|
Craptacular! posted:There used to be two guys named Toxx posting in this thread, I assume you mean the guy who started this thread intending to hate-watch the show. You're thinking of Oxx. They're Toxxipation (formerly Occupation) and Oxxidation. Toxx is the one that's still doing it. I think it'd be interesting to see Toxx rewatch some Series 1 episodes. I have a feeling he'd like them more a second time.
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
TV Zombie posted:When did Toxx go from disliking to liking Who? There have been a lot of As since The Eleventh Hour.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
TV Zombie posted:When did Toxx go from disliking to liking Who? September 6, 2014 posted:DOCTOR WHO RULES
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
review goes up tomorrow
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
cargohills posted:You're thinking of Oxx. They're Toxxipation (formerly Occupation) and Oxxidation. Toxx is the one that's still doing it. You have to give someone time and perspective before they change their minds about things, particularly if they're writing reviews about them (which sort of makes anyone more invested in their own opinions!). I'm kind of glad I waited the 6-7 years to rewatch Buffy, because I have changed my mind about many of the characters and episodes.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Doctor Who "The Angels Take Manhattan" Series 7, Episode 5 "Raggedy Man, goodbye." I've sincerely regretted basically every moment since Oxx (quite justifiably) quit, but it's episodes like this that really cement why it's so frustrating that he did because now I have to explain why "The Angels Take Manhattan" was notable as a viewing experience. Oxx and I watched this episode together on Friday, May 22, 2015. After that we talked it over, and I - rapturous with love for "Angels", especially its climax - quickly proclaimed that I was going to give this episode an A. The reasoning was both obvious and vintage me - it serviced the characters well, had an incredible, emotionally resonant final scene, and moved quickly and concisely while being a fun thrill ride. Of specific note was the Angel Statue of Liberty, which I adored. Oxx attempted to talk me down from that; most notably was his generalized frustration with the way the Rory/Amy storyline of "Angels" concluded, which came across as distasteful and illogical. In particular he disliked the fact that the finale of Rory and Amy's arc concluded with a plot device which the entirety of Series Six was focused on debunking - the validity and immovability of "fixed points in time", whatever they are. He also had issues with the rationale behind the Doctor's inability to ever see Amy and Rory again. Does that mean The Doctor can't go to Manhattan at all for the fifty or so years that Rory and Amy are alive? Can he land in Staten Island in 1938 and take a ferry over (trick question, nobody would ever willingly go to Staten Island)? What does "tangled timelines" even mean? To Oxx the flat declaration from River and The Doctor to conclude the episode was so vague and emphatic that it opened up a bunch of plot holes which in the end taints his Rory and Amy arc for him as a whole. As anyone who reads these things well knows, I care more about the experiential journey of consuming Doctor Who, and I've always placed plot strictly secondary and even been willing to sacrifice narrative coherency in the service of emotional coherency, so in the end I didn't much care. Me and Oxx went back and forth, where he essentially outlined the argument that he made in the "Christmas Carol" review - my central failure as both a critic and as a writer is in how I'll fixate on something, whether positive or negative, then simply restructure my feelings about everything else to fit that narrative. He's probably right, but I'd also counter that the fundamental building block of every critical analysis is the admission that subjectivity is impossible to avoid, nor arguably even should it be. If I don't care about something because I view it as necessary to the story being told or fiction presented that's not invalid, or vice versa. Reviews are a time capsule of the writer's feelings and true reactions. If that feeling is predicated on flatly ignoring or discounting parts that don't necessarily work, because they're not personally affecting, then it'd be explicitly disingenuous to give overemphasis on those negative parts because it's not reflective of the writer's experience when consuming the fiction. Either way we were at an impasse so I decided to let it go until I wrote up the review. Three days later, on Monday, May 25, 2015, I sat down and decided to finally write it. In the intervening days I had forgotten or misremembered so much of what actually happened in "Angels Take Manhattan" - since my memory is faulty even on the best of days - I could only remember it in the broadest of strokes. So I decided to explicitly sort of half-rear end my writeup - the concept for the review was going to be how I'd, yet again, fall into a defense where I'd start off arguing that emotional connections are the most important component of any fiction, which I'd then dovetail into yet another statement how character is more important than plot. I'd say that Oxx