking past the many flaws, it was a nice way of permanently getting rid of Amy and Rory. I'm not sure why that was necessary though. Though considering the writers managed to bring Rose back from an alternate dimension, I suppose they could bring back Amy and Rory.


Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill both said they are done with Doctor Who and are not coming back. I suppose that's why they got the headstones in a cemetary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...arvill-interview-Im-done-with-Doctor-Who.html


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

morac said:


> I had a feeling they'd use the Statue of Liberty when they first showed it, but it is very impractical. Plus apparently it gets stuck on its own anyway since no one was looking at it while Amy and Rory were staring at each other for nearly a minute.
> .


Funny. I had the opposite thought. How did it move at all. How is no one looking at the Statue of Liberty? Ever? Someone is looking at it at all times, surely.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

All I know is that the Angels always freak me out. I hate those things.


----------



## bobster954 (Aug 15, 2011)

angels cool, but this was an odd use of them.
time lock rory and amy seemed a bit much, especially since he should have been able to travel to 1939+ to retrieve them.

It was sad to see them go...and what about the father? They should have told him.

I dunno. I do not like the timey whimey way they did this...it could have been done better, but still was emotional and showed their love in the end...

but hey, its doctor who, guess it has to be whacky.

best angel episode was the first one though...don't blink or your dead.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I agree. Since Blink the angels aren't as scary. I think they should quit doing stories involving them.


----------



## Linnemir (Apr 7, 2009)

Several questions - 

Where did the baby angels come from? I thought I saw what might have been an egg, but am not sure.

Is the angels zapping folks back in time a new wrinkle? (Pun intended)

At the end, it was sort of implied that if they had just gotten into the Tardis sooner and NOT seen/read the headstone, Amy and Rory would have made it out safely.

Been watching since the Hartnel eps first showed in the US, and this is the first time that regenerative energy was used to do anything but regenerate. Heck, I don't remember it being called 'regenerative energy'! But is this something that might play into how they explain away the 12 regeneration rule/guideline??? (Or have they done that already? I mainly ignored the Tennant eps as I disliked him as the Dr. and as an actor).

There were a lot of great lines that I wish I had written down. River's one about loving a god being one of them. 

I LOVED the flip, breezy way River and the Dr. talked to each other about being married, and then the sweet tenderness between them. He really does love her *sappy sigh*


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

Linnemir said:


> Several questions -
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


The Angels zapping people back in time to feed off of their 'time energy' was their original Modus Operandi as described in the 'Doctor Lite' episode "Blink" (written by Steven Moffat), which starred Tennant as The Doctor. The actions of the angels in 'The Time of Angels' & 'Flesh and Stone' appeared to be a departure of the canon set by 'Blink'.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Linnemir said:


> Is the angels zapping folks back in time a new wrinkle? (Pun intended)


No, that was ALWAYS what the Angels do, ever since they were introduced in "Blink." Remember that they sent Sally Sparrow's friend Kathy Nightingale back to the 1920s. The angels feed on the temporal energy left behind when they send someone back to the past. (If you haven't seen "Blink" - go. _Go now_. Even if you don't like Tennant. Especially if you don't like Tennant, since "Blink" barely featured him.)


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

On another topic, I've got to say, I may not always agree with Maureen Ryan, but I agree with every single word she's written here, a wrap-up of this half of series 7:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-ryan/doctor-who-amy-pond_b_1924022.html?utm_hp_ref=tv

She really expresses my dissatisfaction with series 7 so far, and inadvertently touches on some of my dissatisfaction with the 11th Doctor era.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

That was a great write up. Thanks for the link.
Making each episode a "huge blockbuster" type episode was a mistake. There were some terrific episodes with the Ponds but none of them occurred this season.

The girl who waited was excellent. Amy is one of my favorite companions, and I'm not happy with what they did with her this season.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

zordude said:


> You were looking at it
> 
> Have you ever seen an "Angel" move?


