The Angels Take Manhattan

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Rate The Angels Take Manhattan

20% 20% 
[ 1 ]
40% 40% 
[ 2 ]
40% 40% 
[ 2 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
 
Total Votes : 5

The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:31 pm

Discuss tonight's episode here.
After it's been on, obviously.


Last edited by tony ingram on Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:29 am; edited 1 time in total

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:31 pm

OK, I liked that one. It didn't exactly have me breaking out the tissues, but it was a fitting-and touching-end to the story of the Ponds, with Rory proving his heroism one last time and Amy finally figuring out what was important to her. And, the Angels were actually scary again!

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by codywillis1 on Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:05 am

Quite good. On the downside, it's the weakest of the Angels stories by a long, long way- and there's a general sense of overfamiliarity in the episode overall - while the Statue of Liberty Angel is just plain SILLY, but there's some good tension and scares, and Amy and Rory's exit is very poignant. Not as good as it could have been though, and I still get the sense that while Moffat is still the best (only good) writer on the show, even he's just recycling ideas now.

codywillis1

Posts : 386
Join date : 2010-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:45 am

Actually, I thought this was-while not as good as Blink-a distinct improvement on Time of Angels/Flesh & Stone. Not that TOA was bad, as such, but the Angels seemed to be reduced to rather more generic monsters in that one, while here they were closer to their portayal in Blink. I agree the Statue of Liberty idea was a bit daft, but it was too obviousnot to use, really...

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Lucy McGough on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:21 am

I'm not quite sure what I think about this one.

Lucy McGough

Posts : 2125
Join date : 2010-03-12
Age : 28
Location : Northwich, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Mbast1 on Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:57 pm

codywillis1 wrote: even he's just recycling ideas now.

I liked the episode, but I thought the same. It looks, in structure, like Tennant's Doctor's end.

Mbast1

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2012-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:27 pm

Mbast1 wrote:
codywillis1 wrote: even he's just recycling ideas now.

I liked the episode, but I thought the same. It looks, in structure, like Tennant's Doctor's end.
it does? How so? Aside from the saying goodbye to companions thing, I mean.

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Mbast1 on Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:05 pm

tony ingram wrote:it does? How so? Aside from the saying goodbye to companions thing, I mean.

In both cases it looked as though those leaving were going to "survive" but were caught in something after the ending.
We all knew they were leaving the show, and that the got through the big problem wasn't enough.
Tennant survived the confrontation with the Time Lords, but died helping Wilf. Rory and Amy survived the confrontation with the mass of Angels, only to get caught up by a random lone angel.
Not that it was bad, just it's been done.

Mbast1

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2012-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:07 am

I would never have thought of that. I guess there really are only so many stories you can tell.

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by codywillis1 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:07 am

I've heard the TOA criticism before, but I don't agree. Personally I thought they were infinitely more scary in TOA/F&S than either Blink or this. I don't really see how being sent back in time is really scarier than getting your neck snapped, personally. Or, indeed, having one grow inside your head. Many of the angels victims in Blink and indeed Amy and Rory ultimately went on to have good, long, happy lives. Not really the stuff of horror IMHO! Wink

I don't really get the end to TATM either. Fine, fair enough, it's fixed - because of their names on the gravestone - that Amy and Rory have to live out their lives back in time and the Doctor can't take the TARDIS to NY. Okay... but I still don't see how that means he can never see them again. What's to stop him taking the TARDIS to the next city over in 1938 (or wherever) and catching a bus? Wink

codywillis1

Posts : 386
Join date : 2010-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:19 am

OPossibly because his visiting them would give them a possible way out, which they cannot have.

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by codywillis1 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:38 am

But he doesn't HAVE to, does he?

Or indeed, he could have gotten them out of it and simply made sure someone mocked up a fake gravestone for the cemetary. It'd be no different than what he did for himself at the end of last season.

Hmm, methinks this doesn't quite hold water lol.

codywillis1

Posts : 386
Join date : 2010-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by alanultron5 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:16 pm

Was Matt Smith any better than in `Power of Three`? Sadly, for me, personally, he was awful in that!

alanultron5

Posts : 453
Join date : 2010-01-04
Age : 61
Location : Wonderful, wonderful Wolverhampton!!