disagreed with the ending, list his issues with the episode, then go "Whelp, they don't affect me!" I'd go on and on and on about how emotionally resonant the climax is, how I teared up during it and how hugely affecting it was, write a long memorial to Amy and Rory as characters and Companions, then button it all up with some quip about how Actually Great the Angel of Liberty is. I wrote up the first couple of paragraphs then sent them off to Oxx, along with an outline. He's become my editor of sorts so, well, it just made sense. And then we argued again. His contention was that I'm getting to the point where I'm plagiarizing myself because I had spent so long between viewing and writeup - which is totally my fault - and that, again, I'm giving the barest of facetime to legitimate complaints while disregarding them all with an "Aww shucks I didn't much care!" and rubber-stamping a review with the most surface-level, Obviously Occupation critique of "Angels". Of course I'd love "Angels", because "Angels" made me cry and since it made me cry everything about it is therefore sacrosanct. He's been much more critical of my writeups, and for good reason, but just from conception the review itself was the same song just played in a slightly different key - Occupation argues that something is good because it's affecting, and that's really about it. So I threw everything out and decided to watch "Angels" again, today, while talking to Oxx the whole time about it. Because although it was samey and safe my argument was also honest - I'm not being disingenuous when I say that I loved the climax because it was this big emotional moment, just lazy. And I'd rather be lazy and repetitive than lie, which is how I'd feel if I wrote anything other than "the ends justify the means". And to be fair I had severely hosed up waiting this long to write the review, which played no small part in how I wrote it - it's easier to paint in the broadest of strokes when you barely remember what happened. So to do "right" by this writeup I had to watch it again, something I don't particularly like doing for a myriad number of reasons, chief of which is time. Anyways, so I ended up watching "The Angels Take Manhattan" again. And here's the crazy thing I found out about it - "Angels" is a near-perfect episode of Who, one whose "flaws" are nonexistent, unimportant, or thematically coherent to the episode's aims as a whole. What was most surprising when I rewatched "Angels" to write this review is how early the ending is seeded throughout the episode. I was affected by the enormity of "Angels"'s climax, true, but what I didn't realize until I watched the episode again was how clearly it fits the aims of the episode. The ending of "Angels" is shocking, but what makes it so affecting over this random dark swerve at the end of the episode was how well it was built to. From the very beginning of the episode The Doctor stresses about Endings, namely his predilection for despising them, and the physical act of his tearing out the final page comes across as visual foreshadowing for Amy's sacrifice. The plot and progression of the episode itself is thematically coherent to its finale, as well - the fact that "Angels" is an episode about time loops and the impossibility to prevent them is what makes the climax so affecting. Moffat even sort of gives the audience a preview of what to expect with that Doctor/River wrist-breaking scene - initially, his little freakout at River while she's caught by the weakened Angel comes across as a strange bum note within the episode as a whole (one that even I noted as a bizarrely rough moment within an otherwise perfectly focused episode), but rewatching it it's meant to impress so many different elements which the third act utilizes to its fullest effect. The wrist-breaking scene is necessary because it shows how The Doctor reacts to even the concept of losing Amy, and his natural resistance to and animosity towards the fact the concept of "fixed points" or permanent causation. He reacts so negatively he ends up snapping at River, and decides to use this moment as a natural test, which is why he tells her to figure it out herself. This also explains his overjoyed reaction to her seeming ability to escape the angel trap without breaking her wrist - this validates his theory that time can be, ahem, "rewritten", and that Amy can eventually be saved, and how crushed he is when River reveals that she broke her wrist to get out. The entire wrist-breaking "sub-plot" is essentially a schematic for how the climax itself plays out - Rory/River is fated to do one thing (get zapped back by the Angels and die in their battery farm, get her wrist broken to escape the Angel's clutches), he/r attempts to break that cycle (killing himself prevents him from ever getting thrown backwards in time to therefore die of old age, River seemingly escapes the Angel unharmed), but it's then revealed that nothing ended up changing (Rory gets zapped back in time by a loose Angel, River reveals to have broken her wrist herself over having The Doctor do it for her). The whole aim of "Angels" is impressing on the audience the immovability of specific events in time, which The Doctor himself cannot tolerate. It's a story about endings- how The Doctor hates them, how it's the end of Rory and Amy's