Did Moffat Ruin the Weeping Angels?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- Doctor Series 5 ruined the Weeping Angels with the god-awful episodes The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone. Let's talk about it!
00:00-01:06 [Introduction]
01:07-05:23 [A Downfall Begins]
05:24-14:30 [Dismantling a Good Villain]
14:31-16:40 [An Important Story]
16:41-20:25 [The Pros and Cons of Amy Pond]
20:26-22:49 [Final Thoughts/Ranking]
► Patreon
/ harbowholmes
► Subscribe!
/ harbowholmes
► Twitter
/ harbowholmes
► Discord
/ discord
► Reddit
/ harbowholmes
#DoctorWho #Series5 #Review 
Кино
![Dimension 20: Never Stop Blowing Up Trailer [Dropout Exclusive Series]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xYeXpbHnGEM/mqdefault.jpg)
![DID IT SUCK? | Doctor Who [THE ANGELS TAKE MANHATTAN REVIEW]](/img/1.gif)
I don't actually hate the Smith era lol
www.patreon.com/harbowholmes
Just saying, I better hear some praise for Amy's Choice when we get there or so help me... *shakes fist ineffectually*
Prove it
Tell that to all the videos you’ve been uploading lately!
No, you love the Chibnall era.
12:11 Is sad and I was mad at 1st But I actually thought of a reason for a solution or whatever you want to put it to this problem They describe how turning into stone is a defense mechanism So she's essentially tricking the angels into thinking that she can see when she trips they start to come weary of thisTurning towards her and moving extremely slow but I don't think they're actually moving at all well they are just not With the angels questioning whether she can see and not quite sure their defense mechanism is being activated And turned off middle 2nd by middle millisecond like switching a light switch switch which creates the illusion of movementLike an old tiny film they're moving frame by Frame stone by stone Doctor wasn't there to see it so the doctor doesn't describe how that's the case I think that maybe he could hear the stone cracking and maybe just described that way there should be description of that so we're not all mad at what's going on but that's my interpretation they keep things more you know keep the rules more true and to enter to what is truly happeningI don't think this is best in the best way But I can't think of a better way to describe it so here it isThey're moving like an old tiny film that's what's going on I think I wanna believe shut up you get
I like how they establish that the local species have two heads then they realize the statues only have one. I think that's a really neat small twist.
Hell yeah, such a great reveal. It kinda shows naivety of the characters and the audience without being patronising
Honestly, it got me as I watched the episode recently for the first time.
Angel's moving and the "walk like you can see" were the only two turn offs in this ep for me
@Tristan Lane 😂
I just absolutely pretend that those things didn't happen
@Tristan Lane Maybe because it's gross
Amy having her eyes closed during the "walk like you can see" scene is an odd choice, but to me the audience are what keep the angels from moving, it's Moffat winking at the audience and saying "Look at my 4th wall break"
@@PlanetNateGaming doesn't work cause there's a scene where the audience can see an angel moving
Honestly, I think the Weeping Angel's best appearance after Blink was their brief scene in the snow of Trenzalore. That was the perfect way to use them. The panic moment as they're trying to keep all of the angels in sight, while the snow is making them blink was brilliant.
And that was Clara's first time seeing them too right? (Unless I'm remembering wrong). She doesn't even really know who they are, just that The Doctor's immediate reaction to seeing them was panic. Such an awesome scene
@@robbiesmith8055 Agreed. It was quite subtle at first, too. The Blink Suite bgm was a dead giveaway, but Matt Smith's portrayal of utter panic at the words "It's only a statue" was on point.
conceptually I agree, but the angels had already been over used by this point, to the point that they just weren't scary anymore. I remember seeing them grab Clara's leg through the snow and just thinking "ahhh its the bloody angels again, boooooring".
@@DrPandachaun agreed. The angels honestly shouldn’t have been used again after blink and if they were using them only 1 more time in 5-6 years would’ve been fine. But the fact they used them like 5 times in 8 years was just boring. They were perfect in blink. They were mysterious and scary. After that they became corny and lame.
@@DrPandachaunyou are booooooooring angels are a good villain that should keep being used
One of the things I liked about the angels in Blink is that they treated our eyes as viewers like another pair of eyes on the scene. What really ruined the angels for me in the Smith era is that the mystery of what the angels looked like was spoiled. We actually saw them move, and it turns out that they are still stone angels that just kind of move and stop, whereas in Blink, we were led to believe that they could look like anything and no one really knows what they look like because the second you see one it turns to stone.
i really think that these angels were supposed to be sorta "rewritten" because of the crack in time and space........... i know its a lazy excuse but its the only way i can have it make sense in my head, similar to how the statue of liberty weeping angel was just that in the paradox world not the actual real world.......
Perhaps the reason they still look stond is because they are unsure if they are being watched
Agreed 100%. Such lazy writing.
@@legendary2553no it’s not lazy writing not at all
@@Rahn-ft6qo it is Lmaoo, in blink they make the angels one way and then every sequel with them after that contradicts everything they said about them. They changed the angels whole lore for a storyline lol.