Oh, well played. I hadn't thought about that before.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Funny. I had the opposite thought. How did it move at all. How is no one looking at the Statue of Liberty? Ever? Someone is looking at it at all times, surely.


I agree. I could maybe see the Statue standing on the island not being looked at for some short period. But stomping down the street in southern Manhattan like the Sta Puft Marshmallow Man (or like it did in Ghostbusters 2) is liable to attract a bit of attention, even from the most jaded New Yorker.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The baby angels were creepy. 

I was pleased that both head stones had "Williams" instead of "Pond"

The Statue Of Liberty as an angel probably doesn't make much sense but I don't care. I liked it.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Linnemir said:


> Been watching since the Hartnel eps first showed in the US, and this is the first time that regenerative energy was used to do anything but regenerate. Heck, I don't remember it being called 'regenerative energy'!


Tennant used it to "jump start" the regeneration of the tardis power in the cybermen episode.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

zordude said:


> Have you ever seen an "Angel" move?


Yes. In the episode with River and Amy and the Doctor and the Cleric/Soldiers with the Angels in the Apland Temple.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Kamakzie said:


> As a Detroit Lions fan I had to laugh at this


As a fan of correct spelling, I had to cringe at that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

trainman said:


> As a fan of correct spelling, I had to cringe at that.


What do you expect from the New York Record?

Have you ever seen them get something right?


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

A teary end to the Ponds storyline and I enjoyed this episode. As far as the Ponds being gone for good: Remember Rule #1. The Doctor Lies!

Earlier this year I was watching G4 and they interviewed Matt, Karen and Arthur during Comic Con. Now that I think of it John Barrowman of Torchwood did the interview. He asked Matt if he will be there for the 50th anniversary show and Matt said yes for sure. He then asked Karen and Arthur about their leaving the show and if they would be back for the 50th anniversary. Both were very evasive and said they were in talks about the 50th anniversary show. I know both actors said they are done for good, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Amy and Rory back for at least a Cameo in some future episode.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> The baby angels were creepy.
> 
> I was pleased that both head stones had "Williams" instead of "Pond"
> 
> The Statue Of Liberty as an angel probably doesn't make much sense but I don't care. I liked it.


Why, are you a sexist? 

It's becoming increasingly common in the UK for the man to take the womans name.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

busyba said:


> Yes. In the episode with River and Amy and the Doctor and the Cleric/Soldiers with the Angels in the Apland Temple.


Yes unfortunately, they should never have let us see them move.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> Why, are you a sexist?
> 
> It's becoming increasingly common in the UK for the man to take the womans name.


Besides what difference does it make? All that matters is that the couple is OK with it.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

zordude said:


> You were looking at it
> 
> Have you ever seen an "Angel" move?


That was just an image of an angel.

And an image of an angel becomes an angel.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I was pleased that both head stones had "Williams" instead of "Pond"





JohnB1000 said:


> Why, are you a sexist?


Because both Rory and Amy considered themselves Williamses. Except when they were with the Doctor. The Doctor made them Ponds. To me, being Williamses was an symbolic of their living the rest of their lives on their own, without the Doctor.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

Not one of Moffat's better efforts. The bit about a paradox poisoning the Weeping Angels' nest is simply a cheat. Cheats can be okay -- if they are very cool, but this was only so-so. It was simply the author making up a new rule because he wrote himself into a corner and couldn't think up a better way to get out of it.

I also understand why Amy was made infertile. This was so no children, grandchildren, etc to enter into the picture and be there to worry about. It simplifies things. Moffat is getting lazy.

And I think that the Doctor would now act to save the version of Amy Pond who waited 36 years ("The Girl Who Waited") only to be abandoned, again, by both the Doctor and Rory.Now that the young Amy is history the abandoned Amy can be rescued. The paradox issue has been trivialized (The Doctor could just grab Amy+36 the next time he runs up against the Angels and needs to poison their nest) and he owes that version of Amy big time.


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

I know I should just accept the "magic" of rewriting time but this part still bothers me...

Why does Rory already see his name on the tombstone before he gets taken but Amy's name doesn't appear until after she decides to get taken as well? Who gets to decide which things can be changed in history and which can't?

If Amy did not see her name on the tombstone why can she then manage to change the evidence of the time stream? "Not seeing your name" is just as definitive as "seeing your name" in setting the future, right?

I can usually suspend my disbelief quite easily but when they just setup the fact that you cannot change time once you see the evidence in the future (granted without making a huge paradox thingy) and then immediately violate that rule, it bothers me.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Not one of Moffat's better efforts. The bit about a paradox poisoning the Weeping Angels' nest is simply a cheat. Cheats can be okay -- if they are very cool, but this was only so-so. It was simply the author making up a new rule because he wrote himself into a corner and couldn't think up a better way to get out of it.
> 
> I also understand why Amy was made infertile. This was so no children, grandchildren, etc to enter into the picture and be there to worry about. It simplifies things. Moffat is getting lazy.
> 
> And I think that the Doctor would now act to save the version of Amy Pond who waited 36 years ("The Girl Who Waited") only to be abandoned, again, by both the Doctor and Rory.Now that the young Amy is history the abandoned Amy can be rescued. The paradox issue has been trivialized (The Doctor could just grab Amy+36 the next time he runs up against the Angels and needs to poison their nest) and he owes that version of Amy big time.


Didn't the doctor say that they now became a fixed point in time and those events could not be changed?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Matt Smith's Doctor, but it seems to me that under Moffat's control, the show is nowhere near as good as the Tennant days.

Sure, there were some poor episodes, but overall, it was much better, IMHO.

For example, we are watching the series in order from the Eccleston days (I'm re-watching and the wife is seeing them for the first time). By coincidence, we watched Angels Take Manhatten yesterday and also Army of Ghosts and Doomsday, which was Rose's big farewell. The latter was so much better than the Ponds' goodbye it's not even funny!


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I'm a huge fan of the large majority of Moffat's episodes from before his run as showrunner. After he took the helm they've been much more hit-and-miss for me.

Regarding the tombstone, I'm just trying not to think too hard about it. The timing of the appearance of the names didn't jump out at me as a problem, but what came to mind as I watched was (1) it seemed weird that they showed names and ages, not names and year-spans (the way every other headstone I've ever seen does); and (2) have we seen an instance before where a weeping angel has sent someone back in time and they died in the past before living through it up to their present? They pretty much all die more or less when they're caught up to the moment when they were Touched By An Angel, right? Yet Rory and Amy already had engraved headstones when they got touched.

I did like this episode and I don't mean to knock it. It worked very well for me on an emotional level, and I think it was probably the best of the five this season (second to the Dalek premiere, maybe). I just wish it was as good as some of Moffat's earlier stuff.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Yeah, Moffatt as scriptwriter was quite good. Moffatt as showrunner... not as much.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

danterner said:


> Regarding the tombstone, I'm just trying not to think too hard about it. The timing of the appearance of the names didn't jump out at me as a problem, but what came to mind as I watched was (1) it seemed weird that they showed names and ages, not names and year-spans (the way every other headstone I've ever seen does)


Imagine what those years would be though. "Born 1992 - Died 1955" 



> (2) have we seen an instance before where a weeping angel has sent someone back in time and they died in the past before living through it up to their present? They pretty much all die more or less when they're caught up to the moment when they were Touched By An Angel, right?


The very first angel victim we saw, Sally Sparrow's friend, went back far enough that she died well before the time she was taken. She had her grandson deliver her letter to Sally.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Also, I was annoyed about the whole "breaking something" issue. If the book was that ambiguous, then why worry about breaking River's wrist? He already broke a vase when the Tardis came in. Or he could break any number of things that won't worry anyone much.


And Amy didn't actually read the part where he broke River's wrist. She only read the part where he said he would have to break hers. After that, he could have continued, "Well, now I don't actually have to because I've said what needed to be said. You're lucky you didn't read any further Amy. Next time it could have been worse."