time on Who, and how they're impossible to avoid. It's an episode, in contrast, that's also about loops, how things are fated to happen over and over no matter how much The Doctor tries and prevents it. So much of "Angels" ends up being a story about being ineffectual, about things happening regardless of whether one tries to influence them or not - when one thinks about it "Angels"'s whole plot conceit is The Doctor et al trying to save Rory from getting killed by the Angels, and Rory ends up being killed by The Angels. So yeah, the climax of "Angels" is incredible but it's all the more effective because it was laid on a solid bedrock that was the thematic and narrative construction of the episode in general. Moffat loves doing stories about stories (as in the Library two-parter) but here it's most relevant, and explicit, because it ties into The Doctor's aversion to the ending that he senses is coming. It makes sense that he paints "Angels" so heavily in the mythic because we're dealing with the departure of The Last Centurion and Amelia Pond, so the fact that the episode plays across like a Grimm fairy tale - which usually end in tragedy - makes perfect sense and justifies the book conceit "Angels" uses. Plus, the physical way in which the Melody Monroe book is utilized, with such clever bits as The Doctor reading the chapter titles for a hint as to what is to come or how the final page of the book comes back as an emotionally earned coda to Amy's time on the show, justifies the book's inclusion in and of itself. "Angels" is an episode where every element, as one, pulls to its conclusion, with even stuff like the Weeping Angels - which are relevant in the sense that they mark River and Amy's first and last meeting (reinforcing the "loop" theme of "Angels") - making thematic sense. The Weeping Angels are probably the most mythic and fairy tale-like of the enemies that Moffat has or has invented, and thus feels tonally in keeping with the aims of "Angels". It was smart of Moffat to, as well, scale back the powers and aims of The Angels here in "Angels", as well- although I liked the Angels 2.0 in "Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone", it wouldn't make much sense for those Angels to exist here and I was glad that they're more restrained and "normal". "Angels" also reclaims the Angels' mystique, which is what makes the climax as effective and coherent as it is. As opposed to the explained (some would say overexplained) Angels of Series Five, the Angels in this episode come across as vague and unknowable, with their overriding emotion being one of instilling utmost fear. But, yes, let's discuss that climax. The ending for Rory and Amy's time on Who was absolutely loving pitch loving perfect. Outside of that scene in the graveyard (yet another loop - beginning and ending at that specific location), the scene before then, on top of the building where the Angels were was beautiful and really impressing. The confrontation between Rory and Amy on the roof really calcified the love they had for each other in an earned way (Amy: "Could you? If it was me, could you do it?" Rory: "To save you...I could do anything.") and comes across as the potential moment of triumph for both characters, which makes the climax all the more impactful. That lone, beautiful shot of Amy and Rory falling down the side of the building as they're holding each other, Amy's hair blowing in the breeze as they fall in slow motion was incredible. And then the climax happens. I teared up when I watched it the first time, and I teared up again when watching it again - it's goddamn incredible. One of the single best scenes in all of revival-era Who. Bar loving none. Rory's disappearance leading into Karen's tearful realization and sacrifice is pitch goddamn perfect. The dialog is absolutely unreal - "I'll be with him, like I should be. Me and Rory, together," realizes Amy. And Eleven's inability to grasp or even comprehend what's about to happen - not only is it utterly earned from the work the episode as a whole put into illustrating The Doctor's resistance to forced endings, but it's also incredibly sold by Matt Smith - watch that scene again and note what Smith does in the background as Eleven. He's deliberately out of focus in the closeups on Amy and Smith's physical acting is so goddamn magnificent that he's, wordlessly, able to impart the sheer physical rejection Eleven has to what's going on. Eleven is so upset about what's about to happen that his body literally can't process it, and he's shaking so violently it's hard to believe Eleven didn't physically explode. Smith's sob of "No!" as Amy gives herself up, with that wonderful three word phrase that kicked off this review, might be the single best line delivery of Matt Smith's run on Who, and buttons the scene perfectly. So yeah, I loving adore "Angels Take Manhattan". It did right, utterly, in writing off Rory and Amy as characters; I had been with Rory and Amy so long, and the two of them were my by-far favorite Companions of all of the Who revival (see ya, Donna), that on some level any goodbye would've been at least somewhat bittersweet. Leaning into the bitterness to me made perfect tonal sense, and if anything Rory and Amy electing to leave The Doctor in a permanent way behind forms a neat end to their