Ah, so *this* is the source for why fellow fans would crack jokes about me owning a "Don't Blink" T-shirt (a Christmas gift from my mom, as it was one of her favorite episodes as well), saying "Whoever holds the image of an Angel shall become itself an Angel." 😆
Random addition but I once had a non-Who person ask me if it was band shirt and tbh a band called "Don't Blink" with a Weeping Angel as its logo has always sounded freaking awesome to me. 🖤
I think I'd disagree with your 'the resolution comes out of nowhere' idea. The gravity and manipulating it had been an ongoing theme and having the artificial gravity as the resolution to both the cliffhanger and also the final confrontation is honestly pretty exciting. The crack in time has also been eating people throughout the episode. Granted, having them not deal with the crack is where I feel it cheaps out a little, but figured I'd point it out.
I really agree. I thought the ending was great, it was very well set up, wasn't that sudden and cleverly introduced and had a satisfying ending.
I've noticed with a lot of his reviews he likes to say "the resolution comes out of nowhere" as if he hadn't been watching the bloody episode.
Technically Amy winking doesn’t fail, the Angel doesn’t move when she tries it, it’s the fact she goes on to look in its eyes that was the problem (apparently)
They added so much to the Weeping Angels concept here could they not of just invented a new monster for this?
Remember that at the end of "Blink" Sally gave the Doctor a picture of an Angel, the same Angel that will send him and Martha back to the past.
@@mayotango1317 haha no
@@mayotango1317 Wrong.
@@cringefairy2687 Why not?
@@mayotango1317 Because the Doctor doesn't know pictures turn into Angels. If the Angel that got him had come out of a picture he'd have known about that ability.
1000% agree with you on amy kissing the doctor. She had no right kissing him ESPECIALLY without consent. She knows that he’s aware of Rory but doesn’t care and kisses him anyway. Moffat went too far only 5 episodes in and it’s why I really struggle to like Amy
I wonder if anyone complain if was Rose.
@@mayotango1317 Yes, I would. When Donna did it was to save his life and she didn't even do it in a romantic/sexual way.
@@mayotango1317 Rose is worse than Amy in my opinion. Even rewatching some old episodes recently like "School Reunion" at the start is all flirty with Mickey saying "Did you just make something up to see me" then right at the end is annoyed at the fact Mickey suggests coming with them. Even when Mickey thought she was dead in Aliens of London then he moved on but Rose gets mad at him for it. So many moments like that even the end of Age Of Steel annoys me when he wants to stay behind.
@@mayotango1317 Whether or not you can forgive Rose for how she treated Mickey is entirely up to you, so I get it if you're not a Rose fan. But yes, if Rose had tried to cheat on Mickey and sexually assault the Doctor at the same time, people would absolutely have complained.
Rose was a bad girlfriend because she took Mickey for granted and failed to consider how he was feeling as she fell out of love with him. Amy was a bad girlfriend for trying to cheat on Rory with a non-consenting friend the day before her wedding. I know which I consider to be worse behaviour.
@@mayotango1317Yep. We would.
One point that I'm surprised he doesn't talk about is that the weeping angels CAN"T LOOK AT EACH OTHER. The whole point of the ending of blink is that they're trapped due to looking at each other. But in these episodes, we quite literally see them moving while in each other's line of sight.
No we only ever see them move when the lights strobe when the lights are out the angels also can't see each other.
@@joshuareynolds23 Can you rephrase that? I'm having trouble understanding. Are you talking about in the ending of blink? Because... no. And if you're talking about the maze, also no. So can you please explain?
I still like the episode, even if the angels were ruined in ways.
It was well written but the angels weren't good in it.
Remember that at the end of "Blink" Sally gave the Doctor a picture of an Angel, the same Angel that will send him and Martha back to the past.
@@mayotango1317 Yeah. I like the idea. Especially considering Blinks original ending was going to have a surviving Angel murder Sally when she got back inside the store. It would make sense that this angel climbed out of the photo.
Would of been better if they didn’t show them moving
@@craycray8098 yeah. My username was much better
Me about a month ago: I can't wait for Harbo to cover Series 5, that one's my favorite! So many great episodes!
*Monkey paw curls*
Lmao that's exactly how I felt when he reviewed my childhood favourite The Idiot's Lantern
But you don't have to stop liking something just because one youtuber you like doesn't like the same episode. If you liked and enjoyed the series 5, then that's fine and you can keep doing that. There is no law that says "you have to like exactly what a youtuber likes".
@@realshaoran4514 Dang but my rulebook had that rule maybe it was misprinted.
Oh wow, so Leia isn't just Mary Poppins then..."she's River Song, y'all!" 🌂
Horn of the Nimon, TARDIS air shields
So, for your point at 9:17, I’m pretty sure the soldiers weren't shooting just to feel like they were doing something, rather they were using the muzzle flashes to maintain eye contact on the Angels to slow them down, which has always been such a brilliant idea to me. Unlike with the torches or corridor lights, the illumination is purely from a chemical reaction, something the Angels can't manipulate.
If they hadn't done this, the Angels would surely have overrun them instantly given how fast they're supposed to move, showing some truly creative and effective problem solving by the soldiers.
Fun Fact: The cave sequences were filmed in the UK Cave System "Wookey Hole", and they were filmed a lot earlier than you might think. I went to visit the caves in 2008 (I was 6 at the time), and the tour guide mentioned that they were going to be used to film doctor who in a few weeks (it was autumn/winter), so Series 5 started filming a long time before it aired.
After a quick google search, I found some sources stating that the Wookey Hole cave system was used to film a scene in "End of Time" which was the 2009 christmas special, this episode would also coincide with the filming date being in 2008. I found sources stating that the location used for "The Time of Angels" and "Flesh and Stone" were filmed in Clearwell Caves. Still cool how you got to see a Doctor Who filming location!!