As it turned out, he wasn't the one who broke her wrist anyway. But I'm not sure why he didn't realize that beforehand, or why he thought that River not breaking her wrist would change anything.



Idearat said:


> The teary goodbye seemed to there since they wanted there to be a teary goodbye. I got the impression that the Doctor can't take the Tardis to 1938 Manhattan again. Fine, but Amelia and Rory knowing that could go somewhere else to be met by the Doctor ( with River coordinating ) or he could go to 1939, 1940 or some other year in the 50+ years before they died.


Not to mention that River talked about getting the book to Amy for publishing, so apparently there is some way to get to them. And Amy could have included a date and location in her afterword.

The tombstone only meant that someone had made a tombstone, not that either of them were buried there. So seeing the tombstone didn't even mean they were forced to die in the past. But even if they had had to stay in the past, the Doctor should have been able to visit them.

The only reasoning that fits what happened is that Amy and Rory decided that being with the Doctor had risked breaking them apart for the last time, and they wanted to live the rest of their lives together. Hence, they didn't want the Doctor to find them.

But that seemed to be specifically what Moffatt was trying to avoid. I think he wanted this breakup to end differently than other companions. He didn't want these companions to choose to end their relationship with the Doctor, but be forced into it. More specifically, he wanted to finally force Amy to choose Rory over the Doctor once and for all. The problem is that the barriers he set up were fairly weak.

I've enjoyed most of what Moffat has done with the 11th Doctor, but have mixed reactions to how the Amy and Rory story ended. Karen and Matt did an amazing job of conveying the emotion of Amy and the Doctor saying their last goodbye, but the problem is that emotion fell flat against the lack of a good reason for the goodbye. Instead of completely feeling the gravity of their final farewell, part of me was trying to understand why it was their last.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BitbyBlit said:


> I've enjoyed most of what Moffat has done with the 11th Doctor, but have mixed reactions to how the Amy and Rory story ended. Karen and Matt did an amazing job of conveying the emotion of Amy and the Doctor saying their last goodbye, but the problem is that emotion fell flat against the lack of a good reason for the goodbye. Instead of completely feeling the gravity of their final farewell, part of me was trying to understand why it was their last.


That's one respect in which I think Davies handled things better than Moffat...Moffat always tries to be clever. And he IS clever, but A) sometimes it's better to be straight-forward...compare & contrast the departures of Amy and Rose...and B) sometimes when you try to be clever, no matter how clever you really are you can outsmart yourself, which is what I think happened here. Moffat tried to come up with a very complicated, timey-wimey explanation for the departure, and the powerful emotions of the departure got somewhat swallowed up.

The flip side is that often, Davies would aggressively AVOID being clever, which is a pitfall when you're doing a science fiction show about a genius time-traveler. The advantage of Davies' run is that he had Moffat. Now, Moffat is unleashed...for better and for worse.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> The tombstone only meant that someone had made a tombstone, not that either of them were buried there.


A lot of newbie genealogists / family historians shoot themselves in the foot with that. Just because there is an MI (memorial inscription), it does NOT mean a person is buried there.


----------



## mbhuff (Jan 25, 2004)

murgatroyd said:


> A lot of newbie genealogists / family historians shoot themselves in the foot with that. Just because there is an MI (memorial inscription), it does NOT mean a person is buried there.


As a recovering genealogist, I know that even if someone is buried there, the inscription including name, birth date and death dates do not necessarily have any bearing on reality.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> On another topic, I've got to say, I may not always agree with Maureen Ryan, but I agree with every single word she's written here, a wrap-up of this half of series 7:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-ryan/doctor-who-amy-pond_b_1924022.html?utm_hp_ref=tv
> 
> She really expresses my dissatisfaction with series 7 so far, and inadvertently touches on some of my dissatisfaction with the 11th Doctor era.


