Doctor Who: The Angels Take Manhattan review

News Simon Brew 29 Sep 2012 - 20:05

Doctor Who series 7 episode 5: here's our spoiler-filled review of The Angels Take Manhattan...

This review contains spoilers. Our spoiler-free review is here.

7.5 The Angels Take Manhattan

"I always rip out the last page of a book. Then it doesn't have to end. I hate endings"

If it’s all the same with you, we’re going to start at the ending, whether the Doctor likes it or not. For Steven Moffat didn’t lie: he teased us some time ago that he was going to kill someone off in this episode, and as it turned out, he sent both Rory and Amy to their makers in The Angels Take Manhattan. Granted, he didn’t directly do so, as he gave them a good few decades together. But he seemingly slammed the door shut on them, tying up a story that began all the way back in The Eleventh Hour.

And a lovely tie up it was. The bringing back of the young Amelia Pond as a closing shot was a welcome touch, and it feels like it topped and tailed the story of Rory and Amy extremely well. Karen Gillan in particular has been strong in her assertion that she won’t be back in the show, even for guest appearances, and in the nicest sense, we hope she won’t be. It feels like the natural end of their journey, and if the temptation to bring her back can be resisted, then that’d be all the better in this case. Rory's dad is welcome back anytime, of course.

Not that Amy Pond won’t be missed. Amy and Rory had one final adventure here, and Steven Moffat’s script gave both Gillan and Arthur Darvill an awful lot of work to do. Confronted with their potential separation, there was humour, action and emotion, and the performances from Gillan and Darvill were both up to the job. We’ve said before that we’re particularly going to miss Arthur Darvill. His performance as Rory has evolved and impressed more and more as the episodes have rolled on.

Matt Smith, though, was also in tip top form, and the foreboding warning that his Doctor should never travel alone came through loud and clear here. It felt like quite a few things were being established for him to consider in the next run of episodes (River, after all, implies that he's gone too far erasing himself from history, basically the reversal of the problem he was up against before), and it'll be interesting to see how those threads develop. For now, not for the first time nor the last, The Doctor was faced with losing dear friends and companions (and just how special Amy was to him was explored in The Power Of Three), and Smith sold the heartbreak and loneliness of this tremendously well.

We also got the return of River Song here. It’s always good to see Alex Kingston in Doctor Who, and given that it was her parents who were going away, it was pretty much inevitable she’d be around for their farewell. We don't get vintage River, but her purpose here seems more to be to keep the Doctor, Amy and Rory in some kind of check. That, and she's also the author of the book that provides the spoiler-filled guide to the episode. She had her moments too, especially where she disguised breaking her wrist. And, of course, when she affirmed to her mother the way to get back to Rory at the end. The Doctor may have forgotten that it was her saying goodbye to her parents, but Kingston's performance certainly didn't.

Then there were the Angels. Along with the likes of The Silence, the Weeping Angels are one of the superb new monsters that Steven Moffat has introduced into the world of Doctor Who, but here, they felt a little diluted. The big Statue Of Liberty Angel, for instance, appeared not a million miles removed from the daft massive Cyberman in The Next Doctor, and there was very much a sense that the Angels were out of the shadows, and a little less effective as a result. In The Time Of Angels, for instance, Moffat managed to up the creep factor of them with a dose of Japanese horror. The closest he got here? The baby Angels were good, and opened up a way for them to go in the future. And the smiling Angel proved quite unsettling, too. Yet they didn’t feel anywhere near as scary this time around. In fact at one stage, when one Angel is said by River to be screaming, we're almost left feeling sorry for them. That's something of a change in the audience's relationship with them.

Just to temper all of that: while it does seem odd that the weakest part of The Angels Take Manhattan were the Angels themselves, they’re still welcome and impressive foes. To keep their level of impact, though, it might work best if they were kept off the regular monsters rota.

The Angels Take Manhattan did have many other elements that were strong. This week’s big movie genre of the week was a good, old fashioned detective film noir, and stylistically, this was a treat (and musically, too: Murray Gold's work this seris on Who has been superb). The production design once more delivered here, blending in with some New York location shooting, and the episode looked excellent.

That was established in a really atmospheric pre-credits opening, that teased the detective story - complete with obligatory typewriter - and also reintroduced the aforementioned Angels. It also introduced the particualr time travel element at work, with the older version of Garner meeting the younger one, providing a big clue for what lay ahead. It was a great opening sequence, too, with the Angels at their most sinister in the chase that ensued, only to then be softened by the big Statue Of Liberty Angel at the end of it. The layering of the typewriter over the action was a tremendous touch, though.

Now we've arrived at the start of the episode, though, we're going to end by going back to the finale. For, ultimately, The Angels Take Manhattan was about the exit of Amy and Rory (in an episode that they spend much of parted from each other), and the crater they leave behind in the Doctor's life. It was a suitably emotional farewell. We were left in little doubt that they actually did love each other come the end of their adventures, best demonstrated by the apparent suicide pact - and how dark was that for Saturday night family viewing? - that saw them seemingly leave the Doctor's life. The actual exit came a few minutes later, as the Doctor's joy at their seeming survival quickly turned when an Angel appeared in the graveyard, sending Rory back in time.

It was no surprise to all of us watching that the rug was about to be pulled (the days of surprise departures from Doctor Who seem long gone, not helped by the blanket publicity the show receives, something we're just as guilty of). That said, though, even though we knew their departure was coming, the Doctor begging Amy not to go back to Rory and basically to stay with him - an unusually selfish request - pulled at the heart strings. There was lots of good writing like tat, right throughout the episode.

So where does this leave Doctor Who? Reading around, few are citing the series 7 run thus far as the show firing on all cylinders, but then there's been ambition and variance to the stories Doctor Who has been trying to tell. The Angels Take Manhattan, for us, was a good, solid, really enjoyabe episode, with a big lift at the end. Christmas, though, promises a slightly broken Doctor, and a new traveller in the Tardis. We're rather looking forward to that already. We're going to miss Rory and Amy, though...

See also: where now for Doctor Who series 7?

Disqus - noscript

very moving episode. I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to end.

Cool Beans!

I cant help feeling slightly short changed by Rory and Amys fates, what did they do for the 50 plus years they were together? Were they stuck in the graveyard? If not did they look in on River when she was raised in the orphanage in New York?

Once again it was a climax that wasn't worth the build-up (although better than the last two series finales admittedly). All series, the monster threat has just been filler for what's been the interplay between the Doctor, Amy and Rory. Was there much point even having River in this episode? The show has stopped taking risks in favour of always having a happily ever after ending. Why build it up to be something its not? I wonder what the response would have been if Amy and Rory had departed with no happy ending? Children's show I know, but even Bambi's mother was killed if if you know what I mean? I want a show that shocks, makes me gasp, and feel like its been a rollercoaster. The show has an opportunity to move forward now instead of playing it safe or for laughs. I hope it can recapture some substance.

For the record, I have to say I felt the Angels really worked for me. Yes, they were present in large numbers, but that didn't diminish the tension from where I was sitting.
The Liberty Angel did make me think of the Cyberking though. I think I'll choose to dismiss it as a cheeky nod to Ghostbusters II...

So the gutless writers of Doctor who still cant kill off companions, natural deaths do not count.

I do hope we get to see Rory dad through, to give the Doctor a reason to heal and heart to heart with him would be a good starting point.

I thought the episode on the whole lack depth to the episode. All the right pieces were there but they did not fix together well.

Not sure what the gangster was up.

An the writers cant seem to stay away from the silly bits, such as Statue of Liberty, really no one notice the earth quakes an how did a statue go unnotice in a city that is awake 24 hours a day.

River did not write the book, Amy did.

Apart from that I am happy to be getting a new companion at Christmas.

needed to be more,not an episode that satisified,the death of time part two did in spades and had me weeping for my doctor,but this,Im left cold.Not a breavement like the forementioned episode,but somehow cheated

nice emotional ending but the bit with the paradox had both me and my flatmate screaming at the tv again because since season 5 there seems to be a paradox per episode and not once have those paradox dragons appeared

I was hoping that when they jump of the building they would die.

I think I enjoyed that... The ending had me weeping like an angel but I wasn't entirely clear what happened or why. What was the point of the Statue of Liberty?

There was'nt one.

Here's a theory: the Statue of Liberty is how all of the Angels got into New York. Even in 1938, it would be one of the most photographed icons in the world. As we know, an image of an Angel becomes itself an Angel.

But how could it move with everyone photographing, in a place like new york there always someone looking at the statue of Liberty. I really think Doctor Who producers need to hire someone to point out logical flaws in the writer scripts before they start filming.

River DID write the book and gave it to Amy to publish. Amy only wrote the afterword

What would be really great is if all the people who hate watching Dr Who switched over and watched something else and then posted on the appropriate message boards. Ta.

That has to be the best one of Series 7 and better than 95% of series 6. It had action, humour and sadness. In parts it was quite adult with wrist breaking and companions hurling themselves off buildings.
The only niggle was the whole regeneration energy and the Statue of Liberty being an angel. You're telling me there is ever a time when someone is not looking at that statue!
This episode also goes to show how fantastic Matt Smith is capable of being when he tones down the ridiculous OTT gurning wackiness. Here he was back up to his series 5 greatness.10/10 and it has been a long long time since i gave that score out!

I'm just glad they got to be together in the end. I was convinced they would end up in different time zones, doomed to live out their lives apart. Now that's a sad ending!! I loved the episode - well worth the wait.

It was OK, there was lots to like and it had a really dark edge (suicide, breaking own wrist, battery farmed humans). The ending didn't feel sad or emotional to me, it felt more like the Doctor was being a petulant child, they love each other let them live together.

Felt it seemed a little rushed in ending the same as last week, I imagine people won't like the statue of liberty angel or the regeneration energy thing.

Another great episode. Thats 5 greats out of 5 episodes so far and not one Love and Monsters / Fear Her or Boomtown etc in site. How can anyone not say the show is not firing on all cylinders? I will miss Amy a lot. Rory a lot less. Questions that I would like answering are - How come if River was watching the angel, and the Doctor is watching Amy / Angel it still manages to move and take her? Also next week 13 episodes of Merlin start! 13 EPISODES!!! And yet we only get 5 of Doctor Who!!! Its like this...Doctor Who is back...whoo thats great, right bye see you at Christmas! I am not happy! If the BBC can stump up for 13 episodes of Merlin, expensive location work, CGI etc, Why cant they do it for Doctor Who? So we as Who fans are getting shafted. It will be back at Christmas, then off till April, then the rest of the season. Its not good enough. I dont buy the excuse that Merlin as joint production etc..it makes no where near the money Doctor Who does for the BBC. We should be watching Doctor Who next week and not another series of Merlin and that makes me sad and angry. If we just get the rest of the season and some specials next year its going to make me ever more annoyed. I just wish they would put full seasons on and stop this American mid season break nonsense.
Still it was a fitting send off for Amy and Rory and Doctor Who rules...I will miss you. Thats nothing much for me to watch on the BBC now until Christmas day...

That was great. Well done SM for a well-told story that was tense and scary yet tender and emotional at the same time. The Angels worked for me - integral part of the story, well-developed and spooky. Of course not as ;jump out your seat' as Blink but very very effective all the same. And to be honest, how many monsters are genuinely scary these days? best of the series. 9/10

Did anyone else notice the "made by rolls royce" plaque in the tardis when he was fussing over his hair, is there some significance in that ?

So, was the whole light bulbs flickering in each episode in the lead-up to this episode a moffat red herring or am I missing something?

@TARDInSexy

Helloooooooooooooooooo Sweetie:)

If I were to post my true opinions on tonight's episode then no doubt TARDInSexy and the rest of the pro-Moff head's would tear into me and claim I suffer from OCD. So instead I'll go along with this, as is the popular consensus and we all know majority vote rules. This was by far the best episode of Dr Who ever in the history of the show. Steven Moffet is the best thing the Beeb have ever inflicted upon the viewing public and he can do no wrong in my eyes. The guy is a genius. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the guy is above the Time Lord Almighty when it comes to his first class writing skills. RTD could never have achieved this level of brilliance.

OR

D.O.G told us to lower our expectations, and so I did. I couldn't set them any lower and yet, this episode still failed to live up to them. My heart sinks and I'm filled with sadness, not at the loss of the Pond's but at the loss of one of the greatest T.V programs of all time, perhaps the greatest T.V show of all time. It kind of reminds me of when the BBC wanted to cancel it back in the 80s and so they used Colin Baker to play a deplorable Doctor in order to get people to switch off. Well this time they have gone one step further and and made the whole show that deplorable it's become a complete mind numbing pain to watch.

I honestly cannot believe people actually liked this. It's no wonder the show continues to decline if the viewing public are saying this was the best episode of the series. I'm sure someone will say, the viewing figures are stronger than ever, whilst that may well be true, the overall quality of the show, is worse than ever. Initial impressions of tonight's episode, apart from it being seriously underwhelming, it dawned on me that the Moff fanboi's have completely neglected the fact that the entire of the 11th Doctor's arc as been based around his romantic entanglement/marriage to River Song, and not one of them as batted an eyelid, Yet when RTD threw in a bit of Rose-tinted romance, they all hit the roof, sharpening the knives ready to fillet poor Russel for even dreaming of having the Doctor romantically involved with an Earth girl.

But since the great Steven Moffet penned this I'm more than willing to overlook these minor foibles. After all, how can a T.V God such as he, ever put a foot wrong? Hold on though, I have put the cart before the horse there, haven't I? What plot? What was the point of the detective character introduced then dispatched within two minutes of the opening? What was the point of the gangster boss and his minions? What was the point of the Angels? Am I losing my mind or was there any point to this episode at all other than to get rid of the Ponds, in such a mundane way. The only redeemable thing was the five seconds of Matt Smith crying and attempting to convey sadness.

I will admit, The Angels were quite well done, adding something new to their mythos, but like all thing's during the Moffat era, they never felt like a genuine menace to the Doctor, or even the five year old watching this on my couch. On the whole, the Angel's are a well realised enemy but as so many claim about the Daleks, I cant help but feel they have more than outstayed their welcome. A bit like Steven Moffat and Matt Smith, tbh. Undoubtedly though, they will return, like River Song, again and again, don't blink or you will miss the turgid, muffled plot point that explains how.

So now the Doctor can't return to New York in the TARDIS? Until an episode that requires this newly established continuity to be broken, no doubt. Time can be re-written, but for this episode that rule seems to once again be contradictory to the already established laws of time continuity within the show? It can't be re-written when a major character needs to be killed off???? Is Moffat even trying here, it doesn't appear as if he is, at all.

Rory died! Didn't see that one coming, well played Steven, You kept that one close to your chest. Twice in this episode. I sort of liked Rory, and had I been married to Amy, I too would have elected to throw myself off the roof of a skyscraper. Considering she was married to him, she was sure sat next to the Doctor an awful lot. Perhaps I'm just making assumptions here but I am pretty sure most husbands would be a bit miffed(Moffed) if their wives were constantly fawning over and sitting next to a bowtie-wearing Alien bloke, or even a normal bloke, tbh. Not jealous at all? poor Rory, you really were pathetic. Er, a tad of realism please BBC producers. You know, it's what sells your show to people who watch it?

I am glad to be finally rid of the "Pond life". As I said, Rory wasn't so bad on the whole but Amy was just agony to watch. I don't mean in prosthetic terms, she is pleasing on the eye, but her second rate acting leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, Billy Piper was no super talent either but considering her prior career, she did as well as can be expected. Karen's Amy is just unlike-able I found myself tuning out her dire caterwauling on a regular basis, She is no great loss to the show. Whilst I genuinely felt an emotional attachment to Rose, Martha, and even(God forbid) Donna, I felt none whatsoever for Amy. The only saving grace of this character was young Amelia, Why couldn't we have her travel with the Doctor instead? At least it would have been a unique take on the companionship status. And offered some intelligent food for thought, how a youngster would deal with the danger and morality of life on the TARDIS, and how the wise old TmeLord would deal with her youth and provide her maternal needs Maybe Doctor Who would have been educational to our children again, instead of the empty shell it has become.

Now, in addition to the Pond's, if we can just get rid of the wooden block impersonating, no personality whatsoever cbbc actor we call Matt Smith, and half finished, unresolved, dropped, dead end plot threads(la Grande Moff), maybe we can get the show back on form. I hungrily await a decent teeth sinking episode of Moff era Who, you all assure me they do exist but I am yet to see one. Well, with the exception of The Doctor's Wife.

I cant wait to see Disrespective's take on tonight's fine offering, and I too have my pitchfork and blazing torch ready to join the baying mob so we can all lynch the poor guy for at least being honest about the state of current Who. Oh wait, I mean, Disrespective is totally wrong and this is the golden age of the glorious Doctor. You all say so therefore it must be true.

The label on the tin says "Doctor Who" but I was convinced I was watching Harry Potter. I honestly expected Lord Voldermort to put in an appearance as the bad guy of the week! Or good ol' Albus to come sauntering by and offer the Doctor some advice on growing into a man (Boy Actor Matt Smith)

This sums up current era Who for me, it's all in the name, "Raggedy Man", SM must think he is writing a nice, safe little children's show like Wurzel Gummidge. Which needs no thought expending upon it whatsoever. But even I'm sure even Wurzel was better realised than this.

No doubt I will now be met with that stock response and critical analysis of "but it's only a kid's show, you shouldn't read too much into it" Please, it's not too much to ask for some intelligent, morality challenging T.V, which is what Doctor Who used to stand for. If you lower your expectations and lap up every dismal, underwritten, over-hyped clap trap the networks and studios put out, is it any wonder our population is growing mentally denser by the day and willing to accept utter dross as being "wonderful" and "fantastic" because they are told it is, instead of using their own imaginations to draw their own conclusions on whether it's good, thought provoking telly, or not and thus demanding more should it be found wanting?

It pains me no end to say it, that current era Who is now nothing more than a P.C, unthinking, unchallenging, watered down nonsense, dire, mundane program which only serves to sully a true fan's fond memories of the intent of the original.

Nevertheless, I will continue to watch in hopes the former glories can be reclaimed. Alas I fear our beloved Doctor, like his Cybermen counter-parts in the new era, has become more or less just a brand name with a stereotyped, p***poor T.V show tacked on to ensure sales receipts.

Words fail to express how disappointed I am in tonight's offering.

Now I'm off to watch Bill and Ted:) At least it's cheerful. Doctor Who was a lot of things, but above all it used to be fun. What's happened to that? It's all been syphoned away somewhere, perhaps the Beeb are saving all the good stuff up for the anniversary next year.

Is it possible that this story could finally write a full stop to the hard core fans who have been shouting that Moffats writing isn't as emotionally engaging as Russell .t.Davies'.I've never accepted that's a fair criticism of Moffat as a writer considering i never fail to be moved when Sally Sparrow watches Billy die ,as the rain falls in 'Blink'Amy and Rory's declaration of love before they throw themselves to their deaths to save New York is not really the stuff of emotionally detached scottishness,his critics have regularly accused him of.Angels Take Manhattan was loaded with suspense,heart and noir imagery.Angel, Angel Down we Go Together.Karen,Arthur,i really will miss you and wish you every success for the future.I will be here.Bye.

As I understand it the BBC wants to make the most of Doctor Who anniversially next year, so we get 5 now, 1 at Christmas, around about then 7 more episode, then I think we get 13 more episodes next autumn.

Nothing been cut, just the Beep trying to make the most of next year.

As an episode, I preferred The Power of Three but as a send off for the Ponds it was fitting. I'll miss Arthur Darvil in particular. A massive pity he'll never play the Doctor.

Yeah thats how i took it 5 new episodes this year (plus the xmas one) then we get 21 next year (plus the xmas one) or maybe just 18 episodes so they can throw the budget into a giant extra long 50th anniversary episode next November! I can live with that!

I agree with a lot of the stuff you say here, thank you so much for making it clear I'm not alone.

For everyone who seems to hate the new series, heres an idea: don't watch it and don't clog up the fan boards.

This was an awesome episode, but I have two (but just two) complaints. But otherwise, the episode was emotionally perfect, and the amount of terrifyingness was also brilliant. The acting was, naturally, top notch.

My two complaints are two things that are bothering me. If it's just 1938 that's out of bounds, then why couldn't the Doctor go to a different time to pick them up. And the Statue being an Angel was unnecessary to the plot and made no sense. The Statue is hollow, isn't it? You can go inside it, so it's obviously not a living thing. And wouldn't people notice is moving in the city that never sleeps?
I have (being the nerd I am) come up with two counter-theories. For my first complaint, it is that these Angels (being the most powerful ones we've met so far, with their ability to block 1938 out to the TARDIS) also have the ability to prevent time travellers picking up their victims. The time we see it happen in this episode is the only exception, and that was because River had her device to help the Doctor break the block.