@@JustACrayFangirlWookey Hole was also used for Voga in Revenge of the Cybermen
If I ignore the plot holes it creates, the pacing and directing of this episode is so fantastic that I can’t help but be swept up in the tension of this episode
What plot-holes?
@@mayotango1317 watch the video I don’t have the energy to explain them all haha
@@entertain7us148 He is a Moffat-Hater. And we hate Chibnall now.
@@mayotango1317 he's not a hater. He has some criticisms. I disagree with him a lot but he has quite a fair approach and gives Moffat credit where he feels it’s due.
To be fair, you can only go so far with "looming" and jump-scares, so I can't imagine a "Blink 2" working without changing how the Angels behave and what they are.
You could do it quite well by changing the location, like this could work without updating the angels, as you’re moving from a well lighted place to a dark location where you can be easily ambushed, and since the floors are uneven there is more potential ways for you to lose line of sight.
@@dominicthorp3248 No matter where it was set or how it was shot, I still feel that the looming/jump-scare stuff had run its course in "Blink". Indeed, I feel that it nearly outstayed its welcome even in that first story, and I can't imagine the same thing being stretched out to another episode.
@@ftumschk I think it depends on who writes it, if it is written almost as a beat by beat of Blink, it wouldn't work. But if it is written more lovecraftian in that you know the entity is there, but you never really see it, or see it cloaked in shadows it could work, you could make it a military base keeping with the religious military and have it be a more slow and sombre approach. Dont even tell us its the Angels until later on, which would add to the confusion and horror. Jump scares definitely wouldn't work though, as that isn't the slow chilling horror that you normally get in lovecraftian stories
@@dominicthorp3248 Great ideas! You should turn it into a script and send it to RTD... you never know :)
Remember that at the end of "Blink" Sally gave the Doctor a picture of an Angel, the same Angel that will send him and Martha back to the past.
Ah, Moffatt. A man that can't even respect his own canon.
Remember that at the end of "Blink" Sally gave the Doctor a picture of an Angel, the same Angel that will send him and Martha back to the past.
Wait for Chibnall...
At least he had more respect for even his own canon than chibnall does
@@TheRealUnkn0wn_289 Chibnall has his own canon? For me it's more like sequence of random events
May I remind you guys that Chibnall tried to create a one size fits all approach to canon-- the guy cares too much about canon
the over sexualization of River, and really most Smith-era female characters, is exactly why I feel so uncomfortable watching Eleven's era of the show and is why I haven't bothered revisiting most of it.
Edit: I was half asleep when I typed this. Meant to put Smith era… skipped a regen. sorry!
Which capaldi era characters are over sexualized?
Who? Clara is so annoying as Lisa Simpson, Danny Pink is more borring that a dead fish.
@@mayotango1317 that's not the same as oversexualised.
@@matthewparker9276 So? For me River Song is the teal female Doctor, no the stupid blonde.
Why do you think Clara is annoying? I genuinely like her and don't understand hate around her
I must admit I also really disliked how the rules were suddenly changed to fit this story
Remember that at the end of "Blink" Sally gave the Doctor a picture of an Angel, the same Angel that will send him and Martha back to the past.
@@mayotango1317 Wrong!
@@cringefairy2687 Why not?
@@mayotango1317 give it up
The biggest failure of this episode is it breaks the very rule it introduces:
The image of an angel becomes an angel. So why tf aren't they jumping out the screen at me?
This would be like asking "if the Doctor is supposed to be real in this show why has a Tardis never appeared in the real world"
@@Orcus985 Yes it would.
That was the joke.
Oooo that primeval reference brought back so many memories! I would so love to watch you do a breakdown of that series!
Thanks for commenting on River's sexualisation. I really liked the character as a kid, and Alex Kingston is a gem, but something just felt Off with her when I revisited this series as an adult. Her dynamic with 11 never felt very convincing to me, because Matt Smith was possibly the most explicitly asexual Doctor of the revived era, but he supposedly fell in love with someone who's main appeal is how witty and sexy she is? I just don't buy that this is the woman he told his true name to. Especially when he only actually meets her a handful of times, yet he's never revealed his name to any of his companions and closest friends who he travelled with for years. The meeting out of order thing is very cool, but I'd have preferred them to have remained friends the whole time.
Yes, this! It would have made more sense with 10, but it still doesn't feel organic. I thought I loved River, but I actually love Alex Kingston, she did a wonderful job.
@@user-is7xs1mr9y Bless Alex for nailing the role and having fun with it. I'm with you that she saves the character for me, I don't love River but Alex's performance makes her way more bareable
That’s the thing isn’t it. She was flirtatious in Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead but that was only a small aspect, you got the feeling she was an archaeologist first, and the intrigue about her past was a genuinely good mystery. I quite liked her in that one, but in The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone, and all subsequent appearances, it’s full flirtatious femme fatale without much nuance. Almost like she’s a completely different character.
Do people think 11 is the most ace? I'd argue he's the most overtly sexual doctor in modern who.
@@hallowedfool No, that is the sexy Tennant. I find Smith a gay in the closet.
Seeing them move for the first time was unexpected, but definitely makes them less intimidating.
this makes no sense please explain
Agreed
Don't forget that this story also shows Angels looking at each other and then moving later, which tosses out the resolution of Blink.
