[sebbie3000]

Originally Posted by Colphl3

When was it established that weapons do not work on them? I don't recall that. Also when was it established they are not stone? I would think the title "flesh and stone" would suggest otherwise.

The weapons part has been explained - we saw that happen. As for the other party, it's common sense. If automatic weaponry fire doesn't damage them, but does damage normal stone, then they can't be normal stone.

[Fire Host]

Originally Posted by sebbie3000

The weapons part has been explained - we saw that happen. As for the other party, it's common sense. If automatic weaponry fire doesn't damage them, but does damage normal stone, then they can't be normal stone.

It's also worth pointing out that stone can't normally move (with any speed). Their bodies are probably made out of some incredibly hard stone-like substance.

[johnnysaucepn]

Originally Posted by Fire Host

Also: Angels are only Quantum-locked when they're being observed, not when they're being looked at. If they froze every time a passing ant got a blurry look at them they'd never get anywhere, but an ant, being ant, can't really 'observe'.

You can't analyse the 'moving when not observed' thing too closely, especially when the word 'quantum' is thrown into the mix. After all, what if one is not looking directly at the Angel, but at it's shadow on the wall? Vision is not the only sense we have. We can tell that things are moving by sound, or by the changes in air pressure as something goes by.

The quantum lock thing is pseudo-scientific and sounds really great, but to make it unambiguous you have to introduce concepts like the observer being sentient, or only using vision systems aimed directly at the Angel, or even that it's triggered by a psychic response from the observing being.

It is whatever it needs to be to tell the story in a scary way.

[sebbie3000]

Originally Posted by Fire Host

It's also worth pointing out that stone can't normally move (with any speed). Their bodies are probably made out of some incredibly hard stone-like substance.

Thanks... A good point indeed!

[Galifrey]

Originally Posted by Fire Host

Also: Angels are only Quantum-locked when they're being observed, not when they're being looked at. If they froze every time a passing ant got a blurry look at them they'd never get anywhere, but an ant, being ant, can't really 'observe'.

Amy, on the other hand, had the communicator that seemed to be acting as some kind of sonar thing; sent a signal out, bounces back off what's in front of it, and emits a beep (hence it beeps madly when Amy's right in front of the Angel). This isn't looking, but you could definitely argue it's a way of observing the Angels. Of course, the Angels only start to move once Amy looses the communicator and is no longer 'observing' them...
.

Just to add something to the whole Quantum-Lock debate:

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Weeping_Angel
The Weeping Angels had a unique and nearly perfect defence mechanism: quantum-locking, which caused them to turn into stone when being observed. It could also happen by instinct when they believed they were being watched.

It was also stated by The Doctor that they only believed that they were being watched because they were far more interested in the crack than Amy.

[Fire Host]

Originally Posted by johnnysaucepn

You can't analyse the 'moving when not observed' thing too closely, especially when the word 'quantum' is thrown into the mix. After all, what if one is not looking directly at the Angel, but at it's shadow on the wall? Vision is not the only sense we have. We can tell that things are moving by sound, or by the changes in air pressure as something goes by.

The quantum lock thing is pseudo-scientific and sounds really great, but to make it unambiguous you have to introduce concepts like the observer being sentient, or only using vision systems aimed directly at the Angel, or even that it's triggered by a psychic response from the observing being.

It is whatever it needs to be to tell the story in a scary way.

Oh yeah, there's no arguing with the fact it's a bit of vague pseudo-sciencey technobabble that just sounds great more than anything. I was merely trying to offer some kind of plausible explanation for why that happened that tried to fit in with what we knew (or could guess).

Well, pseudo-science to a degree, I suppose; the double slit experiment shows that something pretty weird is going on at a quantum level when photons are being 'observed'.

[codename_47]

I didn't think the ending of Blink really added anything to what was a suberb story, yes the Angels were statues but it doesn't mean that every single statue you see could be a weeping angel and I don't think any Kids would be tricked into it either.

Also I think they lost a lot of what made them unique when there was a shot of one moving in Time of Angels, they didn't need to do that IMO as it hurt their scary, still menace.

Plus the whole two parter was wrapped up by a deux ex machina of the crack in time absorbing them so as much as it was the running theme of the series it did seem a bit convenient to back our heroes into a corner and then have the crack help them out.

As much as the RTD finales got a lot of flack for this Moffat seemed to get off lightly on here for a similar thing, but then this is Moffat and people will change their attitudes and opinions to suit their agendas

[johnnysaucepn]

Originally Posted by codename_47

I didn't think the ending of Blink really added anything to what was a suberb story, yes the Angels were statues but it doesn't mean that every single statue you see could be a weeping angel and I don't think any Kids would be tricked into it either.

A good story makes you look at the world in a different way. Most kids are smart enough to not actually believe that statues are going to kill them, but just enough to let them imagine it.

Plus the whole two parter was wrapped up by a deux ex machina of the crack in time absorbing them so as much as it was the running theme of the series it did seem a bit convenient to back our heroes into a corner and then have the crack help them out.

As much as the RTD finales got a lot of flack for this Moffat seemed to get off lightly on here for a similar thing, but then this is Moffat and people will change their attitudes and opinions to suit their agendas

Not the "deus ex machina" thing again! Nothing in that resolution was a new element introduced to the story to resolve it. The gravity being generated by the ship, the crack's existence and the Angel's desire for it (replace by fear as they realised that it would destroy them), the crack's ability to erase people from existence (remember the extended sequence with the soldiers disappearing?)

All the elements that had been put into place played out in the finale.

[nebogipfel]

Quite. The crack may well have been a jolly useful thing, but it wasn't deus ex machina. And the Doctor still had to do at least one clever thing to save the day in that resolution scene.

(PS I couldn't give a toss who writes the stories - I take each plot on its merits. So bored by the routine assumption that one must be in either one script editors camp or the other.)

[codename_47]

Wasn't making a point about the strength or weakness of the resolution per se (alright, yes I am, it did feel too "easy" to have the thing that was that year's mystery to show up again and save the day, but that's just me) more the forum hypocrisy of how that ending was allowed to slide but other similar endings (with similar "it's not really a DEM if you actually listen to the damn episode but I'm going to ignore that so I can get in some bashing" qualities! ) were criticised to high heaven!

Its fine to have opinions but consistency is all we really crave on here

[nebogipfel]

Fair enough, codename. I wouldn't say it was the best plot resolution device ever. I remember others feeling that the arc doodad being such a huge part of the story was a cop out , compared to having a pure Angels vs the Doctor's brain thing. but Deus ex machina isn't quite the right description of it.

I understand what you mean about some people turning a blind eye to their favourite showrunner faults whilst picking holes in everything by the other fellow. But not everyone does that and I do sometimes get a little bit fed up with people introducing RTD vs Moffat stuff into threads. Even when it is to highlight a perceived injustice. I suppose it just begins to grate on one after a while!

But no worries. I know what you mean. I think I'll go into the classic DVD thread and toss in a few Spooner vs Whitaker grenades and see who bites. .

[Fire Host]

I find it interesting that those who claim the Crack was a giant Deus-ex-machina (an over-used phrase if ever there was one) never seem to offer a plan for defeating the Weeping Angels themselves*.

I mean, it'd be great to see the Doctor use his wits to beat every single enemy and nothing but, but even he had pretty limited options at that point.

It's not even like he was going through the episodes half-asleep. He was the first one to release all the statues were Angels, he used his wits to trick the Angel into telling him it wasn't still on the Byzantium, he was the only one to come up with a plan when they were trapped at the end of the first half, he managed to over-ride the 'impossible' security so the group could work their way through the ship... he even got a Weeping Angel to say 'comfy chairs'.
The Doctor was having a pretty good day, and there still wasn't a way to stop the Weeping Angels.

*Personally my only plan would be to lure an Angel into a hall of mirrors or something similar, where it'd be stuck looking at itself. That wouldn't work on an army of them, though...

[johnnysaucepn]

Originally Posted by codename_47

the forum hypocrisy of how that ending was allowed to slide but other similar endings (with similar "it's not really a DEM if you actually listen to the damn episode but I'm going to ignore that so I can get in some bashing" qualities! ) were criticised to high heaven!