One point that she makes is that the Doctor has 'this sudden acceleration of the Doctor's darker tendencies'. These 5 episodes have been more about the 'Ponds' than the Doctor, and it may well be that the Doctor aged greatly and changed in the hundreds of years he lived in between these 5 episodes where the 'Ponds' only aged 10. I don't recall the specifics but he stated his age in 'Mercy' and it seemed much older than when he first regenerated.

It may be that the final 8 episodes are actually interleaved with the first 5. Perhaps we'll see things that will further explain the first 5 episodes. We could see them from a whole different perspective. Thus far we've only seen the episodes from the 'Ponds'' perspective.

Even if that thought proves wrong, you can't disupte that the Doctor can change *greatly* between one episode and the next when he drops off the Ponds and lives a hundred years on his own before he gets them again.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Moffat tried to come up with a very complicated, timey-wimey explanation for the departure, and the powerful emotions of the departure got somewhat swallowed up.


I agree with Rob except for this part. The emotions didn't get swallowed up for me. Not because I understood the timey-wimey explanation (I didn't), but because _The Doctor_ understands the timey-wimey explanation. For me, that's good enough.

There are a lot of inconsistencies in Doctor Who that bother me. For one pertinent example, I don't like that there are different "rules" for the Angels every time we see them. But it's exceedingly easy for me to suspend my disbelief when The Doctor says one thing about time travel, and later says something different. I can pretty much always chalk that up to the fact the he's a Time Lord, and I'm not. I like that they built "timey-wimey" right into the show, even though I fully realize it's a crutch for them to use. It also just happens to coincide with my own idea that The Doctor simply knows more about it than I do.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> Because both Rory and Amy considered themselves Williamses. Except when they were with the Doctor. The Doctor made them Ponds. To me, being Williamses was an symbolic of their living the rest of their lives on their own, without the Doctor.


Perhaps you missed the rather clear smiley face ?


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

TonyTheTiger said:


> It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Matt Smith's Doctor, but it seems to me that under Moffat's control, the show is nowhere near as good as the Tennant days.
> 
> Sure, there were some poor episodes, but overall, it was much better, IMHO.
> 
> For example, we are watching the series in order from the Eccleston days (I'm re-watching and the wife is seeing them for the first time). By coincidence, we watched Angels Take Manhatten yesterday and also Army of Ghosts and Doomsday, which was Rose's big farewell. The latter was so much better than the Ponds' goodbye it's not even funny!


I'm finding the exact opposite. Watching the old stuff and realizing how much better I think the new stuff is.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Well reading all this I am so glad that I watch TV in a different way to most of you. I loved the episode, the whole season and all of the Matt Smith / Moffat era (just as I enjoyed the RTD era also). There can be "major" storyline flaws that ruin an episode for me but I did not see any in this one. I fully admit that I don't over analyze any shows, I just enjoy them or I don't. 

It's so much easier to enjoy a show in this way :up:


----------



## kmccbf (Mar 9, 2002)

One of the things I noticed was that The Doctor seemed older in this episode. Since Matt Smith started the role, he almost seemed too young to me. In this episode he just seemed older, like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders. 

Did any of you see the 5 min short "A Pond Life?" it came with this episode when I downloaded it on iTunes. No spoilers in it, fun, but in someways an interesting look at the Amy and Rory from the Doctor's point of view.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

cstelter said:


> It may be that the final 8 episodes are actually interleaved with the first 5. Perhaps we'll see things that will further explain the first 5 episodes. We could see them from a whole different perspective. Thus far we've only seen the episodes from the 'Ponds'' perspective.


I certainly hope not. I'd rather they put this chapter behind us and move on.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> ...Not to mention that River talked about getting the book to Amy for publishing, so apparently there is some way to get to them. And Amy could have included a date and location in her afterword...


River had a Vortex Manipulator, which permitted her to travel through a small gap in the "net" which the Angels had cast around Manhattan. Anything larger wouldn't get through, unless it was willing to rip NYC apart, which The Doctor nearly did the 1st time around.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

pteronaut said:


> River had a Vortex Manipulator, which permitted her to travel through a small gap in the "net" which the Angels had cast around Manhattan. Anything larger wouldn't get through, unless it was willing to rip NYC apart, which The Doctor nearly did the 1st time around.