Showing the angels moving is straight up a bad choice, and the "move like you can see" plot point should probably have been cut, but the rest of this story is really solid, and upping the stakes on the series arc so early in the series was an excellent way to distinguish Moffat's era from Davis'.
The extra lore given for the angels for the most part are good additions, expanding on the threat and tension, and it doesn't give away too much, so they retain some mystery. The story wouldn't work without giving the angels a voice, not because of exposition, but because of the character interactions and the way it is used to put the doctor off balance. The twist of there being an army of angels, and the resolution of dropping the angels in the crack were both set up really well, as was the cliffhanger resolution.
I get the feeling you still don't understand the character arcs during Smith's run. Amy acts sexual because she has attachment issues, she is trying to distance herself from Rory, because she is scared of committing her entire life to him, and she also thinks that she needs to convince the doctor not to abandon her again. The doctor feels responsible for this, which he is, and it's one of the earliest examples in Smith's run of him facing consequences for his careless meddling with people lives.
I had completely forgotten about the whole the "wooshing" was leaving the handbrake on. Would make sense if it was just the Doctor's TARDIS that made this noise. But every other TARDIS does. Even the SIDRATs in the War Games did. A classic Moffat one liner which on the surface is funny but when you think about it, it's really dumb.
This is that story I enjoy just for the aliens vibe and making the angels a larger threat but at the same time Moffat overdoing it with his ideas does make the story feel all over the place. One aspect I personally enjoyed was the crack storyline reappearing because for me it came out of left field and showed the contrast between RTD and Moffat on how they approach the larger arc.
Edit: I just wanted to add this cause I needed to think how to word it. I hate Moffat had the Angels move on screen cause it ruined the mystique of how they move. I always liked to think they moved like with earth shattering fast movements, something that would contrast their stone forms. If it had been better directed and potentially rewritten I think thay scene could have ramped the tension up if we got the briefest glimpses that their movement was very unnatural.
The thing that really irks at me is that they actually do that earlier in the episode. There's a scene where the doctor is trying to stop the angels and they're on both sides of him. He has to look back and forth to stop them from getting to him quickly. And just for a second, you can see on of the angels move just a little. It's really jarring and it made me jump while its movement was still deeply disturbing. If they had stopped here, it would've been an amazing addition to the show's canon and a good addition to the angels. I am pissed that Moffat showed too much for too long, and people see that over that very nice moment.
"Moffat writing one-handed." I've been struggling to elucidate exactly why I've never enjoyed River's character (and the Moffat's treatment of his female companions), but this really hit the nail on the head.
Why? You like Yaz or the Jodie Doctor?
Honestly like river a lot more than any of the other female companions in matt smiths era
I will never complain about the voices of the angels in this episode again after hearing the terrible voices they gave them in The Edge of Reality. That was actually embarrassing
big fat boi
@@HarboWholmes omg yes I actually cringed at that bit, as well as "Little baby bunting"
Classic Moffat. Creates a memorable villain and just f**** it
No. Remember that at the end of "Blink" Sally gave the Doctor a picture of an Angel, the same Angel that will send him and Martha back to the past.
@@mayotango1317 I feel like if that was the case then the Doctor would have realized and would know the whole “image of an angel” thing already.
(To be clear I do like this story)
@@JP-yf2fk Plus, if the angel came from that image, where did the other 3 come from (bearing in mind there were 4 total). And ADDITIONALLY, the angels could've just gone straight into the TARDIS through the images. Rendering the whole plot irrelevant.
one thing I personally didn't like about the angels, was them being shown moving and its for two reasons.
1. I mean its obvious what made the angels in blink so terrifying is that you never see them move.
2. in Blink and I think in this two parter here, the doctor says they turn into stone when their being watched, which would implicate that the angels aren't stone while moving, but in that scene they are shown making grinding noises and still look like they're made of stone.
(edit: just got done watching it and you talked about the stone thing, welp its good to see another big brain.)
I was watching this two-parter just today. When viewed in isolation, it's decent enough, but when watched in marathon with Blink, it is a complete and utter mess. To take a fair view of Moffat, he basically had the same problem George Lucas had; he had good ideas but liked to change things and didn't know when to stop. That image of an Angel becomes an Angel thing is a case in point. If Moffat had just left it at the recording of the Angel coming to life then there'd be no problem, but he went too far and did the Angel in the mind thing which I intensely dislike as it contradicts Blink and defeats the whole purpose of stopping the Angels by looking at them. In fact, I think Moffat himself realised that the Angel in the mind was going too far as it doesn't come up again in Angels Take Manhattan.
Random thought; given the fairy-tale vibe Moffat was going for in series 5, I wonder if Amy's outfit in this two-parter was a homage to Red Riding Hood. I'm definitely getting that vibe from it!
Remember that at the end of "Blink" Sally gave the Doctor a picture of an Angel, the same Angel that will send him and Marta back to the past.
I think the image in Blink wouldn’t become an angel as the eyes were covered, whereas the picture that Amy sees has the eyes uncovered. That’s what I think about the lore anyway, but it makes sense
@@massNebula I wish that were the case, but the angel in the recording that Amy sees is initially standing in the corner, facing away from the camera WITH its eyes covered. So there isn't even any continuity in that.
I agree with the OC (original commenter) that Moffat almost certainly wrote himself into a corner with this story.
@@mayotango1317 that's addressed in the video
@@massNebula that can't be it because then the author of that book could have drawn or added photos of angels as long as the eyes were covered.
