Rate "The Time of Angels"

Your thoughts please on the first episode of this 2-parter. Open for business after transmission.

The thread is open for business. So what did you think?

I need to rewatch - due to family talking over bits of dialogue - quite liked what I saw

I went 3/5 - better than the last couple of weeks, but still missing something for me. River Song's just as annoying as she was last time she appeared, and the Weeping Angels suddenly start developing new abilities for their return appearance. I was just thinking 'I bet next time they come back they'll be talking' and then it happened, borrowing a trick from the Vashta Nerada...

And I do hope whoever at the BBC decided to stick an advert over the last scene has been summarily executed.

Good, but mainly all set-up. Learning more about the Angels is good, stops them from being a one-trick pony. Sadly, River Song is more annoying this time round. If she'd actually died in the last story she was in this would have had more emotional weight.

In an ad-hoc and rambling way...

Well, that was a lot more like it. After two disappointing episodes that one really ticked my boxes - ruins, lovely Amy, Ringu, ridiculous space-derring-do, lovely Amy, Aliens, timey-wimey-ness, TARDIS impressions, scares, lovely Amy, and funny dialogue (loved the 'Wrong!'-ness in the museum).

Didn't even get too annoyed by Bernice Summerfield River Song, this time - although I probably could have done without the 'dead man talking' reprise from her other episodes.

Did catch myself thinking 'You'd think, in this day and age, and if only for appearances' sake, when you send two members of the party off on their own early on to get slaughtered, establish the threat, and thereby build dramatic tension you wouldn't send two black ones' half-way through, but that's almost certainly me being hyper-liberally-sensitive due to the guilt engendered by buying The Daily Torygraph earlier today¹. And it's not as if they were the only black members of the party, so not a problem that lingered.

Nice, also, to see Amy's now so comfortable in the role of companion that she didn't feel the need to tell anyone she was weeping dust². Goan yersel', hen!

Quibbles aside, however, absolutely enjoyed myself when watching it, and my Who-palette is quite cleansed of the bad taste of Space Whales and new Daleks.

First impressions, then³ - McGann out of ten.



1. Solely for the free Doctor Who audiobook, obviously...
2. Not a euphemism.
3. And, as always, subject to change on a whim/ traditional dodgy second part.

Huge improvement on the past couple of weeks, with an excellent mix of thrills, spills, chills & laughs.

10/10.

Wow. Just wow. This is what DW is all about.

Oh, and I really like the character of River Song.

Lucy McGough wrote:10/10.

Wow. Just wow. This is what DW is all about.

Oh, and I really like the character of River Song.

This.
Very, very this.

Well, that was good.

Lucy McGough wrote:Oh, and I really like the character of River Song.

Yep, so do I.

Always knew you were a discerning, intelligent sort of chap

Is that me you're talking about Major Minor?

Depends. Do you like River Song?

She's brilliant in her ballgown & high heels. Not so good in combat gear!

3/5.

Basically, River Song. On the spaceship, being extremely Emma Peel about everything, she was full of win. Taking over the Tardis and essentially mocking the Doctor was annoying. She continued being annoying and slightly gittish until the revelation that she's a bad, bad girl - at which point, there was the inevitable revelation that she might have done something awful to look forward to.

There's also the distinct possiblilty that her relationship with the Doctor might not be what we think it is, since she appears to be consulting the diary for spoilers of her own, so it becomes possible that she's been conning The Doctor all along. Which would pretty much make her legendary in her own right and, for all the wrong reasons, would utterly redeem the character in my eyes.

Anyway, even with River and given that it's a setup episode, I'm really looking forward to next week.

I'm another in the River-Song-nothing-special-so-far brigade. She seems to be entirely composed of "I know something you don't know" smugness. It may be that Moffatt does something really clever with the character, but he's running out of time before she's permanently stuck as "irritation" in my head.

