Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

The Angel Take Manhattan


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-06-2013, 12:34
Sh'boobie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 995

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.
Sh'boobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-06-2013, 12:44
jsa2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 94
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.
He was still in New York..... hadn't left yet.
jsa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-06-2013, 13:09
Whovian1109
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,303
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.
Plus, that was still after the Pond's death so that was okay.
Whovian1109 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-06-2013, 13:13
Sara_Peplow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,088
Thought it was a bit weird going to the one city in the world he had troube traveling too.
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.
Sara_Peplow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-06-2013, 14:34
Joe_Zel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 16,434
Amy and Rory could have flown there to see the sights anytime .
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.
Joe_Zel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-06-2013, 14:35
Joe_Zel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 16,434
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.
He couldn't go back to whatever time the Ponds lived there.
Joe_Zel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-06-2013, 21:03
Ash_735
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 8,022
Why did they go to new york 2012 anyway ?. Amy and Rory could have flown there to see the sights anytime .
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.
Ash_735 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-06-2013, 21:26
FATCHOPS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: York
Posts: 592
Only jsa2 has given the right answer in this thread.
FATCHOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 18:50
sebbie3000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sutton
Posts: 4,513
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.
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.
sebbie3000 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 18:54
mccollough
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 183
I was under the impression that the reason he can never see the ponds again is not because the TARDIS wouldn't go to New York at all during their lifetimes, but because the book said he never saw them again, which makes it a fixed point in time.
mccollough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 18:59
sebbie3000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sutton
Posts: 4,513
Only jsa2 has given the right answer in this thread.
No. It was the time period he had problems with, not the place. It's explained in the episode. And shown.
sebbie3000 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 20:27
johnnysaucepn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,018
I was under the impression that the reason he can never see the ponds again is not because the TARDIS wouldn't go to New York at all during their lifetimes, but because the book said he never saw them again, which makes it a fixed point in time.
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.
johnnysaucepn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 21:29
FATCHOPS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: York
Posts: 592
No. It was the time period he had problems with, not the place. It's explained in the episode. And shown.
It was the place clearly explained in the episode. If its the time why not go 10 or 20 years later?
FATCHOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 22:17
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,214
He was still in New York..... hadn't left yet.
Only jsa2 has given the right answer in this thread.
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.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 22:24
Torry_Z
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 863
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
Torry_Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 23:08
sebbie3000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sutton
Posts: 4,513
It's inconclusive, actually.

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.
sebbie3000 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 07:50
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
"There" would be 1938. Our reading the gravestone from our vantage point on the other side of the fourth wall fixed the Williamses deaths to before 2012, even though in their own time stream they's lived in the twenty first century into their thirties between the Doctor's visits.
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 07:55
greymarl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 274
This whole episode is like one big long car crash. I think it might be my least liked episode that's ever aired.
greymarl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 09:26
WelshNige
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,202
It's inconclusive, actually.

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".....
WelshNige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 09:36
johnnysaucepn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,018
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.
johnnysaucepn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 09:46
WelshNige
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,202
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:-

No. It was the time period he had problems with, not the place. It's explained in the episode. And shown.
And then later posted this:-

It's inconclusive, actually.
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.
WelshNige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 10:56
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,214

So I take back what I said about it being clear - it definitely isn't.
Thanks for admitting it!
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 11:04
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,214
Some things are left ambiguous. Some are not. It's not all or nothing, you know.
One person's "left ambiguous" is another person's "Couldn't think of a reasonable explanation so fudged it".

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".
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 12:46
johnnysaucepn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,018
One person's "left ambiguous" is another person's "Couldn't think of a reasonable explanation so fudged it".

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.
johnnysaucepn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 13:03
Dr. Linus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Teenage Wasteland
Posts: 5,350
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.
Dr. Linus is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08.