Talk:The Angels Take Manhattan (TV story)/Archive 1

Date for modern-day scenes?
Do we know for sure that the modern-day scenes in this episode were in 2012, or should the page say 21st Century instead? Unless I'm mistaken, the scenes in The Power of Three took place around 2020, given that it was Amy and Rory's 10th wedding anniversary; I'd be inclined to assume they weren't venturing back in time just to read in New York.


 * The Doctor explicitly says, at 12:05 in, "Tried that, if you noticed, and we are back where we started in 2012". And near the end he repeats it. So yes, it's 2012. It's also clearly the 2012 New York skyline (or at least somewhere before 2014), because the new WTC towers aren't visible.


 * As for when TPO3 took place, that's complicated; there's a whole thread on the Talk page about that, and another one at http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Howling:Dating_the_Amy_era. Anyway, whatever year that was, this seems to be a few years later. So, why did they visit New York in 2012? I think that's a topic for The Howling; for this article, the only thing that's directly relevant is that it definitely was 2012. --70.36.140.233talk to me 22:45, September 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * TPO3 took place between 2011 and 2012. This can be determined as Amy states that it is her and Rory's 1 year anniversary. I doubt that if it was in 2014 or later, they would celebrate their 1 year anniversary. Also, going by all in-show references, the present time of the companions is typically set as the year the series airs first.--Lycos Devanos Drop me a line 04:56, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it was their _10_ year anniversary. Also, I don't know where you get the idea that the companions' present is typically the year the series airs; that's only true for about 1/4th of them. But anyway, this page is not the place to discuss the setting of TPO3; go to Talk:The Power of Three (TV story) if you think that article needs to be changed, or Howling:Dating the Amy era if you just want to discuss it. For this article, all that matters is when this episode was set, and that's clearly. --70.36.140.233talk to me 06:16, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * No it was the first as Amy clearly said "Its our first anniversary" and I was not discussing it, merely pointing out to you that the events took place in that year. As for the companions, all the ones since the reboot are the ones I speak of. Every companion since the Ninth doctor have been set in the present of the year the series came out.--Lycos Devanos Drop me a line 22:35, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think 70.36.140.233 is thinking of Amy's line where she said that she and Rory think that it's been ten years of subjective time for them since they've traveled with the Doctor. In any case, I thought that the story had been advanced a year back in Series 1 at Aliens of London, when the Doctor accidentally jumped Rose forward a year. I thought that they then reeled Amy back to present time in Series 5 at the date of release of The Big Bang. ComicBookGoddess ☎  05:01, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * It can't be their first. They were married in 2010. That would make it June 2011. But the end of "The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe" takes place 3 years after "The Impossible Astronaut" which was April 2011. -- Timey Wimey


 * Another way to look at it is the present time is up to the viewer, unless directly expressed in the episode. So for some it could be 2020 or others 2012 or some others still 2015.--Lycos Devanos Drop me a line 22:55, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * First, where in the episode does Amy say it's their first anniversary? I've got the closed captions and a fan transcript, and I can't find it anywhere. If you can describe the scene, I can find it in the video and make sure. Second, Every companion from Rose (except the first few episodes) to Wilf was set one year ahead of the year the series came out, not the same year. Rose disappearing for a year was a major plot point, and the future date was established numerous times after that. But again, all of this is more relevant to TPO3 than this episode. TPO3 has an unclear setting (it currently just says "21st century"), and if you can improve that, that would be very helpful. This episode is definitely 2012, so there's nothing to fix here. --70.36.140.233talk to me 04:50, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry to muddle this, guys, but it looks like somebody in props was dropping an in joke re: American NFL football. The headline of Amy's paper states that the Detroit Lions won the Superbowl. Two problems: the Superbowl is played in February - when the trees wouldn't be green and the fountains wouldn't be on - and the Detroit Lions are one of four teams that have never made it to the first 47 Superbowls. I put this in the reference section, as I didn't want to put it in both there and production errors, and it clearly seems to be an in joke rather than an error. However, it also affects this discussion (which I'm sorry I hadn't seen yet! Ack!) as it clearly means either different teams won the Superbowl in the Whoniverse or the story can't have been set in 2012 - or the TARDIS crew made another stop in NYC, just to buy a newspaper before this one. ComicBookGoddess ☎  00:48, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, the modern scenes definitely took place in 2012, and the Doctor himself said so. --SOTO ☎ 06:21, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Main setting
I removed "China, 221 BC" because that's only the setting for a single scene that lasts a few seconds and has no featured actors. --70.36.140.233talk to me 06:16, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Getting history wrong?
I'm just wondering, didn't the Moff get the timescale in ancient China wrong? I know the 221BC is a Sherlock reference, but at 221BC it was the Qin dynasty not the Qing dynasty, Chinese people didn't wear stuff like that, tie their hair like that or even had vases like that. Of course we can always say the Doctor changed history, but still, production error/not doing his research?


