Howling:The unexplained parts of "The Angels Take Manhattan"

So far as I can remember, two massive parts of the episode went completely unexplained: 94.72.194.203talk to me 19:55, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * How the Hell could Lady Liberty be an Angel when she's copper, pretty much hollow and was deconstructed in France then reconstructed in New York?
 * What happened to the Angel in the graveyard? Surely the Doctor didn't leave it?

Not sure about Liberty.

The Angel in the graveyard: What could the Doctor do? He can't kill it. He certainly can't take it anywhere in the TARDIS. "There's a world of time energy in there... The damage they could do could extinguish the sun." (The Doctor in Blink, possibly not word perfect but the meaning's accurate.) --89.241.77.184talk to me 22:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I read it that the angels were 'taking over' so were replacing regular angels with themselves so I figured thats why it kinda sorks (unsigned)

The Doctor could have at least contacted the Shadow Proclomation or something. I'm sure they'll have a prison for Angels. There's always a chance he could have done, of course, but didn't say. I doubt the Doctor would leave an Angel near an incredibly populated city. 94.72.194.203talk to me 22:36, September 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * For Liberty, I think 94 is right; the Angels replaced the statues. As for her being made of copper, presumably they can replace statues made of other things besides stone, but they prefer stone ones for some reason. I can think of all kinds of reasons (the difference between ordinary stone and quantum-locked Angel is less noticeable than between copper and Angel; "taking over" a copper statue makes them weaker and less durable; stone just feels more natural, whatever), and it really doesn't matter which one is right, so there was no reason for the episode to explain it.


 * As for the Angel in the graveyard: Quoting the Doctor, "It's a survivor, very weak." It couldn't even zap Amy until she deliberately chose to go with it. --70.36.140.233talk to me 22:53, September 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was (unsigned), not 94, about Liberty. But anyway, I agree. --70.36.140.233talk to me 22:55, September 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * One more thing: This probably belongs at Forum:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/The Angels Take Manhattan. --70.36.140.233talk to me 23:07, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

The episode certainly has its fair share of plotholes like any other Moffat episodes, but I genuinely don't believe these 2 are that farfetched compared to Moffat's other plotholes (2 at least): I certainly agree that the Doctor can't do much about 2 and the Doctor has never mentioned anything about taking care of Angels. Blink got Angels to stare at each other but that's pretty much it...there was really no mention of the Doctor taking care of the 4 Angels afterward...and I'm quite sure there's a reason behind it.

We do know that the Angels likely predates Timelords and are considered ancient by the Time War and the Doctor labelled them creatures of abstract (which has a slight suggestion that there is some sort of confusing/mystic/illogical aspect to their existence in the Time Lords' point of view). This does make them seem like a greater force of nature that is beyond what the Doctor could really have power over.

Moreover, is there a reason to take care of the Angels? Certainly, saving Amy and Rory is important to the Doctor, but Angels are natural predators of conscious beings and they weren't moved out of their natural habitat or doing unnatural things, neither were they taking over Earth; they were just there, doing their own things.

As for the Shadow Proclamation, we know they treat Time Lords as fairy tales and really had little power...so something that the Time Lords refer to as ancient and fear, they'll probably be helpless against them.

For 1, what was said above or Statue of Liberty was carved based on an image of an Angel (an image of an Angel becomes an Angel ;)) or some other reasons...I think there are bigger plotholes that are utter non-sense in this and many other Moffat's episodes than these.--222.166.181.197talk to me 23:11, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Also, how was the Statue of Liberty able to move if all these people are ALWAYS looking at it? 78.10.80.134talk to me 00:32, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Weeping Angels are memes more than they're physical objects. The image of an Angel is an Angel. If a video of an Angel can be an Angel, then any statue can be an Angel if the Angels decide they want it to be. They're living ideas, and these ideas 'take over' existing statues, which can be any material. Probably the best way to think of them is as a species of anarchitect. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎  00:43, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty as an Angel is a great joke but not very credible. a) It's not public knowledge that there are things such as Weeping Angels - wouldn't New Yorkers notice the Statue of Liberty leaving her pedestal and walking around b) given the noise the Statue of Liberty makes stomping around wouldn't someone end up looking at the statue putting it in quantum lock pretty much constantly? 74.198.9.65talk to me 01:14, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

River Song gave up her future regenerations by transferring her regenerative energy to the Doctor in order to save her life. In The Angels Take Manhattan we see the Doctor using a bit of regenerative energy to heal River - might this also be enough to allow River the ability to regenerate at least one more time and thus open the possibility that, unbeknownst to 10, she survived in Forest of the Dead by regenerating off screen? 74.198.9.65talk to me 01:14, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

On the Doctor not being able to go back and rescue Rory (and Amy) because if he does New York will blow up. Can't he simply send them a message asking them to go to, say, a certain location in Boston at a specific time so he can fetch them? (If River can find them in order to send Amy her manuscript certainly the Doctor can too). Alternatively, if they've been sent back, say, to 1938 again can't he go and get them in 1943 or can he never go to New York at all while their alive? Or is the problem not one of geography but that meeting Amy and Rory anywhere at anytime would create a paradox? 74.198.9.65talk to me 01:20, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Rowan, interesting point connecting the Angels to the anarchitects. One more think Moffat has borrowed from Miles and turned into a completely different story element.


 * 74: When River saved the Doctor's life, the healing used up her regenerative energy; the Doctor didn't get extra regenerations out of it. So when the Doctor healed River, why should that give her any extra regenerations?


 * For the other question, I think it's the latter: he can't ever meet them again, no matter where they go. He uses nearly those exact words to Amy. Seeing their tombstone is like reading ahead in the book—he can't change it now that he's read it. It would be like visiting the 7th Doctor and telling him to watch out for stray bullets in SF. (Of course the Doctor _has_ visited his past selves, and done just about everything else impossible; the writers can always invent some way out of anything. But when they do that, they usually aren't picking up threads from previous stories, just creating new stories from whole cloth.) --70.36.140.233talk to me 02:53, September 30, 2012 (UTC)