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?

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • JTempos500

    I think that the answer to the Statue of Liberty being an Angel was quickly mentioned in the episode: the Angels can make any statues into Angels.  Thus the baby Angels and the mother and son Angels.  Speaking of baby Angels, Angels can make sounds?  Baby Angels our now the scariest Angels.

  • Tsamper

    Honestly I’m a little dissapointed in the analysis of the episode this time around, 

    1) as far as the statue of liberty goes there are two much bigger holes in it than it’s size, the first one being when is there ever not SOMEBODY either looking at it or in the peripherals, but more importantly, the statue of liberty IS NOT A STONE, fact of the angel’s biology, they turn to stone, not hollow copper,

    2) this one’s an easy solve, all they need to do is look at the copyright page of the book and know exactly where and when to go, beyond the book itself, not too difficult to judge where they went if you have a date and age of death carved in stone not 10 feet away from you, 

    3) as far as I can judge on this one, the knowledge of Rory’s death in that time had to be a certainty, any violation of that would cause the paradox, so removing from the timeline is out of the question, that being said it feels like it could all be avoided by following rule # 1, The Doctor Lies, in this case he could lie to himself, it doesn’t matter what actually happened so long as they remember what to make the book say happened, and you should be able to get Amy and Rory out  of the past, so long as you arrange for the headstone to still be there that SAYS Rory died, still gives the same cause and effect implications

    4) little unsure about this one myself, it says the doctor is being deleted from every database, so my gut says that there is still knowledge of his existence, probably just being passed down in folklore and legend, with no records of him there is no evidence for the case which means there’s a mistrial or something even though everyone knows she did it. and for the Silence, well, it would be a very rough time deleting there records, and considering they control in secret they can still direct towards the destruction of the Doctor even without them knowing what they were doing,

    5) this is the one I have spent the most time considering, Specifically within Big Bang, interaction from the future seemed to specifically facilitate actions from the past (the doctor giving his screwdriver to Rory, and sending himself running around for 12 minutes to buy time to wok on the pandorica, etc. Near as i can tell it’s a matter of causality, recognition of the future can be re written provided that the specific events are not the cause or motivation of the change, because that change would no longer be there to motivate the actions that create the change etc, and thus paradox ensues. The only exception to this that comes to mind, is older and younger Amy simultaneous which to be fair created a paradox, that the TARDIS was trying desprately to get away from.

  • Me

    I have a question: Why was Amy and Rory already buried when they got sent back in time when they were meant to die on that day like all the other people who were touched by Angels?

  • Chathurrsan Thaneswaran

    Because they died on that day.the angels feed on future days that they would of had with doctor. When the angel touched amy and rory they got sent to (who knows when) the past. From that day onwards they live there lives until 2012. You might be able to get a better explanation if you watch the episode ,blink, which also featured the weeping angels.The doctoor cant go to their time because their time is full of paradoxes.He cant go as he could rip New york apart.Still he is the doctor, if he tried hard enough could go b ack.

  • http://thedadhatter.wordpress.com/ Bill Olander

    These are some good questions. My thoughts go like this:
    1. The Doctor specifically mentions that the Angels were replacing existing statues. I’d be interested to know if there are other statues out there with different sentient species that have differently shaped and sized angels.
    2. At the very least, they know the location of their graves so it shouldn’t be too hard to trace the records back… particularly not for the worlds greatest detective/archeologist.
    3. Yeah, this one. We’ve been seeing Amy and Rory age through the course of this season anyway. How hard would it be really to go back to say 1948 and pick them back up there? A decade older but well out of that messy chronal junk.
    4. I get the impression that the people who arrested River are working on at least some level of San Dimas time… or I guess Gallifrey Central Time… or whatever it is that the Time Agency uses to set their clocks.
    5. “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint, it’s more like a big bowl of wibbly wobbly timey wimey… stuff.”

    What this means is that Time Travel works however the writers want it to work in order to tell the story they want to tell. Don’t think too hard about it ;-)

  • Henry Eggleton

    It was stated in the episode that the Angels ‘Were inhabiting every statue in New York’ apparently as well as being statues they can control them.
    River isn’t a Paradox as her parents still exist in the historical record (sans her place of birth)
    I thought they also stated that the City was now so overrun with time energy no time craft could make it through in one piece.

