BBC Television programmes  permalink

Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 351 - 400 of 573
  • Message 351

    , in reply to message 348.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012


    posted by Prophet Tenebrae:
    Quite how a gigantic statue which stomps around very loudly can get around is beyond me.
     


    Not to mention how it swam from Liberty Island to Manhattan.

    Perhaps it took the ferry and disguised itself. smiley - winkeye

    Report message1

  • Message 352

    , in reply to message 350.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Yes and I imagine the anomoly of lack of people on the streets of Manhattan is likely a result of sparse budget and filming in the wee hours in a factory district or some other area where budgets are cheaper. 
    Soundstage, for the most part I think and I'd guess Cardiff-pretending-to-be-Manhattan for the rest. I'm pretty sure the only shots of ACTUAL Manhattan were the graveyard and the park.

    Report message2

  • Message 353

    , in reply to message 324.

    Posted by Martyn (U14949330) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    The trouble with Steven Moffatt is he says he writes for "smart people", when in reality he uses the same lazy, lame, and unimaginative time travel resolutions that a ten year old fan boy would come up with.  He has never "said" he writes for smart people. He clearly does, though. I doubt if many ten year olds could come up with such an intricately plotted arc as we got last year, which I found neither lazy nor lame nor unimaginative. 

    Being contrived over 13 episodes is still being contrived.

    Oh look, alternate timelines and big red reset switches, yet again.

    The ability to change time varies depending on what plot hole he's written himself into.

    I can't think of any pre 2005 story where time travel is the solution and not a plot point to start off the story. Because lets face it, writing a script where the Doctor outwits the bad guys is far harder than him using a deus et machina set up several stories beforehand 
    If you set up something several stories before it is used to resolve a later story then I don't see how it can be described as a "Deus Ex Machina" as that can only be described as something that comes out of nowhere having never been mentioned before. Quite literally 'God from the Machine'.

    Report message3

  • Message 354

    , in reply to message 314.

    Posted by figgy (U13959123) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Mirandashell I AGREE with everything you've posted. Well done you. At last someone's said it as it is. It's taken long enough. Pond is a pretty girl but that's where it ends. Amy and Rory's departure let's all LOL. This is in complete contrast to Rose's demise when I cried and cried and cried. This is the difference between these two writers and actors.

    But hey let's breath a sigh of relief as no longer is DW the Amy and Rory show. And come on Matt you can do better you're a good actor. Remember Party Animals you at your best.

    Report message4

  • Message 355

    , in reply to message 353.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    So how do you regard the old wave of the screwdriver at a screen? That's been used several times by Moff to get him out of a corner. Lazy plotting, I call it.

    Report message5

  • Message 356

    , in reply to message 347.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    (and please humour this Thick Viewer - what's the difference between a story-line and a story-arc?)  
    Not much, really, though story-arc tends to get used to describe longer, less continuous plots.

    Report message6

  • Message 357

    , in reply to message 352.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Central Park was definately Central Park, there is a breif shot of the Doctor and Amy running through Times Square - but as I said earlier its out of sequence.

    They are looking for Rory in Central Park - its daylight and sunny, then they are in Times Square and its night, then they are back in Central Park and its sunny daylight again.

    So I assume they filmed the breif bit in Times Square at night and just edited it in later with the daylight shots, hoping no one would notice.

    Or, its meant to give the illusion that the Doctor and Amy looked for Rory for about 12 hours.

    The rooftop shots could have been sound stage with the skyline CGI'd.

    I'd be a bit surpised if the graveyard scene was filmed in New York. Or if it was, it was a completely fabricated graveyard set-up on a grassy hillside somewhere in Newark to get a good shot of the skyline.

    It would be pretty odd to have a graveyard in New York that was only made-up of old fashioned grave stones and not a tree or footpath in sight.

    Report message7

  • Message 358

    , in reply to message 357.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    The graveyard scenes were shot in Wales.

    Report message8

  • Message 359

    , in reply to message 352.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    I'm pretty sure the only shots of ACTUAL Manhattan were the graveyard and the park. 
    The graveyard was in Wales, but it sounds like a lot of the night shots really were New York.

    Report message9

  • Message 360

    , in reply to message 355.

    Posted by Martyn (U14949330) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    So how do you regard the old wave of the screwdriver at a screen? That's been used several times by Moff to get him out of a corner. Lazy plotting, I call it.  It's never been used to resolve a storyline, apart from in "The Power of Three" where it was used to resolve the sub-plot about the cubes. But that story was written by Chris Chibnall, not Steven Moffat.