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:40 pm

alanultron5 wrote:Was Matt Smith any better than in `Power of Three`? Sadly, for me, personally, he was awful in that!
That's a difficult question to answer, as it only works if you assume there is a concensus. Since I've liked Matt in every story he's been in (he's now one of my favourite Doctors), I can't say whether he was better in one story I enjoyed than he was in another story I enjoyed. I suspect his interpretation simply doesn't work for you personally, Al.

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Lucy McGough on Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:34 pm

He was more sombre and less hyper/ADD than in 'The Power of Three', if that helps. Perhaps before filming they took the Sherbet DibDabs away from him and put him in a dark room until he'd calmed down.

Lucy McGough

Posts : 2125
Join date : 2010-03-12
Age : 28
Location : Northwich, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Mbast1 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:32 am

tony ingram wrote: I guess there really are only so many stories you can tell.

I saw a book once that purported to list all the known plots. But, that doesn't mean you can't tell them in an interesting way. I DID like this episode.

Mbast1

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2012-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by codywillis1 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:18 am

Had to chortle at an email from an old friend in the UK this morning. He's not a Who fan at all though he did casually enjoy the old show. His assessment of the recent season is quite unprintable though it starts "I've written better things than that when I've taken a "

Wink

codywillis1

Posts : 386
Join date : 2010-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:35 am

Mbast1 wrote:
tony ingram wrote: I guess there really are only so many stories you can tell.

I saw a book once that purported to list all the known plots. But, that doesn't mean you can't tell them in an interesting way. I DID like this episode.
Well. that's the main thing!

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Lucy McGough on Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:09 am

Sometimes I suspect that Stephen Moffat isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

Lucy McGough

Posts : 2125
Join date : 2010-03-12
Age : 28
Location : Northwich, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:22 am

Lucy McGough wrote:Sometimes I suspect that Stephen Moffat isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is.
How clever does he think he is?

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Lucy McGough on Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:08 pm

Very (I reckon).

Lucy McGough

Posts : 2125
Join date : 2010-03-12
Age : 28
Location : Northwich, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:19 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:Very (I reckon).
Have you asked him? I think you should ask him.

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Lucy McGough on Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:24 pm

I think you should go back to bed, you cheeky git Razz

Lucy McGough

Posts : 2125
Join date : 2010-03-12
Age : 28
Location : Northwich, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by alanultron5 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:41 pm

Yes! I'm not impressed with Matt Smith's Doctor, one of the reasons I have (Apart from one Ep) decided to take a sojurn from the show. For me, he's gone just too much OTT! but it is just my opinion. Obviously he's a big favourite with many fans and casual viewers and that's fine - but, sadly, not for me!

I read in today's R.T that Stephen Moffatt killed Amy (And Rory?) off! Brave move-but knowing what a big fan of JNT he is, I suspect a Peri/King Ycarnos twist at seasons final episode (whenever that is) I may well be wrong, but I think he might just do that. I can check in here to find out after last episode of this season!

alanultron5

Posts : 453
Join date : 2010-01-04
Age : 61
Location : Wonderful, wonderful Wolverhampton!!

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Lucy McGough on Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:16 pm

They're not dead.

Lucy McGough

Posts : 2125
Join date : 2010-03-12
Age : 28
Location : Northwich, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:22 pm

alanultron5 wrote:Yes! I'm not impressed with Matt Smith's Doctor, one of the reasons I have (Apart from one Ep) decided to take a sojurn from the show. For me, he's gone just too much OTT! but it is just my opinion. Obviously he's a big favourite with many fans and casual viewers and that's fine - but, sadly, not for me!

I read in today's R.T that Stephen Moffatt killed Amy (And Rory?) off! Brave move-but knowing what a big fan of JNT he is, I suspect a Peri/King Ycarnos twist at seasons final episode (whenever that is) I may well be wrong, but I think he might just do that. I can check in here to find out after last episode of this season!
Er, it's not quite like that, Al. And they won't be back later in the season. They got zapped back in time by the Weeping Angels, so they're dead in the present day and the Doctor can't go back for them without screwing up the timeline.

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Lucy McGough on Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm

Or so he says. Maybe he just got bored of them Very Happy

Anyway, why would King Yrcanos marry Amy Pond?

