The Angel Take Manhattan
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,066
Forum Member
✭✭✭
You know when the Doctor is heartbroken that he can never, ever return to New York to rescue the Ponds - and then he remembers 'The Final Page!' - so immediately flies back to New York to read it?
Mmmm... That. :mad:
Mmmm... That. :mad:
0
Comments
He was still in New York..... hadn't left yet.
Plus, that was still after the Pond's death so that was okay.
Why did they go to new york 2012 anyway ?. Amy and Rory could have flown there to see the sights anytime .11 was after the detective "Melody Malone" not know she was actually Melody Pond aka River Song his wife their daughter. Would have made more sense if they had started out in 1938 looking for her.
I'd rather get into a blue box and be able to spend a few hours in New York and go straight home again than go to the trouble of booking flights.
He couldn't go back to whatever time the Ponds lived there.
What, and pay money? You know a man who can travel anywhere in time and space, so of course you're going to use him to visit a holiday destination and be instantly there, no packing, booking, waiting at the airport, etc.
Quite clearly explained that it is the New York of that particular time he can't return to, not generic New York - ie: New York in the 1930s.
It is there in the episode.
No. It was the time period he had problems with, not the place. It's explained in the episode. And shown.
Not sure if it was significant enough to be considered a fixed point, but it was certainly a fragile point - too much risk of one more paradox if he went back after learning from someone that he trusts that he never went back.
It was the place clearly explained in the episode. If its the time why not go 10 or 20 years later?
Correct.
The Doctor may not be able to go to new York again, for whatever reason. But in the bit in TATM that the OP was referring to, he had not yet left New York so he didn't have to "fly back" to it.
He just had to run down the road to the park where he had left the last page.
. They landed in the graveyard the first time they tried to get there, when it was just the Doctor and Amy. It was just around the corner. So yep... No dice here Sh'boobie
Firstly, River says he can't land in New York - which he already clearly has.
Then, when they travel to find Rory, they can't land.
Amy: What was that?
Doctor: 1938. We just bounced off it.
When they land in the graveyard, we can see that New York is far in the distance, certainly not 'just around the corner'.
Later, when they return to the graveyard, the Doctor says: I can't ever take the TARDIS back there, the timelines are too scrambled.
If he's already in New York, why say 'there'?
So I take back what I said about it being clear - it definitely isn't.
Given the above perhaps you won't be so quick in future to tell posters who state that an episode is confusing or doesn't make sense that "it was all explained or shown on screen".....
Some things are left ambiguous. Some are not. It's not all or nothing, you know.
Where in my post did I say it was "all or nothing".
The fact is that poster said this earlier in the thread:-
And then later posted this:-
So the point I am making, that certain posters are quick to jump in with the "it was said or shown on screen", is perfectly valid.
Thanks for admitting it!:)
One person's "left ambiguous" is another person's "Couldn't think of a reasonable explanation so fudged it".:D
I do wish sometimes that certain posters would admit that even Moffat fudges stuff, rather than always blame the viewer for not getting it because "it's perfectly clear".
Because sometimes he fudges it, and sometimes he doesn't. Just like every writer in Who does. That's a whole different thing from either not spelling everything out, not being entirely clear, or being clear but misinterpreted.
But in The Angels Take Manhattan, he clearly does fudge it and it's quite silly that some people don't see that.
The New York problem makes no sense at all, even assuming the Doctor hadn't left New York at the end.
Why? If it is explained, it's explained, and I'm quite prepared to keep pointing that out. Most of the time, of it's explained, it helps to point it out.
Well of course. When I'm wrong' I admit it. But being wrong once or twice does nothing to negate the times that I've been correct before. But though I have taken my assertions back, others, who are equally insistent despite not being correct, have yet to.
It also shows I check what I'm saying - I'll just make sure I check before I post more often.