7.5: The Angels Take Manhattan

[Queen E]

*sigh*

And then we wait 'til Christmas.

[Sue]

At a total loss





for words.

[Anne, Old S'cubie Cat]

Sept 29, 2012 21:05:34 GMT -5 Sue said:

At a total loss





for words.

Yeah.

The next morning:

Still not happy. Yes, Amy and Rory are together, yes, they're safe and alive, yes, we know they have long and (I hope) happy lives together, but - They're never coming home. What is the Doctor going to tell Brian?

I think it was a case of trying to have it both ways - the Doctor will never see them again, but they weren't actually killed off. This time, anyway. By my count, the Ponds have each tied Buffy for dying. Actually, come to think of it, if you count the deaths in this episode, I think they have her beat now. Yeesh.

This season has been clumsily written and badly paced. I'm disappointed.

[Queen E]

Here's my thought, 'cause I've been thinking about the Davies era vs. the Moffat era. I think that if your thing is intricate plotting and big narrative arcs, Moffat is your man. If you favor emotional resonance, Davies is the showrunner for you.

And if you want both? Joss Whedon, every time.

[S'ewing S'cubie]

I decided to wait a day or so to process this episode. In a nutshell, my final analysis is that they were trying for a gut slam but didn't quite hit the mark. This episode should have had us in tears but didn't. There were excellent bits.

* The weeping angels--always, ALWAYS scary, and, to me, confusing. What do they really want? Up to this episode I thought they were just killers.
* Rory, the man who waited 2,000 years for a woman he had relatively so little time with.
* The Doctor, so hurt that Amy didn't choose HIM. Matt Smith's Doctor--more self-centered than the others in a very child-like dependent way.

I think the only moment that really got to me--and it WAS only a moment--was when River called Amy "mother".

Knowing the Doctor is hard.

[Queen E]

You know, I've finally figured out why I don't quite warm to the Moffat era like I did the Davies era. I thought it was what I posted above; ie, that Moffat doesn't do emotional resonance quite as well as Davies did. But since I've had the house to myself for the past 2 weeks, and have been filling my time with a DW rewatch, I have at long last pinned it down...and it's a big reason why the Amy/Rory thing did not have the "gut punch" quality that Diane pinpoints above.

(Watch out, I'm about to get long-winded):

In season 1, Rose absorbs the Time Vortex and destroys the Dalek Emperor and his retinue, effectively ending the Time War (with help from Jackie and Mickey in prying the Tardis open). In season 2, the Doctor and Rose work together to close the void; even though the Doctor wanted to do it alone, if Rose had not been there, the other lever would not have been fixed and the plan wouldn't have worked. In season 3, Martha travels the world for a year spreading the word about the Doctor, and she and the rest of humanity essentially "regenerate" him. In season 4, it is Donna's humanity plus Time Lord brain (not one or the other but both combined) that end the threat posed by Davros and the regenerated Daleks. In essence, none of these things could have been resolved without the human companions being proactive. Davies drives this point home in "The Waters of Mars," when the Doctor, having been companionless for a long time, finally tips into Master territory; it is only through the actions of Adele, and later Wilf, that allow him to sacrifice that incarnation for the sake of humanity and himself.

Please don't mistake me: I really do like the characters of Amelia Pond and Rory Williams. But the way she was used within the story lacks the level of proactive narrative agency that Rose, Martha, and Donna got. The three earlier companions might have MET the Doctor by accident (blowing up your job, having your job taken to the moon, getting sucked inside the Tardis because you've been dosed), but in each of their arcs, they made a choice and saved the world through their actions. Compare that with Season 5: Amy brings back the Doctor because she remembers him, and she is able to do that because a crack just happens to open up in her wall and fill her brain with time energy. It was neither something she asked for or could control. The Doctor, however, saves the world by flying the Pandorica into the exploding Tardis. Season 6: River refuses to kill the Doctor and creates an alternate reality in which time is disintegrating (so, that's an improvement, oddly enough; at least River makes a choice); the Doctor fakes his own death and resolves the paradox. What does Amy do?