Lucy McGough

Posts : 2125
Join date : 2010-03-12
Age : 28
Location : Northwich, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:15 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:Or so he says. Maybe he just got bored of them Very Happy
Got bored with them. Mad


Anyway, why would King Yrcanos marry Amy Pond?
Why not? I would!

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Sam_Vimes on Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:35 am

While I'm glad Amy and Rory didn't die (I've been nervous about that for months), I don't see why they had to be locked out of The Doctor's life completely. Why can't the NuWho companions ever just LEAVE? I mean, I think Martha did, but she's the only one, isn't she? It just feels so melodramatic and unnecessary to me. I don't know, maybe I'm just annoyed that I'll never see the Ponds again. That's probably it.

All that aside, it was a pretty good story. As has been noted, the Statue of Liberty being an angel was down-right silly (there is certainly never a moment when that thing isn't being looked at by SOMEBODY), but it IS a kids' show, I suppose.

Sam_Vimes

Posts : 414
Join date : 2012-02-23
Age : 30
Location : Utah

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by codywillis1 on Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:58 am

Well, it is NOW, certainly. Wink

codywillis1

Posts : 386
Join date : 2010-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:36 am

I just don't get this. Looking around the net, half the detractors say Who is now 'a kid's show' and too simplified, while the other half say it's convoluted and too clever for its own good. It can't be both!

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by alanultron5 on Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:01 am

King Ycarnos would have "Anybody!!" Tony makes a good point with Amy's fate (I only knew she was `rid of` via that Radio Times interview) But AAH! It looks like there's no way back but I would not be totally surprised if Stephen Moffatt had a `trick` up his writers sleeve!

Both Rose and the Master were seemingly gone for good in past shows and they returned. Of course I'm probably wrong, but let's wait till the corpulent lady chirps the last note!

alanultron5

Posts : 453
Join date : 2010-01-04
Age : 61
Location : Wonderful, wonderful Wolverhampton!!

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:08 am

To be fair, returning from certain death is pretty much the Master's signature trick (as it is with all good supervillains). I doubt that Moffat will be as self indulgent over Amy as RTD was with Rose (I hope not anyway; much as I liked her and Rory, they had a good ending and it shouldn't be overturned).

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Sam_Vimes on Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:28 am

tony ingram wrote:I just don't get this. Looking around the net, half the detractors say Who is now 'a kid's show' and too simplified, while the other half say it's convoluted and too clever for its own good. It can't be both!

Wait, so is Doctor Who NOT a kids' show? I always thought it was. I didn't class it that way as a jab, or anything, I just thought it was accurate. Maybe "family show" would be closer to the mark? Either way, unlike the delightfully cranky Cody, I rather like it that way and would certainly never consider myself a detractor.

Sam_Vimes

Posts : 414
Join date : 2012-02-23
Age : 30
Location : Utah

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by codywillis1 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:01 am

Family show, yes. There is a difference.


I love being delightfully cranky. Wink

codywillis1

Posts : 386
Join date : 2010-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:16 am

Sam_Vimes wrote:
tony ingram wrote:I just don't get this. Looking around the net, half the detractors say Who is now 'a kid's show' and too simplified, while the other half say it's convoluted and too clever for its own good. It can't be both!

Wait, so is Doctor Who NOT a kids' show? I always thought it was. I didn't class it that way as a jab, or anything, I just thought it was accurate. Maybe "family show" would be closer to the mark? Either way, unlike the delightfully cranky Cody, I rather like it that way and would certainly never consider myself a detractor.
The preferred term has always been "family show". The kids show vs family show thing has been a constant bugbear of Who fandom for decades! Learn the ways of the for..uh, of the fan, young Sam... Razz

(and just to satisfy the accepted conventions of this kind of discussion, because someone is obligated to) >ahem<...

"Childrens programmes at the BBC were traditionally produced by the Childrens Department. Doctor Who was always produced by the Drama Department."

"Philip Hinchcliffe said he wouldn't let a young child watch it unaccompanied".

"A family show for children aged eight to eighty".

Did I miss any, guys? Wink




tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by alanultron5 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:19 pm

Well, my main reason for leaving the show alone for a time is that I just could not follow those ``season story arcs` in particular, the `Pandorica` episodes really left me in confusion!

Lesser to this is I have found Matt Smith's performances less and less to my liking! I'm sure he is great in many ways, but not for me just now.

alanultron5

Posts : 453
Join date : 2010-01-04
Age : 61
Location : Wonderful, wonderful Wolverhampton!!