River Song got away with being over sexualized because Alex Kingston knows exactly how to walk the line between sexy and funny on the one hand and a caricature blow up doll on the other by not taking it too serious at the moments she can.
Great actress. If she would return in some way, I wouldn't mind, although I'm afraid they would make her River Song again and that character arc is finished.
Funny because I find Jodie Whittaker a cartoon character.
Alex Kingston, the Library two-parter and The Husbands of River Song saved River from being unbearable. In between River's introduction and exit, she was portrayed as a Mary Sue but whenever Alex was onscreen, she was having so much fun with the role that it was infectious so I didn't mind. The Husbands of River Song finally rescued her from Mary Sue status by having her be completely oblivious to the Doctor's presence as well as revealing that she fears he doesn't love her which implies that her constant flirting is actually a coping technique because she's terrified of losing him. It actually showed River being fallible and vulnerable for once. We get hints of that in The Angels Take Manhatten but never a full episode dedicated to showing River as a flawed human being. It's also fitting that Alex Kingston finally got her name on the Doctor Who title screen, granting her full companion status in her final episode.
One thing I can't forgive Moffat for though is giving River the ability to regenerate. There's absolutely no way she could have the Time Lords' most powerful ability, even if she was conceived in the Time Vortex, because both of her parents were human. River's story was perfectly capable of functioning without that contrived bullshit.
Harbo is not a big fan of season 5 so far…
Rightly so, it's kinda shit.
@@MintyCoffee agreed!
I feel like a more polished version of this would have been a better use of the angels than Angels take manhatten, giving the Doctor & river more time together beforhand to develop their chemistry and not only uping the angels stakes with an increase in numbers but also the payoff by having them remove amy & rory.
I certainly believe the Ángels are enough for just one story and that’s it.
Every episode devaluates the mystery.
Nonetheless they would be perfect on a episode recorded in first person or a survival horror short game.
As a kid, I never understood why Amy tried to kiss the Doctor at the end. As an adult... I still don't get it.
22:30 Well as I'm sure you've learned by this point Harbo, "everyone's a critic," but personally I've really enjoyed all your thoughts on Doctor Who content, *especially* when they tend to differ from the general public. 👏
Two things:
Firstly, the Angels must be able to decide when and when not to be stone, regardless of if someone is looking at them because there are countless occasions in 'Blink' where no one is looking at the Angels, yet they remain stone (which furthers the idea that they can't move when we, the audience, see them either).
Secondly, is it explained at the end how everyone is able to remember this entire encounter with the angels considering they were all sent into the crack and erased from time? I genuinely can't remember and if not that's a massive plothole. I know the Angels heal the crack after falling into it but... they still get erased.
It's because they’re time travellers.
I think the Weeping Angels would be work better if they were treated like other Doctor Who villains. What I mean is many of the stories aren't just about the villains, but have more going on also. The previous Dalek episode had World War 2 and the doctor, or the first Cyberman story had a human antagonist. The Angels' next appearance somewhat tried this, but I'd like to see more attempts with them.
oh no, this video contains the mage of an angel, thanks Harbo
I rlly like the set up this episode does with River and the way it handles her reintroduction honestly. I just like this 2 parter
River (And the actress) is just naturally sexy/semi-voloptuous...I would have gladly given her my name if I knew She was to be my Wife.....lol🤭
I thought that they stayed stone when we see them move because they were unsure if Amy could see them or not, and wanted to look but couldn’t risk their true form
This is the antithesis of Defending the Despised. Attacking the Adored?
People begged me to do that and now they cry when it happens
@@HarboWholmes I agree a lot with this vid
The Graham Norton thing makes me laugh so much, every time I'm reminded of it
I loved that you referenced Primeval, I always felt the show was a lot more underrated
"Overrated?" I feel like I only ever hear people saying how it ruined the Angels by making them move. If anything I think it's unfairly criticized for being a good idea that didn't just copy what worked before. (Plus Amy winking DID work, she just got distracted after...)
uh-oh he mentioned Primeval, now he's gonna have to review that as well
I bet we wouldn’t have seen the weeping angels move if they had seen a Skillshare video on staying still :/
Interesting video. An excuse I have for when the angels are moving is that that isn’t their true form- they’re actually still. It’s just that the lights are rapidly flashing so they’re changing extremely quickly, image by image, so it looks like they’re moving. So we still don’t know what the angels’ real form is.
The Aliens can inhabit angels, which is why the Statue of Liberty comes to life. Also, who cares about whether any of this makes 100% sense, it’s Dr who, just pretend it does and suspend your disbelief!
I prefer to think that the “true” angels are basically Lovecraftian horrors. You know, the kind that would cause your mind to break if you ever saw it. The stone is literally just the closest thing that our minds can comprehend. But.....the Doctor has probably seen the true form at one point, you know how they are 😅
@Tristan Lane Is better that Tennant/Rose fanboys.
@Tristan Lane Shut up, Chibnall lover.
Honestly, this is when I gave up on the series as a whole.
Crybaby.
@@mayotango1317 do you blame him? Series 5 was a disgrace
Me too pretty much. I stuck it out until the end of Peter Capaldi's first season because I was trying to convince myself that the childhood nostalgia of Eccleston/Tennant was what was keeping me from enjoying the Smith era, but nope the writing faced a heavy decline in quality pretty much as soon as Tennant regenerated, and it's a huge shame because the production and acting were top notch.
