Talk:Weeping Angel

When are they quantum locked?
I disagree about the blinking analogy to the quantum locking. From my understanding if a sentient creature is observing them they automatically become quantum locked and have no control over this. However they also act quantum locked if they think they are being observed, and can become quantum locked at any time. They are always quantum locked if the are being observed, but can decide whether they are or not at all other times. I think of the scene where they do not move when they think that Amy is watching them as being similar to when Amy's hand "turns to stone". It makes no difference to her whether it is stone or not, and she acts as if it was, as she believes it is. Similarly it makes no difference to the Angels that they are not actually being observed as they think they are, and so act accordingly. I assume that if you suddenly turned to stone every time something looked at you you would become resigned to the idea and stop trying to move when something is looking at you. I think that's a better explanation, but can't edit it in myself. The one at the moment suggests that the Angels could move if someone was looking at them, which would be completely against the whole idea, whereas this explanation facilitates both.

Weaknesses
The weaknesses section claims Angels observing each other would permanently quantum-lock both as stone, but this is never actually stated. Should the statues be moved by some outside force (i.e. a human) so they were no longer observing each other, it's possible they'd be free to move again.

Hardwick?
Who the hell is Hardwick? Can we please remove fan-made pictures...

It's not fanmade. It's from A Ghost Story for Christmas, a short which aired on BBC's website featuring Jack Harkness narrating about Hardwick being stalked by the Angels. It featured footage of Blink. Ultimately, the Angels get her and she gets warped back in time. MrCatharsis 21:38, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Really? I must have totally missed that then. Sorry. :(

I haven't seen it myself either but it's been documented in several places... Including here. MrCatharsis 21:14, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

What happened to this page?
tried to revert it but was denied several time can anyone revert it ?

Assassin of death 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Assassin of death


 * The problem is that undoing an edit in the manner attempted undoes the last edit, but not the one previous to that. In this instance there have been two editors making changes to this article.


 * To revert back to the last unaffected page edit look back through the article's history for the last uncorrupted edit, click on the revision within the page history (which will take you to the history edit point, then click 'edit' (there will be warning at the top of the page warning you you're editing an out of date revision, put in the edit summary 'reverting vandalism to last unaffected edit' (or something to that affect and click save page. This will revert the page back to the previous unaffected edit. --Tangerineduel 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Assassin of death 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Assassin of death 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Assassin of death

I saw the trailer and im definately sure they will return =D Sclera1 11:24, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Year of choice?
I removed a statement that said the Doctor stated each Angel had a year of choice to which to send their victims. I have literally watched Blink a dozen times and there is no such line of dialogue? Where does it come from? I've removed it for now until someone can provide a source (maybe he mentions it in a novel or audio, in which case we can put it back). 23skidoo 20:40, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that's the case. It would certainly make the angels more interesting. Also, what would happen if you set up a recording system and a Weeping Angel entered its range, do you think? 79.65.78.200 14:01, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I saw a clip (In Doctor Who: The Ultimate Guide I believe) that showed a video camera on a Weeping Angel, that cut out for a second to just fuzz, cut back to the Angel which had moved closer and was no longer covering its eyes, cut to fuzz, and back to the Angel which was even closer and reaching for the camera. I assume it was doing to the camera what one had done to a light-bulb. Whether someone was on the other side of the camera, or even in a security room somewhere watching it, I don't know, but it's quite possible that a video camera would have the ability to freeze an Angel, at least as long as someone's observing on the other end.MrCatharsis 20:43, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well now we know what happens when you record an angel. That which holds its image becomes an angel. Make sense, that picture you took will appear to be in stone because you are looking at it. My question is this: Do Daleks blink? If so we have a problem, if not Daleks would completely destroy the angels. - DontEatRawHagis April 20-ish something.


 * I Don't think a Dalek blinks but I'm not sure which is worse, a Dalek or an Angel.OMEGATRON 18:18, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Time Lords?
When I was watching The End of Time, it seemed like the two Time Lords punished by the President had the demeanor similar to Weeping Angels.

I further point you in The End of Time (Part II) to roughly 36:46 minutes in, "Only two stand against, and will stand as monument to their shame. The weeping angels of old.", The President

New_ As you can see they are emulating the Weeping Angels they arent actually angels. - DontEatRawHagis