    Still, that wouldn't be a 'Deus Ex Machina' as the screwdriver isn't something that has just come out of nowhere.

    Report message10

  • Message 361

    , in reply to message 360.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    It's been used quite a few times! And even if Moff didn't write that story, I'm fairly sure he would have had the last word on it.

    Report message11

  • Message 362

    , in reply to message 354.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Mirandashell I AGREE with everything you've posted. Well done you. At last someone's said it as it is. It's taken long enough. Pond is a pretty girl but that's where it ends. Amy and Rory's departure let's all LOL. This is in complete contrast to Rose's demise when I cried and cried and cried. This is the difference between these two writers and actors.

    But hey let's breath a sigh of relief as no longer is DW the Amy and Rory show. And come on Matt you can do better you're a good actor. Remember Party Animals you at your best.  
    No, this is not "the difference between these two writers ad actors", this is "the difference between your personal opinion and someone else's". Because I hated Rose, found her departure over sentimental and frankly nauseating, and couldn't stand RTD's writing, while I've loved the last couple of years and thought Amy and Rory were brilliant.

    Report message12

  • Message 363

    , in reply to message 357.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Erm, Rory is in the past (1938) in Times Square with River; The Doctor is in the present (2012) in Central Park with Amy. They head through the city, and end up back at the Tardis (which is beside Brooklyn Bridge on what looks like the Brooklyn side), just before sunset. No problem; nothing is out of sequence, just two entirely different years, 1938 and 2012.

    Report message13

  • Message 364

    , in reply to message 362.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    New Orleans would be an ideal setting for a future "Weeping Angels" episode.

    The city is full of creepy, gothic architecture. There are portions of the city that are still in ruins after Katrina and filming could be done there, suggesting the damage was as a result of the angels.

    There is the built in culture of Voodoo and the occult in New Orleans.

    Imagine the Doctor and his latest companion visiting the creepy shop of a 100 year old Voodoo priestess and she tells stories of the stone creatures that come to life and memories of them going back to her mother and her mothers mother.

    Because she is a Voodoo priestess she sees them for what they are and has even obtained the power - through a spell or special amulet or idol to be protected from them.

    You could have the Doctor and companion see a Mardis Gras type of parade with people dressed as living skeletons - and certain sinister ones glance over and stare down the Doctor in a knowing manner.

    Report message14

  • Message 365

    , in reply to message 355.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Er, no. So, he's a Time Lord, he has a sonic screwdriver. Why not use it? It is entirely reasonable. Don't use it every week, but, if you need to, use it.

    Report message15

  • Message 366

    , in reply to message 361.

    Posted by Martyn (U14949330) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    It's been used quite a few times! And even if Moff didn't write that story, I'm fairly sure he would have had the last word on it.  So, in which episodes has the Doctor waving his Sonic Screwdriver actually been the resolution of the overall story that a particular episode has been telling?

    Report message16

  • Message 367

    , in reply to message 363.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Erm, Rory is in the past (1938) in Times Square with River; The Doctor is in the present (2012) in Central Park with Amy. They head through the city, and end up back at the Tardis (which is beside Brooklyn Bridge on what looks like the Brooklyn side), just before sunset. No problem; nothing is out of sequence, just two entirely different years, 1938 and 2012.   Look at the top photo from this link.

    It clearly shows the Doctor and Amy Walking through Times Square at nightfall/dusk.

    www.tumblr.com/tagge...

    If this is Rory and River Song - then please explain all of the 21st century cars?

    And if its the Doctor and Amy, how did they get back to the TARDIS - which you say is all the way over in Brooklyn before dark?

    Report message17

  • Message 368

    , in reply to message 367.

    Posted by Dame Bouncy Castle (U1358361) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012



    For the love of Offler, Om and other Discworld gods...... WHAT BUS?

    Report message18

  • Message 369

    , in reply to message 314.

    Posted by margies (U14748929) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    I think Amy was one of the Doctors best companions and I also liked Rory. Sorry to see them go.

    Report message19

  • Message 370

    , in reply to message 364.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    I like your New Orleans idea GZ - I can just imagine it....It would work quite well with some sort of alien zombies, too.

    Report message20

  • Message 371

    , in reply to message 367.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    I am talking about the whole sequence I have just rewatched the sequence from the program. They arrive back at the Tardis just as the Sun is about to set over the Manhattan skyline. That photograph shows the Doctor and Amy on their way back to the Tardis which is parked beside the East River.

