Doctor Who *Spoilers Abound! We've lost Containment*

I live in New York City and

Spoiler:

I'll never be able to look at the Statue of Liberty the same again.

While I can't defend the whole 'why wouldn't there be someone watching the Statue all the time', I will say that for other statues that are high atop buildings in non-touristy areas, it's not often we look up at them. Especially at night. I thought about this when I first moved here regarding Spiderman - how can no one see this guy if he's flying through Manhattan's concrete canyons? It's because unless you're a jaded tourist that keeps getting in my way on the sidewalk, nobody really looks up.

Also

Spoiler:

AMELIAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

I'll watch it tonight, and I'm avoiding spoilers, but felt like this needed to be added to the conversation:

I have to assume that

Spoiler:

There weren't that many people out on the street to look at the angels because the angels took them already...

Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey, I know.

You gotta be kiddin me.

I forgot this one until just now:

Spoiler:

When the Doctor is gussying himself up to see River, he checks his reflection in a plaque. The camera focused on it very briefly after the Doctor's reflection went out of the shot. It was for a Rolls Royce motor, FD Type V11. I know that the TARDIS is full of all kinds of odds and ends, but is seems odd to focus in on it.

I looked online last night, and couldn't find anything that matched it. Now, I just find Who references. I wonder how its going to fit in later?

Having just watched the last episode:

Spoiler:

Crap. Despite knowing it would happen, what a punch in the gut to lose Amy and Rory. And if it weren't enough on its own, my son asked - "So what's the Doctor supposed to say to Rory's dad?"

And I started asking myself, why did they bring Rory's dad only to have us now know they'd never see each other again?

spider_j wrote:

I forgot this one until just now:

Spoiler:

When the Doctor is gussying himself up to see River, he checks his reflection in a plaque. The camera focused on it very briefly after the Doctor's reflection went out of the shot. It was for a Rolls Royce motor, FD Type V11. I know that the TARDIS is full of all kinds of odds and ends, but is seems odd to focus in on it.

I looked online last night, and couldn't find anything that matched it. Now, I just find Who references. I wonder how its going to fit in later?

Spoiler:

As with most things on TARDIS console it is made of bits and bobbles. Current guesses are that it came from a Spitfire

Overall, I liked it....but (puts on nerd glasses)

Spoiler:

the Statue of Liberty was a bit much. To expect that no one would have noticed it was gone, or that it was strolling around Manhattan, was a bit much. And it was unnecessary, since the story would have been fine without it.

Yes, it's an image that is hard to resist. I can see that. So why not just show it at the beginning of the episode? Have the camera zoom in on a well known New York landmark, and then we see that's it growling? That would have been enough. The scene in the room where Rory died was so dramatic and well done, and then to have this giant goofy statue standing outside the building detracted from that.

As for the Ponds, why couldn't the Doctor simply have met them in another city other than New York? And why couldn't he just pick them up there, and ensure that Rory and Amy would be buried in New York? Did I miss something?

Rahmen wrote:

Having just watched the last episode:

Spoiler:

Crap. Despite knowing it would happen, what a punch in the gut to lose Amy and Rory. And if it weren't enough on its own, my son asked - "So what's the Doctor supposed to say to Rory's dad?"

And I started asking myself, why did they bring Rory's dad only to have us now know they'd never see each other again?

Spoiler:

Could the Doctor not take him back and drop him off with them to live out his life with them? I'm not sure I understand the limitations of the time line continuum.

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax
For Mystery Science Theater 3000."

Certainly, but I've only watched like 15 total shows (working my way through the Amazon backlog now). Wasn't sure if some of what I saw in this episode was semi-common knowledge in the who-verse.

The show has somewhat established that you cant go back and change your own timeline - unless you are a really pissed Doctor who goes ahead and do it anyway.
Likewise, some events are "fixed" in time = the excuse every time the question of ' Why didn't they just go back in time and fix Y?' appears. Unless you are a really pissed Doctor... etc.
And of course wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.

Spoiler:

Maybe Moffat gets sentimental some day and goes back to revisiting Amy 20 times "Rose-style" :P

Ranger Rick wrote:

(Edit: I don't know why quoting isn't working here, it looks right no me...)