Of course, the Doctor could get one of those gizmos as well. If not from River, at least from the same place she got hers.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Of course, the Doctor could get one of those gizmos as well. If not from River, at least from the same place she got hers.


And that kind of thing is exactly what I meant by being too clever...the reason the Doctor can't see Amy again is so convoluted, it just doesn't ring true. Look at all the holes people here have poked in it already.

Whereas Rose's departure was brilliantly (and heart-breakingly) simple...she was stranded in another universe that the Doctor can't get back to.

The heart-breakiness of Amy's departure is, I still believe, diluted when we say, "But why can't they..." The Doctor may claim that he understands it, but his explanation makes no sense.

And I say all this as somebody who still, overall, prefers Moffat to Davies. It's just that this particular moment plays to one of Moffat's weaknesses, which was one of Davies' strengths. And unfortunately, it was a very important moment.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

john4200 said:


> Of course, the Doctor could get one of those gizmos as well. If not from River, at least from the same place she got hers.


 Not now that Dorium is a headless monk, and especially not since they had to cut it off of a time agent to get it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

pteronaut said:


> Not now that Dorium is a headless monk, and especially not since they had to cut it off of a time agent to get it.


You are thinking too small. The Doctor has all of time and space to find one. He could go back to before River got hers, take it, use it, and then put it back a few minutes later. Or go to the source for another. Or any of a number of other ways.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

He could just borrow the one from Jack Harkness, fix it, use it, break it again then return it to him.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

john4200 said:


> Of course, the Doctor could get one of those gizmos as well. If not from River, at least from the same place she got hers.


He had one, and was using it like crazy in the Pandorica episodes.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

Church AV Guy said:


> He had one, and was using it like crazy in the Pandorica episodes.


That was River's. And he returned it to her at the end of the story.


----------



## cthomp (Dec 24, 2001)

JETarpon said:


> Because both Rory and Amy considered themselves Williamses. Except when they were with the Doctor. The Doctor made them Ponds. To me, being Williamses was an symbolic of their living the rest of their lives on their own, without the Doctor.


Amy singed her divorce papers Williams.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And that kind of thing is exactly what I meant by being too clever...the reason the Doctor can't see Amy again is so convoluted, it just doesn't ring true. Look at all the holes people here have poked in it already.
> 
> Whereas Rose's departure was brilliantly (and heart-breakingly) simple...she was stranded in another universe that the Doctor can't get back to.
> 
> ...


No. That is you. This was a final farewell. That makes the emotion true.

Or maybe you prefer the "final" farewell of Rose. How final was that so much greater handling you proclaim.

They were both emotional. Rose for her and for the doctor because they were almost lovers. This for the doctor and Amy because they were true family. And emotional for Amy because of Rory.

If you can't find the emotion because you are nitpicking the "science" you've lost the whole idea of Doctor Who. Is was never about the science.

The only one who loses is the viewer who refuses to get into the story and emotion.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> you've lost the whole idea of Doctor Who. Is was never about the science..


PERFECT !!!!

BTW, relating to the always irritating Mo Ryan, anyone who begins a story on Doctor Who by telling us how long they've been watching the show, automatically negates their point. My children have only watched for 5 years and love it as much as anyone.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

mbhuff said:


> As a recovering genealogist, I know that even if someone is buried there, the inscription including name, birth date and death dates do not necessarily have any bearing on reality.


Indeed.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> Perhaps you missed the rather clear smiley face ?


I did not, but I don't see your point. I was explaining my reasons for why I liked that it said Williams. It doesn't imply anything about anybody else's reasons.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

pteronaut said:


> River had a Vortex Manipulator, which permitted her to travel through a small gap in the "net" which the Angels had cast around Manhattan. Anything larger wouldn't get through, unless it was willing to rip NYC apart, which The Doctor nearly did the 1st time around.