Overall, though, it's pretty darn good. An old-skool, low-key horror story with a few laughs and quality set-pieces.

jolly good stuff- quite traditional but reminded me of the impossible planet 2 parter. only just seen it- seems to be pretty popular on GB.

after 2 pretty duff episodes i'm hoping that's the blip over with...

Really enjoyed it—gave it a 4. Should point out that husband and I watched it while getting changed for his regimental association dinner, so I may have missed ickle bits.

Husband moaned about having to watch it, but his eyes seemed pretty fixed to the screen so far as I could see.

I'm possibly being stupid, but one thing I don't get—how come the Weeping Angel killed the soldiers/priests, instead of sending them back in time?

stanmore wrote:I'm another in the River-Song-nothing-special-so-far brigade. She seems to be entirely composed of "I know something you don't know" smugness. It may be that Moffatt does something really clever with the character, but he's running out of time before she's permanently stuck as "irritation" in my head.

I think River bothers some people because she claims to know the Doctor better than we do. That's going to be enough to set any fan's teeth on edge.

Also, there's a tone issue here. River and the Doctor have been characterised by various folks, including Mr. Moffat, as having a hubbie/wifey relationship. All well and good. I'm sure a lot of married couples watching get that. But do the kids?

Right now, they have a Doctor who is basically an Older Brother figure. He's back to being the person we'd actually quite like to be when we grow up. Except that now he apparently has a wife, which puts the Doctor back in the "Grown Up" range, and she's dead set keen on making him seem very much less cool. Yes, our hero has feet of clay (just like us), and we know that, but for a while it's nice to pretend that he doesn't. So why do we have this gobby blonde reminding us when we least want to hear it?

Dave Webb wrote:I think River bothers some people because she claims to know the Doctor better than we do. That's going to be enough to set any fan's teeth on edge.

Actually, that's one of the reasons why I like her. I don't have a problem with there being a few characters that throw the Doctor off his game, she seems to be one of those. It remains to be seen whether she truly is all she claims to be and I like that too. At any rate, as soon as matters got really serious, he seemed to stop being fussed by her anyway.

Nick Barlow wrote:And I do hope whoever at the BBC decided to stick an advert over the last scene has been summarily executed.

I can't speak to the execution of who decided to post that graphic, but I can tell you it has resulted in some comedic gold.

The BBC has apparently been doing these graphic inserts for decades. Just look...


Who knew Andrew Lloyd Weber and Graham Norton were searching for talent as far back as 1963?


They even ruined the closing credits of Earthshock! Those Cretins!


And what they did to The Caves of Androzani is unforgiveable


To add insult to injury, while Peter Davison, in his final moments, is being upstaged by Peri's 'girls', Graham Norton finds it necessary to interrupt the moment


Colin Baker, of course, would have none of it


These on-screen graphics actually fill a useful narrative role. Just take a closer look at David Tennant's regeration moment


Of course the problem is that graphic inserts are becoming soooo intrusive.


And it's not just limited to interrupting the final moments of an episode of Doctor Who


Indeed, Graham's own show is advertising his intentions


I'd actually like to see a .GIF version of this one, where Graham gets his comeuppance

Patrick wrote:

These are my favorites.

Aspadistra wrote:I'm possibly being stupid, but one thing I don't get—how come the Weeping Angel killed the soldiers/priests, instead of sending them back in time?

Can't quote precisely, but the Doctor said something along the lines that the Weepers we met on earth were decayed (or of that ilk), and therefore their powers must have been much reduced. I think.

The Co=Ordinator wrote:

Aspadistra wrote:I'm possibly being stupid, but one thing I don't get—how come the Weeping Angel killed the soldiers/priests, instead of sending them back in time?

Can't quote precisely, but the Doctor said something along the lines that the Weepers we met on earth were decayed (or of that ilk), and therefore their powers must have been much reduced. I think.

I thought it was so they could steal the voices.

Reminded me of an old Doctor Who story - lots of wandering around with nothing much happening. Should have been a one parter.