You ended the spoiler with /quote instead of /spoiler, and it's not happy about it because the number of open and closes for either don't match. Incidentally that's why your sig is shoved off to the right, too.

(Edit: I don't know why quoting isn't working here, it looks right no me...)

KidDork wrote:

Overall, I liked it....but (puts on nerd glasses)

Spoiler:

the Statue of Liberty was a bit much. To expect that no one would have noticed it was gone, or that it was strolling around Manhattan, was a bit much. And it was unnecessary, since the story would have been fine without it.

Spoiler:

The other thing that I didn't get about the Statue of Liberty....

They established previously that they're another alien race. But, we have photographic evidence that the Statue of Liberty was a metal structure built by humans. I guess they can make up whatever new rules about how the weeping angels exist if they want (weeping angels "posses" existing statues instead?), but it seemed pretty silly to me.

I now know how Clocky feels being the only one disliking something in other threads, because this episode seemed so contrived that I had a hard time even being emotional about it at the end, despite liking Rory and Amy. I think I've passed my limit on Moffat loving to play with paradoxes. He spends so much time being clever that he forgets to write an interesting story that stands up if you stop focusing on the twist.

Keldar wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:

(Edit: I don't know why quoting isn't working here, it looks right no me...)

You ended the spoiler with /quote instead of /spoiler, and it's not happy about it because the number of open and closes for either don't match. Incidentally that's why your sig is shoved off to the right, too.

Hah, wow, I was looking for what's wrong in what I quoted, and it was in my comments instead. Thanks!

I believe there was a throw away line about the Angels infecting all the statues.

Ranger Rick wrote:

(Edit: I don't know why quoting isn't working here, it looks right no me...)

KidDork wrote:

Overall, I liked it....but (puts on nerd glasses)

Spoiler:

the Statue of Liberty was a bit much. To expect that no one would have noticed it was gone, or that it was strolling around Manhattan, was a bit much. And it was unnecessary, since the story would have been fine without it.

Spoiler:

The other thing that I didn't get about the Statue of Liberty....

They established previously that they're another alien race. But, we have photographic evidence that the Statue of Liberty was a metal structure built by humans. I guess they can make up whatever new rules about how the weeping angels exist if they want (weeping angels "posses" existing statues instead?), but it seemed pretty silly to me.

I now know how Clocky feels being the only one disliking something in other threads, because this episode seemed so contrived that I had a hard time even being emotional about it at the end, despite liking Rory and Amy. I think I've passed my limit on Moffat loving to play with paradoxes. He spends so much time being clever that he forgets to write an interesting story that stands up if you stop focusing on the twist.

Spoiler:

"The statue (of Liberty) was closed for renovation for much of 1938." It fits historically. Maybe the weeping angels did something with the original during renovations which was undone by the paradox. New York was their foothold on earth. Given that there were 'babies', I think there were probably bigger plans.

Still, it was pretty silly.

Except for that one aspect, I loved the whole episode. Possibly one of my all-time favorite Doctor Who episodes; I'll have to rewatch it and see.

But seriously: nothing more until Christmas? You've got to be kidding me.

Amazing image that's kinda spoiler-y for "Angels Take Manhattan"

http://bit.ly/SuOkOJ

sometimesdee wrote:

Amazing image that's kinda spoiler-y for "Angels Take Manhattan"

http://bit.ly/SuOkOJ

Too cool! Where was that taken from?

Note the byline on it

Radical Ans wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

Amazing image that's kinda spoiler-y for "Angels Take Manhattan"

http://bit.ly/SuOkOJ

Too cool! Where was that taken from?

It's bouncing around on FB.

Tanglebones wrote:

Note the byline on it

Yes. Awesome, isn't it?

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Except for that one aspect, I loved the whole episode. Possibly one of my all-time favorite Doctor Who episodes; I'll have to rewatch it and see.

That's really something coming from you. I think I feel similarly, though. Very clever, very suspenseful, and even though we pretty much knew the ultimate outcome goi in, there was still a nice shock for us...and then that was turned around into something really sweet yet still crushing.