My counter-theory for the Statue is less strong. Either the Angels made a copy (for some reason), or possessed the Statue (for some reason). But that would not explain its ability to move in a never sleeping city.

They had a happy life. That's all we need to know.

If your expectations haven't been met, it's only because the Amy hyperbole has been so high, lifted even further by Rory in recent episodes. And the sentiment was there, the runes reminded us of River's cot, we met the mother-in-law when Amy called her daughter to her side, almost a playground twitch, telling River to look after the Doctor.

And thank you too. Just be careful what you say on here, if the Moff-head's see we don't agree with them, that Moff is Gawd, they will send the lads round from Steven's and have our leg's broken for besmirching his blessed name:) Thank the TimeLord victorious I'm not the only one who is more than unhappy with the direction Moff as taken our show. Sure RTD had some major issues, but at least it was fun to watch during his reign. There was nothing fun about this episode, or most, if not all, of Moff's tenure. I bet ten year old's across the country are now suffering from great bouts of depression after witnessing that dreck.

Pretty good episode. Not quite the emotional impact of Rose's (first) departure or even Donna's. But that's just me. The Angels were underused and STILL not as scary as they were in 'Blink'. But Smith, Gillan and Darvill were all superb in terms of acting, if you ask me. Even if the ending was slightly rushed for my liking, the decision to make the Doctor act like a selfish little child as Amy departs was a subtly daring one.

That aside, can somebody PLEASE explain to me what the so-called 'ingenious' link to 'The Eleventh Hour' was? The one that apparently made it obvious that Moffat had been planning this from the start? I mean, I know we saw Little Amelia again, but I didn't find that particularly clever or mind-bending. Just a nice little conclusion. Am I missing something here??

Ben, it appears we are a growing minority, check this out-http://richardhcooper.blog...

My expectations were not met because there was just nothing there. Abysmal is not the word. Even in the last era of new Who, the worst episode "Love and Monsters" was at least a bit humorous. Sure, it was awful in all respects, but I didn't feel depressed after watching it. Way to go beeb, your shows aren't meant to put people on Prozac for being so bad. I know you are the elected media of th Condemn Coalition, but don't you think people are depressed enough without adding their fave shows to he list???

If words fail to express how disappointed you were; why did you write so many?

Unfortunately that's not what's been reported - we got 5 this year, and we'll get 1 at Xmas. Then 8 more regular eps next year (continuing series 7), some 50th anniversary special(s) - but no full new series until 2014. This is what was reported on Doctor Who TV earlier in the year.

Of course, I may be wrong, but you may want to search around. I'd be very surprised to see series 8 before 2014. Considering the rest of series 7 is still in production, how would they get it done in time?

Because it's entertaining trying to find some way of getting it across how low things have sunk. Also as a fan I feel I have the right to speak my mind about what an excellent show has been reduced to. All the pro new Who lot certainly shove it down your throat how great they think Moff's tenure is. They practically scream it into your face when you show even the slightest disagreement with them. so this is what I pay my licence fee for. Doctor Who was the one show I used to believe was worth the expenditure. Now I just want my money reimbursing instead of helping to fund Steven Moffet's new car. Seriously, a five year old with a crayola could have written a better episode than this. My son's nativity play will produce better acting talent than I saw on display here, and I assure you, he is no Thespian but then he is only 6 in January. I would also like to assure you, that as a future viewer of Doctor Who, well, maybe not now, he was thoroughly gutted by this episode. Not because of the Pond's departure, he isn't old enough to read into that, but because it was so bloody awful and depressing. I understand you all want to keep the show on air, so we have to like it or lump it, but if we continue to allow it to get murdered, sooner or later, it will not be Doctor Who any more. It will just be sci-fi light mindless pap churned out for the pop culture brigade with no substance at all! I despair for the days when Who had some intelligent points to make and important things to say. I grew up on it, it educated people. It made them better(like the Doctor). This new "format" does none of those things. It's a travesty to the name Doctor.

Not bad, but I feel a little disappointed. The whole storyline with the Angels was wrapped up way too early on and they never really felt like much of a threat. I actually didn't have a problem with the Statue of Liberty being an Angel. In fact, when that happened in the pre-credits sequence, it really worked for me.

I just feel like this whole episode was a means to an end, aiming not to actually wrap things up but merely to provide a springboard for the Ponds to leave. It was still a good episode (better than Dinosaurs and Mercy), but it certainly wasn't the best of this run, or even close.

in the 11th hour, you heard the TARDIS come back when liitle amelia was waiting for the dr, who said hed only be 5 minutes - he returned 12yrs later to find Amy all grown up.
To put that together and have it work, YEARS later is truly mind blowing telly.

Oh come on now, "despair for the days when Who had some intelligent points to make" really? I've been watching and enjoying Who since 1974 and I don't remember too many of those...but then I also remember a couple of stories that could be described as Sci-if mindless pap too...Calm down, grab your DVDs and pop on a Pertwee (maybe have a biscuit if it will help you relax....)

Lastly, because the Nu Who pro's will condemn me as a troll if I say too much in disfavour of the current format-I am no divine authority on doctor who, I am but a humble fan who used to enjoy watching a bloody good show that made you think and question the world around you, and and the morality, rights and wrongs of humanity, until the bbc handed it over to a guy who said the classic series was crap, and so, is now proceeding to slaughter what was once considered a bastion of sci fi tea-time family entertainment, and making it into something unrecognisable for the most part, if it didn't have the TARDIS, or the name doctor who and a few of the other icons left in it, you wouldn't even know this was Doctor Who. As I said previously, Doctor Who used to inspire kid's to use their imaginations and intelligence, now all it inspires is sleep inducing boredom and the drastic lowering of I.Q's. If this is what people consider quality, engaging, thoughtful television, then I'm glad I will no longer be subjecting my child or myself, or even my long suffering wife to it any more.

Good, now go away, clearly your IQ is subnormal, you stop subjecting yourself to the show, and kindly stop subject us to your posts.

Erm... yeah we know he came back 12 years later that happened in the eleventh hour episode, i dont see any ingenious link either, other than having little Amy back again for no reason other than to remind us how it started, but I didnt see how that makes it clear he planned it either. I must be missing something too!

Plenty of proof on Doctor Who boards, as always, that some people are never happy unless they are complaining.
Nothing wrong with constructive criticism but some of the comments are just daft - if you dislike the show so much then why on earth keep watching it? Oh yeah I forgot, so you can complain about how you don't like it all over again.
Who is fantastic show, sure some of the plot holes drive me up the wall and some episodes are better than others but no other show entertains like it.

You obviously weren't paying much attention then, were you? I bet you pay much more attention to this dross though, Are you a fan of x factor and big brother style reality shows by any chance? Because this is virtually what Who as turned into. Mindless w*** for the Ipod FB generation to watch and convince themselves they are clever because they got the extremely poorly developed plot twist which the writer had to do an interview about just in case it wasn't as well conveyed as he hoped.

I really enjoyed The Angels Take Manhattan and indeed most of Stephen Moffat's run on Doctor Who, so naturally I am going to disagree with negative comments but I don't have a problem with them.

What I do have a problem with is people being dicks about it.

There is something about criticism that brings out the worst in some people, be they bloggers, website contributors or professional critics. My wife dislikes the way Doctor Who is written now, but outlines why she does eloquently and with the acknowledgement that it is just her opinion which is, in my mind, good criticism. Saying:

"Way to go beeb, your shows aren't meant to put people on Prozac for being so bad"

Or:

"if we can just get rid of the wooden block impersonating, no personality whatsoever cbbc actor we call Matt Smith"

Or (and this is a doozy):

"It pains me no end to say it, that current era Who is now nothing more than a P.C, unthinking, unchallenging, watered down nonsense, dire, mundane program which only serves to sully a true fan's fond memories of the intent of the original."

just smacks of spite frankly. Also, this may just be me, but critics usually tend to enjoy the business of describing how AWFUL something is rather than sticking to opinions. Nothing is ever 'poorly written', it is 'THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!!!!!! Trashy and with as much life as a week old corpse".

Yes I know positive reviews can go over the top, but to my mind that stems from passion and enthusiasm while negative ones tend to be more about the reviewer sticking the knife in and enjoying the sound it makes.

Well if you consider this good T.V, your I.Q must be non existent!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I knew it! I knew it wouldn't take long before all the Moffet Fanboi's rolled out en mass to burn me alive at the stake for even daring to think this was a very, very poor episode of Doctor Who. Just have a look at how they are ready to tear me apart limb by limb, and demand I stop posting. It must really irk them that somebody questions their beloved God Steven Moffet and the travesty he has created under the title of Doctor Who. If what you say is true, and the current format is better than ever, why would you feel the need to prove me wrong and shout me down for saying it isn't? The show itself would provide all the evidence against me, wouldn't it? As it is though, the show is a bigger abomination than Dalek khan!

I really enjoyed The Angels Take Manhattan and indeed most of Stephen Moffat's run on Doctor Who, so naturally I am going to disagree with negative comments but I don't have a problem with them.

What I do have a problem with is people being dicks about it.

There is something about criticism that brings out the worst in some people, be they bloggers, website contributors or professional critics. My wife dislikes the way Doctor Who is written now, but outlines why she does eloquently and with the acknowledgement that it is just her opinion which is, in my mind, good criticism. Saying:

"Way to go beeb, your shows aren't meant to put people on Prozac for being so bad"

Or:

"if we can just get rid of the wooden block impersonating, no personality whatsoever cbbc actor we call Matt Smith"

Or (and this is a doozy):

"It pains me no end to say it, that current era Who is now nothing more than a P.C, unthinking, unchallenging, watered down nonsense, dire, mundane program which only serves to sully a true fan's fond memories of the intent of the original."

just smacks of spite frankly. Also, this may just be me, but critics usually tend to enjoy the business of describing how AWFUL something is rather than sticking to opinions. Nothing is ever 'poorly written', it is 'THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!!!!!! Trashy and with as much life as a week old corpse".

Yes I know positive reviews can go over the top, but to my mind that stems from passion and enthusiasm while negative ones tend to be more about the reviewer sticking the knife in and enjoying the sound

Now you are just being rude and showing how little intellect you really have. Go back to writing your essays that entertain (only) you and leave the real conversations for the grown ups around here.

"I am wanking as I write this....."

Anybody who likes Moffat's era of Who can not seriously consider themselves a true fan.

Kids, not Kid's.

How's your I.Q doing?

You should watch Father's Day again. It took a helluva lot more than a simple paradox to get those things to appear. It was a paradox on top of a paradox on top of a paradox.

If you're a true fan, I'd rather not be one.

I think that's still to come... after all, River did say to the Doctor (when they were cleaning the TARDIS) "Does the bulb on top need changing?" and he replied, "I just changed it!" It's clearly still building up! :D

Rory still has the worst luck in the world then. Thats three times he got zapped into the past!
Oh, and I have to give credit to the line "What, you just think you'll die and come back?" "When do I not!"

I think what mab is trying to explain is that if you re-watch The Eleventh Hour you'll notice a scene in which we see little Amelia still sitting on her suitcase the next morning, still waiting for the Doctor to come back, and then we hear the sound of the TARDIS. But then of course the next thing we know it's twelve years later and the Raggedy Doctor is picking up grown-up Amy Pond. It caused a bit of a hubbub at the time, because no one could work out if it was a dream sequence or if little Amelia actually met the Doctor again before she met him twelve years later. And then of course it was forgotten about and never mentioned again.

Tonight we saw that the Doctor of now (almost, what, 200 or 300 years later in his timeline) actually did go back and visit little Amelia that morning, because his Amy asked him to (remembering her visit from the Doctor when she was little).

That suggests that the scene that was filmed with little Amelia for The Eleventh Hour was pre-planned all those years ago to link up with this, Amy's exit. That is very clever on Moffat's part!

In the Eleventh Hour, the morning where little Amelia is sitting in the garden you hear the TARDIS noise which nobody knew what it was for. In tonight's episode, Amy asks The Doctor to go back and tell her a story, which he does and which makes the TARDIS noise in the Garden linking the Start of Series 5 to this episode.

Oooh I may have to go back and rewatch the eleventh hour! That is clever! Its good to know he does plan these things out, hopefully we will find out who blew up the tardis soon!

I found that episode at times good, great, disappointing and magnificent!! I loved the feel throughout the episode of the Doctor, Amy and Rory being trapped in events and trying to escape the inevitable (a bit like Logopolis), I didn't like the Stature of Liberty Angel (and Rory definitely took his eyes off it on the roof yet it did nothing!) plus the explanation for River's presence seemed random at best (a detective investigating Angels??). That said the idea of the Angels farming humans is suitable nasty and the main cast were fantastic as always so all in all magnificent it is :)

Or he may go back further and explain what happened to Captain Jacks missing memories from the empty child!

Hold on though, you said, in a roundabout way, classic Who wasn't intelligent or thought provoking, yes? The amount of episodes that prove your statement wrong is innumerable Sure, there were a good few we all just want to forget about, but this current era of the show is instantly forgettable the moment you have viewed It. Even in the worst of the classic era, the Doctor's still had some fantastic lines, and the story's were food for thought. I wasn't being rude, or insulting in any way, shape or form. Should I not be entitled to an opinion of the current run just because I don't agree with the "Shallow Hal" types who think anything written by Moffat must be good? You are inciting that I'm immature because no matter how much I have tried to, I just cannot like the current format of the show. Who is really being insulting? It's not I.

Is no one else wondering why River and the Doctor are so upset about never being able to see Rory and Amy again but River seemingly has no problem popping in on Any to get her to publish a book and write a farewell note to the Doctor? And even if they can't bring Amy and Rory back to their present, why can't they go and visit? So many plot elements seem to have no purpose other than to enable to ending, why couldn't they land the tardis there? Why couldn't they pick Amy and Rory up and take them home? All of the explanations for why it was "impossible" seem pretty flimsy to me. Also something else that has been bothering me is the unnecessary inclusion of adult themes into the epsiodes. Amy and Rory's marital break down due to Amy's infertility in episode one and all the gross and awkward innuendo in episode two added little to the story, and Amy and Rory flinging themselves off a building in some horrifying love-struck suicide pact was the last straw for me considering I usually watch this show with children between the ages of 4 and 12. That kind of nonsense is not appropriate or even comprehensible to children.

I think it was said or hinted that the angels had taken over all the statues in NY, what with the two non-angels that got the gangster, maybe that's why the Statue of Liberty was an angel?

In The Eleventh Hour, when Amelia is waiting outside it plays the sound of the TARDIS landing and shows her looking up and smiling, then cuts to Amy grown up, being woken by the noise of the TARDIS landing outside.

I succinctly concur

There's being entitled to an opinion and flooding the forums making every second post your own (and I should point out almost all of which seem to be very unpopular). That's just a childish malicious attempt to force your view on others and attack people who disagree with you. You are the worst kind of internet hater.

Plenty of proof that the Beeb are doing something wrong with our fave show then:) And should they continue to do so, more and more people will eventually switch off, and you know what will happen then right? Us "whingers" are trying to do you all a favour. If we are willing to accept the show and never complain no matter how bad it gets, just how bad will it have to be before the beeb pull it and bury it forever? When even the hardened fans are starting to lose faith, something drastic needs to be done to get it back on track.

Wow, you really live in you own bubble don't you? Go back and read what I said again. Then switch off your computer.

Yeah never seeing any of their family, friends or the Doctor again never having kids (but knowing that their kidnapped baby is being raised by some wierd alien cult in an orphanage in the same city at the same time). Sounds like heaven! I just get the feeling that theres slightly more story to tell, hopefully the Doctor will have the urge to drop in and see Brian.

Well, in my defence, I find the boards far more of an interesting challenge than I find the show, nowadays:) And besides, I'm quite certain that is why the Geeks had the reply button installed, is it not? I bet you wouldn't mind me flooding the board with comments if they were the opposite of what I have said, and agreed with you that current era Who is fandabbydoosie and should never be questioned upon it's inherent lack of substance.

A Lee & Herring fan? Just what I need to cheer me up after tonight's episode.

You would love that wouldn't you:) Then you could claim you were right all along and that Steven Moff-wet will remain the unchallenged contender of all that is holy and good:)

So, it's not possible River *posted* Amy the manuscript, using such far flung methods like using a website to look them up? Or using the manipulator to go back and look for them while being careful to make sure their paths didn't directly cross? Father's Day established the notion that you can observe a paradoxical event without interfering.

One further thing, you complains about adult themes, others claim the show is too childish. Which is it?

Children aren't idiots and shielding them from the truth of live (divorce, depression, suicide) is pointless, people don't give them credit for how intelligent they can be and most adults don't realise that they are more than capable of understanding mature themes and situations

Lee and Herring? Never heard of them. Now if you'll excuse me I've a weak lemon drink to consume.

The only person shouting people down is you, your posts are everywhere, you're like a kid throwing a temper tantrum.

Maybe you genuinely have some reason to think you're smarter than the people around here, maybe you graduated from Oxford, hold a degree in Astrophysics and can speak six languages... but I have to tell you that reading your posts I highly doubt it, you scarcely seem able to master English.

If I were someone with no bias, having not previously seen the show, just your comments and comparing them to those who disagree with you I would assume they were more intelligent and be more inclined to take their recommendations on the show rather than your condemnations.

ONE intelligent well thought out comment would be far more effective than the verbal diarrhoea you flooded this forum with.

Amy describes their lives as good, which is good enough for me! I'd love Brian to return but I doubt it'll happen.

You foolishly think that RTD's era was superior to Moffats and that Moffat has made a travesty of the show. You clearly aren't a true fan of DW, I'm sure your other favourite shows are Eastenders and Celebrity Juice.

Okay: 1) While it was indeed an emotional farewell, in-universe it makes me feel for Eleven as I get the sense he can't express his emotions very well. 2) What year did they go back to? 1938? I'd like to know at least something about their lives? 3) What about the reaction of/informing Amy's parents/Rory's dad? Lawrence Nightingale at least had his sister's best friend to console him over his sister's effective death. 4) I'd rather the Angel that took them hadn't appeared so suddenly 5) If it had to do what it did, could they not have neutralised it afterwards? Overall verdict: well-handled drama, clumsily-handled plot. 7 out of 10 and a wistful, slightly disturbed sigh. Bring on Jenna-Louise Coleman.

I'd join you, but I'm too full of green jelly.

As opposed to millions of post's from people who are seriously misguided in their love affair with the grande moff? I have sat and read this board for years and seen it time and time again. I finally decided I'd had enough of watching and wanted my voice heard above the resounding din of "Moff's a genius lol. As with all you fanboi's, it never goes down too well when an opposing force disagrees with your inanities and rantings about how great the show is now, when clearly, if you have half a brain, you can see it is anything but. A mere shallow vestige of it's former self. I'm sorry you can't see it. But I wont hold it against you, it just proves how indoctrinated we have all become to rubbish T.V and how accustomed to mediocrity. Willing to accept anything, no matter how bad it is without even questioning why, or could it be better.

No. RTD had major issues, but at least it was fun to watch.

I have never watched Eastenders, and I would tear my eyes out with a fork if they were ever to bare witness to such nonsense as Celebrity Juice, lol

Amy and Rory im missing you already :'(

Fair point, it would have been a bit of a downer if she had sent a message saying they were miserable and missing their mates and family! I think its only fair to point out that at the end of series 2 we were told we would never see Rose again only for her to pop up again later the Moff lies! In all honesty I found their exit last year much more emotional with the doctor finally calling her 'Amy Williams', it would have made sense for him to leave them after faking his death but I really have loved this series and will probably enjoy it more on second viewing when Im not looking for clues as to how Amy and Rory may leave and just enjoy the stories.

Are you really that stupid? You only get one voice - a lot of people disagree with you and so in order to even out the playing field you're going to shout down each and everyone one of them, making sure your opinion is the only one heard?

My word, the ego, to believe that your opinion when repeated several dozen times is equal to that of several dozen peoples opinions stated once. I give up, that kind of stupidity can't be reasoned with.

Sorry, I'm probably being a big idiot (happens a lot!) but I don't understand your reference to 'The Moff lies'. He didn't bring Rose back, did he? Am I missing something?