@@aleccino No, is the RTD nostalgia that ruin Doctor Who. Even Harbo Wholmes say that bring him back is a bad idea.
There seems to be two kinda Moffat fans. Ones that like both Smith's and Capaldi's runs (with some exceptions) or ones that take an issue with Smith's and prefer Capaldi's run. Does anybody else find that to be the case?
I prefer the Capaldi run but I still have a huge problem with Moffat being unable to kill characters off.
@@larsswig912 ¿Danny Pink?
@@mayotango1317 You keep bringing this up and I keep telling you, he's the exception that proves the rule and not a companion. And he only stayed dead so they could magically resurrect a kid
@@mayotango1317 he was one of the only ones. all his character deaths were always minimized by him somehow bringing them back. Clara, Bill, and Rory like a million times. he minimized especially what a massive thing companion deaths usually are.
it's my biggest problem with him.
4:07 Generated subtitles suggested "A Good Man Goes to War" should be "a good mango saguaro" 😂
In my opinion (before even watching the whole video :/) I think the 2 series 5 weeping angels were both brilliant. I honestly think there was only maybe 3 parts that people can be angry about (and even some of those I disagree with). It certainly was different from other doctor who episodes but I think actually didn't negatively effect it.
They probably are:
1. Seeing angels move - honestly this was a terribly unneeded part of the episode and really served no purpose.
2. Angels speaking - although personally I didn't care about (and I think it adds extra spookiness to feel that the Angels are using someone's voice box/cords to use their voice)
3. The whole 'don't look in the eyes of an angel' thing that really doesn't add much to the episode other than just adding an extra 'quirk' to the angels
I've heard people complain about how the angels were defeated being bad, which I personally don't understand (maybe someone could shed light), or how in the original release there was an advert that appears when the doctor was doing the whole "there's something you don't put in a trap" speech.
*I'm gonna actually watch the video now xD*
Edit: forgot about the "walk like you can see" scene :/ yeah thats terrible :/
Despite it's flaws (which there are a lot), I think the Time of Angels has a great atmosphere and sense of fear to it. It's a shame that Flesh and Stone is pretty fucking bad, and really this is the beginning of the end for the Weeping Angels.
I still think these episodes where good. Honestly think they improved the angels in this episode. Only negative was seeing them move. For me it was after this they started to get bad in my opinion
A Doctor Who fan with negative opinions that actually delivers them in a calm, well thought out, and respectful manner? That’s rarer than a decent Chris Chibnal episode 😜
I kid, I kid.
I missed the last few videos as....well, work exists lol. Nice work as always my dude
Personally i think it’s under rated, I didn’t know it was that popular
Mostly agree about the Angels, as I don't mind Bob and the neck snapping. I think those elements work in the context, but it would have been good if after draining power, the Angels sent a soldier or two back to the past instead. Aliens didn't try and add more to a Xenomorph, which is why it worked so well.
I don't mind River TOO much, but she did come on a little too strong for The Doctor still not knowing her that well. Overall, I still enjoy the episodes, and the plot-twist is still really fun. Matt did a really great job.
2:42 Good Lord Eleven, you got asthma now all of a sudden?
I'm glad I'm not the only one annoyed at the Angels moving while we can see them. Blink was so clever because we never saw them move either, just like you said, as if we're another pair of eyes.
This was my first interaction with Moffat becoming increasingly lazy and quicker to hand wave something just because he wants a specific scene or outcome. I'm glad he never got as bad with it in Doctor Who as he did with Sherlock.
You’re forgetting my other least favourite recurring trope of the Moffat era. The stupid lore reveal that nobody needed, wanted or asked for, that ultimately adds nothing and gets quickly forgotten about.
This week: have you ever wondered why the TARDIS makes that noise
Me: No…..
Moffat: Well I’m glad you asked because the reason it makes that noise is because the Doctor always flies it with the brakes on!
Me: Oh Fuck off!
Join us next week (or indeed a few seasons) when we ask, Why do Daleks say Exterminate? 🤦♂️
And to explain why this piece of lore is stupid: The Master and Rani's TARDISes in Classic who (and several on big finish) make this same noise. Does every Time Lord also fly around with the brakes on. And if it is caused by the brakes, why does it only make that noise during take off and landing, surely it should make it the entire time as well.
@@intergalactic92 yeah actually that is really dumb
That happen in the RTD era also.
Do you people have no concept of a joke? Why do you take everything at face value?
Agreed. Not everything needs to be explained
I didn't know this episode was so liked, I always wasn't a fan of it because of what it did to the angels
as a kid this was my first impression of the angels and they still stuck with me as terrifying and incredibly cool, as a kid stuff like the 'wall like you can see' bit doesn't even really stick in my mind, the core blink and you die was still always there, when you get to analysing a kids tv show like its art, it will always get pretty goofy at times, even though i do enjoy all dw reviews
Another issue that you didn't bring up, is that with that many angels, they are almost guaranteed to be constantly looking at each other. I mean there are a ton of scenes where an angel very clearly has another angel in their peripheral vision.
13:32 But isn't that why The Tsuranga Conundrum failed?
I am a big fan of Series 5. It is in my five top five favorites series. I loved Matt Smith as The Doctor, I love Amy and Rory, I liked just about every story. I even like Time of the Angels/Flesh and Stone. However, The Weeping Angels were one of the greatest villains of all time, but they should have stayed as one-off villains, like the entity in "Midnight". As Moffat proved (twice!), the more you know about the Angels, the less frightening they became. And now they are in the hands of Chris Chibnall. God help up.