  • dave

    dont you find it weird that “oswin” isnt her name as a companion but clara is?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

    I laughed out loud at the suggestion that the Doctor can’t save Amy and Rory (Save them from what? Living a long and happy life together?) The only evidence that we’ve seen that Amy and Rory died in the past in the manner as we’re led to believe is their names on a tombstone and the last page of an old book. That’s LESS evidence than there was that the Doctor died at Lake Silencio. If it ever becomes necessary for Amy and Rory to return, it would be trivially simple for the Doctor to come up with a way to do so retroactively, and then, leave a fake tombstone and novel for his younger self to find so as to preserve his own timeline.

  • Hunterdanm

    Anyone notice that the credit sequence for every whgo episode changes, specifically the colour and texture of the text that reads Doctor Who? What’s up with that?

  • Fury

    four words: wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey.

    that answers 3 of the five questions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/comicbookcub Erik Galston

    they purposefully did that, since this season was supposed to be a “season of mini movies”

  • Chris Skinner

    When Rory watched himself die, wouldn’t the older version of Amy be there as well, after all the tombstone said she died 5 years after Rory did, and the after note implied that they were together, so surely {Old} Amy would be in the room as Rory dies… along with Young Amy.

  • MCA

    I’m not satisfied. Actually I’m pretty disappointed.

    If AMy and Rory were sent back in time together than how could Doctor and the others meet ONLY Rory in his death bed? Paradox.

    And isn’t Rory immortal? He waited and guarded Amy for 2000 years right? So what’ 40 years to him?

    So many contradictions in the plot. Doctor Who always walked on that thin line between logical and nonsense, and but somehow always managed to be believable. Not this time. They just forced the plot so they could remove Amy and Rory from the script. I’m disappointed

  • guest

    Rory could only stay alive for 2000 years because he was in aplastic body at the time. He has a normal human body now.

    To answer your other question, Rory was never in the hotel and neither was Amy, because they erased that timeline with a paradox before Amy and Rory went back in time.

  • Strangecases

    about the 3 : 
    The doctor  say about the book (and he forbid Amy to read further), once an event is read, acknowledge… it becomes fixed in time and can’t be altered or it would create a paradox. The doctor still hope to be wrong about that but River and her broker wrist showed it wasn’t possible to change what is already known 

    (which remember me the trouble about the “spoilers” that River wouldn’t give and those that the doctor wouldn’t ear. He jumps in adventures and don’t want to know what will happen or how it ends maybe because he wants to be able to change things before they become fixed.).

    When they saw and acknowledge the gravestone (like us earlier in the episode), it became “fixed” and unchangeable. So the doctor can’t change the fate of amy and rory and it ties down with what the doctor read in the summary of the book:
    -Death at Winter Quay
    - and above all: Amelia’s last farewell

    the doctor is devastated because he knows that he wont be able to see Amy again (and then hoped that River could changed the broken wrist paradox).

  • Minister Grok

    wow was this “season” a let down!

  • http://twitter.com/jonnyricers Jonny Rice

    Uggh. In retrospect, they should have just made “The Power of Three” a two-parter and allowed Amy and Rory to stay in the present and essentially “outgrow” the Doctor. It didn’t make much sense to me that they left Rory’s dad and their new life together to jump back onto the Tardis after the previous few episodes.

  • Tristan

    Amy and Rory did not go back to the 30s, it is unknown where they went. I think they purposefully left the dates on the tombstones blank to keep the Doctor and River from being tempted to go and find them. All we know is that they had a tombstone in 2012. So when did they live, where, did they stay in New York, or just made sure they were buried there to maintain the timeline?

    And the vortex manipulator allowed River to navigate the time distortion created by the Angels, the paradoxes created by what Amy and Rory did are an entirely different beast. I imagine it goes from a bicycle in traffic to a bicycle in a minefield in complete darkness, and it might even be the minefield at the wrong time. Now Amy and Rory could leave New York and contact the Doctor from somewhere else, but that could create another paradox and who knows what that would do, and I imagine that Amy would know this.

    The problem was more that they needed a two parter to make everything clear and the fact that people are now making faulty assumptions, like they went back to 1930, which they did not. It’s all there if you just watch and stop trying to outwit the crowd.

  • http://twitter.com/FurrySenpai Furry Senpai

    So… and this might be a dumb question, but after watching the episode twice, I’m still not certain if this ever got resolved.

    So angels are in Manhattan in the 1930s…Oh No! That’s bad… very bad… uhm, so how exactly did the Doctor save Manhattan again? Or is it on his to-do list? Did the episode just forget about all of those angels and a stampeding Angel of Liberty terrorizing all of New York?

