Doctor Who Season 7: 5 Questions About “The Angels Take Manhattan”

  • 58 Comments
 
Doctor Who Season 7: 5 Questions About “The Angels Take Manhattan”  

Okay, I admit it: I got more than a little emotional more than once during last night’s Doctor Who. What can I say? I knew it was going to be rough going into the final episode for Amy and Rory, but even so… That doesn’t stop me from wanting to poke holes in the somewhat flimsy plot, however. Questions and spoilers for “The Angels Take Manhattan” ahoy!

How Can The Statue Of Liberty Even Be A Weeping Angel?
It makes a great visual, I know, but… the Statue of Liberty as a Weeping Angel? How does that even work? Not only in the sense of “Oh, so apparently Weeping Angels can be whatever scale necessary, even though they’ve always been human-sized before,” but also: Isn’t the construction of the Statue of Liberty a matter of historical record, even in the Whoniverse? Wouldn’t 1930s New York be freaking out when the Statue of Liberty is walking across the city repeatedly to harvest on time energy? You’d think that’s the kind of thing that people would remember – Or, for that matter, that you’d hear a reaction to just as loudly as you’d hear the footsteps.

How Did River Know Where To Send The Book To Amy?
If the Doctor doesn’t know where the Angel sent Rory to the second time around – as he told Amy (although he could, of course, have been lying to try to prevent her from doing what she ended up doing) – then why did River so matter-of-factly say that she’d send the manuscript to Amy? How did she know where and when Amy is? And, for that matter, how can she interact with Amy in any way, even through the mail, if Amy and Rory are trapped in the past because interacting with them would destroy 1930s New York because it’s so riddled with time paradoxes? Which brings me to my next question:

Aren’t There Other Ways To Save Amy and Rory And Create Another Time Paradox?
The answer to this one is, of course, yes. Yes, there are. I can think of two right off the top of my head: We know the Tardis can’t go back, but what’s to stop River going back with her personal special wristband time machine device and saving them? She even says in the episode that she can go where the Tardis can’t, after all. Or, if New York in the ’30s is too dangerous, does that mean everywhere else in the world during that time period is equally dangerous? If not – and, somehow I doubt that that is the case – then what’s to stop the Doctor from taking the Tardis back to Connecticut or wherever, driving into New York, picking up Amy and Rory and then driving them back to safety?

Don’t get me wrong; I like the romanticism of Amy and Rory’s farewell, and there being a reason why they’re not just continuing to travel with the Doctor – and I also like, in a sense, that this is the Doctor’s ultimate failure in a season of failures, although I also hope his luck changes starting with the Christmas episode, because this one really did feel just a little too downbeat for Who – but… I just wish that it was something that stood up to logic a little better, is all.

Isn’t River Song’s Very Existence A Time Paradox Now?
If River was pardoned because it turned out that the Doctor has erased proof of his existence, meaning that she killed no-one, how does that actually work? If all proof of the Doctor’s existence is gone, why did authorities think that River killed anyone in the first place? And if she was just being detained while they worked through the details, why was she held in Stormcage for so long? For that matter, without proof that the Doctor existed, would River even exist as River, because the Silence wouldn’t exist and therefore wouldn’t kidnap Melody Williams and and and… Oh, I give up. River’s timeline is a crazy mess if we’re to believe that the Doctor has really succeeded in making himself into an unknown mystery again.

About that timeline, though: River’s a Professor now! Does that mean that this River is closer to her appearance in “Silence in the Library,” from season four, and therefore her own death?

Since When Are Timelines Set In Stone As Soon As You Interact With Your Future?
Again, I get that this all comes from the need to write Amy and Rory out with some finality and that this is an episode that works on an emotional level, if not a logical one. But… I am entirely unconvinced about the fixed point in time thing when it comes to “reading about” your future – that is, having some foreknowledge of what’s to come. Even within Steven Moffat’s own run of episodes, isn’t “The Pandorica Opens” and “The Big Bang” entirely contingent on foreknowledge of what’s going to happen, with that foreknowledge allowing the Doctor to plan enough ahead so that the future is both fulfilled and avoided?

“The Angels Take Manhattan” is a particularly frustrating episode. Watching it, I found myself entirely caught up in the story, and when Amy and Rory made the choice to leap off the building, I was completely verklempt. But the more I think about it afterwards, the more the plot falls apart, and the more I remain convinced that there are several workarounds for what actually happened and broke the Doctor’s hearts. Maybe that’s intentional, of course, and we’ll see Amy and Rory again (After all, if Oswin appeared before she was supposed to, who’s to say that Amy and Rory won’t appear after they’re supposed to? Perhaps in next year’s 50th anniversary celebrations?), but right now…? I feel somewhat disappointed with the episode, and wish that we had another one next week that could wash the bitter taste out of my mouth. Instead, we have to wait until Christmas… and Oswin’s “official” debut. Three months seems too long, doesn’t it?