Sure RTD was fun to watch, but so are shows like Total Wipeout and Takeshi's Castle (both of which I enjoy) but that doesn't make them good programmes. Moffat has given us stories that we can discuss, not once did RTD get me in a heated discussion over the arcs and themes he created. I was a fan of RTD when the series first aired, but I was only 10, now I have grown up, I can recognise the many flaws and can see how much better Moffat is. I think I seen RTD's era at the prime age, as a child, although I had grown tired of the repeated cop out finales and of DT's bitter Last of the Time Lord schtick. As a young adult, Moffat's era appeals much more to me, but is also accessible to children. Also, due to the high quality of Moffat's writing, DW is finally enjoying widespread, international viewing.

It's absolutely nothing to do with your opinion - at all. I lost interest in that some time ago. I genuinely don't care what you think one way or the other. Read the next line very, very carefully because there should be no way you could mis-read it and no way that you could misconstrue it as a comment on classic vs. new Who.. Ready? Ok.....

You sir, are a pillock.

Not exactly a comment that would get me on "in our time" with Melvyn Bragg, but you can't have it all.

You are completely mis-quoting me and taking what I wrote and affixing your own lack of common sense to it:) That isn't what I was implying at all, dude. If I was a pro Moffat chap, or even pro Nu Who, you would be voting every comment I made up and up, lol. But simply because I refuse to keel to majority will and say the show is awesome, when I honestly believe otherwise, for very good reasons, I might add, you are trying to infer I'm some sort of egomaniac, lol. Which is not the case at all. I couldn't care less whether people listen to me or not, If they want to waste their time and buy into the lie of Nu Who, and dull their brains with tat telly, that's their prerogative, but I will still have my say regardless:) It's how mature human beings express their feelings and sentiments upon such show's. especially when those show's mean a great deal to them and their families.

Remember DW is still primarily a childrens show and while there are many mature themes, permanently killing off companions may be a step too far.

ok so my review
each thing has 10 points tops
acting 9
plot 9
weeping angels 9
made me cry 10
and i am really sad for amy and rory to be gone but bring on clara (or whatever her name is going to be)
little cherubs laughing reminded me of the peg dolls
thumbs down for waiting untill christmas for the next episode and waiting again for the series to restart
thumbs up for a brilliant end fit for two brilliant companions
fingers crossed that episodes will get longer (an hour at least ... 3 hours is fine for me! ;) )

Yes. I'll concede on that point. But only because it's late and I'm shattered. I'm truly glad you find yourself still able to enjoy the show, I wish I could. I wish you could have seen the classic era in the same way I did. And I guess the novelty of it coming back, thanks to Rus, may have blinded me to his pap writing for awhile. I was overwhelmed by the re-appearance of Davros, He is one of my all time fave villains:)

He could go back and meet them in a different time but he can't take them out of there because he knows the future and they have to die there as you can see by the graveyard. It would just create another paradox. And since she wrote the letter and stuff already and he saw it he knows he can't go back now it'd create another paradox.

hell yeah!!!

The reference to Rose is referring to the many appearances she made under the RTD tenure after her exit at the end of Season 2, which we were told would be permanent. The "Moff lies" reference is to the fact that SM has been known to deliberately mislead fans in order to increase their potential surprise.

Well matey, thanks for reassuring me of that, but as my late Dad would be wanton to say, it takes one to know, sir:)

I hope immensely that you are still around tomorrow as I am quite sure I will be up for a good insulting match, esp after tonight's Who:))))))))))))))))

Why did I know you were going to say that> :)

Replying to the original comment here, I feel obliged to stick up for Love and Monsters and Boom Town as engaging and deep. Fear Her I mostly agree with, and to its list I would add The Idiot's Lantern. Steven Moffat's era has been very good, for the most part. This episode was, for me, above-medium quality. I don't feel the eras of RTD and SM are overly comparable.

All I seem to be able to find out is that there will be more episodes than just those eight in 2013, I have found everything from a feature film to a full series to a few specials being rumoured .

Moffat said that the 50th anniversiary been planned for sometime, an we now know that Jenna-Louise Coleman have been working with the crew for months, I would be surprise if much of the heavy lifting on those 8 episodes is not already done, meaning they should really have 9 months to work on Season 8 series, the BBC are known to inefficient when it comes to producing Doctor Who, whether that a series of specials or perhap a whole 13 episode series. An there does not seem to be any break planned in production of Doctor who anytime soon either.

If it was 4 or five specials I fear it will just be them bringing back old enemies such as the cybermen and Daleks rather than new enemies for the doctor to fight, I think they should have use the power of 3 or another of past 5 episodes to introduce a new big bad into the Doctor Who universe.

Sadly, I more than believe they are comparable. But at least RTD gave us the novelty factor of returning bad guys we all cherished from childhood.

I think that it will go the same way as Tennants last year. This will be Mats last full season, but they are flogging it out over 2 years. So we will get the Christmas special, the rest of what we should have got now, will come on in spring 2013. Then we will get 1, or 2 or 3 specials for the rest of 2013, like one in late summer then stuff around the aniversery in November, then Christmas special for Christmas 2013. Then I bet Mat Smith will be off and gone. So much for them getting an unknown so that he would stay in the part longer than Tennant. I bet he does about the same as him, three full years and the special, but because of all the split season crap, we get him for an extra year for the price of one. I think the BBC are being very sneaky and underhand in this. It would be great to think we would get the rest of the missing episodes and then specials and a full season next year but it wont happen. But what can we do about it? Nothing, we just have to take it, enjoy what we get and keep paying the rip off licence fee. I am fed up with it. I just want them to get behind the show and do it properly like when RTD was in charge with 13 episodes per year. But we will see what happens, I may be suprised, but I doubt it. I am cynical, it stinks that the BBC can do 13 Merlins, even if its the last season, and we get screwed with Doctor Who, they are just trying to placate us with stuff for the 50th. I will watch and enjoy it , I just want full seasons back again.As for me I doubt I will bother with Merlin, its just too repetitive and I am not going to watch something that is replacing my beloved Who, the BBC can go ***** its self. Soon be Red Dwarf night....

For me this actually was the second Amy's choice, I'm so relieved! When Den of Geek are a bit down on a script I usually agree (e.g. the mixed feelings about a Good Man Goes to War) but there are exceptions, and for me this was one of them.

For the ponds goodbye it was beautiful, the relationship saw the kind of loving end it deserved (I am so glad the divorce never came to pass). I'm going to have to disagree with DoG and say the Angels really made me jump this time; I was one of the few who wasn't intimidated by them in Blink (as much as I love the story), but with each iteration I've found them progressively more terrifying. We know young river is roughly in that time and location as a child, so I would love to find out if she ever met her parents; I wouldn't want Amy and Rory to come back Rose style, but a nice flashback told from Rivers perspective sometime would most definitely be welcome.

The statue of liberty would have bothered me had that timeline remained intact, as it reminded me as some of the worst excesses of the RTD era (e.g. giant Cyberman in Victorian England), but as it was it was a memorable image that did no harm.

All in all I'd say this season has had 2 fantastic episodes (Moffats), 2 good episodes, and one pretty bad, but mildly entertaining one in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. A far cry from the RTD days when the showrunner penned episodes were the disappointment... but still I am disappointed we haven't yet had a Doctor's Wife, Girl Who Waited, Vincent and the Doctor, Amy's Choice etc from one of the secondary writers, hopefully series 7 part 2 will give us that too.

I think the quality of the RTD era was more variable, but the best episodes seriously moved me (and the worst were really really bad). Moffat has been consistently average, but nothing has been exceptional to me, with perhaps the exception of The Doctor's Wife and The Lodger. Plus, he has the 11th doctor ignoring and just letting bystanders die a lot more (all those helpers he got in a good man goes to war, the kidnapped people in the power of 3, etc.). The 11th doctor doesn't suffer nearly as many consequences, and generally gets off too easy now, especially in the season finales.

You know what I found interesting? We've seen the Doctor move on from companions. We've seen him sad to move on. We've seen him disappointed. But we've never seen him fed up with such a thing happening. When he read the last chapter title and he just about went berserk, I found that fascinating.

Can I say, as a fan of Steven Moffat's works, that this episode has a very Sherlock-y feel to it? Detectives, China '221 B.C.', jumping off the roof.. Hahahaha....

Your family should leave you.
In my family 1 person wouldn't enter the room when End of Time was on, and the those who did watch were angry and disappointed, I hated that episode with a passion, I considered that era to be in the running for the shows history, and I probably posted as much, but you know what? I did so once, I expressed my opinion once.

Hmm..
So will this be the last series with Matt Smith as well?

He did use up some regeneration on River after all. ;)

How did Rory die? He is the centurion, he waited 2000 years and never aged. How did they get around that?

One question? How does the Doctor tell Rory's father they will never come home, and oh by the way they are buried in NY

As much as i like this episode, I feel that (with the web episodes) this series of episodes is intended to be seen as an extended length film.

I hate this episode. Well, not hate it, it was a good episode, but it was really sad. When I began watching, I had a stuffy nose. I finally fixed it, but then the sad part came. Now I have a stuffy nose again. Thanks a lot, tear jerker episodes.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but why can't the Doctor just go back in time, land the TARDIS elsewhere, and retrieve Amy and Rory through, I don't know, a car or something. The only thing the Doctor said was that the TARDIS couldn't land in New York, he said nothing about himself. Heck, even if he couldn't land in that year, just go to the year before and wait a while. How much do you really love Amy and Rory?

I think the point was that it's fricken cool.

I have always thought the Weeping Angels were the most inventive and creepiest villains of the Doctor Who re-boot. It is fitting that the first time Amy met River Song the angels were there, and now the last time they see each other. I loved this episode and loved what they did with the ending and afterward to the book. I believe that Amy and Rory lived out their lives, much as Sally Sparrow did - with much love and happiness. And now that River is pardoned, she is free to travel as she wishes. My only desire is that River Song gets her own adventure series. I think it would be a nice spinoff to the Doctor Who show.

I have to disagree with the statement that the series "hasn't been firing on all cylinders". These five episodes have been terrific, easily among the best five-in-a-row the series has had since it came back. They only suffer when compared to last season's first 5 because that season had The Doctor's Wife which stacked the deck. But Asylum of the Daleks, The Power of Three and Angels Take Manhattan come very close to Doctor's Wife territory in terms of quality. It's been a great run and I look forward to seeing where the show goes from here.

He was made of plastic in those 2000 years. Go back and re-watch. It isn't complicated.

I think once he read the tombstone, he could no longer change the past. It was fixed.

You're entitled to your opinion. But don't think that all classic who fans agree with you. Nearly every classic who fan I've talked to has said moffat's era is more true to the classic show and in turn better than RTD's. And, though i didn't grow up with the show, i have watched scattered episodes of all the first 7 doctors and i would have to agree with them.

loltroll

So you'd rather have a message board filled with nothing but positivity? That'll certainly give you a balanced, objective analysis of a show.

So you forgive people for being OTT, so long as they're positive about it?

What would be even better is if everyone in the world agreed on everything, and then we can all live in the same little bubble where everyone thought exactly alike.

Can we have some more people whining about all the critics of the show, please? It's good to read folk who can't handle opposing arguments.
I have problems with the show, but at least I can give (what I believe to be) coherent reasons (mostly about Steve Moffat, who writes female characters like they're subatomic particles that have only ever been theorised and not actually detected, and his River Song is such a Mary Sue she redefines the definition). There are also issues with pacing, with the focus more on the companions than the Doctor, and with dialogue practically being lost beneath the bombastic incidental music (can it still be called incidental music when it drowns out the words you're straining to hear?)
But please, reply to me by writing, "If you don't like *our* show, don't watch it, and don't come here", because that's how things get improved in the real world, too.

Did you see them grow old and die happy together? Typical TV rule: if they don't show it, it didn't necessarily happen...

Yup. That cannot be a coincidence, the detail is too precise...

The ending was fantastic with it's heart rending emotion. However i think it would have been for the best if River Songs departure was seen to here as well to truly give us a sense of the doctor being alone. Now that link to the ponds is retained which slightly harms the upcoming new assistant especially as we could well see Rory's dad again.
This echoes the refusal of RTD to let go of Rose Tylers character, and her reappearences helped prevent fans from warming to Donna Noble, in fact even Marthas stint was bombarded with Rose references.
The strength of the Matt Smith era is partly down to it feeling like a fresh break fom Tennants Doctor, no more contact with old assistants, No mention of Rose Tyler and no harking back to Tenth Doctor adventures (including the doctor completely ignoring his previous new york visit with the Human Dalek thingy)
My only criticism of Moffats Doctor Who is that they overdo 'time politics' such as paradox's to the point of confusion at the expense of drama sometimes.

Finally a good episode this run. Was terribly worried after the previous four, but this one triumphed on almost all points. Loved how their hard-won victory was snatched away in the denouement!

My ONE issue... why couldn't he just take the Tardis to 1938 New Jersey and take a PATH train? Surely the Time Madness doesn't cover the whole planet! Just park the thing and take mass transit! It IS New York. ;)

But beyond that little achilles heel, a wonderful episode. About time, too!

That was insane. Brilliant, but utterly, utterly insane.

Shame I don't do half-season boxsets though. Stupid BBC!

If the world thought exactly alike, then they'd be no evolution for humans. Think before you post.

I did, Alec. Tell it to the people who don't want to hear criticism of *their* show.

Maybe I mised something, but in the first episode featuring the Angels (with the gorgeous carey mulligan), three or so angels are trapped forever due to there having been duped into facing eachother. So the angels can't move even if they can be seen by another angel... was this idea just dropped? Personally I really liked the simplicity of it, though it does suggest they would have to be relatively solitary, but that would I think be better.

There's a reason why River declined a full-time post in the TARDIS, and it's nore to do with Alex Kingston's schedule than River Song's wishes.

You need to engage your sarcasm filter.

when I heard that the title was "The Angels Take Manhatten", I thought "I bet the Statue of Liberty's an Angel". Shame it wasn't really used much though.

only until the lightbulb goes or some poor sod turns off the light. it worked in Blink because they look at each other, locking themselves in stasis long enough for the tardis to come along and pick up Sally and the other bloke. It's still in effect - that's why there's so many stasis locked ones around in series 5 and 7. The Byzantium and NY are chockablock with statues.

Yes, i thought the statue of liberty would be an angel, but the episodes leading up to this seemed to indicate that the angels were actually creatures, suddenly they have the power to take over statues that already exist in this episode, and are stuck in them, or the angel that had been kidnapped would just leave that statue? I mean we have a record of the statue of liberty being assembled. River also comments how they have "taken over" almost every statue in the city, and i find it hard to believe that no one in the entire city was watching the statue of liberty as it waded through the harbor to the appartment to feed on the time energy of the angels. I accept that the statue of liberty being such a huge angel would need a more reliable source of energy, thus requiring the reusable people, but it seems like they would only send the people back once. i mean rory saw himself die, they sent him back like 40 years. what difference would it have made if he left the hotel at that point unless they continued to send him back infinitely. Honestly, I feel the weeping angels were so incredible in blink, and they just became less and less awesome in each episode after that. Also being a little nit picky here, but if they were going to make the statue of liberty an angel, and really center on that, how could they not include the time david copperfield made it disappear? How hard would it have been to change the episode to have everyone in that apartment so in that brief moment the statue of liberty was not being seen, it could send everyone back at once to feed on their energies. overall i feel this series has explored the doctor differently. He acts and treats people differently to show what happened as a result of all the time he traveled alone, but i think that Moffat is really not bringing back the same essence of the old foes. I thought the same of the daleks, when they used humans to defend the planet of insane daleks, and had to get the doctors help. the daleks believe they are supreme and while they fear the doctor, they would never concede to tactics like blackmail and reprogramming. they destroy. All and all, the episodes have been good, but Moffat needs to stop rewriting rules for characters we have seen.

Totally agree sickofDOGwhingers - there's nothing wrong with criticising something that you normally enjoy because it keeps the makers of the show in check with the viewers opinions - nothing is perfect all the time and without contrasting opinions we get the insane world which Deggsy sarcastically referred to - but some people seem to come on here week on week with the 'Well that was rubbish... again." attitude. Why they continue to watch is a complete mystery, unless they actually enjoy disappointment.

the angels can't see in the dark though. so in reality those angels in the basement were only trapped until the lightbulb burnt out. but yes, part of the concept of the "weeping" angels, was that by covering their eyes they would not accidentally look at eachother.

Saying 'Steven Moffat is rubbish' isn't obejctive, it's stupid. Though I agree, if you can give reasons to why you dislike this series of Who, please, I'd love to hear them.

I loved the episode, but can I just point something out: Who is going all Sherlock. The opening credits, and the bit where Rory's about to jump and Amy say 'Stop it', just like John does...does this mean we're actually going to get some Wholock? Oh, I hope so.

I reckon the TARDIS was attempting to turn into a Rolls Royce because it was in the 1930s. But because the chameleon circuit is broken it can't,

That would have to be the BEST Dr Who I've ever seen. It was so emotive. It was even better than when he lost Rose. And it's nice to see that River will travel with him a bit.
There's something I don't understand. I know he can't go back and rescue them, but we know they are going to live into their 80's so why can't he go and visit them sometimes?

It was mentioned in the episode - The Angels had managed to take control of every statue in the city. That includes Lady Liberty.

In 'Hungry Earth' set in 2020, didn't the trio see older versions of Amy and Rory in the distance? Has that become null and void as a result of the events of 'Angels'?

The series 7 run thus far is the show firing on all cylinders. So there. ;)

How is a tragic ending any more substantial? Anyway, them being killed would have been much more predictable, don't you think?
I dunno...I agree that there shouldn't always be a happy ending, just so that the threats and dangers feel all the more threatening and dangerous. The show needs optimism and an adventurous spirit at heart and the Doctor's desire to travel through time and space, but occasionally losing against his adversaries could make the stories less predictable and feel more real.

Eric Saward, a script editor of the old series, said that he wanted the Doctor to lose more often, to which I concur. Saward's mistake, though, was robbing the show of its optimistic outlook and of its promise of wonderful sights around the universe. Therefore the Doctor had no reason to feel like traveling around at all. The stories were dunked into nihilism and as a result felt rotten at their core to me.
I guess this is the one thing the show should never lose, no matter how much it changes: its positive and curious outlook.

It's a family show.

If the doctor can go and visit young Amelia Pond, could he not go and visit Amy in an older stage of her life, perhaps a year before she saw him as an adult in the eleventh hour? like the tenth doctor going back to new years day 2005 to see Rose Tyler in his final outing.
Also i hope Jenna Louise Colmans character is somehow Oswin but i fear we will get the same cop out we usually get when actors return to the show, she will probably be playing a distant ancestor of Oswin, like when Marhta Jones appeared as a cousin to the woman that Freema originally played.

I see you failed at sarcasm detection...always consider the possible intention of sarcasm on the internet! ;)

I think it was a lead up to this. All the christmas references are a lead up to the christmas special.

In the spirit of constructive criticism then... your profile picture is hilariously bad, you're wearing sunglasses indoors with an expression that makes you look like a smug git, and lets not even start on that ridiculous beard...

...I feel good about that insult only because it's more constructive than your posts, you just did exactly what a previous poster was complaining about making wild insulting accusations of the show without substantiating them with examples.

Oh geez, not again. With every new episode someone else is proclaiming that the show is irrevocably done with. It wasn't even done with after Colin Baker's tenure, which didn't offer one great story.

I dunno. Moffat's Who isn't logically tight, but it's original, it's varied, it's inventive and it's imaginative. And isn't that what counts the most?

Why exactly can't the Doctor go back and see them now/

I'm ... slightly confused; he knows they die at some point, everyone has to; but what they do in the spaces in between, they could travel the galaxy, visit the past and future as long as they are dropped off in time for the grave to be written.

As noted above, he doesn't need to change that final event, he just has to drop them off as a 85 and 87 year old at some point there.

Worse time travel science then looper.

Oh please, don't behave like you're some hunted down minority. You're free to voice your opinion as you please. But it's always the bane of the minority to meet a majority that disagrees with them. You can't expect to be in a minority and have everyone agree with you!

I guess foretelling the downfall of the show and dragging it polemically through the mud doesn't help your case either. You could at least formulate your thoughts in a more agreeable fashion.

And RTD was fun to watch? That's new. ;)

Fun is hugely subjective. All we could possibly objectively agree on is how well crafted an episode of Doctor Who is.
That's leaving out how it affected one personally. And yet what matters the most is how it did.

I'd love to share them :-)
Do I think Doctor Who is rubbish? No.
Is Moffat a bad writer? Certainly not. He has created some deservedly lauded
one-off stories. But under Moffat’s continued tenure, the show has become popular,
flashy, but seriously flawed.

Moffat writes to show how clever he
is (I know, all writers do, but the good ones know how to cover it LOL). His
characters speak in the same glib, self-conscious banter – they could exchange
lines of dialogue and you’d barely notice - mere avatars for him to speak to
himself (and he falls into the classic writer’s trap of Telling, Not Showing:
how many times do we have to hear about how awesome the Doctor is, or how he
shouldn’t travel alone, instead of just, I don't know, showing us this?).
Everyone is quirky, everyone has the same sense of humour, and no one stumbles
or makes mistakes. His story arcs consists of oblique references to a five
second scene you might have blinked and missed eight episodes before, as if he
was writing a book instead of an entire season of a TV show. The characters
play second fiddle to making the plot work, to getting the pawns from A to B to
C, and a better writer would make both character and plot function.
Speaking of characters, Moffat can’t
write female ones. Oh, he can create badass “female” characters, basically
gun-toting, wise-cracking men with boobs, but certainly not realistic,
three-dimensional female characters. Was Amy Pond at one stage a kissogram, and
later a fashion model? This is 2012, isn’t it? And of course she was
also a wife and mother, the only other viable occupations for women - according
to some folk.
And in a spot of needless complication, she was a mother to River Song,
one of the worst examples of a Mary Sue character ever created (an overly ebullient,
beautiful, hyperintelligent and multitalented character, essentially a female
version of the main character, whom the other characters love and say is
brilliant without her having to edify it). There’s no growth or development except what we’re
told is growth and development. He had a similar problem on Coupling, and on
Sherlock turned Irene Adler from a manipulative foe into a damsel in distress.
The only female Moffat-created characters of note to me were Sally Sparrow in
Blink and Kate Stewart in Power of Three – hopefully we’ll return to the latter
in the future.

The most favourite of Dr Who
Companions in the past – Ace, Sarah-Jane Smith, Leela, Peri, Romana, Tegan, hell
even K-9 – were not only three-dimensional characters others could identify
with, but embrace. They’re weren’t perfect, they could even be annoying, but
they were more realistic than the ones Moffat has offered us. We’ll know the
likes of Amy and Rory and River, but how many will feel the same about them in
five, ten, thirty years’ time?

Do I think Doctor Who is rubbish? No.
Is Moffat a bad
writer? Certainly not. He has created some deservedly lauded one-off stories. But
under Moffat’s continued tenure, the show has become popular, flashy, but
seriously flawed.
Moffat writes to show how clever he is (I know, all writers
do, but the good ones know how to cover it LOL). His characters speak in the
same glib, self-conscious banter – they could exchange lines of dialogue and
you’d barely notice), mere avatars for him to speak to himself (and he falls
into the classic writer’s trap of Telling, Not Showing: how many times do we
have to hear about how awesome the Doctor is, or how he shouldn’t travel alone,
instead of just, I don't know, showing us this?).
Everyone is quirky, everyone
has the same sense of humour, and no one stumbles or makes mistakes. His story
arcs consists of oblique references to a five second scene you might have
blinked and missed eight episodes before, as if he was writing a book instead
of an entire season of a TV show. The characters play second fiddle to making the
plot work, to getting the pawns from A to B to C, and a better writer would
make both character and plot function.
Speaking of characters, Moffat can’t
write female ones. Oh, he can create badass “female” characters, basically
gun-toting, wise-cracking men with boobs, but certainly not realistic,
three-dimensional female characters. Was Amy Pond at one stage a kissogram, and
later a fashion model? This is 2012, isn’t it? And of course she was also a wife
and mother, the only other viable occupations for women - according to some
folk.
And in a spot of needless complication, she's a mother to River Song, one of
the worst examples of a Mary Sue character ever created (an overly ebullient, beautiful,
hyperintelligent and multitalented character, essentially a female version of
the main character, whom the other characters love and say is brilliant without
her having to edify it). There’s no growth or development except what we’re
told is growth and development. He had a similar problem on Coupling, and on
Sherlock turned Irene Adler from a manipulative foe into a damsel in distress.
The only female Moffat-created characters of note to me were Sally Sparrow in
Blink and Kate Stewart in Power of Three – hopefully we’ll return to the latter
in the future.
The most favourite of Dr Who Companions in the past – Ace,
Sarah-Jane Smith, Leela, Peri, Romana, Tegan, hell even K-9 – were not only three-dimensional
characters others could identify with, but embrace. They weren’t perfect, they
could even be annoying, but they were more realistic than the ones Moffat has
offered us. We’ll know the likes of Amy and Rory and River, but how many will
feel the same about them in five, ten, thirty years’ time?

So, A Town Called Mercy...had no intelligent points to make?
Also, I think you're overrating pre-Moffat Who just a tad, and underrating the huge amount of talent and craftsmanship that goes into each new episode a...tad more.

>>Seriously, a five year old with a crayola could have written a better episode than this.

Seriously? That's like saying Schoenberg sounds like a cat walking over a piano. Basically, it's just useless and uneducated polemic. You won't endear yourself to anyone who thinks otherwise with such rhetoric.

BTW, the ratings decide whether the show stays on air or not, and not its quality. Sad but true.

Fair enough.

Nah, Moffat can do what he will, but he will always be Moffat and never be RTD.

'Steven Moffat is great' isn't any better a statement, either.
I think most people, including myself, are just too lazy or lack the time to write a detailed analysis of a given episode.

What a brilliant and sad episode! This episode had me biting my teeth, hugging my pillow, and at times, especially towards the end, where Rory gets zapped back in time for the third time, throw stuff at the tv! Well done Moffat!

For some it's too sad, for others it's not sad enough. You'll find quite a few people here in the comments section who would have preferred Amy and Rory getting killed to the fate that they actually got.

And I dunno, but wasn't Earthshock somewhat depressing either?

Firstly, some of the comments on here are extremely childish. Secondly, I thought it was an average episode. Enjoyed parts of it and had issues with others. What does annoy me slightly is that I feel a bit short changed in terms of how some plot strands from as far back as series 5 have not been tied up yet. With Amy and Rory gone, and the nature of the show, I have a feeling a lot of these questions will simply be forgotten.

That's exactly it - that City is overlooked by a humungous iconic statue.. Statues coming alive in New York and people think they wouldn't find a way of including the Statue of Liberty even if it was ridiculous??

blah blah-dy blah blah-dy blah

I absolutely agree. :)

Oh dear, a fanboy is upset, the Internet might explode...
My profile picture may be guilty of all those things, but at least I have the cojones to put my picture on, instead of hiding behind a silhouette.

You want more constructive criticism with examples, bubulah? Okay:

Moffat is a brilliant writer at times, providing memorable one-off stories to Doctor Who, but his current position in running the show allows his flaws to surface unchecked.

1. His characters all speak in the same, glib, self-conscious manner - you could exchange dialogue between any of them, and it wouldn't make a difference. They're all quirky, no one is ordinary, three-dimensional. Certainly not memorable, as past companions like Sarah Jane-Smith, Leela, Ace, Peri and others are memorable.

2. Everyone says what's going on, or how they feel, or what's happening - nothing is ever shown or edified. How often have we heard about how awesome the Doctor is, or how he shouldn't be alone, or how he's changed someone's life? Show, not tell!

3. Moffat's female characters are negligible at best, stereotypical at worst. Amy Pond started out as a kissogram, became a fashion model, and of course a wife and mother - I'm surprised she didn't end up a pop singer. This is the 21st Century, right? (admittedly, I hope we see more of Kate Stewart from The Power of Three, she has potential).

4. River Song is the worst example of a Mary Sue character since Wesley Crusher. A self-indulgent, uber-intelligent and gun-toting XX-chromosome version of the Doctor, who is brilliant and beautiful because everyone around her says she brilliant and beautiful. And quirky.

5. Moffat's characters play second fiddle to showing how clever his intricate plots are. God help you if you blinked and missed the six-second scene in Episode 2 that he'll reference as a major plot point in Episode 12. That's fine in a novel, but not in a TV programme.

6. Moffat's love of the Doctor has made him turn the Doctor into Superman. He can heal others, he's near-omniscient except when the plot demands it, and he's taken on the Messiah role so often he must have bruises on his shoulders from dragging that cross around the universe.

7. Oh, and this might not be his fault, but can they remember that 'incidental' music shouldn't drown out the rapid-fire dialogue at times?

There, is that enough for you?

I thoroughly enjoyed that. As i have enjoyed most of the new Who, this series in particular. The pre-credits use of the statue of liberty was effective and fun, but did leave holes in the narrative logic of the show. Surely someone is always looking at that?

I am unclear why NY "the city that never sleeps" is the best one for the angels: surely it just means someone is always awake and watching the statues doesn't it? Wouldn't they thrive more where people were more sleepy/blinky? I was also unsure as to why the angels accumulated people in a building, i thought their feeding frenzy was the point where people are sent back in time, rather than a slow drip feed as they lived out their lives and slowly died?

All in all though I loved it. Creepy giggling baby angels, blowing out of matches. River's broken arm. all of it. fab. I was very happy that Amy chose Rory over the doctor, very happy that the Dr was childish and petulant and wanted her to stay with him. I loved River's goodbye to her parents. I hope that there is some nice tied up reason as to why the moff chose to send Amy and Rory back to 1930s New York, especially as that is where River spent time growing up. I look forward to christmas and the 50th anniversary specials.

I enjoyed this episode, however I didn't find the Angels anywhere near the same level of scariness as in the episode blink.

I find myself agreeing with a lot of people that the Dr could have just popped back to a time near when they were sent back and visited them, even if they could not be removed from their current time line. I would prefer that Amy and Rory get a chance to live together into their old age, so I was pleased that Amy decided to go back with Rory.

I haven't watched a lot of the original Dr Who serieses however when people try to say that the series was educational... might I remind you of "I have reversed the polarity of the Neutron flow" Neutrons are by their very nature NEUTRAL so neither positive or negative one can not reverse something that is sitting nicely in the middle. It sounded fancy but is scientifically entirely flawed.

I have always found Dr Who to be fantastic however not exactly written by scientists, which I accept happily because I know that is the case. Another example that I would like to bring up would be when Dinosaurs were brought into London, that episode had a spectacularly LOW budget for special effects with the dinosaurs being the standard toy that used to be played with by children and held at the tail and wiggled with frightening sounds effects meant to make them convincing. Don't get upset, I thought that episode was good, but I find myself frustrated when people say the original series was so much better than the new series because typically they are remembering the original series through the affectionate fog of a beloved childhood memory.

I have a lot of serieses that I used to watch as a young child and thought were absolutely fantastic only to go back and watch as an adult and find myself practically crawling up the walls in frustration at the over the top acting, plot holes that could fit a super tanker and general lack of logical thought put into their production.

I think Dr Who old and new has always been fantastic, I think that the Dr, the widow and the wardrobe was quite a thought provoking view on tree felling there are a number of other episodes that I have thought were very thought provoking. My heart broke when the Dr got to talk to the essence of the tardis and she had to go back to being unable to communicate with him at the end of the episode.

All that being said though, I think that the hype and build up for this new series has spoiled it a little bit for me because whilst I have enjoyed each of the current episodes and thought that they were quite good. I didn't emotionally engage in them as much because I spent too much time trying to pick the hints

You know whats a bit mad if you think about it? In classic Who when a companion left, they just went at the end of the story, Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana and K9 etc...Teegan left because she was sick of the monsters and violence, Nyssa left to do some good work with the skills she had, Turlough left to go home because he was free and forgiven etc. All of them, just had a little scene at the end saying, Bye Doctor, or drop me off here or I am staying behind because.... The Doctor looked sad, said goodbye and left and by the next episode he had moved on and found someone else and the previous companions were hardly ever mentioned again. Now when a companion leaves its got to be big and dramatic and epic and the Doctor agonises about it before during and after. I know its more accurate to what people would be like in real life, but sometimes, dont you miss the old days when it was just...Bye Doctor, thanks I had a great time, dont forget me.....Oh Sarah Jane....dont you forget ME.......and off they went. Can you imagine what they are going to have to do when Oswin leaves? I am just drawing comparisons, but it seems to me the more they big up the companion role, the more epic the departure, and each time someone leaves they are going to have to try and top it. So they could end up writing themselves into an epic story corner and games of, how do you top Amy and Rorys departure? And so on...I know Martha left on a quiet note, and so did Donner to a point...hmmm thoughts anyone?

I am becoming increasingly frustrated with Doctor Who as it moves ever further away from what makes it Doctor Who and becomes just another action adventure drama series that simply happens to take place within the Doctor Who universe and contains characters places and objects that share the names of better charachters places and objects from times long past.

The original series of Doctor Who was something that lived or died (and yep it eventually died) by it's own rules. It became popular because it was Doctor Who, and it became unpopular because it was Doctor Who. You liked it or hated it simply because it was Doctor Who.

The new series has become increasingly obsessed with maximising it's ratings due to it having to justify it's budget. It's budget is a bit higher than the couple of thousand pounds the original series had for much of it's early run even when taking inflation into account, and so if you want Doctor Who to be popular you have to fill it with everything that is popular on television today... ie (in my opinion) crap.

The producers of the original series were not attempting to make a top ten show, and for pretty much all of it's run, it wasn't a top ten show, yep it was popular at times and yep it's highest ratings are something the current series can only dream about, but it was still just a program that was comfortable being what it was, and that was simply being Doctor Who.

This modern era of 45 minute blockbusters containing the more customary 90 minutes of sound, action and romance compressed so severly it makes your ears bleed and your eyes pop out of their sockets is funnily enough boring. And the faster it moves, the more glaring the plot holes become, the more painful the sudden mood swings, and the less engaged I become with what is happening on screen.

Still, while it's called Doctor Who, I'll always love it, watch it and support it fully.

Wow... as mad fanboy rants go, that's a doozy.

1) That's not giving examples and it's certainly not believable either - I would take a lot of convincing that anything that River said could be uttered by Rory for example. There are no interchangeable characters that spring to mind and you didn't give an example so that's as far as one can go.

2) Wow, just WOW. Smacking you in the face with emotions is what RTD did, not Moffat, and in fact the era is pretty famous for it's lazy handling of emotions. Let's ACTUALLY give an example shall we. David Tennants "I don't want to go" (written by RTD) constrated by his "I'm always alright" (from Moffat). Moffat trusts the actors to put the emotion into their performance, RTD had them say it. Someone telling the Doctor he shouldn't be alone is giving him advice, not spoon feeding the audience by having a character face the camera and blurt out what's on their mind.

3) Didn't she also become a publisher, and owner of a fashion brand? She couldn't settle, she did a lot of jobs - and not one of them has any bearing on how well she was written as a character (having a medical background did make Martha any better liked and Rose ticked every box for undereducated chav with her background working a shop and unpleasant attitude and disrespect for others).

4) I won't respond to a point that uses the term Mary Sue, only the worst kind of internet troll uses it, it's a misused fan fiction term which has since been applied to any strong female characters - intentionally selected because it sounds like a dumb american hick. Make an argument or don't, but don't use that term. Nothing you said about her could fail to be applied to Rose's character *except* that River actually demonstrates the positive qualities we're told she has.

5) Frankly, pay attention. If the 8 years old can keep up, and I certainly have no trouble keeping up, then it's not really an issue. Forgive some of us for liking some intricate plotting, is better than not actually having a plot and then granting TWO companions, and the Doctor, magic powers at every finale (and of course a great big space vacuum cleaner). The Doctor is supposed to be clever, and kids TV is supposed to keep their minds active; I frankly found the RTD condescending to childrens intelligence

7) No, absolutely not, this one is just stupid. It's Murray Gold, it has always been Murray Gold, and his music has NOT done that since Moffat took over. It was a big problem in the RTD reign, and I would say it's still too obvious and lacking in subtlety *but* his music blaring over the dialogue was a complaint about the RTD era that you seem to have latched onto (can't say it bothered me in either era, but I took the point until a few years back).

Missed number 6, oh and my is that a doozy:

It was RTD that turned the Doctor into a God, and Moffat has been undoing that mess ever since. He can't heal others, he can heal River, a Timelady, the ONLY timelady in all of existence. We already knew Timelords could heal eachother from Let's Kill Hitler and it's not much of a power if it only works on one character.
He's been presented as far more forgetful and far less all knowing under Moffat, "I can't know everything, why does everyone always expect me to?".
The god complex RTD granted him has been the focus of series 7, Moffat has sent the character back into the shadows to have less of an impact, to be less famous, to be, less of an intimimidating all powerful god figure.

...

Why not? It doesn't create as much negative emotions, don't you think?

Did anyone else notice the flickering lights were back? Anyone got a clue what that's all about?

Question: Is it plausible that the statue of liberty was big enough that being watched wouldn't be an issue? The reason for turning into stone was explained as being because it was the ultimate defense because they couldn't be hurt.
Question: Weeping angels obviously have to reproduce, as a species it has to happen, BUT courtship? mating? tend to be process that at least some awarenes of the other exists... Or are they a species that the female drops it's eggs to be fertilised by an opportunistic male at a later stage?
Question: Did I miss the reference to eggs in this episode or were there none? what's up with that, has it been resolved and I never noticed?

I thought it was brilliant, I had a lump in my throat at the end. Will miss Amy and Rory but the show is, at the end of the day all about the Doctor. Bring on Xmas, it can't come soon enough for me. Great stuff. On a side note I appreciate every one is entitled to their opinion but it does seem to go a bit overboard the negativity now and then, I've loved loved loved the show since I was five years old (37 now), its a slice of silly old British sci fi that's on every Saturday night, some episodes are better than other of course, but come on people it's been going 50 years. Here's to another 50 says I.

I noticed, I was kind of assuming that they were because of the angels needing to move unseen, them influencing the lights with their psychic powers again...

That does not explain how the angle could move let alone move undetected through New York.

I hate it when writers stick something into the script because cool, instead of explaining logically how such a thing could happen.

I'm now feeling a bit bad about the hostility of my statements; you've come in here complaining that everyone is down on negative comments... if you want to know why take a look at the spoiler free review. It's filled with a single guy (who admits later to having OCD) attacking everyone for liking the show under Moffat and calling them idiots for doing so. You just picked a REALLY bad day to stand up for your rights to complain I'm afraid ;)

I find "OMG BEST WHO EVER!!!" just as annoying as "THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!!!!!!". It's not a DoG phenomenon though, just take a look at Amazon, usually all 1 or 5 star reviews. Doctor Who is a pretty unique thing, given it's long history with a distinct split between Classic and New. I don't watch every episode these days (I missed out the dinosaurs and the cowboys this time) because I really can't cope with the cloying drama or magic wands too often. But I understand that regular viewers may come back each week even though they are always disappointed. After all, although it's been a new beast since 2005, it's not a reboot. It explicitly claims continuity to what went before it, and so I don't blame anyone who prefers the old stuff tuning in for a) references to the classic era, and b) hoping that it will change direction to something resembling its heritage. I'm not one to exclaim that "things were better in the old days", but I have just found without bias that I want to watch stories like Genesis of the Daleks over and over, but can't say the same for the new stories. I think you'll find just as much passion from those who are exhasperated but its shortcomings, as those who are gushing with praise.
Just to enjoy the sound of twisting the knife in: my heart sank the second River Song lifted her head in that bloody hat. I like Alex Kingston, but the sauntering, sassy smugness of this character is hard to take.

I'm surprised that this is getting such a mixed reaction, whilst Asylum got more praise. I can't get enough of the daleks but that was a right royal waste of their charms, and I think we were falsely promised a bit of an extravaganza. The button-nosed, dimple-cheeked, pretty new female character was pure CBBC too, and that's nothing against the actress, she was in something very adult and serious just this week and was very decent. This week seemed a lot better to me, not exactly heart-breaking but at least it was quite thoughtful in its end. And a lot more palatable than the neverending ending of series 4.

I thought it was a pretty reasoned and fair set of criticisms. Certainly not "wild insulting accusations". Your post on the other hand was... well, nothing, really.

The assumption is he ALWAYS visited young Amy Pond, but it's only that day he found out that he did so, might explain why Amy was so hung up on the character after only a single meeting.

I've never enjoyed the refocus of Doctor Who over the last few years to be more centered around Amy and Rory (as the final shot of the episode shows very well) than The Doctor and The Tardis. I'm very happy to see them leave the show and hope that Doctor Who will get back to what it was before the appearance of Amy Pond.

I got tore apart on here last night for saying more or less the same. I find it very difficult to believe that people are so fickle enough to continue to watch a show, no matter how poor it's become and say they like it as long as it has the brand name "Doctor Who" attached to it. You have echoed my sentiments perfectly, and like you I will continue to watch, but where I was once filled with a sense of joy, wonder and fun, when I watch it now I am filled only with despair and sadness and the how toned down and dumbed up, it has become. Apparently if you feel as we do about the show we shouldn't be watching and we shouldn't be posting on here, it irks the Moff fanbois that we put into context what they all fear but deny so whole-heartedly, that our Doctor has become nothing more than generic, Sci-Fi light excuse to sell DVD and toys to America.