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:22 pm

alanultron5 wrote:Well, my main reason for leaving the show alone for a time is that I just could not follow those ``season story arcs` in particular, the `Pandorica` episodes really left me in confusion!
Ah. The arcs are one of the things I've really enjoyed about the last two years, and something I've missed with this years episodes. I love long, convoluted storylines. That's why I liked The X-Files so much.

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by alanultron5 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Yes! That type of story has many fans. I gave up on X Files for much the same reason. I'm afraid I'm a `Meat N' Potatoes` viewer Tony. Too much plotlines just put me off, wheras for many others they are `food and drink` Hopefully, bieng selfish, Dr Who might go back to something just a little less convoluted to my tastes without `dumbing down` too much for yourself and others. Then we can both enjoy it!

alanultron5

Posts : 453
Join date : 2010-01-04
Age : 61
Location : Wonderful, wonderful Wolverhampton!!

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:01 pm

Something not overly simplistic but still self cntained, you mean. Like Warrior's Gate? Very Happy

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by BluesShark on Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:59 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:Or so he says. Maybe he just got bored of them Very Happy

Or they got bored of him, which was rather the point of the four episodes building up to their departure.

There's no reason they couldn't go to another city and get picked up but I'd guess one final run in with the Angels was the final disillusionment with his in-out appearances over the last four episodes. Given a clean slate they may well have decided to make the most of it and make the final break from him.

Which, interestingly, I suspect have been shown in chronological Pond time, not chronological Doctor time. I very much think Power of Three takes place after 'Angels Take...' in the Doctors life.

Rather a clever epsiode. Most of the quibbles I've read ('why didn't the Empire State Angel attack when it wasn't being watched?' and How come the angels in a copper statue?' being the most common are easily explainable. One of the more interesting side effects of the episode is that Moffat can now choose to ignore 'Daleks Take Manhattan' at will as the timeline has been changed, as well.

Only one psycopath in the TARDIS? Indeed. There can be only one Valeyard, though of course he can't now become 'the Valeyard' as Gallifray is timelocked but that doesn't stop him exhibiting all those traits.

BluesShark

Posts : 154
Join date : 2012-02-08
Age : 51
Location : Brentwood, Essex UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by tony ingram on Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 pm

The Statue of Liberty stuff made little sense to me, but I don't care. it was a great visual.

tony ingram
Admin

Posts : 5692
Join date : 2009-12-24
Age : 46
Location : The Wilds of Suffolk

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by alanultron5 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:41 pm

"Warriors Gate! yes!! Really enjoyed that one. It was strange and puzzling, but pretty much self contained. This is the reason that I love "Ambassadors of Death" It's convoluted like a Le Carrie thriller, but self contained!

The recent seasons with story Arcs like the Prime Minister Saxon or the `Crack in Time/Pandorica/ Voice in Tardis just overload me as i'm having to try and recall bits from previous eps of those seasons and can't. I only have a DVD player and wouldn't tape current DR Who's really apart from the two part "Satan Pit" and single "Midnight" which I really like!


alanultron5

Posts : 453
Join date : 2010-01-04
Age : 61
Location : Wonderful, wonderful Wolverhampton!!

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by codywillis1 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:51 pm

Warriors Gate is superb. I agree; I miss the old format. I just don't see why we can't have multi-part stories instead of these pointless (and increasingly unsatisfying) arcs, let alone these crass and empty 45min standalones like Morons on a Spaceship. Though I doubt it would improve things muchly until we get some other competent writers onboard. At the moment, Moffat is all that's keeping the series afloat and even he is increasingly obviously running out of ideas and well past his peak. It's very disappointing really.

There are some individual gems alnultron - actually you'd probably be best just to sample the odd recommended one from the new series rather than try to watch it through. It's doing it that way that leads to you tearing your hair out in frustration. Wink

codywillis1

Posts : 386
Join date : 2010-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Lucy McGough on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:54 pm

codywillis1 wrote:I miss the old format.
Me too, and I wasn't even there to witness it first time round!

Lucy McGough

Posts : 2125
Join date : 2010-03-12
Age : 28
Location : Northwich, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Angels Take Manhattan

Post by Sponsored content Today at 11:23 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum