Sea Devils And Die: GeroniMoffat's Doctor Who In The 2010s

http://www.readandfindout.com/tvmovies/messageboard/223305/

I recall Moffat himself saying that it is the real Doctor that perishes on the beach. Running through my collection of the DVR to find the comment.

EDIT: Found it. About 6 minutes into the episode of Doctor Who Confidential covering the Impossible Astronaut. The quote follows:

"He really does die in that first scene, and that really is him."

point being though that they were always going to find a way to bend time so that it wasn't actually the Doctor who died

if the story introduces an intentional paradox or change in the time stream, it's not bad plotting

well yes, the Doctor was never going to die, I was just raising it as another reason to never believe any promises made by this show

About 884,000 results (0.46 seconds) for rule 1 moffatt lies

um yes

So this episode was basically the Ghostbusters II of MoffatWho.

Moffatt was quoted in several BBC press releases and said at a comic convention (SDCC?) that it was genuine death and there was no trick.

In response to some other stuff up there:

Online people (not from here) were bitching and moaning at the time of the SoL leak about how it was typical tabloid bullshit and couldn't possibly true and was a ridiculous idea. An awful lot of them now are saying what a great bit of tv it was.

It wasn't established in Blink that The Doctor couldn't bring people back once the Angels sent them back, after all he managed to bring himself and Martha back. (In fact, wasn't that the first usage of 'timey-wimey' to refer to his machine he makes?)

Amy does always know what happens to her, she sends The Doctor back to tell the 7 year old Amelia all about her life. And the time-dislocated Amy is the one that writes the afterword so it would be dead easy for her to write a paragraph which says "Lincoln Memorial, 30th June 1953. I'll buy the coffee." So why doesn't she?

There's nothing after them being sent backwards that matters to the Angels (it's stated in Blink that they feed on the rush of potential energy from sending people back to before they were born) so why wouldn't you be able to see them? The Doctor himself says the Angels "kill you nicely" because once you've been sent back you get to live your life all alone.

Other plot points from previous stories conveniently forgotten include "whatever holds the image of an angel becomes an angel" - characters seemed to quite happily look at them without starting to turn to stone like Amy did; "quantum locked angels" - two at the ends of a corridor are facing each other, but are still able to move; "the Angels have the blue box" - the TARDIS can provide them enough time energy to satisfy all their needs now and forever (from Blink) but now they're completely uninterested in it?

Finally, Doctor Who has never been Blokes In Space, not at any time in its history. And the female characters have always been strong/spunky/whatever, ever since the beginning.

I rewatched Blink the other week and the Angels did not send the Doctor and Martha back to 1969. They were already in 1969 when the Angels stole the Tardis, leaving them stranded there. As they weren't time locked, they could return to the present day once they got the Tardis back.
So Moffat has been entirely consistent with the show's internal logic. When the Angels send someone back it's a done deal.
Granted some of the other stuff you mention - Angels facing each other, people looking away etc - might have been a little inconsistent, but it's pretty minor stuff I'm quite happy to handwave when I'm being swept up in the action.

Fair enough on Blink, I haven't seen it in ages.

I've just rewatched Saturday's and the inconsistencies I point out are still there. Plus I spotted a new one: it's a cherub that sends Rory back to 1938, but when he gets moved the second time the explanation for space not time is that they can't do time. Also, it's confirmed in the text that Rory (and the detective from the opener) get shunted back once into the hotel where they see out all of their days until they get old - multiple bounceback is not mentioned at all - which makes the entire concept of the hotel redundant as they get the energy from the shunt back into the past irrespective of what happens to the individual once they're there (Angels plots passim).

In terms of going back to see Amy & Rory the Doctor just says he can't and doesn't offer any other explanation why - but he does say he can't ever land the TARDIS in New York again because of the rift problems that give him trouble landing it in this episode, and if he tried it would DEFINITELY destroy the city (and maybe the Earth). Only to do it a couple of minutes later; he and River have left in the TARDIS before he goes back to get the last page of the book so he must have landed it in NYC again and HANG THE CONSEQUENCES.

Oh, and Amy tells him he has to go and tell the 7 year old Amelia ALL of her adventures with the Doctor so Amy must have grown up knowing everything that she was about to do.

he doesn't say he can't ever land it in NY again, he says he can't land it 'here' again - so presumably that point in space and time, not just space. Also, we don't see the cherub send him back, we just hear it chase him: an adult statue could have come along to do teh time/space honours.

but yeah the multiple bounceback thing is a real missed opportunity: the idea of someone being constantly bounced back in little increments, each time they try to leave, is so fascinating but they fuck it up with the stone mecha SoL stuff. (also how can they live out their lives in the hotel, where does their food even come from, this is bullshit)

i think having the doctor go back and tell little Amelia stories is actually quite a good way of redoing the "imaginary friend" thing? which is necessary to ensure Mels' doctor fixation, etc.

And the time-dislocated Amy is the one that writes the afterword so it would be dead easy for her to write a paragraph which says "Lincoln Memorial, 30th June 1953. I'll buy the coffee." So why doesn't she? - there were other plot issues i willfully ignored while watching it but this one nagged at me (well, this and statue of liberty. comparison to ghostbuster II unfair to ghostbusters II imo). moffat wanted to 1) get rids of ponds 2) have it be tragic, w/ a sacrifice 3) have it be permanent 4) o but let's not kill them though. angels provided vehicle for doing so and them being moffat's signature monster added to appeal. the 'o and you can't visit them' seemed a dumb, unnecessary element to add gravity to sadness and farewell (and maybe allow the relatively poetic element of the afterword). in the moment i was crying my eyes out but afterward it occurred to me that this ending isn't even that sad really for them, there is the sadness of not being able to (easily) communicate w/ their family and whatever friends they've managed to hold on to but beyond that they get the best of both of their 2 lifes, they're permanent time travelers who in their day to day life will get the thrill and adventure of living in the past while at the same time being able to put down roots, start a family, etc. i just wish moffat had gone one step further and had rory be his own grandfather. still enjoyed it greatly. love the ponds but ready for new hotness. do think angels well has been gone to too often for sure and regret that door wasn't closed on them also. curious if anyone here can tell me what changes in opening credits means.

he doesn't say he can't ever land it in NY again, he says he can't land it 'here' again - so presumably that point in space and time, not just space.

That makes even less sense. Why would he need to land it at that space/time place unless that was the only place/time that Amy, he or River could ever conceive seeing her again even though she's dead by then/there?

Granted we don't see the cherub send Amy back, but it's trailed hard from Bethseda Fountain and Bethseda terrace isn't actually that dark you could have a full size statue moving round unnoticed. It would also be the only statue there...

I think the opening titles are just green because the angels are. I pointed out a while ago they'd been getting darker as the series went on, but I'm sure that was just foreshadowing the Pond departure.

xpost Angels facing each other isn't just "a little inconsistent"! It's their being frozen by any gaze that allows the Doctor to paralyse them all for ever in Blink by dematerialising the Tardis while they surround it. It's crucial to their MO.

It's also why they're called "weeping" because they cover their faces so they can't see each other.

I didn't really like this ep and spent much of the episode shouting "get on with it!", "less emo!" and "why is nobody looking at the statue?!" at the telly (apparently an extra previously unknown rule of the angels is that they do not move while you are giving a long emo speech) and I nodded along to various plotholes grumbled about on this thread

but now I have read sic's big post I am ready to say that it was okayish and maybe I'm just grumpy and at least the Moff is not RTD, still

i feel like we haven't talked enough about how bad the music was in this episode?

Maybe just because it goes without saying but DEAR GOD THE ROOFTOP SCENE.

I have become deaf to Murray Gold's music over the years, I think overexposure to his music has now allowed me to tune it out.

I think there was an excellent story wrapped in a gigantic pile of average

As far as "heartwrenching" endings go, it was a very ignoble send-off for Rory and an unearned happy ending for Amy; she lets the Angel zap her straight to her husband's side and writes a cheery coda to let the viewers know she's living happily ever after.

It would have been more interesting if they had gone back and gotten Rory by any of the means described above and gone back home, only to have Angels continually show up and continually zap him back into the past, until he decides to stay in the past, with Amy needing to make the choice to stay with him or not. (I mean obv she would but maybe something happens that blocks it, like say if she stays with Rory the Angels latch onto his family and start zapping them into random places and the only way to keep them occupied is to use herself as bait, or whatever.)

Also thought it was interesting and a little disappointing, if understandable given the time period they were zapped into, that being pulled out of the Doctor's life turned them from the Ponds into the Williamses

Shurely the whole point is that it's an easy retcon for when the actors come back in two series time?

she lets the Angel zap her straight to her husband's side and writes a cheery coda to let the viewers know she's living happily ever after.

But is she, though? River had just told her "Never let him see the damage" and if things have not worked out the Doctor is not going deal with that very well. I don't see her writing an afterword that tells the Doctor that she ended up on her own and has been living a miserable existence even if that turned out to be the case.

I have officially been thinking about this stupid plot too much.

I remember Moffat saying early on that it's impossible for the series to get anything wrong w.r.t. continuity because everything is a ripple from the Time War. Suspect that it's the timey-wimey explanation.

xp

But is she, though? River had just told her "Never let him see the damage" and if things have not worked out the Doctor is not going deal with that very well. I don't see her writing an afterword that tells the Doctor that she ended up on her own and has been living a miserable existence even if that turned out to be the case.

That's a fair point but I don't see the cemetery allowing Amy to put her name on the tombstone and be buried on top of some random dude she claimed was her husband without some form of proof/evidence.

Inscription on gravestone means they wound up together, with her surviving him five years. And what Dan said. If Ponds ever reappear, bank on the date of that appearance being 1963.

Also: that's an unusual way to get a rent-controlled NYC apartment!

I remember Moffat saying early on that it's impossible for the series to get anything wrong w.r.t. continuity because everything is a ripple from the Time War. Suspect that it's the timey-wimey explanation.

And I thought this was fixed after Rassilon and crew got re-locked into the void in The End of Time

fuck that nonsense though

Moffatt rebooted the entire universe at the end of his first year, this is a much bigger free pass to ignore old continuity forever

Doesn't give him a free pass to create plots that make no sense.

no, that's a different issue

I finally watched this ep

Here's my whole problem with all timeline shenanigans and River Song is Amy's daughter and Rory waited 2000 years and Amy was never the little girl in the garden and let's go back to 1938 and fucking DIE but let's not but let's die

There's no fucking actual goddamn story for me to hang my bloody hat on when it comes to a finale and Amy's suddenly head over heels in love with Rory when she hadn't been for fucking ever, and River is calling her Mum randomly at the end when she hadn't all episode and

I just sat there watching the whole thing not caring. I bawled my fucking eyes out when the Rose series ended (yes I know everyone hates Rose but me whatever)...Autumn Almanac was otm when he said there was no emotional focus

The music made the ending sound like the saddest thing in all of humanity which was so irritating becuase I'm like SHUT UP I DON'T EVEN GET WHY I'M SUPPOSED TO BE SAD

I dunno, the whole thing left me cold. Let alone the stupid fucking Liberty Angel jesus effing christ I'd rather watch another Tardis car chase on the freeway

no idea why I double space all of that, haha

also I guess I didn't really like Pond that much overall so I just kind of accepted that she was done?

Amy's suddenly head over heels in love with Rory when she hadn't been for fucking ever,

they have been head over heels for at least seven or eight years in their own timeline at that point

exactly. in their own timeline.

maybe if I'd paid more attention to you and aldo explaining the timelines in detail I would have 'got' it better, but I just don't. Most of my complaints are more to do with me not really getting their arc really at all, and all the timeline jiggery pokery, than any story holes or what have you.

I just sat there watching the whole thing not caring. I bawled my fucking eyes out when the Rose series ended (yes I know everyone hates Rose but me whatever)...Autumn Almanac was otm when he said there was no emotional focus

I am one of those people who completely hates Rose but I agree her send off was much more well done/emotionally resonant than what happened with the Ponds.

And I love both of them! I was expecting to be much more upset by their leaving than what ended up happening, mostly because it was so dumb and emotionally manipulative.

I realize the useless detective was there to link into the narrative plot device that was the book but I feel like it would have been a much stronger story had that initial scene setting not been there at all and the entire episode had centered around Rory getting zapped back in time by the Angels and Amy chasing after him from the beginning

They could have set up a time loop where Rory was trapped forever and Amy willingly sacrificed herself to it in the off chance she could break them both out of it, and then had them both lost in the loop forever until they jumped off the roof and killed themselves. That would have been adequately "heartwrenching".

It seemed so dashed off at the last minute.

The conversation they had on the roof before they jumped was fantastic and felt earned, but the coda was just stupid and annoying

yeah I did like that exchange, it felt v tragic and heartfelt

Apparently when Mike McShane talks about nobody noticing statues moving any more to the detective, it's supposed to mean that people in NYC are desensitised to things moving around and tune out everything that happens in the city ergo Angel of Liberty can move about unobserved.

flawless

that just annoys me

The biggest problem with the Angel of Liberty is that they used it twice. They should have held off of that reveal until the roof scene with Amy and Rory.

otm

Would have preferred the Central Park Alice In Wonderland statue to come alive rather than Liberty. Just feels overused...

yeah that would've been cool

There were the elements of a great story there... The scuttling cherubs and scene with the chained up Angel were genuinely unsettling, but felt undercut by grafting a big Matrix back plot onto the Angels.

Most of my complaints are more to do with me not really getting their arc really at all, and all the timeline jiggery pokery, than any story holes or what have you.

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 3 October 2012 01:32 (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is otm. Wibbly wobbly works well when it supports a story, or when nothing terribly important is supposed to be happening that week. In this case it should have taken a back seat to the exit of two major characters, but didn't.

The conversation they had on the roof before they jumped was fantastic and felt earned, but the coda was just stupid and annoying

― set me on fire RAAAAH (DJP), Wednesday, 3 October 2012 01:48 (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That 'it's called marriage' line actually caused me to break my neck, because that's the speed at which the vomit came flying out of my face

Just occurred to me, since when can Angels take over statues? They're not possessing spirits, they're aliens who happen to look and behave like statues.