Its fine to have opinions but consistency is all we really crave on here

Are you assuming that the criticism of other resolutions is solely down to who wrote the episode? Isn't that a little unfair? If poster A criticises episode B on plot resolution, isn't it unfair to dismiss that criticism on the assumption that it's because the episode was written by writer C? Perhaps it's the case that it does differ - that despite the resolutions being similar, they're not the same.

The Angels were hoisted by their own petard. It's fine to have a story resolved by the antagonist making a mistake. It's a fine tradition in Who. Other stories haven't had such structure.

[sebbie3000]

Originally Posted by johnnysaucepn

Are you assuming that the criticism of other resolutions is solely down to who wrote the episode? Isn't that a little unfair? If poster A criticises episode B on plot resolution, isn't it unfair to dismiss that criticism on the assumption that it's because the episode was written by writer C? Perhaps it's the case that it does differ - that despite the resolutions being similar, they're not the same.

The Angels were hoisted by their own petard. It's fine to have a story resolved by the antagonist making a mistake. It's a fine tradition in Who. Other stories haven't had such structure.

Add to that the poster's own personal bias - if they don't particularly like that writer, then they quite often feel that anyone who sticks up for the show is clearly changing their opinions - because to them it is dire, with no redeeming features, so anyone sticking up for it is deluded or lying...

[nebogipfel]

Yes - I think it was ok - because as has been said, the Doctor (and companions) still had to do stuff to win the day. The crack was part of the series arc, but even if it hadn't been the writer would have just invented a similar phenomena to be on the planet. I thought it was ok.

[nebogipfel]

Originally Posted by Fire Host

Oh yeah, there's no arguing with the fact it's a bit of vague pseudo-sciencey technobabble that just sounds great more than anything. I was merely trying to offer some kind of plausible explanation for why that happened that tried to fit in with what we knew (or could guess).

Well, pseudo-science to a degree, I suppose; the double slit experiment shows that something pretty weird is going on at a quantum level when photons are being 'observed'.

I like what Moffat did with the Angels even though it was pseudo science. Mainly because it can stimulate thought on these matters and exchanges like the ones between you and Mr Saucepan.

Blink reminded me of Plato's "extramission" thought that a "stream of light or fire" proceeds from the observers eye and falls upon the subject. Blink took place in a Platonic Whoniverse!

[johnnysaucepn]

Originally Posted by nebogipfel

Blink reminded me of Plato's "extramission" thought that a "stream of light or fire" proceeds from the observers eye and falls upon the subject. Blink took place in a Platonic Whoniverse!

I would be overjoyed if they ever had an episode that featured Quantum Platonic Theory. Although they'd probably turn it into a joke about kissing.

[codename_47]

Originally Posted by nebogipfel

Fair enough, codename. I wouldn't say it was the best plot resolution device ever. I remember others feeling that the arc doodad being such a huge part of the story was a cop out , compared to having a pure Angels vs the Doctor's brain thing. but Deus ex machina isn't quite the right description of it.

I understand what you mean about some people turning a blind eye to their favourite showrunner faults whilst picking holes in everything by the other fellow. But not everyone does that and I do sometimes get a little bit fed up with people introducing RTD vs Moffat stuff into threads. Even when it is to highlight a perceived injustice. I suppose it just begins to grate on one after a while!

But no worries. I know what you mean. I think I'll go into the classic DVD thread and toss in a few Spooner vs Whitaker grenades and see who bites. .

Heh, you know what....that annoys me too, and I've blummin gone and done it myself. D'ohhhhhh

I liked the episode too apart from the two minor points I raised (moving Angel and the ending)
I know I shouldn't let 2 things like that ruin my enjoyment of 90 mins of a good story, but sadly they did, oh well.

[johnnysaucepn]

Originally Posted by codename_47

Heh, you know what....that annoys me too, and I've blummin gone and done it myself. D'ohhhhhh

I liked the episode too apart from the two minor points I raised (moving Angel and the ending)
I know I shouldn't let 2 things like that ruin my enjoyment of 90 mins of a good story, but sadly they did, oh well.

Swings and roundabouts, innit? I was also bothered by the moving Angels, but it didn't stand out enough to ruin my enjoyment. While I loved the resolution.