seasonal arc as a couple; disregarding the piece of poo poo "Power of Three" (which we should, since it's completely incoherent and utterly sells out any sort of greater arcing that Rory and Amy have), the arc of Rory and Amy for Series Seven was realizing that 1) they need each other more than anyone else in the world and 2) that they don't need The Doctor any more. If there's a progression Rory and Amy's characters have for this season it's understanding that they've grown out of needing The Doctor, but the opposite cannot be said; this is why the climax of "Angels" is as powerful as it is, because it's The Doctor processing this massive loss that he was unequipped to ever make, while still providing a fantastic (and, in a sense, kind of hopeful) end to Amy and Rory as characters. It's incredible. It's also why I don't give a poo poo about the logistical issues. This isn't an issue of me going "Well, I liked it, so it doesn't matter," it's the fact that I consider even caring about this glorified nitpicking. The whole thematic point of the climax is impressing on The Doctor (as Amy explicitly states in the denouement) that he has to move past his obsession with Rory and especially Amy and pull himself together, so putting Rory and Amy into a no-take-backsies "impossible to reverse" situation that The Doctor can't even visit is more emblematic of the episode's overall point of The Doctor being forced to accept the concept of endings. The arc for The Doctor in Series Seven has been that he needs Rory and Amy far more than they need him and is willing to be reckless and careless if it means spending more time with them, so the end of "Angels" states definitively that he needs to be able to let people go. Sometimes, despite how desperately The Doctor doesn't want it to be so, the end is the end. Oh yeah, and the Angel of Liberty was Actually Great. gently caress off, haters. Grade: A Random Thoughts:
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Well I'm glad you're enjoying the show. Give the earlier seasons a rewatch some time with this new mindset, I'm sure you'd enjoy yourself more. I disagree with you on just, a lot, of levels, notably mostly of a writing stand point, but whatever. Enjoy what you like.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
One thing I really love about this episode is River and the Doctor. If I'm not mistaken it's one of the few times we see an older River and an older Doctor having an adventure together and there's a level of maturity to their interactions that isn't usually present. On a dofferent note, it's tragic they were never able to film P.S. properly. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 03:15 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
I loved this episode when it first aired, but until today I hadn't watched it in about two years. In the intervening years, the logistical issues are really the one thing that stuck in my memory and I found my opinion of it shifted accordingly. I was really pleasantly surprised upon rewatching it, and I remember now why I liked it so much the first time. Fantastic episode.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
The Angels Take Manhattan I honestly do not understand why anybody thought he'd vote this anything other than an A (although I'm sure if I'd been voting I would have done something equally bad). But it turns out an awwwwful lot of people absolutely despise this episode, and that definitely came through in the voting. A BeefyTaco Dave Brookshaw ewe2 fatherboxx Grouchio Labratio LabyaMynora Mo0 Ohtsam onetruepurple Well Manicured Man Xenoborg B Ali Aces Attitude Indicator Bicyclops Capfalcon cargohills Colonel Cool jng2058 Organza Quiz Paul.Power Rochallor Senerio C Angela Christine DoctorWhat Jsor MikeJF Stumiester D Blasmeister Gandalf21 Lipset and Rock On Regy Rusty F adhuin And More BSam Random Stranger Sinestro Overall Average Guess: C. All over the map on this one. Current rankings: Labratio: 3 ewe2: 4 Grouchio: 4 LabyaMynora: 4 Well Manicured Man: 4 Dave Brookshaw: 5 Ohtsam: 5 Paul.Power: 5 Rochallor: 5 Xenoborg: 5 Ali Aces: 6 And More: 6 Colonel Cool: 6 DoctorWhat: 6 jng2058: 6 Mo0: 6 Bicyclops: 7 Blasmeister: 7 Capfalcon: 7 fatherboxx: 7 Lipset and Rock On: 7 MikeJF: 7 Senerio: 7 adhuin: 8 Attitude Indicator: 8 Angela Christine: 8 BeefyTaco: 8 BSam: 8 Jsor: 8 onetruepurple: 8 Organza Quiz: 8 Gandalf21: 9 Stumiester: 9 Sinestro: 10 cargohills: 11 Random Stranger: 11 Regy Rusty: 11 And More's F vote on this episode plummets him out of the lead. Congratulations to our new leader, Labratio. Good luck keeping it!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
I was expecting love or hate but this is a surprising amount of love. I'm thinking that for Occ the best may be yet to come. For myself I can respect the thematic construction and the bittersweetness of the ending, but the plot is just too held together with spit and glue for me to get into it. When I can see the hand of the author so clearly it's impossible for me to get more absorbed in a TV show than a Punch and Judy act. I guess you could say I don't look at an episode like this and think "that's the way to do it"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:
This is definitely the point I disagree with the most. I think the Doctor being forced to accept the concept of endings is more of a long-term plot that had seeds in season 6 and was trickled throughout season 7, but that the execution of this episode deflates the conclusion of that arc. The reason people even stop to think for half a second about logistics when it comes to "when the Doctor isn't allowed to time travel because the show just said so" is in instances where the solution requires a more human element. It's one of the few places where the speculative reasons for things feel more like a way to bypass the issues than a "in science fiction and fantasy, sometimes the fiction is more real than the truth would have been" solution. It's sort of like how "Bad Wolf" was built up to be this huge thing that turned out just to be a deus ex machina that didn't even have a real reason for that name; we've been building to the Doctor and his companions growing apart for a long time now, only for us to discover that actually, they did decide to travel with him, but they can't because of the Angels. I actually think that logistics make sense inasmuch as they have to, it's just that people reject it because it feels as though a story has been pulled out from under them.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
In which a governess can't fly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snowmen
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
This episode rocks. I am your governess's gentleman friend and we've just been upstairs [breaks into gigantic poo poo-eating grin] kissing!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
The Snowmen has some top notch Strax jokes, Sir Ian McKellan and that "I never know why. I only know who" repeated line that I liked. I remember surprisingly little of it for an episode that I enjoyed. I had to look up what the line was, actually, I just remember Matt Smith really selling it as his "coming out of his Scrooginess and being filled with the Doctor Who Christmas schmaltz spirit" line.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:This episode rocks. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
The new TARDIS set, though. What it loses in looking like a place the Doctor has lived in for a very long time, it gains in kinetic energy. Edit: This version of the title credits suck, though. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 05:21 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
I still like Strax 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The new TARDIS set, though. What it loses in looking like a place the Doctor has lived in for a very long time, it gains in kinetic energy. They've turned it into a helicopter! And I can't be bothered with all this "atmospheric lighting" nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Agreed. The Doctor is too much of a grumpy gus and it definitely needed a filler episode before jumping straight back into Mysterious Girl territory with that companion being dangled in front of the audience. We jump straight to 11 being tormented without enough of a decline. I honestly think an episode with a special guest star that causes 11 to waffle on whether to keep a companion, then having him gently caress up and lose the day entirely, would have set the scene here perfectly. It just feels like we're missing an episode between Angels and this one.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
"Angels" was a garbage episode, and Amy and Rory should never have come back for this abortion of a half season.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
An actual good Doctor Who Christmas special, glory be!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Strax remains the best thing on television.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:An actual good Doctor Who Christmas special, glory be! 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The new TARDIS set, though. What it loses in looking like a place the Doctor has lived in for a very long time, it gains in kinetic energy. What they do with it turns me around on the new TARDIS, and I do really like it, but I still think it's a shame that they abandoned the whole of the first Eleven's TARDIS set. The main reason they did to my understanding was that it became really hard to shoot with the glass floor, but I feel like surely they could have fixed that.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Edit: This version of the title credits suck, though. Could not disagree more.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
So I take it you didn't like it?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
It's cool. It would be really weird if he didn't get at least one wrong per season, right?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:It's cool. It would be really weird if he didn't get at least one wrong per season, right? But he already gave The Angels Take Manhattan an A...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