 * If Moffat mixed up the Qin and Qing dynasties, I think that qualifies as a production error, and you should add it to the appropriate section of the article. --70.36.140.233talk to me 21:25, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Per T:NO RW, this wiki doesn't consider differences between the real world and the DWU to be errors. Shambala108 ☎  15:16, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty
In TV: Time of Angels it is stated that every image of an Angel is an Angel. If the Statue of Liberty is an Angel, every photograph of the sculpture should be a Weeping Angel. HarveyWallbanger ☎  17:09, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Have all the statues in NY ALWAYS been Angels, or have the Angels just recently "taken over" all of them. --Confused
 * The simplest answer is that was a temporary situation... HarveyWallbanger ☎  17:28, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * The angels seem to have issues moving the statue, as in both scenes where it appears it doesn't move even though not being looked at. Then again, how did they manage to march it over there in the first place with no one seeing it? At no point is it even implied that the angels have that much control of the city (actually they marched it back and forth since it is there in the teaser, then back on the island, then back at the roof again). Even without street lamps you can see something that big even at nightVoid2258 ☎  17:28, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Deb1701: River says the Angels have taken them over. Later, the Doctor asks how many they've taken over, and River says it's most of them. So it's not just the simplest answer; it's pretty explicitly stated. Which means that, after Rory collapses their aberrant timeline with his paradox, the statues are back to being just statues.


 * Void2258: Your point is really unrelated to this section; you should either create another section (if you think this is something that needs to be discussed to improve the page), look at the brief discussion on the Discontinuity page (if you just want some answers), or look at the long thread on The Howling (if you want to discuss it for fun). --70.36.140.233talk to me 04:42, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Cars and Trucks Section
Is the plaque really referencing the TARDIS? I thought it was referencing the mirror? --Confused

It's also referring to a piece of military hardware, not a car. Pix. Cars don't tend to have NATO Stock Numbers. Raven&#39;s wing ☎  15:36, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Sheds
Where does it actually say that the scene with young Amelia in the garden is set during The Eleventh Hour? For all we know she kept going out there every night in case the Doctor showed up. Raven&#39;s wing ☎  22:24, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * The exact same footage is used in The Eleventh Hour, in Amy's dream before she wake up hearing the TARDIS. In the sequence, young Amelia hears and feels the TARDIS and looks up. The exact same footage was used here. Moffat said on the matter: "After showing Amelia Pond in the garden as a young girl in The Eleventh Hour, Karen's first episode, the final shot in Saturday's The Angels Take Manhattan is a punchline I have been waiting to tell for two and a half years." Need any further proof? SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  13:27, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * All of those scenes in The Eleventh Hour are in darkness. Also, in The Big Bang, when he goes back to that night, he picks her up and takes her inside. At the end of the Angels, she looks up into a sunlit sky with birdsong all around her when she hears the TARDIS sound. Actually, it kind of makes me wonder... Are we sure that the shadow we see moving through Amy's place at the end of The Eleventh Hour (that we were originally meant to think was Prisoner Zero) was the Doctor from the end of the Big Bang? --ComicBookGoddess  ☎  03:29, March 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * "Are we sure that the shadow..." --> Moffatt has stated that the shadow is the Doctor. So we know it was. -- Future Companion


 * No, the important part of the statement was actually "...from the end of the Big Bang" - meaning, could it be the Doctor from the end of Angels? When Moffat stated that, was he clear on that count? --ComicBookGoddess ☎  04:15, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Pioneer Woman Statue
Was the statue of the mother and child used in this episode the Pioneer Woman? Here is a link to the website for the Pioneer Woman statue and museum in Ponca City, Oklahoma:. They sure look alike and I know there are several smaller copies of the statue in various cities. Does anybody know because it sure looked like the Pioneer Woman to me.