    In order, there is a scene with Amy and the Doctor in Central Park. It is late afternoon. Next, there is a scene with Rory and River in 1938, it is night time, completely dark, you can see the Chrysler Building in the background. Next, there is the scene you describe. The sky is not dark, but they are heading back to the Tardis; they then cut straight to the scene near the Brooklyn Bridge ... on the Brooklyn side, and the Sun is setting over Manhattan. That is what I said. The scene I was describing with Rory and River was between the Central Park late afternoon scene and the Times Square / Brooklyn Bridge sequence which was before sunset. Sunset in Manhattan is never later than 19:31, aqnd if we are consistent with the Superbowl story round about 17:00. There is no problem.

    Report message21

  • Message 372

    , in reply to message 367.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Maybe they took a taxi, or the subway. smiley - winkeye

    ubuntuone.com/3weQLp...

    And if its the Doctor and Amy, how did they get back to the TARDIS - which you say is all the way over in Brooklyn before dark? 

    Report message22

  • Message 373

    , in reply to message 371.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    It would have been particularly realistic for the Doctor and Amy to arrive back at the TARDIS and find it covered in about 10 different types of gang grafitti. smiley - laugh

    Report message23

  • Message 374

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012


    Posted by Mary-Anne Parsnip

    Maybe they took a taxi, or the subway.
     


    Quite right.

    Whilst they were in Times Square the Doctor set up a cardboard box and played a few dozen hands of Three Card Monte with passers by to make a few bucks to pay for subway tokens. smiley - winkeye

    Report message24

  • Message 375

    , in reply to message 210.

    Posted by PaulHammond (U5000908) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    has been used before in the show and in the various spin-off media, going back as far as the first Doctor's line in The Aztecs that "we can't change history. Not one single line". It's also a common staple in sci-fi outside of Doctor Who. 

    Well, yeah - and thanks for mentioning the Aztecs, one of my favourite shows from Doctor Who's very first year.

    But someone else pointed out that this law seemed like it was only meant to apply to the history of Earth, and when the show was still running a model of "one space story followed by one historical" because the original format was meant to be partly a way of sneaking educational stuff in while entertaining the kids (one of the reasons why two of the original companions were Barbara the history teacher, and Ian the science teacher)

    When Doctor Who was in a space episode, for some reason he totally forgot the Time Lord laws about interfering with history when it was another planet's history, or the human future.

    I think more relevant to the new show, with the concept of "fixed points" would be Father's Day, the first point where Rose trying to change history and save her father caused all kinds of bad things to happen, including (for me) the terribly dramatic Tardis turns into an ordinary police box. Now that show had a sense of epic inevitability about it (most likely because this show was on the cards from the moment Russell first thought up Rose's backstory)

    Report message25

  • Message 376

    , in reply to message 369.

    Posted by Baby Dumpling (U14515450) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I think Amy was one of the Doctors best companions and I also liked Rory. Sorry to see them go.  My feelings exactly. I am still sad that they have gone.

    Report message26

  • Message 377

    , in reply to message 362.

    Posted by Baby Dumpling (U14515450) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Mirandashell I AGREE with everything you've posted. Well done you. At last someone's said it as it is. It's taken long enough. Pond is a pretty girl but that's where it ends. Amy and Rory's departure let's all LOL. This is in complete contrast to Rose's demise when I cried and cried and cried. This is the difference between these two writers and actors.

    But hey let's breath a sigh of relief as no longer is DW the Amy and Rory show. And come on Matt you can do better you're a good actor. Remember Party Animals you at your best.  
    No, this is not "the difference between these two writers ad actors", this is "the difference between your personal opinion and someone else's". Because I hated Rose, found her departure over sentimental and frankly nauseating, and couldn't stand RTD's writing, while I've loved the last couple of years and thought Amy and Rory were brilliant.  
    Rose didn't have a demise - she left to live in a parallel universe.

    I too found Rose's departure over sentimental. Rose was the same selfish chav from day one upto her final appearance. She ditched Mickey to go travelling with an older man basically.

    Amy however grew and grew and her character evolved. Over time you saw her deep love for Rory and her willing for self-sacrifice several times.
    From her small self upto her last appearance she grew and matured.

    I didn't shed a tear when Rose left,
    I did when Amy and Rory left.