    I get that the point of the episode was Rory and Amy, but still… a crisis is a crisis after all.

    This episode really felt like it needed to be a two-parter, or at least two hours long. The angels in a major city subplot (subplot?! Okay fine) is HUGE in and of itself. 

    But I feel like I missed something huge. Help?

  • Demoncat4

    the angels stated they have the power to make any statue angels that is why lady liberty was one. as for rory and amy felt it was kin of crazy to  make them trapped in the past though at least it means they could always come back if the doctor could find a way through all the paradoxes. as for river sadly she is becoming one dr. who character that is getting so conveluted that no one will ever be able to figure her out  with out having to remove the character completely from the who verse

  • http://thedadhatter.wordpress.com/ Bill Olander

    The Angels normally ‘feed’ on the stable time loop created by sending people back in time and having them live out their lives. Normally they do this once, get a snack and have to keep hunting. What they did here was set it up so that the people at the hotel are trapped there instead of just going back once. Seems like there is an added bonus of having their aged self die just as their younger self shows up.

    That is with a stable time loop. Normal time travel stuff. When you start introducing paradoxes… illogical time travel, that starts generating yucky time energy. Dr. Who has dealt with that different ways since the reboot. There were those big blob monsters in Father’s Day where Rose met her father. There was that weird red energy that the Tardis was giving off when the Master turned her into a Paradox machine.

    So by purposefully jumping off the building together, Rory and Amy set off a paradox bomb in the middle of New York 1938 which just made it rubbish as a food source and thus the Angels (including the one in the Statue of Liberty) all took off. Of course that same paradox radiation that drove out the Angels is also what keeps the Tardis from going back there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Casey/623640256 Richard Casey

    UGH. I’ve mentioned how i thought Moffat was doing some big, complex timey wimey thing with the chronology of this series, turns out it was nothing more than hacky, lazy and ill thought out writing on Moffat’s behalf. I’ve been enjoying this series FAR more than previous attempts by Moffat, but now i realize that Moffat has become the weak link, his stories are terrible, the scripts are lazy and contrite (the spoilers thing? Come on, that book was a worse narrative device than “the autopilot doesn’t work” in The Dark Knight Rises) and worst of all they’re barely stories, just people going from exposition point to exposition point. 

    The Statue of Liberty? Called it the minute i knew it was The Angels in New York.
    The “death” of Rory again? That “sudden surprise” was weak when slasher movies of the 80s did it. 
    And, again, that fucking book/spoilers bollocks was so heavy handed i kept expecting the episode to freeze and Moffat to appear on scream like some demented Blu Ray extra and explain exactly what was being said just incase you missed it.

    Oh, and HOW THE FUCK DID RIVER SEND THE BOOK BACK TO AMY? It makes NO SENSE at all. And that bollocks about them not being able to go back in time to a past New York? SO just go back in time to another part of the world, then travel through space from there. I know that’s a particularly geeky point to make, but guess what? When you write a show like Dr Who and then make such definite rules about time travel that contradict what’s happened before with logic that’s anything but logical, people are going to pick apart the reasons and unravel a mess of lazy, uninspired writing that makes me wonder if Moffat even wrote Blink, Girl in the Fireplace or any of his other pre show runner gigs. Because his new episodes? They feel like he took his Dr Who show runner cheque, bought a thousand monkeys and a thousand typewriters and locked them in a room to see if the old adage was true.

  • http://twitter.com/FurrySenpai Furry Senpai

    I thought it had something to do with that paradox bomb thing…but wasn’t sure.. I was too busy scratching my head at how “wibbly wobbly” time now had new set-in-stone (no pun intended) rules. I know there’s normal time, and unchangeable events but what I saw was just…. ugh…and the playing “fast and loose” with what constitutes a paradox is silly.. but.. oh well nevermind. Thanks for answering that…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

     The problem wasn’t that they couldn’t go back for Rory and Amy (although it would have been difficult). The problem was that going back to get Rory and so ensure that he didn’t die in the past when he was supposed to would have blown up New York due to the paradox. The Doctor was pretty clear on what the problem was. They nearly blew up New York by having Rory die twice in the same place, and the Doctor was certain that one more alteration of a fixed event would blow everything up.

  • Rocky P.