So, in essence, if the Companion is our entry point into the story, the human traveling with the Lonely God, it is more satisfying to me if she is both developed and essential to the resolution of the narrative. The way seasons 5 and 6 were written, Amy wasn't really essential; it could have been anyone who had the time crack in their wall. It wasn't her actions that resolved the problem. Maybe that's why some have complained that Moffat doesn't write female characters as well as male characters. But, more importantly, in my view, the narrative of Doctor Who is the Doctor and his companion, in equal measure: the human and the god. If it's just about the god, it's not as resonant.

I'd say that was my 2 pence, but considering how long this entry is, it's more like my 50p.

[Sue]

Nov 17, 2012 0:23:23 GMT -5 Queen E said:

You know, I've finally figured out why I don't quite warm to the Moffat era like I did the Davies era. I thought it was what I posted above; ie, that Moffat doesn't do emotional resonance quite as well as Davies did. But since I've had the house to myself for the past 2 weeks, and have been filling my time with a DW rewatch, I have at long last pinned it down...and it's a big reason why the Amy/Rory thing did not have the "gut punch" quality that Diane pinpoints above.

(Watch out, I'm about to get long-winded):

In season 1, Rose absorbs the Time Vortex and destroys the Dalek Emperor and his retinue, effectively ending the Time War (with help from Jackie and Mickey in prying the Tardis open). In season 2, the Doctor and Rose work together to close the void; even though the Doctor wanted to do it alone, if Rose had not been there, the other lever would not have been fixed and the plan wouldn't have worked. In season 3, Martha travels the world for a year spreading the word about the Doctor, and she and the rest of humanity essentially "regenerate" him. In season 4, it is Donna's humanity plus Time Lord brain (not one or the other but both combined) that end the threat posed by Davros and the regenerated Daleks. In essence, none of these things could have been resolved without the human companions being proactive. Davies drives this point home in "The Waters of Mars," when the Doctor, having been companionless for a long time, finally tips into Master territory; it is only through the actions of Adele, and later Wilf, that allow him to sacrifice that incarnation for the sake of humanity and himself.

Please don't mistake me: I really do like the characters of Amelia Pond and Rory Williams. But the way she was used within the story lacks the level of proactive narrative agency that Rose, Martha, and Donna got. The three earlier companions might have MET the Doctor by accident (blowing up your job, having your job taken to the moon, getting sucked inside the Tardis because you've been dosed), but in each of their arcs, they made a choice and saved the world through their actions. Compare that with Season 5: Amy brings back the Doctor because she remembers him, and she is able to do that because a crack just happens to open up in her wall and fill her brain with time energy. It was neither something she asked for or could control. The Doctor, however, saves the world by flying the Pandorica into the exploding Tardis. Season 6: River refuses to kill the Doctor and creates an alternate reality in which time is disintegrating (so, that's an improvement, oddly enough; at least River makes a choice); the Doctor fakes his own death and resolves the paradox. What does Amy do?

So, in essence, if the Companion is our entry point into the story, the human traveling with the Lonely God, it is more satisfying to me if she is both developed and essential to the resolution of the narrative. The way seasons 5 and 6 were written, Amy wasn't really essential; it could have been anyone who had the time crack in their wall. It wasn't her actions that resolved the problem. Maybe that's why some have complained that Moffat doesn't write female characters as well as male characters. But, more importantly, in my view, the narrative of Doctor Who is the Doctor and his companion, in equal measure: the human and the god. If it's just about the god, it's not as resonant.

I'd say that was my 2 pence, but considering how long this entry is, it's more like my 50p.

Also -- Rose left Mickey behind -- she chose the Doctor.

Amy always chose Rory. Which was part of the storyline, of course and actually brought out an interesting aspect of (this) Doctor's personality (as you point out his child-like dependence). Even though she chose Rory over and over and over again for 2 seasons The Doctor was still somewhat stunned that she chose Rory in the end.

The past 2 seasons have almost been more about the relationship and bond of love between Rory and Amy than about the companion and The Doctor.

Try thinking of "The Companion" in terms either of just Rory (making the choice to jump off the building to save the world, making the choice to guard the Pandorica for 2000 years) or as the Amy&Rory construct and see where that takes you.