But that was before they poisoned the food supply with a paradox. Once they created the paradox, my impression was that it undid the Angels' invasion, which was why nobody remembered the Statue of Liberty standing in the middle of the city with an angry face.

The Doctor was worried that traveling to Manhattan within that time frame could be dangerous because that area was "sensitive" due to the time distortions created by Angels as well as the paradox. But I don't see why he couldn't have landed somewhere else. Unless they are saying that all of Earth for a 40-50 year time period is now off limits for the Doctor.

And he also didn't want to create another paradox to save Rory. But Rory seeing a gravestone with his name on it wouldn't have needed another paradox.

What would have been better would have been to come up with a reason that Rory seeing the Doctor again would cause a paradox. And if Amy joined Rory, that would be her fate as well.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Of course, the Doctor could get one of those gizmos as well. If not from River, at least from the same place she got hers.


The Doctor could never cheat on the TARDIS with another time travel device. It would never forgive him.


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

OK after the Angel sent Rory away The Doctor scanned the Angel with his Sonic Screwdriver and said it was the last one and was in a weakened state, but was able to send Rory back. After Amy joined Rory what would happen if The Doctor had River stare at the Angel while he beat it to powder with a sledge hammer? Would that kill the Angel for good?


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Gunnyman said:


> I agree. Since Blink the angels aren't as scary. I think they should quit doing stories involving them.


+1



danterner said:


> Regarding the tombstone (1) it seemed weird that they showed names and ages, not names and year-spans (the way every other headstone I've ever seen does)


That's a British thing 
- my grandparents headstone in England is the same - there is no date of birth, just date of death and their ages.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Plus the year spans would have made no sense whatsoever in this case.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> +1
> 
> That's a British thing
> - my grandparents headstone in England is the same - there is no date of birth, just date of death and their ages.


Except I don't think they had date of death.


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

zordude said:


> Except I don't think they had date of death.


Correct. It was their ages when they died.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

zordude said:


> Except I don't think they had date of death.


Yes, I know that but the original post was that they thought it was odd that it listed their age.

That's a British thing. No exact dates - dramatic license.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

I thought the whole thing sucked, as they have to spend the rest of there lives in a (so called) jail because they traveled with the doctor. And what is missspelled in the Newspaper? Record"?


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

Fl_Gulfer said:


> I thought the whole thing sucked, as they have to spend the rest of there lives in a (so called) jail because they traveled with the doctor. And what is missspelled in the Newspaper? Record"?


Superbowl is misspelled. It should be Super Bowl. It may actually be a way to get around the copyright on the name Super Bowl which is owned by the NFL.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Bettamojo5 said:


> Superbowl is misspelled. It should be Super Bowl. It may actually be a way to get around the copyright on the name Super Bowl which is owned by the NFL.


No, it's not. (There's no issue whatsoever with using "Super Bowl" in that type of context...but if there were, just because you misspell a trademark, that doesn't make everything okay. Otherwise, as I said on another board, I could build an amusement park called Dizneyland.)


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Fl_Gulfer said:


> I thought the whole thing sucked, as they have to spend the rest of there lives in a (so called) jail because they traveled with the doctor. And what is missspelled in the Newspaper? Record"?


Jail? The hotel is not a jail any more. They're just stuck in New York in 1939.

How I wanted it to end:

Rory is sent back in time, but nobody knows where/when. Amy takes River's vortex manipulator and goes off in search of him. It's romantic, heartbreaking, and means she may never see the Doctor again. And Amy is badass enough to pull it off.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Mars Rocket said:


> Rory is sent back in time, but nobody knows where/when. Amy takes River's vortex manipulator and goes off in search of him. It's romantic, heartbreaking, and means she may never see the Doctor again. And Amy is badass enough to pull it off.


That would have been a much better ending. :up:


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> That would have been a much better ending. :up:


Apparently, Karen Gillen insisted that whatever the ending, it had to make it impossible for Amy to come back.