    Report message27

  • Message 378

    , in reply to message 375.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Actually, he justified it by saying that it was where he was meant to be. The Tardis took him to the places where he was supposed to go. In The Doctor's Wife, this is articulated when Idris informs the Doctor although she has not always taken him where he's wanted to go, she's always taken him where he's needed. For something to happen, he has to be an active participant in events. He travels there and they happen as they should. Somebody mentioned "The Pyramids of Mars", that - while set on Earth - demonstrated that point. If he does not act (so that history pans out as it shoud), you are left with devastation. The Doctor is NOT just an observer, he is a participant in Time and Space. The question is - from the perspective of the program - whether, or not they interfere with the relevant time line, sufficiently to fracture it.

    Report message28

  • Message 379

    , in reply to message 377.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I too found Rose's departure over sentimental. Rose was the same selfish chav from day one upto her final appearance. She ditched Mickey to go travelling with an older man basically.

    Amy however grew and grew and her character evolved. Over time you saw her deep love for Rory and her willing for self-sacrifice several times.
    From her small self upto her last appearance she grew and matured. 


    I'm not sure Rose and Mickey and Amy and Rory are comparable. Rose and Mickey were never going to get married. Rose ended up loving and admiring him more as a brother than a lover. Besides, she fell in love with the Doctor, which Amy never did.

    Rose was interesting because she was frustrated with her life on a council estate and so, yes, did selfishly in someways run off with the Doctor. But she cared about other people in a way Amy was never shown to do. She wanted to explore time and space and meet everyone. Amy was basically running away.

    Report message29

  • Message 380

    , in reply to message 374.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012


    Posted by Mary-Anne Parsnip

    Maybe they took a taxi, or the subway.
     


    Quite right.

    Whilst they were in Times Square the Doctor set up a cardboard box and played a few dozen hands of Three Card Monte with passers by to make a few bucks to pay for subway tokens. smiley - winkeye

     
    Why do you assume he doesn't carry money? He has in the past been shown to carry a variety of different currency around with him.

    Report message30

  • Message 381

    , in reply to message 380.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Why would he carry money when he can sonic an ATM?

    Report message31

  • Message 382

    , in reply to message 375.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    has been used before in the show and in the various spin-off media, going back as far as the first Doctor's line in The Aztecs that "we can't change history. Not one single line". It's also a common staple in sci-fi outside of Doctor Who. 

    Well, yeah - and thanks for mentioning the Aztecs, one of my favourite shows from Doctor Who's very first year.

    But someone else pointed out that this law seemed like it was only meant to apply to the history of Earth, and when the show was still running a model of "one space story followed by one historical" because the original format was meant to be partly a way of sneaking educational stuff in while entertaining the kids (one of the reasons why two of the original companions were Barbara the history teacher, and Ian the science teacher)

    When Doctor Who was in a space episode, for some reason he totally forgot the Time Lord laws about interfering with history when it was another planet's history, or the human future.

    I think more relevant to the new show, with the concept of "fixed points" would be Father's Day, the first point where Rose trying to change history and save her father caused all kinds of bad things to happen, including (for me) the terribly dramatic Tardis turns into an ordinary police box. Now that show had a sense of epic inevitability about it (most likely because this show was on the cards from the moment Russell first thought up Rose's backstory) 
    I don't think the rule only applies to Earth history (why would it?), I think it's more a case of foreknowledge being the problem: as in, if he already knows how history plays out in a certain case, he can't alter it. He clearly has a broad knowledge of Earth history, so he'd know the Aztecs never gave up on human sacrifice, but if he's never been to the planet Peladon before and has no clue how their history worked out, he can become involved safe in the knowledge that he'll simply become part of history as it unfolds. If that makes sense?

    Report message32

  • Message 383

    , in reply to message 381.

    Posted by St Hopalong of the hairy chest (U14314874) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    not in the 1930's he can't.... smiley - smiley

    Report message33

  • Message 384

    , in reply to message 383.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Good point. smiley - smiley

    Um, sonicking a bank vault ...?

    Report message34

  • Message 385

    , in reply to message 381.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Why would he carry money when he can sonic an ATM?  Perhaps because most versions of the Doctor-aside from the idiot in the suit- actually have more of a grasp of right and wrong than to do that?

    Report message35

  • Message 386

    , in reply to message 379.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I too found Rose's departure over sentimental. Rose was the same selfish chav from day one upto her final appearance. She ditched Mickey to go travelling with an older man basically.