    Agree with the overall feeling of let-downedness.  Usuall there’s distinct feeling of “oh, so -that’s- how that works..”, of details dove-tailing together for an overall coherence and satisfying whole.  This time I kept feeling a vague sense of “wait, that doesn’t seem right…” throughout.  At the end it was, while touching, a bit disappointing and frustrating.  Similar to the previous episode where the plot seemed like simply a frame for more Amy/Rory exposition, this seemed like an uncharacteristically flimsy frame for their departure.

  • Bob

    Rory’s death was a completely different timeline from his death on the tombstone. The bedside death was eradicated in the paradox. 

  • Vandriff

    What about the angel that sent the Williams back at the end of the show.  

    1.  Where did it come from?

    2.  What did River and the Doctor do about it.  Just leave it, so it could feed off others?  

    3.  Wouldn’t the presence of an angel mean that there were still more around?  and again, wouldn’t the Doctor feel compelled to get rid of all of them?

    Granted, throw these questions on the rest in the pile.  I feel that Steven Moffat’s “timey-wimey” is a lot more messy than Davies’.  I take it all quite lightly due to the nature of the show, but at the same time…  It’s been Doctor Who’s ability to fill in the gaps and leave me speechless at unexpected continuity that has kept me coming back year after year.  

    Leave the plot holes for others shows, Whovians deserve a few more well-packaged answers than we’ve gotten lately.

  • Jim

    I thought the Angels were wiped out of existence. How can they even be back?

  • Perfect Methods

    A lot of these questions can be solves once you realize that River knows exactly when Rory and Amy went back in time. Because in her mind they were always supposed to end up back there. She remembers it herself because they raised her back in the 60′s.

  • http://twitter.com/theobscurefan Aaron Bishop

    Really glad to see someone type all this down because even though the episode had a lot of good to it, there were so many problems. I mean just think about the fact that the Angels can’t move when someone looks at them. Now even in the 1930s, I can guarantee you that at all times there would be someone looking at the Statue of Liberty. No way would an Angel that big be able to get more than one step away before someone happens to turn their head in its direction. And the Doctor is immortal, even if he couldn’t get back to the 1930s ever again, not just in New York but anywhere else, why couldn’t he just go back to 1929 and wait it out? And what ever happened to the Tennant style Doctor? And if the Doctor reading the names on the tombstone prevented him from going back to save them because it was now a fixed point, well then why not just go back, save them, and then when they eventually died in the future of old age, take them to the past to be buried in that spot. That may sound complex, but this is the Doctor we’re talking about, complicated is what he does. What ever happened to the Tennant Doctor who when things looked impossible he just yelled about defying the impossible and then did it.

    (This may be the longest rant I’ve ever gone on about the Doctor so sorry about that, still an overall good episode though)

  • brodieman

    after a while you just have to clickoff your brain. He flies in a freaking Deus Ex Machina. They have to work around it. This is a story about the end of Amy’s journey and the Doctor’s refusal to accept  the one thing that he has to deal with time and time again. Everything ends and everyone leaves. The angels were great and the Statue of Lib was a great sight gag. 

    Plus I loved the homage to Sarah Jane’s departure from the Tardis with the final shot of a young Amelia. 

  • Peter David

    They were replacing different statues? So they replaced the Statue of Liberty, a copper statue that you can go in, with a stone statue that presumably you can’t go in, and no one noticed?  I mean, I’ll admit it wasn’t the best movie in the world, but I think “Ghostbusters II” pretty much nailed what would happen if Lady Liberty was moving around in Manhattan.  

  • http://twitter.com/Jebuz_Mutation Joel

    all the doctor has to do is arrange a time and place to meet up with Amy
    and Rory (other than 1938, because, as I believe was stated, he can no
    longer visit that time, he can do this by going to 1929 and sending a post-dated letter) and then (after going to get Amy and Rory) erect
    a tombstone in the same place in the same graveyard with the same
    wording to counter the paradox (Are we sure Amy and Rory really are
    buried there?).

  • A whovian till the end

    So how does river know that she is already married to the doctor, if we are moving back in rivers timeline? Didnt she get married to him later in her life?

  • Smithian

    I have another question: while it is very touching to see young Amelia waiting in her garden and hearing the TARDIS coming so the Doctor can tell her to buck up, “The Eleventh Hour” and “The Big Bang” contradict that moment. In TEH, that moment is intimated as being a dream before the Doctor does take Amy for good. In addition, would Amy really have been so annoyed with him when they were fleeing from her house about him saying “Five minutes” if he had come back in a bow tie after a few hours to tell her to be patient? And to add to the mess of what did and did not happen that season, “The Big Bang” saw the Doctor scoop Amelia up before that morning and put her to bed.