It's not a classic episode or anything but there's just so much in it that I like. Moody Doctor, his interactions with Clara which I think are well written and acted enough that I totally buy her as someone who can drag him back into the adventuring game despite himself, Strax of course, the ending where the Doctor has failed Clara utterly but instead of feeling justified in his isolation he's full of hope that he'll somehow find her again and be able to make up for his mistake. I love the "one word" scene, even though it mostly exists for Moffat to act all clever and the final word being "pond" doesn't really work. Overall it feels like it introduces a new companion well without selling short the impact of losing the previous ones, which is a bit of a tightrope to walk.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Could not disagree more. The space stuff at the start looks grainy and low res as hell, and edited on a computer from 1997. The thunder crash sound when the logo appears is cheesy and sounds very stock. From the big portrait and the Third/Fourth Doctor style time tunnel at the end, they were probably trying to go for a Classic Series feel for this, but I've never watched classic so if you have no nostalgia it just looks like a bizarrely low budget effects sequence even for this show. Classic fans have wanted to bring the portraits back for some time, but they were making better examples on YouTube than what the Beeb actually made.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
The example of THE FACE you posted is too on-the-nose. For all the opening's issues (including the abysmal remix that still lacks the Middle Eight), the Face In The Clouds in the Series 7.5 opening is a way better implementation of the core concept.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Oh yeah, and the Angel of Liberty was Actually Great. gently caress off, haters. loving-A right it was. I know that some people want to hit with you with bricks, but I like your wavelength, Toxx. Doctor Who is very often stupid, but its been something I've learned to embrace (the good stupid, not the bad stupid). I'm not one to go over the plot with a fine tooth comb because this is a 50 year old sci-fi children/family show about time travel. There are plot-holes you could fly a Tardis-tethered Earth through. Plot is secondary to character. The more complex the plot, more often, the weaker the characters will be. Proper storytelling is simple stories about complex people. I think Moffet gets this. EDIT: Also, Toxx, did you watch "PS"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWU6XL9xI4k If not, watch this now. (It's a post "Angels" scene that wasn't film, but put out by the BBC.) Mordiceius fucked around with this message at 07:54 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:And More's F vote on this episode plummets him out of the lead. Congratulations to our new leader, Labratio. Good luck keeping it! At least I agreed with Toxx on something for a short while. I had basically accepted that Amy and Rory were leaving, and this just felt like a really drawn-out way of doing it. They had both died or gotten into seemingly hopeless situation so many times already. It felt like an arbitrary way of killing them off. The setting is also really boring, and the angel statue is some crappy Ghostbusters knock off. After all that, I was glad that the new companion was finally returning. The Snowmen is a lot of fun. There is a good villain, some nice banter, and the companion's death really trips you up. Good stuff. And More fucked around with this message at 14:22 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The space stuff at the start looks grainy and low res as hell, and edited on a computer from 1997. The thunder crash sound when the logo appears is cheesy and sounds very stock. Did the whole 50th anniversary just go over your head or something? Have you never seen the classic series or 60s sci-fi at all?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:The example of THE FACE you posted is too on-the-nose. For all the opening's issues (including the abysmal remix that still lacks the Middle Eight), the Face In The Clouds in the Series 7.5 opening is a way better implementation of the core concept. I am sure there is a reason why the series 7 opening titles were never released on any soundtrack
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
The thing that always gets to me about Angels Take Manhattan is that it comes across like Moffat's take on an RTD-style episode. He's often criticized (or at least remarked on) for being more concerned with an episode being "clever" than having an emotional soul, whereas RTD tended to do big crazy stories that didn't make much sense beyond a cursory glance but had a strong emotional core or resonance. Angels is concerned with Moffat's usual time-loops/mostly tidying up loose ends etc, but it seems more concerned with the emotional impact of Amy and Rory leaving the 11th Doctor for good after their little season 7 farewell tour. In that sense, it's a pretty good story with a really bittersweet ending, but for me it's mostly an episode of parts (some good, some bad, some GREAT) and doesn't quite feel like it is fully realized/meets it potential. It doesn't help that Amy and Rory already had two perfectly good break-points from traveling with the Doctor, and I've often said their farewell tour felt more like a hangover - there was just a little bit too much, they kept them around just a little too long, and the good points that came from season 7's first half weren't quite enough to warrant it. At least for me, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 10:28
|
|