4:48 Oh hi Iain Glen, didn't know *you* were in this story!
I’ve noticed something; Moffat doesn’t like writing villains. In his stories, the antagonist is usually either a mysterious or rarely seen monster, a natural disaster or a mystery to be solved. One of the few exceptions was missy, and she (sort of) became a good guy in the next few seasons. Because of this, Moffat stories tend to involve the protagonists talking to each other and the doctor either quickly saying exposition or giving a speech to what might as well be thin air. To me I feel like it’s often difficult to feel that invested in his stories because compared to the doctor who feels so charismatic and capable, the monsters are hard to root against because they don’t really have a personality and the doctor always seems to beat them, so they kinda feel the underdogs. It’s almost more satisfying when they win because it makes the doctor less arrogant.
¿What about Madame Kovarian?
@@mayotango1317 Kovarian was delightfully despicable. She could spit venom in ways that few other Doctor Who villains could match. Too bad people forgot about her but the Moff didn't because he mentioned her in The Time of the Doctor to explain why the Silence were no longer the Doctor's enemies. Moffat actually cares about his characters, even the evil ones.
Please, Tennant Doctor always was arrogant. To be honest, most of Doctor Who stories never need a villain, only monsters or mystery.
I like this two parter. I have always loved River Song. She is an interesting character. I just like this series. I know you and others don't like series 5 that much but I do. It hits the right spot for me.
No, only him. Everybody loves Series 5.
@Tristan Lane No I like series 5 because I like it.
He created one of the best modern Doctor Who monsters, but then he kept going. Adding lore that we didn’t need or want. And it doesn’t even make sense. Too much of a good thing, I guess
Would love to see you talk about primeval
Sorry, I just can't agree. It's got its flaws but this was the 2-parter that blew my mind - unlike the previous 2 eps that had been appalling IMO. The direction of the entire opening sequence is absolutely spellbinding.
This ones a really mixed bag. Angel getting into Amy’s head, cool. Angel Bob, I actually really like, star of the episode for me. “Walk like you can see”, nonsense. The handling of the angels whole thing, moving really fast when not looked at, terrible. There are too many angels, the protagonists in reality have no chance whatsoever, in the episode they are constantly surrounded, therefore not looking at x amount angels, therefore dead. You SEE it over and over again, characters not looking at them. And yet they don’t move. Blink probably has similar moments, but you can suspend your disbelief so much easier.
I remember this two parter was either the first or second episode of Doctor Who I watched, and I remember being both utterly hooked and amazed by the big twists. Like, the angels were staring us in the face the whole time, the episode 1 "there's one thing you NEVAH put in a trap... ME!" speech plus cliffhanger, and the "gravity of the situation" bit all did that genius thing I love about Doctor Who where the pieces were there, and you could have put them together, and then The Doctor brings it all together in a great scene. Plus, of course, the added mystery build up for the finale was cool
I never liked this episode, he changes so much with the Weeping Angels that he may as well have brought something new to the table. It feels like we rarely see two parters about anything other than the Cybermen or Daleks so having something new and unique just for it would have been great. Something like the Vashta Nerada.
I really loved Amy being unable to see in this episode, it adds so much tension and really makes her vulnerable in a way we can intimately understand. Unfortunately it was kinda the only good bit :/
The time erasure thing is actually really well done in Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane. It also has the Graske.
1:47 She did say to the doctor through the security footage that she "could do with an air corridor"
The way I've interpreted the whole "the image of an angel" thing isn't that images of angels literally *become* new angels, but that angels are capable of "reaching out" or projecting themselves through images of themselves. IIRC, Eleven even says something to this effect when talking about the angel in Amy's head in this two-parter. That's always made more sense to me than the idea of images of angels becoming new angels outright.
To that end, I wouldn't personally consider the "images" discrepancy between this two-parter and Blink a plot hole or contradiction - one of the Blink angels *did* look Larry in the eyes, and Sally *did* give photos of them to the Doctor later on, but by that point said angels were all frozen in place because they were stuck staring at each other.
That's just my take, though. The angels moving and "walk like you can see", on the other hand... yeah, no.
I take the “assume you can see” as, they’re scared so they’re acting more on instinct, they’re used to being frozen when people are around, so they won’t realize they can move, because they don’t expect to be able to
That still doesn't make sense. As Amy moves forward the Angels at her back can still get her and kill her or send her back in time. They'd assume she can't see them anymore and attack
I love this story but yeah the image of an angel stuff and the "act like you can see" doesn't work at all. I like that angel coming through the cctv tho, that's a cool thing for them to be able to do.
THIS EPISODE IS MY FAVORITE THIS SERIES
The idea of angels killings soldiers so they could rip out their cerebral cortex and create a version of them to communicate with was a neat idea in my opinion. It showed that the Angels aren’t just these creatures that are always hungry for energy and just want to send you back in time to feed. There’s that insidious intelligence behind them that they’ll do something so morbid to trick you or to communicate. I would’ve just preferred Angel Bob to have just been over the radio rather than the Angel talking to the doctor at the end of the episode , but that’s just my personal preference
In addition. I would’ve liked that scene where Amy is surrounded by angels to be shadows moving around her and the camera getting closer to her being the angels point of view and keep that mystery of them
The whole "walk like you can see" thing is the angels instincts making them act differently. They can move, but their instincts make it so they can't quite tell if they're observed or not. This is litterally a line in the script
Maybe there's a painful or energy draining consequence if the Angels try to move when they can't, and the angels in this story hardly have any energy to begin with, so their being careful with what they've got. It almost makes sense that if there is a force keeping the angels from moving, counteracting their forces, it could consume a lot of energy to keep them from moving
I'd take this over Blink anyday.