[Queen E]

Nov 17, 2012 11:33:58 GMT -5 Sue said:

Nov 17, 2012 0:23:23 GMT -5 Queen E said:

You know, I've finally figured out why I don't quite warm to the Moffat era like I did the Davies era. I thought it was what I posted above; ie, that Moffat doesn't do emotional resonance quite as well as Davies did. But since I've had the house to myself for the past 2 weeks, and have been filling my time with a DW rewatch, I have at long last pinned it down...and it's a big reason why the Amy/Rory thing did not have the "gut punch" quality that Diane pinpoints above.

(Watch out, I'm about to get long-winded):

In season 1, Rose absorbs the Time Vortex and destroys the Dalek Emperor and his retinue, effectively ending the Time War (with help from Jackie and Mickey in prying the Tardis open). In season 2, the Doctor and Rose work together to close the void; even though the Doctor wanted to do it alone, if Rose had not been there, the other lever would not have been fixed and the plan wouldn't have worked. In season 3, Martha travels the world for a year spreading the word about the Doctor, and she and the rest of humanity essentially "regenerate" him. In season 4, it is Donna's humanity plus Time Lord brain (not one or the other but both combined) that end the threat posed by Davros and the regenerated Daleks. In essence, none of these things could have been resolved without the human companions being proactive. Davies drives this point home in "The Waters of Mars," when the Doctor, having been companionless for a long time, finally tips into Master territory; it is only through the actions of Adele, and later Wilf, that allow him to sacrifice that incarnation for the sake of humanity and himself.

Please don't mistake me: I really do like the characters of Amelia Pond and Rory Williams. But the way she was used within the story lacks the level of proactive narrative agency that Rose, Martha, and Donna got. The three earlier companions might have MET the Doctor by accident (blowing up your job, having your job taken to the moon, getting sucked inside the Tardis because you've been dosed), but in each of their arcs, they made a choice and saved the world through their actions. Compare that with Season 5: Amy brings back the Doctor because she remembers him, and she is able to do that because a crack just happens to open up in her wall and fill her brain with time energy. It was neither something she asked for or could control. The Doctor, however, saves the world by flying the Pandorica into the exploding Tardis. Season 6: River refuses to kill the Doctor and creates an alternate reality in which time is disintegrating (so, that's an improvement, oddly enough; at least River makes a choice); the Doctor fakes his own death and resolves the paradox. What does Amy do?

So, in essence, if the Companion is our entry point into the story, the human traveling with the Lonely God, it is more satisfying to me if she is both developed and essential to the resolution of the narrative. The way seasons 5 and 6 were written, Amy wasn't really essential; it could have been anyone who had the time crack in their wall. It wasn't her actions that resolved the problem. Maybe that's why some have complained that Moffat doesn't write female characters as well as male characters. But, more importantly, in my view, the narrative of Doctor Who is the Doctor and his companion, in equal measure: the human and the god. If it's just about the god, it's not as resonant.

I'd say that was my 2 pence, but considering how long this entry is, it's more like my 50p.

Also -- Rose left Mickey behind -- she chose the Doctor.

Amy always chose Rory. Which was part of the storyline, of course and actually brought out an interesting aspect of (this) Doctor's personality (as you point out his child-like dependence). Even though she chose Rory over and over and over again for 2 seasons The Doctor was still somewhat stunned that she chose Rory in the end.

The past 2 seasons have almost been more about the relationship and bond of love between Rory and Amy than about the companion and The Doctor.

Try thinking of "The Companion" in terms either of just Rory (making the choice to jump off the building to save the world, making the choice to guard the Pandorica for 2000 years) or as the Amy&Rory construct and see where that takes you.

You're not wrong, and you do make a good point about Amy's choice of Rory versus the Doctor, as well as Rory's heroic actions. I guess my beef is that there are plenty of television series about guys who do heroic things and save the world. What was nice about the previous RTD series is that it was a woman who saved the world. You know, like Buffy. Being "The Girl Who Waited" is not a forward-looking characterization. Never mind that her non-Doctor life? She was a kissogram and a model. Compare that to Rose working for Torchwood and Martha being a doctor.

