Some Thoughts on “The Angels Take Manhattan”

So that is that. The end of the journey for Amy and Rory. It ended in an interesting fashion, one that was somewhat predictable, and one that seems artificially final. Also, yes, argh, the Statue of Liberty business. This isn’t an actual review, per se, just my thoughts. So here they are.

Why can’t the Doctor travel back to whenever to visit Amy and Rory? That makes no sense, and was basically handwaved in the episode. If they got sent back to, say, 1890 or so (Rory was in his 80s in 1938, so this seems about when they got sent back), well, we know the Doctor can go to that time period, since he’s done it before. So why can’t he now? Also, how long before this gets forgotten and we see the Doctor back in that part of time anyhow on some totally different mission?

The Statue of Liberty business really was very irritating. It was so needless, and frankly struck me as something Davies would have done, though in his case, the statue probably also would have been a drag queen. I understand why Moffat and crew were tempted to do this, but they should have resisted, or done as my friend Rob suggested, and have Rory say something like, “I thought I saw the Statue of Liberty move,” but not actually show it as an angel.

On that note, since when can the angels posses other statues? I dimly think I remember some line about that in a previous episode, but I might be wrong. Do any of you recall?

If the Doctor reads that something happened in a book, he can’t change it. Really? That doesn’t make sense. How does he know the book isn’t fiction? How does he know River wrote down the correct version of the story?

The location shooting in New York City was really well-done, and I kind of liked the concept of the angel farm building, though I imagine if they really did keep people locked up in small apartments for 50 years or so, it wouldn’t be long before the people in question would start killing themselves.

The angel babies were really creepy and well-used. In fact, the angels as a whole were far better and more interesting here than they were in the previous angel two-parter, though not quite to the level of greatness they reached in “Blink”. I also loved the final shot of young Amy waiting for the Doctor.

I liked Amy and Rory, but I’m glad that they are gone, and that River Song is, hopefully, gone as well, at least for now. I’d like to see this Doctor get out from under the shadow of his companions, odd though that sounds. I’m looking forward to the Christmas special and seeing what the new companion is like. Gonna be a bit of a wait, but that’s ok. It’s fun to have something to look forward to!


3 Responses to “Some Thoughts on “The Angels Take Manhattan””

  1. Michael Says:

    I agree, I hate “Amy and Rory.” I don’t get this whole emasculated male lap poodle concept. Why would any woman want a man like that? It started with Rose and Mickey, the whole “gee whoa is me limp dick boyfriend who can’t compete with the doctor concept.” What is that? Did it test well with the female market sector? Of course he can’t compete with the doctor! Why not have a man like Ronan from Stargate Atlantis? He was big and strong and knew he didn’t get the science that McKay did but he still had a pair of balls and he never tried to compete with McKay. That’s a better model. Or someone like Adric! I agree, River should BAIL and BAIL hard! Bring back Romana, or someone at that level. There is no question in my mind that the show is being re written to reach out to the female viewing sector. It’s a giant “wet kiss” to the growing femenine geek market. But with so many people saying, “you should never hit a woman,why are so many women eager to hit a man?” I guess it’s okay to hit men but not women and that’s equality? I don’t like Amy schooling the doctor on relationship issues. He’s the fucking doctor, he doesn’t need fucking AMY to educate him. But then again it’s a wet kiss to the women viewers. Like the doctor doesn’t know anything about relationships? Please! And why is Amy telling the doctor to shut up? It’s feminism on steroids! The show is ruined. Thank goodness for iTunes. I watched a classic Dr. Who episode, Underworld, with Tom Baker. That’s the show I know and love, not this this tripe fucking TRASH. FUCK YOU BBC for fucking up my favorite sci fi show of all time! 😦

    • arthurthepanther Says:

      Oh, god. First and foremost, talk about not getting the whole Rory thing. Rory’s strength is in the commonplace. He’s not as smart as the Doctor, nor is he as cool and witty as the Doctor. And that is why in the final analysis he supersedes the doctor – because he doesn’t need great intelligence or great wit to be undyingly (and in this case, also dyingly) loyal, brave, loving and true. If you don’t understand why Amy loves him, or why hundreds of thousands of women would choose him over the doctor, then you don’t understand love. I feel a certain pity.

      Shame on you, by the way, for mentioning SGA anywhere near the same breath as the greatness that is Doctor Who (except in this limited comparative fashion showing disdain for the former and adoration of the latter). I don’t mean to start some kind of geek flame-war, so understand me when I say that if you like that show, well, good for you. Just don’t try to compare a critically panned, nine days’ wonder, spin-off of a spin-off to the critically-acclaimed, award-winning, most successful and longest running television show in the world. Ever.

      Comparing new Who to the older series of Who can be valid. Comparing it to just about anything else? Probably not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: