Saturday squee post: The Angels Take Manhattan

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

SQUEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! This is the reaction post for "The Angels Take Manhattan." Post your comments and reactions here and beware of spoilers in the comments. Also, if anyone feels the need to discuss "The Muppets Take Manhattan" here or to draw comparisons between the two, I'm totally okay with that.

Comments

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

Was anyone else just a little bit... underwhelmed?

Too much hype?

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

I think DW is kind of wobbling back and forth between being character-driven and being situation-of-the-week driven. Or, rather, has been shifting in a much more character-focused direction, but no one seems especially practiced at it. Or maybe it is just that they are caught between appealing to adults and making things work for kids. Anyways, I always feel myself wanting more character-based stuff when it's not there, but when it is it often feels forced, played bigger than they really have the buildup for.

This is not to say I wasn't sniffling, because I was. AND I AM SO GLAD THEY GOT A BETTER EXIT THAN DONNA NOBLE. Strongly reminiscent of Rose's exit, actually, but I liked that Amy got to choose to go with him, and that she did. (Obviously that's what she would do, I wish they'd been willing to let more go unsaid as she realizes what's happened, turns around, blocks the Angel from view, and disappears........Actually, I think this is what makes the character stuff feel like I was talking about in the previous paragraph--everything has to be spoken and explicit rather than implied (which is presumably because it's at least nominally a kids show))

Also putting a positive spin on double-suicide in a kids show just kind of made me go "WHAT." But that's neither here nor there.

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

"Anyways, I always feel myself wanting more character-based stuff when it's not there, but when it is it often feels forced, played bigger than they really have the buildup for."

I know what you mean, I'm always torn on the issue myself because as a fan of the characters (as well as the show) I obviously want to see them do and say certain types of things. But on the other hand, on a philosophical level, I do (in principle) think that characters should ultimately exist to serve stories rather than the other way round. So in a sense, I end up at least slightly dissatisfied regardless of what happens.

"AND I AM SO GLAD THEY GOT A BETTER EXIT THAN DONNA NOBLE."

Yeah, this. I could rant all day about Donna's exit. I also liked the fact that it was ultimately Amy's choice and there was no weeping and wailing and wanting to go back to the Doctor. In a weird way, I feel like Amy has had more autonomy than a lot of previous companions and obviously I say "in a weird way" because the abduction/childbirth bit and having the Doctor pop into her life as a child contradicts what I've just said entirely.

"Actually, I think this is what makes the character stuff feel like I was talking about in the previous paragraph--everything has to be spoken and explicit rather than implied (which is presumably because it's at least nominally a kids show))"

The worst example of that is in the ending of "The Beast Below" where they more or less show and tell us everything that Amy is thinking. I thought a little bit of that was justified here, if only because there's been so little Amy/River interaction generally... but yeah, a quieter moment would have worked too.

[loolaa.livejournal.com]

I loved that episode. I love the whole 1930's New York thing. Angels everywhere being creepy as hell. Amy in glasses. River. Book that tells the future. Not knowing what's coming next. Giant Statue of Liberty Angel. Dodgy collector bloke. Potential suicide in a kids TV show. Fake out ending. I liked it as much as I liked the Oswin dalek episode.

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

As I expected, I liked it a lot more on second viewing. It's not that there was anything particularly wrong with it on first viewing, it didn't really surprise me at any point.

I've probably talked about this before, but sometimes fandom can be a double edged sword. Sometimes it means you enjoy an episode much more, but sometimes it means you end up speculating too much about the big events and end up spoiling yourself even when you're trying to avoid spoilers. The second I knew there were going to be Weeping Angels, I guessed at how Amy and Rory were going to die. Even something like a promo shot of Rory and River in an old-fashioned car together can suggest a lot more than it means to.

Anyway, on second viewing I can ignore those two big glaring plotholes and just enjoy it for what it is, without all that weight of expectation on it. It was sweet and sad and beautifully shot. The Angels aren't as scary as they were on first viewing, but those creepy cherubs are a nice addition. The statue of liberty thing doesn't make sense, but it looks cool anyway. Suicide as a solution is a brilliant idea. And River was very, very cool here.

The real problem is that I need to develop some self control and stay the hell away from "spoiler-free reviews" that spoil more than they claim and "promo shots" that give half the game away.