  • Blcallender

    Also, the doctor healing River bothered me, can he only use it to heal another “timelord”? How can he waste Regeneration energy? Why couldn’t he heal others? 

  • Bret Callender

    On the way the rules work; one has to assume a limit, or restrictions, or finality at some point . Otherwise, there are no stakes, no drama. You can always “go back and fix it”. The more sophisticated the show gets, the harder it is to make this happen. The more episodes they break the time rules, the more questions they create next time they try to enforce them. I’m all for internal logical consistency, but at this point, it feels forced. Now that they have, at best, skirted the idea of fixed time, I think they need to crack down. Make some things permanent, otherwise we could have the doctor going back and saving his last self and them teaming up. Or we can accept the final arbiter of the logic of time travel; the story. This last episode didn’t break any more rules; you just don’t like the outcome. No one wants this doctor to be alone, without the Ponds. I don’t want the doctor to not be Tom Baker, I would have loved 1974-2012 to just be him. There is a point that you have to say, that was a good episode, the story needs this, and stop thinking. I admit it should be the writers job to make a bit more sense of it but the Who mythology is this big ball of wibbly-wobbly ploty woty stuff. 

  • Catwrangler7

    Let us not forget, she also healed him or literally brought him back from the brink of death in that ‘Hitler’ episode.. Maybe it was just a bit of ‘payback’ and now neither has lost their regeneration energy..

  • Catwrangler7

     I always liked Tom Baker but we didn’t get that many episodes of the Doctor here in the US when he portrayed him.. It really wasn’t until my favorite, David Tennant, became the Doctor that the show really began to gain a huge following over here.. One thing worries me a great deal about the character, they are making him younger and younger each time he regenerates.. Is he going to be a teenager or a child next time? For me, Tennant was the ultimate Doctor Who, funny, frantic, kind, certainly loveable and with a real vulnerability that you seldom see in any of the other Doctors.. I bawled like a baby when they took him out of the the show and, while Matt Smith does an excellent job, he IS far too young for my taste..

  • WhiteOwl1972

    1.  Why didn’t the TARDIS go back to 1930s Philadelphia — that wouldn’t rip up New York City?  Or go back to 1940 New York and pick up Amy and Rory after a few years?

    2.  How did the Weeping Angels feed the humans trapped in the hotel?  And who typed out the name plates for each apartment??!!

  • Mr_gees100_peas

    I completely agree with you. Rory and Amy where getting tired of traveling with the Doctor and to be honest who wouldn’t. For a little while is ok but, having to save the universe every single day?! too much. The story was alluding to that anyways. Both where getting tired of it and wanted to live a normal life. We have to take into account that the Doctor could theoretically live forever (sans the limited number of regenerations thingy). We humans have a very limited lifespan. Anyways, it would had been better if Amy and Rory decided to call it quits and live happily after that. This would had avoided a lot of plot holes and would allow for future adventures if needed be.

  • Mr_gees100_peas

    Bullocks I say. Just a bunch of Bullocks. Lets say that Rory didn’t create a paradox and that he had to die in the past. No big whoop there. That is pretty much the only requirement. He can live the rest of his life anywhere else. All he has to do is die in the past and when you have a time machine that is not a problem. When River Song send the book to Amy so that she could write the last page she could had also send an address saying meet us at this address end of story. As a matter of fact she could had send a message at any time. The only problem would be if they died in some other fashion. Regardless, Rory undid the paradox when he and Amy commited suicide so that event didn’t happen They could had been picked up either away from New York or even at a later time when the paradox didn’t exist like say 1 year later. They did live to old age

    Another plot hole is that the Doctor could still travel with them the same way he does with River Song. He picks them up say on a monday at 9:00am. He travels through times for 1 year. He comes back and drops them off at 9:01 of the same date.

    About the book making things fact. More bullocks. People lie you see. Maybe part of the story was real and part fiction. Just write down the event that happened to comply with he time travel rules but, make it vague enough that it is open to interpretation. See problem solved.

  • TheRealTimewarp

    What I don’t get is that The Doctor claims having seen the tombstones means they can’t go back and rescue them so what’s to stop The Doctor from saving Amy and Rory and then making the tombstones despite them being alive in the present. Did he suddenly forget he could just lie? Oh no I read it in a book! There’s no way Riversong could just lie and pretend it happened! By this logic he could tell Riversong “And then the Weeping angels all died, the timelords came back and the daleks decided they loved everyone!” and we could finish the whole damn show Futurama style