Doctor Who: Angels Take Manhattan – SF Debris

The weeping angels return for a story that seeks to combine pathos with silliness. The results are decidedly mixed.

About SF Debris


Leave a Reply

29 Comments on "Doctor Who: Angels Take Manhattan – SF Debris"

MightyDavidson
Guest
Can’t for the life of me understand why so many folks love the Weeping Angels so much. I personally can’t stand them. I mean they’re meant to be so scary because they’ve altered themselves so that they turn to stone when you look at them and “you can’t kill a stone.” Except I’m pretty sure that disintegration is a thing in Dr. Who, which would easily eff up a Weeping Angel. Also, in Gargoyles their greatest weakness was that they turned to stone by day. They were helpless then. The Weeping Angels have altered themselves so that happens WHENEVER SOMEBODY… Read more »
Rocketboy1313
Guest
Turning to stone is how they explain it in the show, but that isn’t literally what they are doing. They exist in images and ideas, in their second appearances they were inside of Amy’s eye. You could break up a statue or turn off a movie projection but that doesn’t kill them, it just puts them into a sort of stasis. Hence why they were able to regenerate when drawing energy from the crashed starship, again in their second appearance. People like them because they have a cool and creepy gimmick, they are a statue that moves to kill you… Read more »
StormWolf
Guest

It was a cool and creepy gimmick the first time they were brought out. By this point, it’s just stupid and makes no sense when you compare it to how they worked in Blink.

Fran Ohmsford
Guest

Blink is outright the best episode of Nu-Who and one of the best ever episodes of Doctor Who….Unfortunately The Weeping Angels should have remained a one-off villain because their stories since have been uniformly awful!

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
Actually, the concept is really creepy: statues that come to life and get you when you’re not looking. However, the fear factor diminishes significantly when you realize that basically all they do is send you back in time a couple of decades. And if, like the Doctor, you have access to a time machine, then at best it just ends up being a minor inconvenience. In Jessica Jones, there’s a scene in which Kilgrave’s servants are staring out the window unable to blink out of fear of death. It basically means that, even though it’s not shown, Kilgrave had to… Read more »
ran76
Guest

you know, using a completely different species, with a completely different physiology, from a completely different series isn’t the best argument to use…

mr_rubino
Guest

“We really expect more from […] Steven Moffat.”
Somebody hasn’t seen Sherlock Series 4.[/easyjoke]

StormWolf
Guest

Or Doctor Who Series 6…or the first half of Series 7…

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

Didn’t the Muppets beat them to it?

And here’s a question: if the paradox caused a temporal anomaly that screws up any attempt to visit 1930s New York, THEN HOW DID THE DOCTOR GET THERE BEFORE TO FIGHT THE DALEKS AND THEIR PIG SLAVES?

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

Ah, Rory. He’s died and come back to life more times than Jean Grey.

RobbyB
Guest

That happened on the Doctor’s personal timeline beforehand. And we just saw 13 trying to fix the problem in the most recent Christmas special.

So at somepoint it all gets worked out, but there’s a couple decades in there, that happen to be AMy and Rory’s lifetimes, where time travelling around NY is problematic.

TheSKARD1
Guest
The Angels were a good one off idea. After that it all falls apart. My initial understanding was that they turned to stone when anyone looked at them. In subsequent episodes the were stone all the time just with the ability to move or not. The image of angel thing added in the 2nd appearance was severely flawed. Don’t look away and don’t blink or the angel will move. But if you do follow this advice the image of the angel in your eye will also be an angel and mess with your brain for the lulz. The angels eventually… Read more »
Joshism
Guest

“Which is then proven by the episode itself when the headstone changes, demonstrating that Amy altered what The Doctor had just insisted should be a fixed point.”

Rory’s death and his name on the tombstone were fixed; Amy’s presence or not presence was not fixed yet.

TheSKARD1
Guest

The headstone indicated that Rory dies without Amy. That should have been just as fixed as anything else in the episode.

StormWolf
Guest
Oh sweet Jesus, this episode. So Amy and Rory get stuck in the past because the Doctor can’t take the TARDIS to New York City in 1938, and apparently has become so stupid under Steven Moffat’s writing that he can’t puzzle it out that he needs to just go to New Jersey and take a train to pick them up, or that he could just travel to 1940 and pick them up in the TARDIS. Then there’s the pants-on-head stupidity of the Statue of Liberty being a Weeping Angel. The damn thing would *never* have moved because there’s no way… Read more »
StormWolf
Guest

On a possibly interesting note, if you’re curious about the audios at all, is that this isn’t the first time the Doctor’s been in 1938. He was there in his Eighth incarnation with his companion Charley in October of that year, dealing with gangsters, inept aliens and Orson Welles. (Invaders from Mars. It’s a lot of fun, and they made it sound like an old 1930’s radio drama.)

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

And let’s not forget the time he fought the Daleks with army of Bebops in New York (he had already encountered an army of Rocksteadys the previous episode). And that was actually in the TV series, so it’s even more canon.

StormWolf
Guest

I was thinking more *specifically* the year 1938, but close enough.

ran76
Guest

the Statue of Liberty isn’t on Ellis Island, but your point still stands

Joshism
Guest

During any of the Weeping Angel episodes has anyone tried to kill a weeping angel? Sure, you can punch them or shoot them with a gun, but a sledgehammer or jackhammer or some dynamite would do the job, wouldn’t it?

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

Not really. The stone-like consistency and appearance are an illusion; in reality, the weeping angel is in a time stasis, meaning they cannot be harmed by anything outside of themselves. That is, if I understand the mechanics of how they work rightly.

MightyDavidson
Guest

Except they’re explicitly stated to turn to stone. The reason this is supposed to be so effective a defense is because “you can’t kill a stone.”

FeraligatrReturns
Guest
Others have mentioned how stupid Weeping Liberty is (btw, if “the image of an angel becomes an angel”, do all the Statue of Liberty post cards become angels?). But what really kills me is the Doctor’s speech that the angels have an advantage because ” they’ve never had a food source like this one: the city that never sleeps”. Um, if it’s the city that never sleeps, won’t there always be people around looking at them? The EPISODE ITSELF explains everything wrong with it. I stopped watching after Series 7 ended, in part because episodes like this and Asylum of… Read more »
TragicGuineaPig
Guest
Here’s the problem as I see it: when the transition from Tennant to Smith took place, there was a marked change in the show’s tone from one predominantly science fiction to one that really is more like a fairy tale. Yes, it still occurs in space, and there are sci-fi elements to it, but the Doctor is less of a mad scientist and more of a fairy wizard now. I mean, think about it: the Weeping Angels. Initially, their statue form was explained as some sort of quantum defense mechanism. But with their reintroduction, suddenly their existence and powers bear… Read more »
FeraligatrReturns
Guest

That’s very true, but in most fantasy stories even magic has some rules to it. (Or what TvTropes calls “Magic A is Magic A”). Or to put it another way, if this story was completely unrelated to Doctor Who and was a fantasy story about a wizard fighting magic statues in New York, I’d still wonder how Weeping Liberty got there without anyone seeing her.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

Here’s something to think about:

When the Doctor met Martha, they were up against an army of Rhinos. The next episode, they encountered an army of human pigs. Did anyone else think they were getting their ideas from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

turkeypedal
Guest

Yeah, this sort of stuff is why I basically stopped watching.

To be fair, I just didn’t have time at first. But then I heard about all these things and decided I didn’t care enough.

StormWolf
Guest

On the plus side, it got a bit better later on. It’s still got some stupid in it (for example, the whole “the moon is actually an egg, please don’t kill the unborn!” bullshit that happened in Kill the Moon) but it was getting better.

And now Moffat’s leaving after this season, so yay…hopefully. After Moffat disappointed me so horribly, I’m remaining cautiously optimistic. Very cautiously. On one hand, Chibnall created Broadchurch, which is a great show. On the other hand, he wrote the Cyberwoman episode of Torchwood, which was hilariously bad. Only time will tell which Chibnall we get.

cdrood
Guest
One aspect of the revived series is that they seem to feel companions can’t just choose to leave (unless you are Martha or Mickey). I get the original went kind of heavy on marrying off companions to get rid of them. Rose – trapped in another dimension Jack – becomes a temporal anomoly Donna – memory wiped to prevent killing her Amy & Rory – timey wimey stuck in past Clara – Kinda/sorta dead, Doctor’s memories of her wiped Pretty much from the Fourth Doctor on, he had reasonable control of the TARDIS, so not having companions being permanent doesn’t… Read more »
wpDiscuz