2:47 Harbo is a subby confirmed
Haven't seen the video yet, but my two least favourite parts of that episode were the moving angels, and the talking angels. The first weeping angels were a lot like the original Slenderman, in that you never really saw them move or speak. This created an extremely unsettling atmosphere around them; if they aren't moving, it shows they don't NEED to move to catch you, and if they can't speak, you don't know anything about their motives. In many ways, Slenderman and the Weeping Angels are similar because they both started out as really creepy and promising, but got misused until what made them initially scary sort of faded away.
Honestly, you've no idea how vindicated I feel knowing someone else doesn't like this two-parter. The Weeping Angels really should have just been a "one and done" monster. Like the Entity in Midnight. It's really painfully simple logic: the more you reuse a monster, the less scary it becomes because the format of the show dictates that somehow, someway, they will *always* end up being beaten. Despite DW's reputation for driving kids behind the sofa because it was so scary, Blink was legit the only episode I've ever seen that actually genuinely scared me (and this is coming from a complete and utter wuss) and it's primarily because the Doctor (with Sally and Larry) *just barely* managed to save the day and when they did, it was more by luck than good judgement. By reusing the Weeping Angels, it automatically lessens their impact.
Also, they stopped being scary the moment we saw them move. Them remaining completely still in Blink whenever the "camera eye" was on them was a frankly genius touch and that head-turn one gives in this two-partner is just so damn goofy that I genuinely burst out laughing the first time I watched it. It looked like a little kid playing Musical Statues trying to subtly look round to see if the judge had caught them wobbling.
What about the Daleks?
@@mayotango1317 To be completely honest, I've never found the Daleks particularly scary in the first place. Intimidating, yes, but not scary. It may be because when I was little (before the series was revived), a local library had a lifesize model of a Dalek in the foyer for some reason (and honestly, when you've seen a Dalek decorated in tinsel and Christmas tree lights and wearing a Santa hat before ever seeing them on TV, it's sort of impossible to find them at all frightening). And I might get flak for saying this, but whenever the Daleks turn up, there's never any real sense of danger that they'll actually *win* - their episodes are mostly just about what their latest plan is and then how the Doctor will stop it rather than focusing on convincing the audience "these things are genuinely going to succeed". And theirs is something of a special case anyway since I believe that when Doctor Who was revived in 2005, a part of the agreement with Terry Nation's estate for being able to use the Daleks at all was that they then be used (or at least appear) at least once per series so...they kind of *have* to keep turning up. The Weeping Angels don't have that baggage; it's just that Moffatt is awful when it comes to knowing when to let his own creations go.
I also feel like with the daleks, they are the doctors arch nemesis aswell as the master. So it makes sense that he fights them over and over again. In the end I know that every villain in the doctor who will be defeated or at least the doctor and humanity survives. So I don't see that as a real problem.
Loved BLINK, hated this one, loved THE ANGELS TAKE MANHATTAN. The problem wasn't the angels themselves, it was what was done with them.
11:47 we know that when an angel comes out of the photo they become physical, so maybe the doctor just assumed angels ambushed him
It's a prime example of how some monsters are most effective when they're used once. Moffat's other great villain creation, the Vashta Nerada, just wouldn't hit the same if given another episode beyond the Library.
My favorite part of this episode was by far Father Octavian.
When River gives The Doctor the coordinates to get to her, she specifically states “oh, and I’ll need an air corridor” hence why “she can fly through space” unlike the example you give here to imply it’s a plot hole. The Angels in Blink were, in The Doctor’s own words, near the beginning of this two-parter, “scavengers, barely surviving” and as The Doctor (and the audience) only had Blink to go on in terms of knowledge of The Angels, it provides an opportunity for Moffat to expand on how The Angels work. They are his creation, and it makes sense he would wish to expand upon what we think we know about them. In this two-parter we are told that they are being restored via the radiation from the crashed ship, hence why they are more powerful than the ones we encountered with Blink. That explanation may not work for everyone, but it’s good enough for me. I suspect you just aren’t a fan of Moffat. And that’s fine, all art is subjective at the end of the day. Personally I loved this two-parter, despite my own nit-picks but then I could find nit-picks about any episode if I looked hard enough.
Moffat's like George Lucas in some ways. He has creativity coming out the wazoo and the courage to go through with it. He can also acknowledge a mistake instead of doubling down like most of the hacks in the modern film industry. We need more artists like him.
Nice to know you've gone over this episode again, defending the despised was a good set of videos
The Doctor's greatest foe Graham Norton.
Honestly I know it messes with stuff but I just. Chose to headcanon that this episode didn't happen like this. I haven't decided if I should pretend it didn't happen at all, or if I should just pretend it obeyed all the rules established in blink, but I'm not accepting any of the changes as canon because they're just. Bad.
Aye, I started to lose faith with Moffat's run about here.
The Angels should only ever have been a one off. They're less interesting every time they return.
And River should have stayed dead.