But seriously: nothing more until Christmas? You've got to be kidding me. :P

I know, I know. Just wait until we get our Christmas episode and we bitch about the next gap!

Clearly you guys are all on about something I can't possibly read. Good job on the white space!

Started s5 this weekend with the wife. I feel like both Matt Smith and Karen Gillam talk way too fast. Seriously there's been multiple times where my wife and I had to translate for each other because one of us missed what was said. And a couple times we had to rewind and watch a scene again cause neither of us got it. Or because while answering the previous line we missed the next one.

Anyway, other than that we're quite enjoying things. Up through "Hungry Earth" last night, and have to finish off the 2nd part tonight.

General stuff from the first 6 episodes:

Nice to see River again.
Creepy to see the Angels again.
Amy is hot.
Winston Churchill!
Aww Amy really loves Rory.
And did I mention Amy is hot, and those skirts she wears?
Oh... and there's cracks... in time...

The Beast Below spoilers:

Spoiler:

Wow. Amy took it upon herself to solve the problem. Good for her. And nice touch with the "last of a species" connection.

Victory of the Dalek spoilers:

Spoiler:

For a second I almost believed the scientist had created the Daleks and that the Doctor was about to make them his enemies with his crazy antics. Then I remembered it being mentioned before that a Time Lord made the Daleks, so I let that idea go. Would have been cool though. Anyway, they get away, again, as usual. For a long-dead race the Daleks sure do pop up a lot.

Vampires of Venice spoilers:

Spoiler:

Oooh vampires... doh, fish aliens. It's always aliens. Werewolves are never werewolves, and so on...

Good analysis by Rory. Doctor makes people want to be better, and yes that's usually dangerous. Bold move by the father taking out all of those fish.

Hm that's enough for now I guess. Gosh I want to catch up soon. Whatever you guys are talking about must be cool.

Stele, this for one of your comments on season 5:

Spoiler:

I'm not sure where the bit about a Time Lord creating the Daleks came from. The canon has it that they were originally a race of humanoids called the Kaleds who were involved in an endless war with another indigenous race, the Thals, on the planet Skaro. A weapons scientist named Davros, who was crippled in the war, created Daleks from living, but mutated, Kaleds, bonding the organic creature with a shell and weapons platform based on his own life support gear.

Didn't you see the two parter with Davros at the end of season 4?

farley3k wrote:

awesome pic

psst... spoiler tags don't work on pictures.

Stele wrote:

Clearly you guys are all on about something I can't possibly read. Good job on the white space!

Hm that's enough for now I guess. Gosh I want to catch up soon. Whatever you guys are talking about must be cool.

Yah, we're in the middle of Series 7. Hurry up and join us!

Spoiler:

I don't buy this can't change the time continuum excuse. The only fixed point is that the Ponds die in the past. That doesn't mean the doctor can't pick them up in the past and have more adventures with them, as long as they die in the past. It also just means that when they die, they need to die in the past. They can live in the present until their final years. And the Doctor can bring the father into the past to live the rest of his life with them.

You know they're going to play around with that sooner or later, Kazar. Just like they did with Rose.

Rahmen wrote:

Having just watched the last episode:

Spoiler:

Crap. Despite knowing it would happen, what a punch in the gut to lose Amy and Rory. And if it weren't enough on its own, my son asked - "So what's the Doctor supposed to say to Rory's dad?"

And I started asking myself, why did they bring Rory's dad only to have us now know they'd never see each other again?

apparently spoiler tags don't work on images! So follow the link.

spider_j wrote:

Stele, this for one of your comments on season 5:

Spoiler:

I'm not sure where the bit about a Time Lord creating the Daleks came from. The canon has it that they were originally a race of humanoids called the Kaleds who were involved in an endless war with another indigenous race, the Thals, on the planet Skaro. A weapons scientist named Davros, who was crippled in the war, created Daleks from living, but mutated, Kaleds, bonding the organic creature with a shell and weapons platform based on his own life support gear.

Didn't you see the two parter with Davros at the end of season 4?

Yes I remember now. Sorry, I just knew that I had seen who created the Daleks in a previous episode, but forgot exactly the details.

It's hard to remember everything when I've watched 60ish episodes in the last 5-6 weeks.