(Which makes me wonder if the reason the ending makes no sense is that Moffat took an existing idea and tried to re-jigger it with some stupid explanation for why the Doctor couldn't go back for Amy


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Apparently, Karen Gillen insisted that whatever the ending, it had to make it impossible for Amy to come back.


If that is true, then I am surprised that the actors have so much power over the show. Did she get something written into her contract?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> If that is true, then I am surprised that the actors have so much power over the show. Did she get something written into her contract?


I doubt it, but when one of the most popular actors in the history of your show is leaving, I think you want her to leave happy.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Karen Gillan is young and dumb enough to say that now, but in 10 or 20 years she may welcome the idea of a return. And my ending leaves her more permanently missing or lost than what we got anyway.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt it, but when one of the most popular actors in the history of your show is leaving, I think you want her to leave happy.


Why?

I never had the impression it is difficult to find actors willing to play Doctor Who companions. And it is not like many people would take Gillian seriously if she went around complaining that DW is a terrible show to work for because they refused to write a story the way she wanted it to be written.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Why?


Respect for a friend and co-worker on their way out?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

zordude said:


> Respect for a friend and co-worker on their way out?


So, you are saying they should make the bad business decision of changing the story for the worse because they think it would be nice to appease a volatile employee?


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

john4200 said:


> So, you are saying they should make the bad business decision of changing the story for the worse because they think it would be nice to appease a volatile employee?


I'd be willing to bet that Moff/ThePowersThatBe doesn't consider this to have been a bad ending.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

I enjoyed the show a lot. And this is from someone who has the Matt Smith episodes at the bottom of the 3 newer doctors. 

I felt the emotion of what happened with Amy & Rory. I felt it with Rose and I felt it with Donna, but all 3 were different reasons.

Another post mentioned how Rose was trapped in the alternate universe.. but.. well.. then she wasn't... then he MADE her stay there with his copy... The writers change their minds a lot on how things work. It doesn't ruin it for me. The show is fun.

But I'm taking the show as entertainment... not a practice in science (since this science doesn't even exist). It's fun... it can be emotional.. a lot of the show, for me, is the doctor's interactions and relationships.

I swear, reading about shows on here used to be enjoyable, but now it's a contest on who can poke more holes or complain more than the next person.


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

NJChris said:


> I enjoyed the show a lot. And this is from someone who has the Matt Smith episodes at the bottom of the 3 newer doctors.
> 
> I felt the emotion of what happened with Amy & Rory. I felt it with Rose and I felt it with Donna, but all 3 were different reasons.
> 
> ...


Good points across the board.


----------



## GAViewer (Oct 18, 2007)

I found Amy's 2005 obituary







by Sarah Jane Smith


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

A potential ending of this episode, storyboarded, but not shot:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zn6ff

--Carlos V.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Unbeliever said:


> A potential ending of this episode, storyboarded, but not shot:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zn6ff
> 
> --Carlos V.


I liked it, but I'm emotionally sensitive.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

Unbeliever said:


> A potential ending of this episode, storyboarded, but not shot:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zn6ff
> 
> --Carlos V.


That's the second time the show's reduced me to tears.

What I would give to be "Touched by an Angel".


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

That made me cry.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

The emotionality of the moment was somewhat blunted for me by the amusing fact, heretofore unnoticed by me, that Rory's dad's name is "Brian Williams".


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

Unbeliever said:


> A potential ending of this episode, storyboarded, but not shot:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zn6ff
> 
> --Carlos V.


Wow. Thanks for sharing. I really liked it and I teared up again just watching it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Unbeliever said:


> A potential ending of this episode, storyboarded, but not shot:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zn6ff
> 
> --Carlos V.


Awww.


----------



## cal_s7 (Oct 1, 2003)

Unbeliever said:


> A potential ending of this episode, storyboarded, but not shot:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zn6ff
> 
> --Carlos V.


Why is it so dusty in here....


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

now that had me crying. I wish it had been in the episode.


----------