  • Eisenhorn

    I think Amy and Rory will show up for the 50th Anniversary too — and it wouldn’t surprise me if both David Tennant and Chris Eccleston were also part of it (especially with the latter having a high profile role in next year’s Thor movie). 

  • Zygon

    Going by the episode before last, the Doctor hasn’t been erased from U.N.I.T’s database. Good old human technology (bet it’s not microsoft).

    Wonder how the Doctor is going to explain what happened to the Ponds to Rory’s Dad? ‘Whoops … lost another couple of companions, sorry. Anyhow, I’ve been told not to travel alone so I’m off to put someone else in danger. Here have a jellybaby.’

  • https://profiles.google.com/115854774365881930956 Taz

    Not fast and loose at all, it’s a typical ontological paradox. Rory sees himself die of old age, so he goes to commit suicide. Then he isn’t around to die of old age. But he only jumped off the building *because* he saw himself die, so if he’s jumped to stop himself dying of old age, he won’t have died of old age and so he won’t have jumped. But that of course means he stays in the building instead and dies of old age, so his younger self sees that and does jump, and doesn’t die of old age so he *doesn’t* see himself die and doesn’t jump. And so on. (aka “wibbly wobbly timey wimey”.)

  • https://profiles.google.com/115854774365881930956 Taz

    Same reason as Kathy Nightingale in Blink was already dead by the day she was sent back. You get zapped back to a random point in the past, then you live out the rest of your natural lifespan, doesn’t necessarily imply anything about when you die. You can die before you get sent back.

  • keith parnell

    can’t you just enjoy an excellent show and ending without overanalyzing it? but to help you out with it.  questions 1-5-it’s SCIENCE FICTION.

  • Sterlingericsson

    Except Rory died in 1938. They saw him die there. He didn’t die in 2012.

  • Sterlingericsson

    Except the Statue of Liberty isn’t made of stone, it’s made of copper. At the very least, if you’re looking at it, it should turn to stone. But it didn’t.

    So what the heck is it? It certainly doesn’t have angel biology.

  • Sterlingericsson

    We saw Rory die. In person.

  • Looby_loo14

    What is the name of this song.. Mainly the part that the woman starts singing. When amy and rory jump of the building. Please someone? x

  • Henry Eggleton

     When an angel feeds it send you into the past so that you are likely to die on or before the time you are translocated in time.
    They feed off this energy whilst the food source lives out their remaining years in an older timeline.

  • VriskaSpider

     Let me explain something to you: In Doctor Who a paradox is only suppose to happen when it naturally is suppose to occur I.E. Amy and Rory’s being sent back into time and dying in New York creates the book and allows it to fall into the Doctor’s hand just right. Making the paradox that happened and all the events of the episode, and Amy and Rory living and dying as they do  a FIXED POINT IN TIME.

    Creating a paradox in a FIXED POINT in time does one of two things:
    1. Time forcibly tries to fix itself which means they will still die as they do, without the Doctor muddling in their lives again.
    2. Creating a paradox in anyway in a fixed point where time doesn’t correct the error forcibly starts to change and kill the web of time slowly destroying all of time and space.

    So, basically if the Doctor interferes in their lives, or takes them out of their closed time line he’s killing them himself and taking time and space with them.

  • Van

    Yes, but the death we SAW for Rory was part of what was undone in the paradox. Wasn’t it?

  • phillp_k_dick

     Okay, but the Statue of Liberty wouldn’t get a chance to move more than a block. Once people notice it moved, eyes wouldn’t be taken off of it. It wouldn’t a chance to move again or at least not for a long while because of how the angels work, they can’t move when seen, having the SoL as an angel would be unproductive.

  • http://khiaao.blogspot.com/ Khiaao

    Did not like

  • Catwrangler7

    I don’t care much about the ‘why’s’ and ‘how did they do that’, what I’m so disappointed in is all the time we had to wait until the new episodes FINALLY arrive only to have, what, a whole half a season? If that! And now we have to wait until Christmas for another new episode?? It’s getting to be too much for me.. As much as I love the show I’m tired of waiting and waiting for the next one to show up! As an old timer I can remember when most series lasted several MONTHS, not weeks and they took a single hiatus in the summer, then were back for the Fall.. Now it’s just the opposite! Ridiculous!

  • 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

  • blitz

    It doesnt WALK, it teleports or something.

  • Jo

    We heard it walk.