    Amy however grew and grew and her character evolved. Over time you saw her deep love for Rory and her willing for self-sacrifice several times.
    From her small self upto her last appearance she grew and matured. 


    I'm not sure Rose and Mickey and Amy and Rory are comparable. Rose and Mickey were never going to get married. Rose ended up loving and admiring him more as a brother than a lover. Besides, she fell in love with the Doctor, which Amy never did.

    Rose was interesting because she was frustrated with her life on a council estate and so, yes, did selfishly in someways run off with the Doctor. But she cared about other people in a way Amy was never shown to do. She wanted to explore time and space and meet everyone. Amy was basically running away. 
    Oh yes, Rose's deep love and concern for all living things just shone through when she was making jokes as people were in fear for their lives in episodes like Tooth & Claw. While Amy, of course, never showed any concern for anyone but herself, despite saving the space whale the Doctor was about to lobotomise in The Beast Below, getting genuinely upset about failing to help Vincent, and more than once risking her life for Rory...

    Report message36

  • Message 387

    , in reply to message 386.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    The review is glowing, but the comments section brings up a heluva lot of plotholes and annoyances www.tor.com/blogs/20... We've only just scratched the surface! smiley - laugh

    Report message37

  • Message 388

    , in reply to message 337.

    Posted by yellowcat (U218155) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    That is not necessarily true. A paradox was created in order for an attempted resolution to a problem. The attempt only half succeeded; Rory did not die, and he crossed his own timeline. The last time someone created a serious paradox (Rose, when she saved her dad) the consequences were dire, not just for Rose and the Doctor, but for the whole of humanity; there has to be a price, because there is only a partial resolution of the paradox. 

    Here's a thought, which would win in a fight between the Reapers(the bat things from 'Fathers Day') and the Weeping Angels?

    Report message38

  • Message 389

    , in reply to message 387.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    The review is glowing, but the comments section brings up a heluva lot of plotholes and annoyances www.tor.com/blogs/20... We've only just scratched the surface! smiley - laugh  Many of those comments simply seem to indicate a total misunderstanding of the concepts involved. Why on Earth would not being able to visit Amy and Rory in 1930s New York mean the Doctor could no longer visit young Amelia? Who ever said the Doctor was "erased from time"? People just don't listen properly, or don't grasp what the writer intended.

    Report message39

  • Message 390

    , in reply to message 389.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I think the point was that since the Doctor reset the universe in Big Bang 2 the events that led to little Amelia waiting for the Doctor in her garden would not have panned out that way, because Amy would not have been an orphan, or alone when the Doctor crash-landed, and he would have had to have dealt with her parents and a more well-rounded version of grownup Amy.

    Report message40

  • Message 391

    , in reply to message 390.

    Posted by jonnyboy (U14965236) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I think the point was that since the Doctor reset the universe in Big Bang 2 the events that led to little Amelia waiting for the Doctor in her garden would not have panned out that way, because Amy would not have been an orphan, or alone when the Doctor crash-landed, and he would have had to have dealt with her parents and a more well-rounded version of grownup Amy.   As I have stated before i have watched Dr Who some 40 years. But i just need for you all to understand. smiley - doh IT IS NOT REAL IT'S A TELEVISION SHOW !!

    Report message41

  • Message 392

    , in reply to message 390.

    Posted by St Hopalong of the hairy chest (U14314874) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    "Here's a thought, which would win in a fight between the Reapers(the bat things from 'Fathers Day') and the Weeping Angels? "

    and how come they don't turn up more often smiley - winkeye


    ok.. this thread is running it's course for me... going to unsubscribe and go back to the general discussion one.

    Report message42

  • Message 393

    , in reply to message 391.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I think the point was that since the Doctor reset the universe in Big Bang 2 the events that led to little Amelia waiting for the Doctor in her garden would not have panned out that way, because Amy would not have been an orphan, or alone when the Doctor crash-landed, and he would have had to have dealt with her parents and a more well-rounded version of grownup Amy.   As I have stated before i have watched Dr Who some 40 years. But i just need for you all to understand. smiley - doh IT IS NOT REAL IT'S A TELEVISION SHOW !!   I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?

    Report message43

  • Message 394

    , in reply to message 393.