Hi, it's me again Sorry, but I can't help but notice that I got flamed alive for a few post's regarding the degrading quality of the show after last night's farce of an episode ,Yet nobody minds one bit that the regular pro Moff supporters post their drivel endlessly? A little unbiased don't you think, Geeks?

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who shares these sentiments, alas as long as people like me, who can see that the show as descended into cliché clap trap, keep watching it, it will only proceed to get worse. If we stopped watching, it would force the Beeb to re-evaluate the direction it's taken and ensure they pulled out al the stops to make Doctor Who, Doctor Who again.

Amen, alas this is the only response the Pro Moff's have in their arsenal. Perhaps we should take their advice though and stop watching, at least then, when viewing figures fall drastically after all, even the hardened Whovians are starting to lose faith, and there's only a few Moff heads left watching, the BBC will be forced to react and change it, hopefully for the better.

That would be me then, you instantly assumed I had OCD because I made a few points that were contradictory to your own views ergo the show is the best ever. It isn't. I'm sick to the back teeth of people like you telling everybody who disagrees with them, and who can see that the show is ow dire and dull, and empty, to stop watching at stop posting. You accuse me of having OCD yet you fail to notice the same patterns in your own behaviour, as I have just seen by scrolling down here, you seem to have posted everywhere. But that's ok in your eyes isn't it, because you're you are in the majority who seem to think the show is fantastic. Were I to post in agreement to you, no doubt you would be not so relentless in your attacks on me or others who see the show differently in it's present form.

Moff as turned him into a joke, "Raggedy Man" sounds more like a tramp than a TimeLord:)

As the great Columbo would say, just one more thing, it appears TardInSexy can't tolerate posts by an OCD sufferer who disagrees with her or his views. Just goes to show the mentality of the Pro Moff head's then, doesn't it? I bet if the same OCS sufferer said Moff is the best thing that ever happened to Who, then TardInSexy would be only to happy to see my posts!

No worries, and I appreciate your consideration, and your points, and even the passion behind them. And I definitely agree with some of your points regarding the RTD Era. I still stand by my criticism of River Song [but will not invoke the "MS" label again here :-)]; she remains more a wish-fulfilment character than a realistic one.

Of course, I'm still watching the show, so what does that say about me? LOL

Perhaps Tard, lol, likes the show under Moffat because it's watered down and churned out for people with low brain faculties:) much easier to understand and digest for people who have serious problems trying it get the gist of something a little more complex or substantial:) Sorry Tard, but you tore into me for having OCD and disagreeing with your views, so I can only learn by example. It's people like Tard who will have the show cancelled because they think it is great that the show is now not even Doctor Who. So once all the hardcore fans are isolated from it, and the casual viewers move onto something else when the fad dies down Tard and the like will be in the minority, ergo, goodbye Doctor. I feel this is a sad day indeed for the state of British Television.

Perhaps Tard, lol, likes the show under Moffat because it's watered down and churned out for people with low brain faculties:) much easier to understand and digest for people who have serious problems trying it get the gist of something a little more complex or substantial:) Sorry Tard, but you tore into me for having OCD and disagreeing with your views, so I can only learn by example. It's people like Tard who will have the show cancelled because they think it is great that the show is now not even Doctor Who. So once all the hardcore fans are isolated from it, and the casual viewers move onto something else when the fad dies down Tard and the like will be in the minority, ergo, goodbye Doctor. I feel this is a sad day indeed for the state of British Television.

just in case you missed it up top

Having nothing but blindingly positive viewpoints can blind one to seeing what could be valid viewpoints. It's like the family and friends of a reality show contestant telling them they're perfect and ideal; how can there be any room for improvement given all that?

No, I stopped watching after Last of the Timelords and realised the show was actively making me angry, I came back when Moffat fixed it. Don't confuse liking what you dislike with liking anything.

You replied to EVERY comment in the entire thread, and they weren't short ones, they were non stop page long rants insulting the intelligence of everyone who liked the show. There's seriously something wrong with you, how can you not see that?
And incidentally, well done, you've latched on to the intentional joke in my name, it's only take you 24 hours, but I'm glad you're having fun with it.

So that would be like Patrick Troughton then? The Doctor lovingly referred to as a space hobo? That's rather the character, have you not seen any classic who?

I Gotta agree with you. I guess im just much easier to please than many of the fans, because i LOVE Matt Smith, the Ponds, River & i thought last night's episode was a beautiful, bittersweet & a bit heartbreaking way to say goodbye to Amy & Rory. Obviously folks are free to disagree, but as you said--I dont see why so many are pricks about it--IF I hated a show or several eps of it, I just cant see myself coming on a forum like this to bitch about it, but again--whatever floats your boat.

A bit like you then, it would seem:) Well I was trying to avoid insulting you in any capacity, we are civilised people after all, aren't we? But alas you have broken my resolve after your endless onslaught against me. I get it TardInSexy, you are very clever because you understand the brainless plot twist's Moffat applies to his writing and then abandons halfway through therefore I must be a dunce because I fail to see how this can be a good thing. My opinion on the show matters not because it doesn't agree with your opinion. Let's all give you a big round of applause because you "get" the show under it's current format and that's all that matters, right? Who cares what the long time, hardened fans think? It's not their show any more, it's been hijacked by the casual viewers who don't mind splashing out on some Doctor Who toys at Chrimbo to coincide with the Christmas special:) After all, they are the only one's that are important. in these days of big business and profit rule. Forget the licence fee, us harcore fans pay too. It never occurs to people like you that other's may not want pretend to like the "vacant Lot" the show has become.

Hold back on insulting me? You didn't manage that with the people in yesterdays thread. I distinctly recall you calling one of them an idiot, and a broad generalisation of "everyone who likes Moffat Who is stupid". Come on, if you're so smart, what's your background? What are the qualifications you have that you believe have allowed to create an IQ test more accurate and fool proof than anything Mensa has come up with? Right now I'm inclined to go with a GNVQ and a job as a binman?

I'm starting to like you TardInSexy, God alone knows why, but here is the thing, You tore RTD apart and stopped watching for he mistakes he made, yet when Moffat makes the same mistakes, to a larger extent, you refuse to even acknowledge them, This is nothing but latent, biased fanboi-ism. Moffat as not learned from RTD's mistakes. Yet somehow you manage to continually overlook this.And attribute his era of Who as the best ever, when it is, in fact, not. There are no improvements at all upon RTD's take on it. Besides the lack of empathy I now feel for any of the characters. At least RTD got that part right. If nothing else.

Anyway, off topic but how to I upload an avatar?

Cheers, frankly I think you took my rant like a gent. I would edit it if I could.

We aren't that much different you know, the show under Moffat is actively making me angry:)

Well Moffat has:
Moved the humour from the situations back into the characters where it belongs (making it easier to engage with the scenario and suspend disbelief when necessary for the scares).
Is in the process of pushing the Doctor back into the shadows so that he can no longer solve scenarios with the mention of his name.
Has replaced in your face heart on your sleeve unbelievable outpourings with much more restrained and thoughtful output.
His stories are generally solved with a solution unique to the scenario - whereas RTD would grant magic powers, pull out a weapon or have a character push some buttons Moffats conclusions are almost invariably unique to the scenario. From The Empty Child to The Angels Take Manhattan the solution has almost always been unique to the scenario and not applicable to any other story.
The show has regained it's roots in space and time travel; I no longer feel like I'm watching a family watching TV each week, re-treading the same council estate.
The whole world is no longer aware of aliens thank to the cracks - this means when there is an alien incursion there is some real tension and not just Peggy on Eastenders telling a ghostly cyberman to get out of her pub.

His show runner episodes have sometimes sacrificed style for substance (such as the statue of liberty being a weeping angel)... but it's never so bad as RTDs Cyberking stomping around victorian England (and at least the Angel statue has been unwritten from the timeline). I've no love for A Good Man Goes to War which DOES suffer from all the same problems as the RTD era.
He's not perfect, I take issues with elements of series 6, I think moving Night Terrors to the episode directly after the revelations of River Song, with no time to dwell on that information ruined the flow of the series. He's made mistakes and that's why he's my SECOND favourite showrunner (after Phillip Hinchcliffe who is the only showrunner I can't easily fault)... but he's never made ones so big as RTDs, he's never made me angry.

But I can't debate his pros and cons with you, because you're shouting down every one with a positive opinion, so people will only ever completely agree with you, or disagree with you entirely. Your attitude is not conducive to rational debating.

Is has been a lot of "though", though.

Personally, I am glad to see the Amy Pond Show come to an end. The episode itself was weak, in that the Doctor didn't really do much of ANYTHING except whine (similar to Tennant in his stint as a "human" with a fob watch, though at least he snapped out of it by the end). I have not really liked the Amy experience. Rory I liked. To me the whole thing has become very soap-operaish with the Amy storylines (River as well). Hopefully, this will be a chance for the writers to take the Doctor back to being the Doctor and not some lovesick child. Goodbye and good riddance, Amelia Pond.

I'm always willing to listen to a fellow Whovian. Always. I'm glad you enjoy the show at present I have tried and tried to like it, you have no idea how much, but I just can't. i really want to like the format, I really want to like Matt Smith, but I just don't get the feelngs for it I did during the RTD years. And yes. a lot of it was awful, but I felt something for the people I was watching, with the current series, I'm just not getting that vibe at all. Every week I was glued to the telly awaiting the intro credits, and every week I felt an enormous sense of fun, just like back in the old days of classic Who, despite some of the poor direction of Russel. But since Moffat as taken the helm. I find myself not worried at all in case I miss an episode. My son will say, "Dad, it's nearly time for the Doc" and I will go "meh" lol. It's just my opinion, so don't skin me alive here, but it seems to have taken a turn into the great depression, sure, it looks stylistic, but that's all it has going for it, in my opinion since Moff's tenure began. It's all gloomy and overly serious, yet in a way that is very underwhelming and unsatisfactory, without any real form of substance, in my opinion. I find it is now a chore to watch, as opposed to fun, sure, farting aliens were bad, but the morals explored in even that story stuck with you long after it was done. After every episode of Moff's tenure, as soon as they are finished, you are left pondering, what was all that about again? Was there any point to it? and so forth. Any deep meaningful implications? after a moment you realise there is none and move on, instantly forgetting about it. If my mate at work says, what happened in Who this weekend? I'm left stunted as to what to tell him, all I can usually say is, well, the production values were good:) And the Doctor used the fish fingers custard line, lol

For once, I agree:) Let's get the serious, often unethical Doctor back as opposed to the charming, foppish, romantic he has become in his old age:)

However you cant deny that Derek Jacobi British acting royalty made a brilliant Master during is short outing. And tbf, the blue alien was very pretty.

We have the most whimsical Doctor since Tom Baker in the most playful console room, and absolute joyous fun has been taken from blending timelines and playing with dreams (farting aliens may have been 'fun' to you, but it's a form of humour I grew out of decades ago, but Teradactyls in the park and zombie grannies wielding lawnmowers? Now to me that is inventive, playful and fun! Just not so low brow).
Deep and meaningful implications - we had a Town Called Mercy, an episode focused on shades of grey (including the Doctors own, for the first time the audience wasn't just focused on the Doctors guilt about the timewar but actually questioning his culpability).
It's dealt with depression in the case of Vincent and the Doctor (and the harsh realities of it, rather than the sugar coated hollywood version we're usually treated to). The Beast Below dealt with our willingness to turn a blind eye to wrong doing when our own well being is at stake. I would need an essay paper to deal with the philosophical issues introduced by the girl who waited and the god complex.
And Amy and Rory's relationship has been explored in as adult a manner as kids TV can explore one, rather than the idealised love affair of Rose and the Doctor.

But at the end of the day it's a kids show, it's the show I grew up with as a kid, and what I remember from it is that from the age of 3 it challenged me to use my imagination, to embrace new ideas and think outside the box. Moffats who has accomplished that... and it may be the only time the show has managed to do so in my adult life.

I owe you an apology, I think. We have gotten off on the wrong foot. There were issues with both the RD era and Moff era. You prefer Moff, I prefer RTD for all his faults. It wouldn't pay dividends if we all liked the same thing. Let's just both be grateful Who s back, and hope it goes forward from strength to strength At least once Moffat is gone, I think Mark Gatiss would be good as show runner.

I was wondering the same thing,it remains one of many questions they seem to get out of with "time can be rewritten" but then we learn that once you read what happens it cant be changed, im supposing seeing the future isnt as permenant?! god knows just one of many plot threads left unanswered like why did Amys house have 3 floors? Who blew up the TARDIS? Where did the silence get the tech to build their own TARDIS? Also why did they build it? How does/did River know the Doctors real name? also the Moff back in the day was apparently the one who wanted Jenny to regenerate at the end of the Doctors daughter surely he had some sort of pay off in mind? sometimes I think they just throw ideas into the mix because they sound cool at the time

The only difference between you and TARDinSexy is that he actually gives bullet points and reasons as to why he became frustrated with the RTD era. However you just seem to say very general things like 'I just don't get the feelings for it as I did in the RTD years' but then never explain your point. Although I did love Christopher and David as the Doctors, I can't help but think it would have been even better is Moffat had been showrunner since the start. He manages to blend humor and tragedy without it feeling melodramatic like many RTD stories did i.e. 'Love and Monsters' and 'Partners in Crime'. In fact now that I think about it RTD and Christopher Eccleston were a much better combo than RTD and DT because CEs deadpan style of comedy balanced out RTDs over the top humor. However when DT took over I think it would have been better if the Moff was in charge. I'm not trying to say that you are wrong and I am right but when arguing over something its better to give reason to your claims.

I'll use your fawning over the Vincent episode to show you what I mean. Yes, I get the point that it was meant to be all very deep, philosophical and meaningful, but alas it didn't come across that way to me at all. It was being deep for the sake of it, not in a natural way. It felt as if the "deep" part's had been shovelled in without any real thought whatsoever, just so Moffat could prove to the world how smart and clever he is by constantly screaming it at you, "This is intelligent" lol The scripts of Moff have felt as if they have no natural progress at all, just the illusion of it. Peel back the surface of the confounded wibbly wobbly plots and you are left with something very hollow indeed. RTD was the same, I'll be the first to admit it. Also you are attempting to degrade me yet again by inferring I am immature enough to consider farting aliens fun, This was not what I said. What I meant was it was fun to watch, the entire episode runs, whcih built up weekly to the climactic, finale's of the last two episodes. whereas Moffat run as been a dull, boring, lifeless chore wit nothing to look forward to or get excited about Take for example, the first Christmas Special. No doubt you gave that rave reviews, but upon several viewings I found it very drab, substance wise, yet, nice to look at. I think this is the way with most TV these days, tbh, and with the film industry too. I'll put it like this, I am a fan of John carpenter's The Thing. Yes it might be a remake, but he took it in an original direction and added something to it, making it a tight, claustrophobic character driven story. Whereas the Prequel, destroys all the effort put into John's work and reduces it to something which is nice to look at with flashy effects, but devoid of any feeling, story or characters you can you can affiliate with. . This is the equivalent of current era Who vs RTD era Who. While it wasn't perfect by any stretch, at least it presented things in a new and fresh way. Moff's Who doesn't do any of that at all.That's just my opinion. It's dry, flat, and immediately forgetful fodder for toddlers. Not imaginative, young people. You don't need to use your mind to enjoy it, you are told constantly by it how to think and feel. It's all laid out nice and neat with no effort required on the part of the viewer.

You are correct, both have a lot to live up to, and both have failed, and been moderately successfully on so many levels. Thanks for at least not telling me I should't watch or post my opinions. People who come out with that old chestnut are just not very good debaters:) Or are blinded by their Moff love.

In my defence, my grammar is perhaps not as good as TardInSexy's. He is able to put his emotions into words and express himself better than I am. Also he has had a lot more practice at at it than I have. This is only my second day of Geek postings. TardInSexy as been on here for at least the last three years, I know because I read the Geek religiously after every episode. This does not mean that my opinion is any less valid than his or hers. It just means I'm still learning to express my thoughts properly.

Okay, what follows is an absurdly long rant I simply have to get off my chest. It's about the lack of logic I perceive in the latest tale of the Great Moff.

I liked TATM, but found annoying how little it followed the rules it set up for itself, something all too common within the recent stories of Moffat.

Looking back at Blink and The Girl in the Fireplace, two other timey-wimey stories, I have to note that they establish their rules early on and stick to them. The Clockwork Droids opened portals into places Madame de Pompadour lives in, and they zap around in time to find the ideal moment for...something. That's the setup, and the story embraces and never breaks with it.

In Blink we find out that the Weeping Angels are capable of sending people back in time by touching them and that they can only move when nobody sees them. These rules are embraced, never broken and are the basis for some truly magical moments. Kathy gets sent back in time at the same moment as Sally receives a letter from her. Later on Sally meets Billy and after he gets zapped back in time she meets him again as an old men. Both these touching scenes result from the aforementioned fantastical rules. As does the ingenious resolution: as the TARDIS dematerializes the Angels see each other and therefore are permanently unable to move (before it gets dark, at least...).

TATM adds one important rule on top of the ones inherited from Blink:

If someone reads about a future event then it's bound to happen: a fixed point in time is created.

Okay...problems immediately arise when you start thinking it through.
Who says what's written in the book is a documentarian account of what happened? It's River noting the events from her memory and she might have changed aspects for artistic reasons or whatever. But nevermind that.
When Amy reads that the Doctor will break something then it ought to come true. Okay, but certainly someone read the book before already? Amy surely isn't the first to have read it, is she? If that's the case, then independent of whether Amy read it or not it will come true, right?
Or does it depend upon how involved the person is within the events to matter what the person knows?

The Doctor truly behaves like a noob with the whole time-travelling business. Constantly he exclaims that you can't do this, you can't do that, and then it turns out, because of the instinctive actions of his companions, that you can.

Rory couldn't possibly escape the Angels because he witnessed himself dying, the Doctor says. Except, of course, that he very easily can. It seems to me the belief that the future can't be changed is merely inside the head of the Doctor, but isn't true in the fiction at all.

Another thing the Doctor says is that Amelia will create a fixed point in time by following Rory into the past. Didn't the Doctor mention before that a fixed point is created as soon as you read about something happening? I presume therefore that he refers to the fluctuating engraving on the grave stone.
So how about not reading the gravestone then, Doctor? How about closing your eyes and going off without knowing? It won't be a fixed point then, will it?

The Doctor's mantra that time can't be rewritten is proven wrong again as we witness it happening on the gravestone. First we just see Rory's name. Why is not clear at all, there's no reason for it to be there, but the plot has to keep moving I guess. As Rory gets zapped back into the past his age at the time of death appears next to his name. So, events changed. Then Amy gets zapped back and her name and age upon death appear on the gravestone, too. Events changed again!

Really, the Doctor is just too stubborn to acknowledge that events that already happened can happen differently again.

The biggest logical gap is the Doctor's pathetic excuse why he can't see Amy and Rory again. Bla bla scrambled timeline blub blub. Sure, he can't travel into the past per TARDIS, but how about borrowing River's Vortex Manipulator? Or using one he stowed in the TARDIS somewhere?
The truth is, if he wanted to see both of them again he could find a way. But he doesn't even try. It's impossible he says, just like it was impossible for Rory to escape his fate to die alone at old age.

A small niggle for the end: I was annoyed that the Liberty Angel (know a better name?) was able to move at all. We can clearly see that the streets are busy in the rooftop scene at night, so how come the Lib Angel had any chance to move?
Actually this hints at a bigger problem: How in any way, shape or form could The City That Never Sleeps be the ideal location for the Weeping Angels? Because basically that means that there's always someone there to see them, which hinders them to stride to action. A City That Always Sleeps would be ideal for them, not the opposite! I really don't see how this could make any sense.

In a nutshell: Moffat got too sloppy with his writing. It's still full of mad fantastical ideas, but his stories don't follow clear consistent rules anymore. I feel he overdosed on the timey-wimey-ness factor and overcomplicated the time traveling aspects. The simple but genius premises of The Girl in the Fireplace and Blink make them such irrestible stories. TATM, on the other hand, is a muddled mess in comparison.

I wish Moffat would write fewer scripts per Series, maybe he would have the time then to craft his scripts more carefully. Or maybe not: apparently he wrote the script for Blink pretty swiftly.

What some people perceive as soap opera I just perceive as proper drama. *shrug*

Another episode I loved- best moment for me was Matt Smith reading the last chapter title and knowing he'd fixed it in time and so sad he'd lose Amy. (In my mind, because it said it was her 'final farewell' (was that it?) that was what meant he couldn't take the Tardis back to somewhere in America and pick them up- it said it was final?)

Honestly, I think The Girl Who Waited, with some tweaks to the story, would have made a much better ending for these companions. This was a mish-mash that left me cold.

Typically, I don't post on boards. I do enjoy reading the thought of others--I get good insight that way. There's a awful lot of quit watching if you don't like it responses on the board. For me after I watched the angels episode, I was thinkng back as someone who was 11 years old when my local station debuted classic Doctor Who in 1980 starting with Jon Pertwee. I really came to be devoted to the show. I've seen every doctor from Hartnell up to the current fellow Smith and have noticed that Doctor Who evokes strong emotions. People love it, hate it, or are somewhere in between - like me. Compared to the crap on the television nowadays, the current doctor who is like a cold drink of water when you are thirsty and stuck in the middle of a dry desert. Is it perfect?
Well no, I have never found the show to be perfect. Yet back in the good old days of my youth, Doctor Who as a show seemed to have a focus that has been missing since I'd say Eccelston. Perhaps that "fantastic" remark reminded me of the old school Doctors from the classic. Tennant was good though at times I felt Who went over the top with that RTD writing. While I enjoy the "today's feel" of the show now rather than nostalgia for the doctors of the past, still I find myself hoping that the current Doctor Who can become more than just another ok tv drama. I suppose I want this incarnation to become a classic the way the original was one so that my kids can have their memories of a great show when they reach adulthood. Can this generations Doctor Who become classic with Moffat or someone else who knows? For now, me and the family just watch, take it as it is and hope for more. We take the good with the bad and enjoy what we can -- and hope it reaches classic rather than we stop watching. Perhaps this post can provide some insight to others.

TARDINSexy

A few bullet points as to why Moffat's Who sucks

*Flying fish *Silver sharks *Fairytale nonsense *Jumbled plots dropped halfway through *Every week, the monster is an every day household object, statues, dolls, doll houses, loo rolls:) *Invisible chickens *Sontaran wet nurses *Cyber men defeated by crying babies *No resolutions to plot strands from three years ago *Star trek Silurians who make childish comments about same sex relationships and display their long tongues in highly sexualised and controversial manner, lets hope the kids don't repeat that one at school(come back farting aliens, all his forgiven) *The Doctor is able to defeat a huge army of aliens just by shouting at them ala RTD's Godlike disposition of the Doctor several times*Character's with no depth *Character's with no development *Character's with no reasons for doing what they do other than the script requires it *Characters with no consistent evolution *Companions who are ego-maniacs*Poorly written villains who have a five minute speech at the end if we are lucky that amounts to, I'm evil, I'm doing this because(insert stock cliché reason here)*No sense of danger ever, no peril, no menace (the Doctor can die in the first episode but by the end you know another Doctor will turn up and leave a sonic Bill and Ted style to free himself) *Lack of any logic to plots* Incoherent plots that change their laid down values week in week out depending on Steven's mood *Constantly changing time rules, one week it can be re-written, one week it cant *No consistency to stories or arcs *Standard time travel scenario week in week out, old west, pirates, romans, america, america, america,*Muffled poorly written unmemorable dialogue spat out so fast it's incomprehensible and inaudible above the din of the music *Wasted opportunity of Hitler, could have been one of the most ethically challenging episodes of Who ever yet we got Hitler shoved into a cupboard and 40 mins of River Song flaunting herself around*River Song *The Doctor's marriage to River Song *River Song as a child *River Song is the offspring of background radiation in the Tardis via the Pond's, so the Doctor could quite easily replace the TimeLord race, right?*River Song extremely annoying catchphrases repeated ad nauseum *River and the Doctor flirting(DT didn't flirt with Rose every five seconds did he?) *River gives up all regenerations within first five seconds of viewer finding out she has them *Non-threatening adversaries used again and again, ie Angels *Steven Moffat's own sense of wonder at himself which seeps through in every episode *Supposed cleverness and wit written simply for that reason alone, not evolving from the story at all as with a good script *40 minute build up to menace quickly resolved in five seconds by sonic *Deux ex machina's and reset buttons everybody hated when RTD did it *Completely disengaging characters thinly written and thinly explored *Main character dies again and again ad nauseum until it becomes it's own in joke, *Steven constantly telling us it will be better next week,and this week was just filler leading up to that and the plot will make sense *Steven throwing himself at the cameras every five mins trying to convince us he fantastic *Steven having to give interviews to explain his own convoluted, not in a good way, plot threads *Steven hyping up his own drivel to ensure viewers stay tuned and convincing himself we watch because it's good*Steven convinced of his own superiority and that he is the definitive authority on Doctor Who despite claiming he never liked the classic series yet somehow he describes himself as a fan*Massive build up's that lead nowhere time and time again
*Ipod Daleks
*Recurring characters with no reason for being other than the fact we need some plot exposition, Churchill, Song, Dorian,
*Hugely hyped up Silent's, who turned out to be no threat at all, unless they come back next season and it's shown that they have manipulated the Doctor's time line all along, didn't see that one coming chaps
*Most underwhelming departure of companions ever!
*Matt Smith's emo, angsty teen, boy wonder performance
*Craig!!!!!!!

I could have gone on forever but I've got work in the morning.

I am from the North, I loved Chi's Doctor, He was bloody brilliant in Cracker too:)

So so true.So smug. So BBC. The writer clearly so pleased with himself. I thought it was just me who utterly despises the new series.

My point about the Hitler episode was that Moff was too afraid to tackle anything even remotely challenging so he opted for the easy way out and had an highly sexualised RS flaunt herself around for half an hour in hopes it would disguise the lack of any ethical, moraly substantial material. Well, I shouldn't grumble, we got dangerous psycho assassin River for all of 20 seconds until she quickly converted back into nice Doctor Song and we had yet another happy ending.

Not at all, but the moment you mention it, people like TardInSexy start claiming you have OCD, are thick, shouldn't be watching, or just aren't intelligent enough to appreciate the massive plot holes and empty shallow characters.

Guys Guys Guys!!!! There I was thinking I was the only one madly into the show and over reading every little detail! I try to look at it like this now...in 1989 Doctor Who was a joke, dead gone and buried, a shell like pantomime of its former self....In 2012 its back, colourful epic, massively popular, sells loads of DvDs, you can buy toys, action figures ,toys from the classic series that we never HAD back in the 70s, and everyone watches it, talks about it and the ratings are great. We can come on here and chat about it, dissect it and go over motives and talk to like minded people all over the world that LOVE Doctor Who, they have their own favourite parts of it, their favourite Doctors and writers etc....Next year its been around for 50 years...The longest running Sci Fi in the world, its British and its no longer a joke..." We watch Doctor Who now....Doctor Who is Cool.....!"
Isn't that great? Isnt it wonderfull?????? I love you all...you great wonderfull fanboys the lot of you....In 1989 I thought that this sort of thing could never happen. And now we are all living through it....Life is good really....And no I am not being Sarcastic! Rock on...Who rules...soon be Christmas....enjoy it , because its no longer 1989.

We love you too fellow Whovian:)

Finaly, somebody who as seen the light of day!

Yeah... right. Very right. I'm a big fan of Jacobi. But, what's the matter with my comment ? ^^

I'll leave you with this one, it's been a long day on here but I feel I have fought my corner well with regards current era Doctor.

I wish they would bring back Tom Baker or DT!

Matt who????

:)

I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with it at all. I love Chan Tho "Though" I thought you were hating on her, lol

I agree with the majority of this without perhaps giving it a 10, possibly a solid 7, 8 at a push.

Whilst I'm glad at the manner in which Amy and Rory went, very dramatic and with actual consequences, I was disappointed with the central plot device of why they had to leave.

That said, I think it is a good way to end Amy Rory's story but surely we're going to have to see the Doctor face the Wrath of Brian at some point?

I can imagine River still getting to see her parents using the Vortex Manipulator and after announcing her proffessorship, her exit can't be too far behind in what will no doubt be another bitter moment for the Doctor considering he knows the ending already.

I second that, that line made me chuckle

Well said..don't forget about the whole regen healing thing. If the Doctor can summon the regen at will even if not injured and then focus it on someone, why hasn';t he used it before? In short, while the episode was entertaining, the sloppiness of the writing and ring around the rosie use of plot devices detracted as to what could have been a very good episode. Perhap he needs to step back from writing and just Direct, as it appears that these stories of late have been very rushed bits. Its like bad cooking. It might look good, but taste horrible,

Don't let TardInSexy see this!

A fair bit of common sense there which is much appreciated.

We don't often hear from those who see it as just a fun way to spend 45 minutes with the family.

Some here, like myself, probably do overanalyse these things or harshly dismiss them. It's not for us to say whether the new Who will be a classic, that's for our kids to decide in ten years time,

I'm so glad it came back and can accept the show's faults to some degree but I do often find myself wishing it did at least have some episodes where you couldn't pick apart the plot with a rowing oar,

2 questions, both about time travel:
1) So it's established in the series that the Doctor can't go back to New York in 1938, or else things will go just a tiny bit explodey wodey...so can't he just go back to 1939 and look up the Ponds then? Or anywhere else in 1938, so he can phone them up and say 'hey Ponds, meet me just outside of New York!'.
2) How on earth is River going to get the book to Amy to get published, since you can't go time travelling to 1938 anymore? Or is it just the TARDIS that can't get to 1938? And if that's so, then why doesn't the Doctor go with River with her time travel bracelet thing?
I loved this episode, I thought the Angel/Statue of Liberty was just awesome, we actually cheered and clapped when we saw that! The baby Angels were simply creepy, it felt like something out of a Silent Hill game, eerie! I cried so much at the end, I did not want these two companions to go, I have loved seeing them in this show so much. But I have to agree, they had some amazing storylines and the end of their story was just perfect, but very very sad.

Yes, I noticed that as well, had to put it on pause lol, I love all these details they put in!

I think the Doctor used part of his regeneration powers of River, because she did the same thing for him. This was the very first episode where you see the Doctor really totally smitten for River (checking his hair in the Tardis lol!), of course he doesn't want her suffering!

That was brilliant, I was waiting for a line referring to his constant dying in his final episode!

I thought that was brilliant, Matt Smith really showed us an angry and powerless Doctor at that moment, amazing scene.

I didn't say it did explain that - I just answered John's question.

1. It's more than just a question of physically getting there. Once the Doctor realised that the Ponds spent their lives in the past, especially by seeing the tombstone and reading the Afterword, history became fixed and couldn't be changed by him. The local instability would exacerbate matters.
2. It would be easy enough to Time Google the Ponds' location at a particular point, and for River to scoot to Los Angeles and mail it to her

Hmm yes, makes sense...I just thought it was so sad for River as well, saying goodbye to the parents she barely got to know :( I wonder what Brian Williams will say to this, though! He can come back next season, I wouldn't mind lol.

The latest slew of episodes has been really enjoyable and this last one, whilst the Statue of Liberty angel didn't make a lick of sense (I mean, is there ever a moment in time when someone isn't looking at that thing? Really?) really got me going by the end. Amy and Rory got their happy ending somehow and got to take the slow path together and now the way is clear for a new companion. It's a great place to leave it and I can't wait for the Christmas Episode.

isn't it beautiful? :)

Now, here is a post from a friend of mine which sums things up perfectly, in my humble opinion. They are far to worried about getting torn apart by the PML's to post it themselves so being the nice person that I am, have taken it upon myself to post it for them. Hope you don't mind.

It makes me laugh out loud the way the pro Moff lobbyists are always harping on about RTD's overuse of classic villains Yet they blatantly overlook the fact Moff overuses an insignificant, bit character at best, River Song. The guy is clearly suffering from a case of he loves his own work way too much. Not much emotional resonance in the current run of Who is there?

The emotional attachment is really what makes the show memorable. I can recall most of the 9th and 10th doctors episodes, I have single episodes that are favourites and Companions who I adore (read Jack Harkness). I can name no episodes in Moffat's era and I have no interest in re-watching any of them.

That is what gets me the most about 'Who' as it is now, I don't care about Amy and Rory, I don't care about River/Melody, I don't feel the relationship between River and The Doctor is treated seriously at all and it seems to only occur because it is said to have happened in the past or future depending on who you ask.

I've yet to see Matt Smiths interpretation of The Doctor ever appear to be genuinely worried about a moment, seriously contemplating what's occurring, he very much prefers to grandstand around. I call back to David Tennant in his first episode, The Christmas Invasion. When he defeated the Sycorax atop the mothership, his sudden darkening of personality "no second chances, that's the sort of man I am," seems to fit with the doctor we knew from 9's portrayal and became part of 10's role. Matt Smith's portrayal as a scatterbrained "madman with a box," is so overriding that it makes any of his more serious moments seem out of place.

Moffat has stated many times that Doctor Who is a children's show, and that is what he has transformed it into. While it always has been a children/family show, his drive to appeal to the younger audience has disconnected it with the older viewers, where RTD's era always offered something for everyone.

Edited by Underclass Underdog

Enjoyed this one - great sets / production (as has been throughout this series), actors on top form, best plot of the series.

As usual, some plot holes / questions:

* Hope come Rory is a 2000 year old plastic man, but then ages when sent back?

* How come the Stay Puff Mashmallow Man, sorry Liberty Angel, didn't do anything when Rory & Amy were not looking at it?

So let me get this straight... the Doctor always rips out the last page of a book... and the only person he ever tells this to is Amy... and Amy sees him rip out the last page... so as far as Amy knows he will never read the last page of the book.. Even if she published a million copies of the book to send him in case he loses a copy, she would have to assume he will never read the final page. So when she writes the afterword and publishes the book she must assume that the Doctor will not read the last page... So surely she would start the afterword on the second to last page, and then she could just print gibberish on the final page. However, it turns out that, despite knowing all this, Amy still decided to print her all important message to him on the final page. I've really enjoyed Amy Pond as a companion, but this episode suddenly made her look as if she was totally stupid and illogical.
Well, I guess we have to assume that, after the end of the episode, the Doctor told River that, when he went back to NYC the final page hadn't blown away in the wind and that he had actually read it, and she in turn told Amy... but now I'm just making up my own plot to cover up the plot-hole in this episode.
Apart from that I did enjoy it and I'm definitely going to miss the Ponds.

I am in shock as many viewers are, cause I actually loved the episode. Am I a Moffat fan? No. I way prefer the Davies era, but that's just me. I don't like how the show seems to be moving very far away from sci fi and focuses more on drama. How every character has to show that human side? And how many new monsters have we seen in the Moffat era that wasn't CGI or wasn't a human that opened its mouth to reveal fangs or another mouth?
That said, this series appears to have slowed down, where the viewers can actually keep up to the storylines. Wasn't a big fan of the power of three or a town called mercy but every other episode this season was top notch. In particular, this episode, three things shocked me: 1) Rory sent to the past THE FIRST TIME, 2) Rory and Amy jumping to their doom off the building. 3) Rory being sent to the past at the very end and how fast Amy got sent back too. That last one, felt like a well placed cheapshot, as I thought they were all in the clear. With Amy and Rory not being able to have kids thanks to Devil's Run to them NOW living in a different time and place; you can't deny that The Doctor DOES ruin lives. He makes them better for showing them wonderful things, but he is also a curse. I found it eery when The Doctor stood over Rory and Amy's graves.
In short, 10/10 for spookiness, surprises (I thought the ponds would say goodbye to the doctor forever and give them another child, but that never happened) and the villains were excellent. I hope we see more episodes that have surprises and excellent villains in 'the future'.

I'm a Brit... stumbled into these conversations. Interesting views, but simple really - if you don't like it, don't watch it and shut up. If you do like it, enjoy it for what it is - a long running British family favourite, quirky, weird, and a bit different, sometimes all at once. Saturday early evening enjoyment for almost 6m viewers last night.

Return soon DW

Series 7 is great up to this point. And it's far better than Series 6 was, which I found quite boring. 'The Angels Take Manhattan' left me with some questions. First, is the Doctor going to inform Amy and Rory's parents? And second, in the Silurian two-parter in Series 5 we saw a pregnant Amy and Rory in the distance after there travels with the Doctor. How does that fit in? (Bare with, this might have been explaind already, and I may just have forgotten.) Now I mentioned the pregnancy; you can't tell me that nowhere in Time and Space there isn't some (medical) doctor who (hey, look at that :-p ) can 'fix' Amy. This are just some questions that I can remember popped up last night.

Well when that start's to happen, and Doctor's get's axed. I've a funny feeling you will regret saying that to so many of us:) But do continue. I'm used to this stock answer by now. And have grown more than accustomed to dealing with it.

I'll start out on a positive, the art department did a terrific job. The show has never looked better and this season has been beautiful. Another positive, Moffat did something I never thought possible, made me feel sympathy for River Song who I took an instant dislike to the minute she entered the programme. How he could take a strong feisty character like River and reduce her to a simpering "Don't let him see you age" insecure aging woman stereotype is all kinds of wrong. What this episode says about aging, about women, about marriage - about death - about The Doctor - was creepy and/or jerky. I hated it. I thought it was awful.

PS, I'm also a Brit, as are so many of us who feel we have to watch out of duty rather than actually watching it because we enjoy it and it's good. But even us hardened DW lovers are starting to lose faith. So when the Moff fanboi-ism dies off, and the fad hipsters find something else to amuse themselves instead, there wont even be a hardcore support base left because they have all been alienated from their show by casual viewer such as yourself constantly telling them to stop watching if they are unhappy with current proceedings. What do you suppose will happen then?

Good ratings does not automatically entail good quality. All that means is there are 6 million dense people out there who will watch anything they are told is "cool" and the "in-thing". Mostly because they are incapable of thinking for themselves:) Have a pleasant eve, fine sir.

hate all these people either slagging off Moffats era or Davies era of who. a real doctor who fan would enjoy both eras. If you dont enjoy it, just wait until he leaves & stop moaning.

like your comment & love your user name

The people who complain about contemporary Doctor Who being all about the stories of Rose Tyler and Amy Pond rather than the Doctor seem oblivious to the fact the Doctor is travelling without them now and apparently expect Doctor Who to be just about a time travelling alien,coming and going as he pleases ,saving planets and bringing chaos and tragedy without anybody acknowledging anything.That isn't acceptable drama or science fiction nowadays and that sort of thing is why a lot of Doctor Who as it used to be wasn't taken as seriously as it should have been.It was ludicrous to ignore something as important as the death of Adric and just have the rest of the characters carrying on as if nothing had happened after a quick conversation and that kind of thing, destroys credibility and makes actors jobs practically impossible.Doctor Who should be better than that and writers of the calibre of Moffat,Gaiman,Davies or Curtis wouldn't be writing for the show if they were expected to write like that.I'm more than slighty offended that some people who are just expressing their opinions when they have enjoyed a programme by the current cast and crew are bullies for writing posts. AT LEAST WE'RE NOT WRITING DEATH THREATS TO WRITERS OR DRIVING TWELVE YEAR OLD GIRLS OFF TWITTER because we don't find contemporary Doctor Who to be exactly as we think it should be.

And what about those of us who might like it, but have problems with it? Life isn't always as simple as either/or. If you give an ultimatum like "Love it or leave it", whether it's a country or a TV show, you might get what you ask hor. And you might regret it.

I agree its not either/or. I wrote 'quirky, weird and a bit different, sometimes all at once'

"if you don't like it, don't watch it and shut up" Sounded pretty either/or to me. But it's too late to argue this :-)

But if he went back in the morning, wouldn't Amy remember that, and so why, when he turned up 12 years later, did they refer to him saying he'd be back in 5 minutes? And we also know that he did go back that night when she was asleep in the yard and carried her inside and put her to bed, and told her stories about himself so that she would remember him back into existence at her wedding after he rebooted the universe by colliding the pandorica into the exploding tardis.

Reviews... The first time ever I have read them......Some people just don't like it! So don't watch it, I have watched it on and off all my life, sometimes I like, sometimes I switch off, too weird/quirky!
All these reviews and contributions are fabulously genuine and should make a great spin off...... Something like the Drop the Dead Donkey series. The Beeb should get a good comedy script writer, a Ben Elton type. Might do it myself!
Lol ;-)

This was the strongest episode I've seen of the show in quite a while, and their ending was a clever way of getting them off the show without having to kill them - and it keeps them together for the rest of their (long) lives, which is gratifying for fans.

And! Think of all the AU fanfiction possibilities for 1930's Noir!AmyandRory! ::quickly ducks::

There is nothing more despicable than a Moffat fan boy getting irate and calling someone's children thick because they have the audacity to spell his name wrong, eh @TardInSexy

Nearly 280 comments and the best of them from @tardinsexy and @underdog underclass they have made my night firstly it is and always was a kid/family show and yes we all love it from our childhood but those two have taken the fanboyness to another level.SM is Better than RTD no he is not yes he is FFS there's better things to do in life but hey keep makin us laugh TATM was not a bad ep in general seen better seen worse and that's about it

Did you even watch the episode? The vortex manipulator? Honestly? He said the fabric of the space time continuum has too messed up to travel back to that time, what good would taking another time travel device do?
The Angels have never come for people when they're asleep, you only have to blink.

It has always been the Doctors view that time can be re-written *unless* it's a pre-destination paradox, reading the book would create one. It's like Fathers Day, if Rose's father was alive then why did they go back to save him? There was nothing out of sorts with this one. That's why the Doctor ALWAYS resolves situations at the time he arrives, and doesn't go back to an earlier point to stop the situation arising. If time was re-written that book would never exist.

The statue of liberty moving has some gaping logic holes in it, but the entirety of your rant demonstrated you weren't paying attention.

So you are completely satisfied with the fact(oddly perverse for a kid's show don't you think) that a 1200 year old TimeLord recluse is now married to a woman he held in his arms as a child? Does this strike nobody else as odd, or at the very least a bit twisted, for a kid's show after all, coming from the supposed Godly mind of Moffat? I'd consider that slightly sinister in agenda, wouldn't you? How about the fact, that for a child's show, we have unending sexual references from River Song about threesomes with several Doctor's? Sure this may go right over the youngster's heads, but it's pretty hammered home, like somebody said about the Silurian woman and all the same sex references, considering it's a show for children, right? I'm sure most parents would find this a tad disturbing, yet it seems to have gone straight past them. I know it's the 21st century and all, but I'd be mortified to learn that my child had been going around school repeating all the sexual innuendo(and let's face it, kid's will) Moffat heaps on in piles every episode.The previous guy in the driving seat made a few obscure references to things such as this, but didn't shovel it into the faces of young children across the land. And this is only my first of many issues with Doctor Who of today. Children across the country look up to the Doctor has a role model, and what as Steven Moffat given them? Lurid, bizarre highly sexualised caveats. And that's without the dreadful overtly underwhelming nonsensical plotting which must have most children tearing out their hair in bewilderment at just what the hell is meant to be going on in the world of Who. I bet many teacher's are growing extremely tired of having to field the endless questions from children across the country, haphazardly trying to explain something that makes no kind of logical sense whatsoever. Talk about confusing. A whole generation of kid's will be having major conflicts with their sexuality and senses of right and wrong thanks to Steven Moffat, and to a lesser extent, Russel T Davies. This isn't what I would consider good programming for young people. It's corrupting and twisted, unlike the latter era program of Doctor Who. You never saw Tom Baker making endless sexual suggestions at any of his companions, you never saw Sarah Jane Smith throwing herself at Jon Pertwee. You never saw the robot dog attempting to hump some poor sods leg! This doesn't even begin to cover what is wrong with this current generation of so called family programming of Doctor Who. What is wrong with aunty beeb foisting this God-awful nonsense upon our youngsters? It isn't Doctor Who, it's more like "Skins" or bloody "Shameless" for crying out loud. This was not what Doctor Who was before it's revival. The nearest we ever came to that was Paul MgGan kissing an american companion, briefly.

Again you've failed to outline your reasoning or examples, you've said things aren't deep, aren't fun, are lifeless, but you never express why, do you even know why you liked it and why you dislike the Moffat era?

And incidentally Vincent and the Doctor was written by Richard Curtis.

That was a list of without any reasoning, well done, you managed to write a whole lot and not say anything.
I mean you're an RTD fan, you're ok with bins eating people and the Doctor being turned into a dobby, and killer christmas trees, killer santas, killer christmas stars... but flying fish... in the Christmas episode! NEVER!
There's been ONE reset button, and it was used to unwrite the mess RTD had left behind.

I'd consider it a lot more wholesome for children to digest than endless thrusting and cavorting by Doctor River Song at anything in pants! Wouldn't you? RTD wrote a family show, Sm is writing a show aimed at desensitising children to to all sort of unpleasantness.

RTD got what Doctor Who was supposed to be. A wholesome sit down with the family at tea-time, you had a laugh, a cry, a bit of a think, Moffat a turned all that into something fetishised, lacking of any decent morality fibre, fast paced and slick with no consequences whatsoever. What exactly is a child meant to take from this? That's it's ok to do what you want and there will be no repercussions? That is hardly a good thing to teach one's children, is it?

You have some REAL issues underdog. I mean seriously it takes a warped and twisted mind to turn a relationship between characters played by actors in their late 20s and late 40s and amount it paedophilia because a TIME TRAVELLER happened to witness her birth. You are seriously ****ed up in the head.
Go away already.

glad to be of service, and i think what that guy just said in reply to your comment sums it up far better than i ever could.

I'm just pointing out what my five year ols is learning from the mind of Moff, don't blame me, I didn't write this dire tribe He did. But you are so blinded by your devout love of anything he does you cant seem to see the forest for the obscurity of the living trees that popped up in last years epic failure of a christmas episode. "Space man angel" yeah right. Those Tree lifeforms were far worse than robot Santas or exploding tree's. And yet again it was another example of a Moff throwaway episode that had no cause effect, or consequences. Which seems to be about the only thing he can write.

TardInSexy, you claim my mind is warped for pointing out what Moffat is writing into a family show? Don't you think you should be pointing the finger at him and saying that instead? I'm not the Doctor Who script writer, he is. All I'm doing is pointing out what most people are reading into this. It would take the mind of a very disturbed individual to have the role model that is the Doctor marry one of his companions children, after watching her grow up from childhood. Take it from me, I wouldn't be to happy about this wedding were River Song my daughter. It's like the sick betrayal of a trusted uncle!!!! Call me what you like, tbh, I'm not the only person who supports these views I'm just the chap unlucky enough to have to be the one to relay them to you because nobody else has the stomach or the courage to for fear of being ripped to shreds by angry Moff fanboi's.

Hence why my own child will no longer be watching what is supposed to be a family show. Moff as turned it into something depraved.

NUT JOB! (and it's tripe genius)

Why did you instantly leap to the paedophile conclusion Let me tell you why, shall I , because it was subconsciously etched into your mind from the moment of the Rive/Doctor wedding conception, so you must have already been thinking this yourself, Otherwise you would have just let it pass as an harmless, innocuous and innocent comment. Alas you did not, therefore I can only assume that you too also had these misgivings about this creepy developing in the world of the Doctor.

Now, let me assure you, that you were right to do so. Doctor Who is no longer a family show. And we only have one person to thank for that. Let me ask you this, if, the bbc have made Who so politically correct that nobody is allowed to die in it any more which is the norm now, why have they not removed the adulterated content also? Is it any worse seeing somebody get eaten by an alien monster than it is watching River Song cavorting with anything with a pulse?

I apologise for the typo, as you are aware t's pretty late and I'm quite ired.

Thanks Steven Moffat, now I know what Tom baker meant when he used to routinely ask Sarah Jane to pass him the sonic!

"Would you like a jelly baby, Sarah? I bet you would, you naughty girl. Or how about a quick fumble in the Cloister room before we finish off Davros"

:)

this is what our family show has degenerated into!

So you don't mind him corrupting our children then?

Please spare me your condescending tone, it's hard to have a reasonable discussion otherwise.

This is what the Doctor says, verbatim: "I can't take the TARDIS back there, the timelines are too scrambled."

Note that he doesn't say that he can't travel back there in time, but only that he can't take the TARDIS.
It was also previously established that the TARDIS was impossible to fly through the temporal distortions surrounding New York without being able to lock on to some kind of signal. We also find out that River will go back in time to send the manuscript for her book to Amy. How will she do that? With her Vortex Manipulator, of course.

But let's ignore the Vortex Manipulator: the Doctor could still fly back in time to another place, let's say to Seattle, and hitch a ride from there to New York. Not exactly impossible! Maybe a rather too mundane solution for the Timelord I admit, but not impossible.

Much ado about nothing, I feel.

>>The Angels have never come for people when they're asleep, you only have to blink.

They never have, that's true, but we learn in Blink that they can only move as long nobody watches. So things would be much more easier for them if there weren't constantly awake people out there in the streets, don't you think? The Doctor's suggestion that The City That Never Sleeps would be ideal for the Angels makes no sense.

About the pre-destination paradox: I give you that, but I think I didn't explain myself clearly enough before. For me it seemed not only important what you read, but what you don't. Reading the tombstone that has only Rory's name engraved on it suggests that Amy doesn't share the grave with him, doesn't it? Wouldn't it be pre-destinated that only Rory lies buried there? That's what I thought.
But I guess it only counts was read and not the meaning of things that aren't. So fair enough.

Craggy, I hate to break the bad news to you like this, but it's a Steven Moffet episode of Who. Don't expect there to be any type of plot coherence whatsoever, dude, I'm sure the good chap just farts this stuff out while he sleeps, dreaming about how great he is and how he has saved Doctor Who from the evil RTD. I'll say this for RTD, at least he wasn't intent on corrupting our children by endless onslaughts of River Song multi Doctor sex tryst innuendos.

I just picked up on that one, I managed to write a whole lot without saying anything, a bit like Steven Moffat then, by all accounts eh babe?

Although this was easily the best episode of the Season it has a number of terrible factors which, unfortunately, seem to be becoming more and more regular in modern Who.
1. Ridiculous concepts thrown into a story purely for effect (and which upon closer inspection do not make any sense). Yes, the Statue of Liberty being an Angel. This is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS. End of. For a start how can it move without crushing cars, people and buildings. The Angels don't teleport from location to location - they physically move - and to back this up we even heard its stomping footsteps. So why weren't there people in the street screaming, dying etc?
2. The Doctor not being able to go back to retrieve Amy and Rory. OK so I'm going over ground already stated on here but it's worth repeating. He could have gone back to a year after they were zapped back in time and picked them up there - or he could have got three Vortex Manipulators and gone back and all three of them could have come back to the present. This is further backed up by River saying that she'll go back and get Amy to publish the book (presumably by using A Vortex Manipulator!!!!!)
I'm sorry - I'm a fan of Mr. Moffat but the above examples are just sloppiness. And what's the point of people on these message boards offering explanations for the above. The explanations should be in the episode itself!
I think Dr. Who needs to be predominantly two part stories (as these are usually the best and give the plot time to breath - also it needs to stop going for the big WOW scenes and just be entertaininly well written.
In my opinion this season has not been a patch on Matt Smith's first two. An the best Angel story is easily Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone.

Moff just makes it up as he goes along, boring himself to sleep in the process with his own severely depleted writing skills. By which point he forgets all about what he wrote last time, and just continues pumping out another load of dross to ensure the next cheque arrives in time for the mortgage:)

I still mostly like the episode, but I feel it could be a lot better.

It's no sudden disillusionment that's been happening to me. I noticed the flaws before, it's just the first time where I felt I had to get over my laziness and voice my thoughts on the matter. :)

Moffat was good at plot coherence in the RTD days, funnily enough. I guess things change when you become a showrunner yourself. You have to produce many more scripts, think ahead a story arc, and are too busy to have the time to give the scripts the proper care they need.
Don't forget: he's also producing and writing for Sherlock!

Oddly enough I found the Moff stories in RTD era lacking. I know everybody thought "Blink" was utter brilliance epitomised but I just couldn't see it myself. From the moment I saw "Eleventh Hour" I saw the flaws straight off. I don't know how but gut instinct told me immediately that something was off. At first I put it down to the budget cuts and Matt needing time to settle in. I gave it a chance and stuck with it all the way through, that's how much I love Who. But yet I can still not bring myself to like the show under Moff. And believe me, I've tried. Everyone assures me the guy is wonderful, and after watching series one of Sherlock, I am still not convinced. I think a part of the problem is all the hype he gets, mostly from himself tbh, lol, but I feel that he just isn't cutting the mustard. Anybody who needs to hype themselves and their work up that much doesn't sit well with me, If your work is good it will speak for itself you don't need to constantly tell people how great it is.

Out debating the pro Moff buffs can be summed up in one swift sentence, uttered by one of the Sontarans in "the Poison sky" episode.

This isn't war, this is sport:)

Now I really am off to bed to cuddle my RTD teddy and my DT posters.

You said it yourself, "the timelines are too scrambled" that is NOT a problem to do with the TARDIS, that is a problem with that period of time... at not point does he say "I can take any other time travel device back there because they have absolutely no problem with scrambled timelines, it's just the TARDIS which is a whiney little complainer".

Errr, no, very false reasoning, if the timelines are scrambled you can't go back with any time travel device. Her book is a piece of paper, she doesn't need to meet the ponds, just send them a letter ala Blink.

If the timelines are too scrambled what does it matter what method he uses to get there, he's still likely to create a paradox in going after the ponds... and besides if he went back for them, flew them away, they wouldn't die there, their gravestones wouldn't be built, the book wouldn't be published, and a paradox all over again.

His suggestion that it would be ideal for them was intended as a feeding ground, I think you're taking the "city that never sleeps" bit a little too literally but ok.

Good to know how your friend feels about the show I guess. I don't think there is anything more I could say about this rant. Except maybe that your friend should grow some balls and not be afraid to be in a minority on this.
In a minority for seeing only bad things, mind you. Many people have at least something to criticize about the Moffat era, doesn't mean that they can't get some enjoyment out of it, though.

“If you look at other stuff from the Sixties they weren't crap – it was just Doctor Who. The first episode of Doctor Who betrays the lie that it’s just the Sixties, because the first episode is really good – the rest of it’s s***.”
A quote from Steven Moffat, the guy who as been entrusted with the future of our show. He justified himself by saying he was drunk when he made this remark. Make of it what you will.

Oh god you're a nut job, I went to that conclusion because it was obvious what you were implying. You've all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop.

Remember River saying that the Vortex Manipulator is like a motorbike through traffic, and the Doctor's line that "traffic was hell"? So yes, the TARDIS is a "whiney little complainer".

The Doctor just seeing Amy and Rory again, not necessarily taking them with him on an adventure, wouldn't create a paradox, would it? But even if he would take them on an adventure, he could always bring them back before they ought to die. And how would going after them create a paradox anyway? Did he read that he will never see them again? No, he didn't, so it isn't pre-determined.

You know, I watched the episode twice now, discussed the logic of the plot at length and yet it still doesn't add up for me. I feel this speaks for itself.

I apologize if this question has already been asked but can someone tell me why the Doctor can't visit Amy and Rory? River was able to get Amy to write the Afterward for her book. Thanks.

I thought it made total sense. Rory and Amy can't leave the hotel again, because another paradox like the one that let them escape in the first place would destroy New York. The Doctor made that clear. In theory, Amy and Rory could escape, but by leaving the hotel, they would selfishly be destroying thousands of lives.
Personally, I like the way it was done. It was quick, shocking, and immediate, yet it was still merciful, allowing Amy and Rory to grow old together. However, to River, the Doctor, and us audiences, it was the ripping off of a bandage.
Am I the only one who found that calm before the last angel oddly reassuring? Even though I knew this was a farewell episode, seeing Rory, Amy, and the Doctor making plans once more for their next trip across the cosmos gave me a fleeting moment of hope that this wasn't the end, and it made the last goodbye so much more heartrending.

Like others, I am too disappointed at some of the extremeism (positive and negative in peoples comments. I think ATM was a perfect *meh' ending to a consistent *meh* series. *Meh* might be too strong but each episode, I believe, has failed to achieve anything beyond 'good'. ATM had some good writing and jokes (every episode so far as SOME good writing), it has some good activing (see previous comment) and it had some lovely imagery (see both previous comments) but it had some poor capitalisation (Angle of Liberty - either use it more than a threating mouth that didn't attack as they looked longly into each other eyes, or don't bother as a mobile SoL was done better in Ghostbusters II - rubbish film), poor logical leaps (lets bring River back BECAUSE we are getting rid of her parents) and poor story telling (lets leave it to viewers to come up with their own reason why Amy and Rory didn't leave without giving us the gravitas that they felt on escaping - rather than the Doctors').
But I can't help shake the thought that every episode produced so far has been at the expense of a far greater epsiode. I do invite the wrath of the ever-eager DoG/SM-ites that worship at the alter of ok-ness drink from the cup of at-least-its-better-than-something-else-ness when I say that, I extend this feeling to nearly every episode produced under the wing of SM. I would highlight that "The Doctors Wife" was probably the pinnacle (and a personal favourite - along with "The Girl Who Waited") but even it fails to reach the many heights of elation experienced under RTD with both CE and DT at the helm of the Tardis.
I do believe that MS has grown on initial doubters and proven himself an individual and interesting Doctor however I do feel that the SM/MS combination has strived for greatness yet consistently achieved a general sense of underwhelming, despite their intentions. I would, however, like to juxtpose DW with the excellent results of Sherlock. I cannot reconcile the two. That SM is capable of producing the excellent results in Sherlock that I am craving for in DW, is both baffling and challenging. Each week I am torn: continue to watch DW with a sense of hope that expectations may finally be met or aspirations reached or stop as I am again deflated that again those dreams were dashed. However my sense of DW disillusionment is not reflected in my feelings towards Sherlock which consistently surpasses expectations and aspirations each episode. Maybe its the fewer episodes, maybe its the actors, maybe its the supporting staff, I confess I do not know, but I wish they could crack the formula and apply the result to DW to give us what the Doctor deserves.

im 14 i wouldnt say i have been "corrupted"

I really don't see how that line was relevant as that line occurred before the parodoxes reached such an extreme that it was impossible to land. You've decided to literally take it as being *only* the TARDIS can't land there, when there is no reason to do so.

Think about what you're saying... the DOCTOR could take people on an adventure and assume they're not going to die? Risk the stability of the universe on it? Seems a little unlikely.
Yes he could hop on a boat and visit them, we don't know that he doesn't, but it's not very in keeping with his style.

I wrote a perfectly reasonable negative review and it got deleted :( it's the first time I've ever had a comment thrown off a board. I really did not like this episode - it looked amazing, the art department has been doing an incredible job.

But! But... the characterizations, the dialog, it all rankled me. Plot things happened that felt like MacGuffins, stuff that might not have bothered me if I liked how the characters were behaving together - but alas. I didn't like what this episode had to say about women, about aging, about relationships and marriages - about death - about the personality of The Doctor - it all seemed off to me.

For example, I have never been a River Song fan but even I didn't think it was fair to see her character reduced to a pathetic "fear of being seen to grow old." Couple this with the earlier comment about Amy having lines around her eyes and the Doctor's disgust. Moffat didn't have to debase River Song's character with that type of stereotype insecurity. It is actually possible to have gotten across the "we're all getting older" bit without putting such a stereotype negative spin on it. And yet, he did put a negative spin on it and I don't know why.

When Rory's elderly self died, and Amy pulled her hand away - what does that story tell us about death? About Amy's personality? I realize lots of people disliked Rose, but I couldn't see her pulling her hand away. Did they even close his eyes or cover him up? Did they show him any compassion at all or just treat him like some kind of Prestige clone aberration? Yet another aborted past/future/whatever - don't worry about it just keep plowing forward like you're on cocaine.

The jump off the building - could have been handled so differently and instead it was handled like a double suicide. It didn't even make sense to the plot. Really, being witness to your own death as per the preceding scene, is also a paradox. But apparently it wasn't paradoxy enough in a Whoniverse where rules are added, deleted, and re-written as required. Instead of real feeling, the building jump was just a cheap emotion manipulation - quickly wiped away as soon as it happened. Again, just keep plowing forward like you're on drugs.

It was the same with the Amy & Melody moment at the end. That whole business has literally barely had a single mention since it was revealed. Even when Amy lamented not being able to give Rory a child neither of them spoke about how they actually DID have a biological child. They didn't even mention how weird the Melody thing was. Nothin'. So when the Mommy-talk moment got thrown in at the end I felt like it was just a cheap afterthought. I sat there thinking "are people _falling_ for this?!"

I could go on about plot holes but I won't. Anyway, I've been watching Doctor Who for coming up on 3 decades. I'm allowed to watch it and I'm allowed to be critical of it.

I believe the following review was removed. I don't think DoGF should be censoring views that don't praise the Moff should be removed when they represent a valid, alternative point of view:
Like others, I am too disappointed at some of the extremeism (positive and negative) in peoples comments. I think ATM was a perfect *meh* ending to a consistent *meh* series. *Meh* might be too strong but each episode, I believe, has failed to achieve anything beyond 'good'. ATM had some good writing and jokes (every episode so far as SOME good writing), it has some good activing (see previous comment) and it had some lovely imagery (see both previous comments) but it had some poor capitalisation (Angle of Liberty - either use it more than a threating mouth that didn't attack as they looked longly into each other eyes, or don't bother as a mobile SoL was done better in Ghostbusters II), poor logical leaps (lets bring River back BECAUSE we are getting rid of her parents) and poor story telling (lets leave it to viewers to come up with their own reason why Amy and Rory didn't leave without giving us the gravitas that they felt on escaping - rather than the Doctors').

But I can't help shake the thought that every episode produced so far has been at the expense of a far greater epsiode. I am sure my comments win incur the wrath of the ever-eager DoG/SM-ites that worship at the alter of ok-ness and drink from the cup of at-least-its-better-than-something-else-ness when I say that, I extend this feeling to nearly every episode produced under the wing of SM. I would highlight that "The Doctors Wife" was probably the pinnacle (and a personal favourite - along with "The Girl Who Waited") but even it fails to reach the many heights of elation experienced under RTD with both Eccleston and Tennant at the helm of the Tardis.

I do believe that Matt Smith has grown on initial doubters and proven himself an individual and interesting Doctor however I do feel that the Moffat/Smith combination has strived for greatness yet consistently achieved a general sense of underwhelming, despite their intentions. I would, however, like to juxtpose DW with the excellent results of Sherlock. I cannot reconcile the two. That Moffat is capable of producing the excellent results in Sherlock that I am craving for in DW, is both baffling and challenging. Each week I am torn: continue to watch DW with a sense of hope that expectations may finally be met or aspirations reached or stop as I am again deflated that again those dreams were dashed. However my sense of DW disillusionment is not reflected in my feelings towards Sherlock which consistently surpasses expectations and aspirations each episode. Maybe its the fewer episodes, maybe its the actors, maybe its the supporting staff, I confess I do not know, but I wish they could crack the formula and apply the result to DW to give us what the Doctor deserves.
PS. If you post a negative review keep a copy incase it is removed

You know, there are a couple of other things about the episode bothering me now that I think back. 1) What did the Doctor do about the Angel in the cemetery? Did he just leave it there to zap whoever it comes across? 2) What about Rory's dad, or Amy's family? Did River or the Doctor bother to tell them what happened to their loved ones? Did the Doctor just not bother, maybe feeling too badly over telling Rory's dad "not them, never them"?
On a separate note, maybe some of you out there can give me feedback on my out there theory of where things might go from here. I am seeing the Doctor build a family, get erased from the universal memory, and become crotchety. My theory is that this is all building up to some kind of a closed loop that takes us back to the first Doctor. Any feedback will be appreciated and pondered.

Good theory, but it would imply that the BBC are getting ready to wind up the series, which I doubt. And I can't see them going for an older person in the lead role anymore, given the ageist bias in our society nowadays.

Another thing that was missing in this ep (IMO) was some active interaction between Rory, Amy and River. Yes, she said "mother" once, but Rory and Amy should be a little more interested in the life of her daughter. Leave out the "mother" bit and River could've been just some additional character in the show. In an episode full of problems and plotholes, this doesn't drag it down much further, but it still bugs me since this relationship was never explored properly. Especially after Amy and Rory almost split up over not-being-able-to-have-children. (Any MORE children, btw. That was something that annoyed me in Asylum of the Daleks, too...)
And why the hell was Rory's father even introduced in such depth (and with a "final" scene telling the Doctor to take care of the couple)? So he's sitting at home, worrying.
The Doctor will NOT tell him anything. Guaranteed.
Unsatisfying. That's all I have to say.

TardInNasty Your rants have been entertaining and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but why don't you try using some reasons to back up your opinion. I have read every single one of your posts on this and you never give any reasons for your opinion. You simply state your opinion as fact. It's becoming embarassing and tiresome. At least TardInSexy back all opinions up with a plethora of reasons etc. You accuse Moffat of writing plots that make no sense and then praise RTD???? Back it up with something!! What the hell are you smoking, bud? I think I'd like some.

@Underclass Underdog: Your rants have been entertaining and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but why don't you try using some reasons to back up your opinion. I have read every single one of your posts on this and you never give any reasons for your opinion. You simply state your opinion as fact. It's becoming embarassing and tiresome. At least TardInSexy back all opinions up with a plethora of reasons etc. You accuse Moffat of writing plots that make no sense and then praise RTD???? Back it up with something!! What the hell are you smoking, bud? I think I'd like some.

My thoughts exactly. The Moffat that thought up Coupling, Jekyll and Sherlock is clearly the werewolf (Hyde? :) ) version of the one that writes for DW. There are bits and pieces of true genius all over the place, but the missteps are so irritating, I can't help but pull out my hair in despair.

I found the slightly throwaway ending of the 'survivor' angel that was then left roaming around a bit infuriating, but the departure of Amy and Rory (Amy's final letter to the Doctor reminiscent of Ruby Nightinggale's letter to Sally Sparrow) was lovely and fitting. Poor Rory seems destined to die, multiple times, almost a a plot device to force Amy to choose, but FINALLY she makes the choice it's taken her since her very earliest appearance to make, rounded off nicely by her becoming Mrs Williams, as opposed to Rory's Mr Pond.

Not necessarily, hear me out. With the resounding theme of "time can be rewritten," the possibilities for just about any weirdness being opened up by "Big Bang 2," Moff's apparent distaste for the execution of the 60's series (as evidenced by the quote in an above post I'm too lazy to cut and paste) and Moff's ego as a writer, he may be planning to reboot Whovian universe completely, in a way a big Bang 2.2 Add to that the tag lines "the season where everything changes" and "every story has a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order," then factor in the impending 50th anniversary, I still believe this is a possibility, albeit a slim one.

I think you're missing the point, most of us complaining are also long time fans, myself from the Tom Baker days. We do love the show for what it is, or was, "quirky, weird and a bit different." We see it becoming just another run-of-the-mill melodrama. And if all the people who had some complaint about the show at one time or another stopped watching, there would be Saturday evening enjoyment of this kind for anyone. We (at least I believe most of us) don't complain just to complain, we complain because we care about the show and want to see it done to the standard it deserves.

"there was lots of good writing like tat". D.O.G maintaining it's usual editorial standards.

Moffat came up with Coupling(Friends), Jekyll(not his idea, I'm afraid) and Sherlock(see Jekyll).

Was there anything stopping Rory and Amy leaving New York and the Doctor meeting them there? Also, the Doctor didn't break River's wrist, she broke it herself and he fixed it, meaning time can be rewritten.

Gota say this felt a little to much like Roses departure only in opposite world, moffats doctor has been a murderer and horribly selfish in the last 5 episodes, also it was just unnecessary to have a Rose style ending and felt forced to continue this silly lonely god persona, (why can't he use the vortex manipulator or go to the same time on the moon with a transport and save Amy & Rory) and the only other thing that kept Amy and Rory going back in the end was that Amy couldn't have babies anymore also a stupid addition that was not needed but forced to keep the lonely god thing going, would have been better if the doctor found a family in them & river then just slowly they got old and died as the doctor let them live there lives a bit more and come with him less, then just have river be his companion during that time.

I thought about this for a while and then decided that I should reply if only to say that this is just the sort of fatuous opinion that made me stop posting here. I could equally say "To everyone who loves the new series if you don't want to read anything bad then stop going to the forums and just leave it to the people who dislike the show". Any chance you're going to do that?

Of all the gaping plot holes, the one that bothered me the most was why New York? Why take quintessential Brits and leave them stranded in a New York they have no history with and expect us just to be glad they grew old? Of all the companions who've left these felt the most "thrown away" of all, and why in New York of all places? Meh. Can't even content myself with an image of the Ponds living and dying in the setting they belong in; Moffat just drops em off in a horribly caricatured, fakely hard-boiled NYC like "poof" and that's that. Yuck.

Sounds like you have some issues with your own mortallity... none of what was described there was actually present. The Doctors aversion to people ageing is the reminder that he doesn't, that he will, sooner or later, be left alone again.
It's his immortality which is being commented on, not the mortality of those around us (heck Moffat is in his late 50s now, I hardly think he's ageist... but then he's worked with and FOR his wife and mother in-law and he's accused of being sexist, so why not add some more bat**** crazy to the mix?)

All these negative comments suddenly being bounced up, guess only the trolls are still on a 3 day old review page (and me :P).
For the record the average AI for the Moffat era is higher than that of the RTD era, so leaving aside my opinion, the country disagrees with you.

You've missed something - River 'married' the Tesselecta. Not the Doctor.

Ok, bad choice of words. Of course he didn't "invent" the characters, but he created the shows in their current form. Happy now? :)
Right, Sherlock had serious input from Mark Gatiss. I hope the record is straight now.
But picking up on your criticism: Moffats forte seems to be re-invention. And his previous DW outings made him seem perfect for running the show. All I say is that the show became increasingly weird and unnecessarily complicated.
I can't put my finger on it and I honestly don't want Davies back, but DW needs to provide some answers to all the questions it posed over the last 2 1/2 seasons.
One thing's for sure ... I will keep watching until the bitter end. :)

Hmm yes, I see.

You're missing one teensy detail: The Doctor is not immortal. He does age, and will die eventually. Up until the NuWho there were plenty of Timelords around.

Just as a general reminder, The Doctor didn't used to be Magickal Space Jesus, known by an ever expanding list of ominous nicknames, and he certainly wasn't Mass Appeal Space Hipster. He was more closely related to Spock than... well, whatever he is now.

I don't think Moffat is agest, I'm not even convinced he's sexist in a malicious way. I just think his characters are written as inconsistent plot devices instead of characters I can suspend disbelief with and follow on an adventure. I also find the way he writes "emotional" stuff to be both totally hamfisted and ultimately completely lacking in heart- because there are no consequences.

I'd forgotten about Coupling. One of my all time favourites, the box set currently sitting behind me. Long ago I knew it was Moffat, and I now remember being excited when I heard based on that alone, but I'd forgotten so I guess it shows how far (away) we've come.
From the realistic, unrealistic relationships in Coupling always paid off (for the viewer) to the convoluted threads in DW that often become threadbare in the time we wait to see what they alluded to: the cause of the exploding TARDIS, the 3rd story/floor of Amy's house, the Questions/Answer when Silence falls, to the current flickering lights - we may never even find out what these threads are/mean (especially the mysterious 3rd floor in Amy's house).
Like your favourite Jacket, threads that don't end are the unravelling, the tatty, the need for a patch, the reason-to-get-a-new-jacket yet we continue to wear it. Why? Because we hope to experience the feeling when we wore it new and when we felt cool again and we ignore the somewhat obvious shabby nature of our appearance, all for the sake of wearing our favourite Jacket.

While I loved the last series, I'm really missing the sense of a greater story arc linking the episodes.. Though I've not re-watched any episodes this series I'm also left puzzled by some plot mechanics. For example, at the end of The Angels Take Manhattan, if the timeline was reset/refreshed/diverted by the paradox, what's the actual reason the Doctor couldn't return? Surely there's no new paradox as seeing a gravestone isn't the same as seeing someone die.. Wouldn't it occur to someone to pop back, pick up the Ponds and fake their deaths? So all I can think of is that where a timeline has been reset by a paradox, time is I guess a bit too... Wibbly-wobbly (?) to go back to.. It just didn't seem like a satisfying ending or an unavoidable exit..

Love the show but a bit dissapointed by what felt like a "Get Out of Jail Free" ending..

Nicely put. These nagging questions really bug me. And I don't understand that "we" who criticise are automatically labelled trolls.
As I previously said, I will watch DW until I die. (Probably.) But we have every right to demand answers to questions posed in the show. We ... as fans.
I immediately bought the BluRay of TinTin just because it was written by
Moffat ... and it pretty much delivered. I can't understand why some
people don't feel the same disappointment with the threats that Moffat
has been spinning in DW.

Of course DW is STILL better than 85% of all the other shows on TV all over the world. No doubt. But when shown brilliance on a basis of MYSTERY, we have every right to demand the solution of said mystery. It's called storytelling.
Every story needs an ending.
Oh ... see? Right back to topic. :)

--Wrong Reply--Sorry

No, it's not. It's a "family show". Which I guess means the BBC thinks families cannot handle death or loss...

Agreed. It's called "lazy writing". It's insulting to the audience to think we will blindly accept whatever drivel they throw up there. At no point was anything in this episode "cool". It was contrived, forced, and nonsensical with an ending that was telegraphed by over a year. Worst season of Who since 2005.

Worst episode Moffat has ever "written". Irredeemably bad. Can't believe it made it to the screen. What utter nonsense. But, I'm sure there's plenty that "cried" because Amy & Rory left the show (like we didn't know that would happen for over a year now) and thus will say it's a great story. Baffling. Just baffling.

Retrospectively,the decision not to introduce Amy to the programme with relatives in the style of Rose was dictated by Moffat always intending to reveal River was Amy's child and wanting to concentrate the audiences attention on her relationship with Rory and the Doctor,so it was necessary to turn the absence of her family into part of his storyline to disguise what he was planning.So it was critical that they were very careful about who they cast in the role.I think Karen's done an outstanding job considering how inexperienced she was and how she has always had to cope with that brief while trying to portray her character as realistically as possible.There is no doubt in my mind that Karen is a very capable and talented actress and that the range of stuff she has had to play working on the show will help with what she does in the future. I've sometimes thought she has reminded me of Diana Rigg and jane Fonda when they were younger,so she's definitely doing something right.I'm sure as she gains more experience she will understand even more how unique Doctor Who is in her profession.Just stay out of the swimming pools Pond and keep out of trouble in hotels.Please.

No that's still a bloody stupid response, it doesn't matter if he's immortal or will one day die, he's 1,200! He's lived 15 lifetimes! So I say again, it's a comment on the mortality of those around him and not his own... especially if his regeneration limit is now 507.

And he was known by an expanding set of nicknames, ΘΣ for example. This series the jesus aspect of the character has been played down.

And the way he writes emotion is far more subtle than his predecessor ever did *face camera* "I DON'T WANT TO GO" <- STOP TALKING TO THE AUDIENCE DAMN YOU!

I think that the key word for this season, or whatever you want to call these 5 episodes is, underwhelming.

I'm confused. How does working for his wife and mother in law negate him from being sexist? Plenty of people have gay friends yet are homophobic, and many people have friends of ther ethnicities and can still be a little bit racist. I really don't understand the logic there.

I don't think they ended up trapped in the hotel! That was destroyed when the Rory Paradox occurred through his jumping off the roof and dying young after he had died old. Er. Yeah. They only went back in time, thus feeding their time energy to that one surviving Angel that tracked Rory after the paradox. It was daft that The Doctor didn't dispatch that Angel onscreen and left it, strengthened by both Rory and Amy's time, to roam a NYC that the Doctor can never return to (!!). Why they didn't make their way back to Great Britain and died in NYC is a bit unclear. Possibly they chose to not take the risk of messing with their own timelines by running into any Brit relatives/ancestors, but it wasn't, unfortunately, made clear. If there were dates on the headstone (and how many headstones don't have dates?) they weren't visible on screen. I haven't read all 400 comments, but did anyone else notice that Rory was first taken (with his coffees) at the Bethesda Angel statue location in Central Park where "Angels in America" (the brilliant mini-series based on the play) shot a number of scenes, including the final scene?

...Well. *I* cried. Don't know about the rest of the world, but I was crying.

Anyone who uses 'lol' in what is meant to be a serious comment is not getting any attention from me.

Brilliant.
Please, people, all those who dislike the Moff's Who, pay attention: At least it isn't as bad as 1989.

...why do Rory and Amy have to actually be in the cemetery? Buy a tombstone saying the appropriate thing, buy the plot of land, put it on the ground, find a way to get Amy and Rory out of there and send them home, then just don't take them traveling again. (Or you could, really, but that kinda defeats the purpose of the story)

I don't think either of them failed. RTD created a stable base for Moff to build upon. But really, he didn't seem able to do anything but that. I have been thinking and I have come to one conclusion. Some people grow out of Doctor Who. Back when it re-started in 2005, people could look past the gaping plot holes and silly endings i.e looking at the heart of the TARDIS turns you unborn suddenly, yes I am looking at you 'Boom Town'. But now, many people only seem to watch Doctor Who so they can point out what does not make sense. Its freaking Doctor Who! Its not meant to make sense. If you are looking for a factual program with real world logic and boring monologues about how space is really big and you are not important, go and watch a Dawkins Documentary (of which in my opinion there are not enough of). But if you want magical adventures with a young but old alien who wears a bow-tie, or a leather jacket or even a massive wooly scarf, who fights mighty aliens all while looking like the coolest nerd to have ever existed, who take humans out of there boring lives and shows them the wonder of the universe, then watch Doctor Who. What I am trying to say is, I don't think you are watching Doctor Who for the same reason as me Underclass and I think that has clouded your judgment. Its not 'Moff love' that makes me angry over these kinds of comments but love for a brilliant program that does not get the respect it deserves. Its sad to see so many once bright eyed young adventurers turn into boring fact checkers. Very sad indeed.

Thankyouthankyou! I was about to just comment on all the people who are sonegative too but you hit on the nail! This episode was brilliant! Loved every second! To those who love to overanalyze every bit of timey wimey... Get a life! My thinking is that they are control freaks and want it all to turn out in some crazy way that makes sense to them. That is why it is sci fi! Just enjoy it. Enough already

Ugggh. Please enough. I used to think just like you. I am a huge fan of classic tom baker. Get over it though. I did. I still watch the classics but you have to move on & enjoy the new ones. Sounds like you would even find a lot wrong in the classics. Positive thinking!! Well except for the late 80's era.... Dreadful!

You have a child?! Bleedin' eck...

If you really do have kids, you clearly have stupid ones who are easily taken under TV's wing. Be a father and teach them about life yourself, instead of relying on Doctor Who?

I just started watching Doctor Who a couple of months ago and just got caught up with Series 7. After the brilliance that was David Tennant's Tenth Doctor with Russell T Davies, I never expected to enjoy Matt Smith's Eleventh with Steven Moffat as much as I did. Within his first few episodes, though, Matt Smith is my favorite Doctor. I should have known it would be good, as Moffat's Sherlock is brilliant.

Exactly. I loved Heroes season 1 and parts of season 2 then it turned to rubbish, I stopped watching it. The same applies with X-Files around S5 and plenty of others. If something is good enough, like DW, Quantum Leap, B5, Buffy, and Battlestar Galactica (2005 version) then I will continue watching it.

Question: In the episode The Hungry Earth (with the huge drill and the Silurians), they see an older Rory and Amy waving from afar...by the time The Angels Take Manhattan happens, has this scene already happend in their lives or will they go back to the UK during their time in the past to make this come true? I'm a bit confused with all the time travel lol.

Nobody here has a heart. This was a beautifully shot, wonderfully emotional epidsode of Doctor Who and every other comment is beating the metphorical hells bells out of it. Please give it a rest, guys. PLEASE.

I sadly wasnt very satisfied with this episode and I say sadly because I have loved doctor who since its revival and especially the episodes from this latest series... but something just seemed to lack from this episode and I can't put my finger on it... maybe it's because I felt it was a little to rushed so maybe needed a two parter... I don't know.

I think you watched a different programme to me. I could go on and on about the countless faults in the plot, but instead I'll just draw your collective attentions to one particular plot point, which really annoyed me: The statue of liberty as a weeping angel? No one noticed it walking across manhattan?! Really? No one, bar the doctor and his companions heard it plodding noisily down the street and decided to check what was shaking the earth, and in the process of spotting the thing, causing it to become frozen/immobile? REALLY?!

Well...I do. I really don't get how you can have gay friends and be homophobic. Surely you wouldn't want anything to do with them? Therefore, Steven Moffat's willingness to give his wife and mother-in-law authority over him is a sign that he's not sexist.

I hate to trot this one out, because all I'll get is scorn, but...if it makes you angry, why watch it? Do you want to die of high blood pressure? Is that it?
At least when the show made TARDInSexy angry, they had the descency to switch off rather than prolong the torture.

an angel feeds off potential energy.. meaning, the years that they could have lived in the correct timeline are all gone -- eaten by the angels.. so, just as is said in blink... they really are stuck.

What if he never looked at the gravestone? They were all acting before Amy was taken that this was irreversible.

Am I the only one around here who do not understand how Rory dies of old age? Wasn't he supposed to be replaced by a robot/became a cyborg during the previous season? Wasn't he the last Roman centurion? Guarded Amy for a thousand years without aging one bit? So how can he die of old age when he was sent by the weeping angels only to 1938?

did anyone notice that amy and rory were looking away from the angels yet the angels didnt do any thing? was that an error or was it on purpose? i know i am late i was just re watching :)

Sponsored Links