208.215.188.241talk to me 17:09, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Amy and Rory could have changed their names so that Rory wouldn't have stopped﻿ to look his grave and gone back to the TARDIS and never got sent back in time

Cut Scene (Doctor Who: P.S.)
This may be worth inclusion. []
 * It's awesome, but I believe it was ruled out of universe as a result of a discussion thread. I think if it shows up on a later DVD as something other than a "cut scene" it can be reopened. --ComicBookGoddess ☎  03:31, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

"Time Paradox" - C'mon
"Due to the paradox created by Amy and Rory, the Doctor cannot travel back in time to visit them without destroying New York."

Are we to believe this because that is just what the Doctor says? Because, I would think that the paradox might prevent Amy & Rory from moving forward and backward in time but why would it prevent the Doctor from visiting them at some point in their lives? Does it have anything to do with this nebulous "time distortions" which, for some reason, initially prevented the TARDIS from landing in 1938?

I realize this was done because Karen Gillan doesn't want to make future cameo appearances on the show. But, logically, I don't see how it makes sense. I would think that both the Doctor and River could visit them, wherever and whenever they are at.69.125.134.86talk to me 22:58, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, but talk pages are for discussions on how to write the article. If you want to discuss and speculate about the plot of the story, you can do it at Howling:The Howling. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  00:32, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Melody Malone book
So where and when did the Doctor pick up this detective novel? Was there a line that explained this? Apparently, this book has magical powers and it seems odd that he would be reading a pretty cheesy detective story by accident. 69.125.134.86talk to me 23:01, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * He says he's given up asking how things get into his pockets. I'd say there are at least two possibilities. River could later make sure it got there, to preserve the timeline. The TARDIS could have used a Block Transfer Computation to put it there, as she'd know he'd need it to save River and Rory. The Silence could have planted it, trying to get him emotional again. Probably plenty of other ways, but no narrative evidence for any. Just pointing out that it's not necessarily an error, and they did address it in dialogue. (Also, it pretty awesomely points out that he really would be attracted to a woman like River even if it wasn't her, specifically.) --ComicBookGoddess ☎   03:24, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I just don't get the book. What came first, River writing the book or the events in the book occurring? Because one of those things had to happen first. It must be River writing the book because the book was there for the Doctor to read. But it was only after the events occurred that River sat down to write the book. If she didn't write the book, would that have negated the events in this storyline because the book wouldn't have existed?


 * And I don't understand why it is impossible for The Doctor to visit Amy & Rory but not River because she obviously gives her a copy of the manuscript. And if she found an indirect means to get it to her (mail, drop off, etc.), why would this New York destroying paradox affect both The Doctor and River? The paradox was that Rory couldn't die twice. It had nothing to do with either one of the Time Lords.


 * I think it was just a bad plot twist to explain why we wouldn't be seeing Amy (Karen Gillan) in future episodes. They could have just had The Doctor visit off-screen and not in televised episodes. A big stinking plot hole for contractual reasons.

Why The Doctor can't visit
A big point was made in the episode, that if it is written in the book, it is a fixed point and the Doctor can not change anything.

Since the book states "Amelia's last farewell", that means that this is the last time he will see her. If he sees her again it wasn't her "last farewell".

-- Loyal Companion
 * Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's also because there is no way that the Doctor could ever just "visit" them. It wouldn't be like him to just leave them there, and since the confirmation is the grave marker, it's a fixed point for him.
 * I actually kinda think that River is dissembling, and she can actually visit, although, of course, she doesn't have to - she can just post a manuscript. Speaking of which - the Doctor missed a heck of a loophole to prove his point, didn't he? Amy only read up until the argument, not to the broken wrist. In fact, the Doctor didn't end up breaking it, in any case. But I really think the point was that when the Doctor gets the wrong kind of emotional, he misses things, like that. Ties back into my point - it's fixed in time for the Doctor because he is who he is. At least in my opinion, that makes it elegant instead of cheesy.--ComicBookGoddess ☎  21:19, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

I don't get the fact that he said 1930s new york is hard to time travel to. Didn't 10 manage to get their in 1930 to deal with the daleks, and how exactly did river get there as well?


 * River got there using a Vortex manipulator, 10 got there in 11th's past. The Doctor and the TARDIS can't return after the events of the episode. -- Loyal Companion