    Posted by jonnyboy (U14965236) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I think the point was that since the Doctor reset the universe in Big Bang 2 the events that led to little Amelia waiting for the Doctor in her garden would not have panned out that way, because Amy would not have been an orphan, or alone when the Doctor crash-landed, and he would have had to have dealt with her parents and a more well-rounded version of grownup Amy.   As I have stated before i have watched Dr Who some 40 years. But i just need for you all to understand. smiley - doh IT IS NOT REAL IT'S A TELEVISION SHOW !!   I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?  I won't raise to your tit for tat stupid comment

    Report message44

  • Message 395

    , in reply to message 394.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Um ... good ...? smiley - erm

    Report message45

  • Message 396

    , in reply to message 379.

    Posted by Baby Dumpling (U14515450) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I'm not sure Rose and Mickey and Amy and Rory are comparable. Rose and Mickey were never going to get married. Rose ended up loving and admiring him more as a brother than a lover. Besides, she fell in love with the Doctor, which Amy never did 

    That's good because that was not the intention I was conveying.
    I wasn't comparing relationship with relationship, I was comparing character and integrity.

    Rose was just waiting for the next best thing to come along, whereas Rory and Amy were always destined to be together as shown several times.

    In 'Amy's Choice' when Rory dies in the dream Amy rebukes the Doctor and chooses Rory and also in 'The Big Bang' she remembers who Rory who is and weeps for him as he remembers his death. Also Rory waits 2000 years to protect Amy in the Pandorica.

    With Rose she was just waiting for the next best thing to come along, when it did she ditched Mickey and went off with the doctor and when she couldn't have him she settled with the doctor that was regenerated from the hand cut off in 'The Christmas Invasion'.

    Rose was interesting because she was frustrated with her life on a council estate and so, yes, did selfishly in someways run off with the Doctor. But she cared about other people in a way Amy was never shown to do. 

    Amy did care about people and she showed it more than Rose ever did. Amy showed deep compassion for Vincent Van Gogh who had manic depression by filling his yard with sunflowers and she rescued the whale in the episode 'The Beast Below' and in her last episode was sent back in time to be with Rory despite never being able to see the Doctor again.

    It was things like this which over time showed Amy's character develop.

    Report message46

  • Message 397

    , in reply to message 396.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Yes, I didn't mean that Amy did not care for people. But she did not seem to immediately care for strangers in the way that Rose did. Rose sympathised with everyone she came across. Amy needed to get to know them a bit more before she offered understanding and help. Rose's journeys with the Doctor were invariably about helping others; Amy's not quite so much. That might just be a story thing.

    RTD acknowledges that both the Doctor and Rose treated Mickey very badly. But I quite like how there were innocent victims to the Doctor and Rose's self-involved relationship - and yet, in spite of that, coming in contact with the Doctor made Mickey a better person. He never resented the Doctor; always admired him. Poor Mickey.

    Report message47

  • Message 398

    , in reply to message 397.

    Posted by PaulHammond (U5000908) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    He never resented the Doctor; always admired him. Poor Mickey.  

    Well - I think he may have resented Christopher Eccleston's Doctor, who christened him "Mickey the Idiot", and was the guy who abducted his girlfriend and left him under suspicion when Rose disappeared for a year!

    The tenth doctor seemed to have a bit more respect for Mickey.

    Report message48

  • Message 399

    , in reply to message 396.

    Posted by goodhelenstar (U13943062) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I think that, given that they're always going to leave so the question is how and when, not if, the companions have had varied and interesting stories and departures. Rose trapped in a parallel universe with a single-hearted Doctor and the rest of her family was a pretty good outcome; Martha chose to go back to normal life at a time of her choosing (I'm ignoring the ludicrous 'marrying Mickey' coda tagged on to the End of Time); Sarah Jane started her own enterprise and was arguably the strongest of the lot; Donna had a wonderful time, saved the universe and ended up back where she started (so the tragedy is for Wilf, mainly, and her mother, rather than Donna herself); and Amy will have a long and happy life with Rory in an earlier time.

    Personally I think Amy and Rory's story was strong, but Amy just didn't convince me because Karen Gillan isn't a very good actor. She might become one - We'll Take Manhattan was well reviewed - but she didn't have the range of emotions that Amy's character requires, particularly when pitched against the much more experienced Alex Kingston who would be an excellent companion for a while in my opinion.

    Report message49

  • Message 400

    , in reply to message 397.

    Posted by Baby Dumpling (U14515450) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Yes, I didn't mean that Amy did not care for people. But she did not seem to immediately care for strangers in the way that Rose did 

    To me she did sometimes care for strangers because Amy helped save the whale. And she helped Van Gogh with his depression even though he was a stranger to her.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.