That's not even getting into the whole Melody Pond storyline, and series 5's focus on the importance of dads saving the day (which I think maybe Anne or Rachael pointed out). It's not that I don't enjoy the show, it's just, disappointing in that respect.

[S'ewing S'cubie]

Nov 17, 2012 13:11:49 GMT -5 Queen E said:

Nov 17, 2012 11:33:58 GMT -5 Sue said:

Also -- Rose left Mickey behind -- she chose the Doctor.

Amy always chose Rory. Which was part of the storyline, of course and actually brought out an interesting aspect of (this) Doctor's personality (as you point out his child-like dependence). Even though she chose Rory over and over and over again for 2 seasons The Doctor was still somewhat stunned that she chose Rory in the end.

The past 2 seasons have almost been more about the relationship and bond of love between Rory and Amy than about the companion and The Doctor.

Try thinking of "The Companion" in terms either of just Rory (making the choice to jump off the building to save the world, making the choice to guard the Pandorica for 2000 years) or as the Amy&Rory construct and see where that takes you.

You're not wrong, and you do make a good point about Amy's choice of Rory versus the Doctor, as well as Rory's heroic actions. I guess my beef is that there are plenty of television series about guys who do heroic things and save the world. What was nice about the previous RTD series is that it was a woman who saved the world. You know, like Buffy. Being "The Girl Who Waited" is not a forward-looking characterization. Never mind that her non-Doctor life? She was a kissogram and a model. Compare that to Rose working for Torchwood and Martha being a doctor.

That's not even getting into the whole Melody Pond storyline, and series 5's focus on the importance of dads saving the day (which I think maybe Anne or Rachael pointed out). It's not that I don't enjoy the show, it's just, disappointing in that respect.

I'm still confused by the 'River marries the Doctor' plotline. We see the wedding but then nothing else. Amy and Rory are gone now but River's still there, still married to the Doctor but--gone? I know they're introducing a new companion this Christmas, but they've left a plotline completely unresolved. Is River going to come back?

I had no problems with Amy choosing Rory. She has always done so as he's always chosen her. There is no conflict here. Rose and Martha were both in love with him. Donna, though not in love, was his bestie. Amy never had those feelings for him. For her first, last and always it's been Rory. Not that she doesn't care for the Doctor--or love him in her own way with feelings that are strinkingly similar to those Rory has for him. Devoted? Yes. But in love? No.

Still, they both have sacrificed so much--even their child--in their relationship to the Doctor that I think there would never have been any other believable ending. My problem is that the ending should have been more wrenching than it was. The flaw, I believe, was in the writing as well as the execution.

But, as they asked in Buffy: Where do we go from here?

[beccaelizabeth]

Nov 17, 2012 0:23:23 GMT -5 Queen E said:

Please don't mistake me: I really do like the characters of Amelia Pond and Rory Williams. But the way she was used within the story lacks the level of proactive narrative agency that Rose, Martha, and Donna got. The three earlier companions might have MET the Doctor by accident (blowing up your job, having your job taken to the moon, getting sucked inside the Tardis because you've been dosed), but in each of their arcs, they made a choice and saved the world through their actions. Compare that with Season 5: Amy brings back the Doctor because she remembers him, and she is able to do that because a crack just happens to open up in her wall and fill her brain with time energy. It was neither something she asked for or could control.

+1 good thinking

[S'ewing S'cubie]

Nov 17, 2012 18:56:02 GMT -5 beccaelizabeth said:

Nov 17, 2012 0:23:23 GMT -5 Queen E said:

Please don't mistake me: I really do like the characters of Amelia Pond and Rory Williams. But the way she was used within the story lacks the level of proactive narrative agency that Rose, Martha, and Donna got. The three earlier companions might have MET the Doctor by accident (blowing up your job, having your job taken to the moon, getting sucked inside the Tardis because you've been dosed), but in each of their arcs, they made a choice and saved the world through their actions. Compare that with Season 5: Amy brings back the Doctor because she remembers him, and she is able to do that because a crack just happens to open up in her wall and fill her brain with time energy. It was neither something she asked for or could control.

+1 good thinking

Agreed.