The Failure of the Weeping Angels (Video Essay)

[@HarboWholmes]

Hello there! This video blew up way bigger than I expected, thank you for all the views and support! If you liked this video, be sure to check out my channel for more videos like this one, I would really appreciate it. Again, thank you all!

[@mrsmith9079]

Actually, there would be viable reasons to just snap necks - first, the ship was leaking and already serving as a potent energy source, so the need to send people back in time for energy was unnecessary. Additionally, sending the soldiers back in time to some point where the angels were starved and weak could potentially allow them the opportunity to destroy or otherwise further entomb the angels and ensure that they'd never even exist up to the point of the ship crash.

[@LordFindogask734]

Moffat could have copied the Aliens formula even more in order to add to the lore rather than erase parts of it. Just like in Aliens we are introduced to warrior xenomorphs while in Alien it was a drone, the Doctor could theorize that just like in a hive the angels have different classes, from the harvesters encountered in Blink, to defenders or warriors in Time of the Angels and Flesh and Stone. Their powers would be mostly quantum based, so the Whole "an image of an angel becomes an angel" could be a specific power that only some of them can use for offensive reasons (it also becomes more sophisticated than simply snapping necks), and their aggressive actions could correspond to a normal response they have when they think they are under threat. This would maintain that sense of neutral antagonists that they had in Blink. They don't do what they do because they are evil, rather because they either use your potential energy (blink) or because they feel you are a threat (time of angels - flesh and stone). Speaking of that, let's not forget that the Doctor says that absurd line at the beginning of Timeof the Angels: "A Weeping Angel, Amy, is the DEADLIEST, most powerful, most MALEVOLENT life form evolution has ever produced," like, seriously? That line would fit the Daleks, not the Weeping Angels! I guess Moffat made the Doctor say that just to rise the stakes. "Oh look, now it's an army of Angels! Now they're OP! Now they kill because they're super evil! Oh, and let's make them move even when the audience is looking at them. Isn't that cool and rad?" On a side note, perhaps a way to include the "movement" of an Angel would be to show the Weeping Angel first and then, as soon as it's out of the shot, you see its shadow slowly moving. At first you may even not notice that because it would start with small movements such as heads turning to see if Amy is bluffing, but then they would start to move slightly more. I think it could have been a good compromise. You can still have the "Cool!" factor and not contradict anything that has been previously established. Sorry for the long rant by the way XD

[@laisensei6984]

You know I just had a cool idea popped up in my head. Doctor and his companions are on a centuries-old spaceship (still functioning) with a weeping angel imprisoned by some method in a room. Doctor and his (her) companions then ran into some desparate situation where the only to to get out of it is completeting a certain calculation that takes decades to complete (Tardis is beyond reach or inaccessible due to some reasons), so the Doctor says, "I have an idea. A pretty lousy one. Quite Frankly the most terrible one I can come up with." His (her) companions asked "Will it work?" The Doctor answered “Yes." "Do it then, Doctor." And so the Doctor grabbed his(her) calculation sheets and broke into the room where the Angel is chained up, sent several decades back and spent years completeting the calculation in solitude. Because the Doctor is a time lord, he (she) won't really like growing old for the slightest even with 60 years passing by. So the Doctor, with the exact same face as he (she) left but also with much more ragged cloth and older shoes showing up on the other side of the room with a completed calculation and save the day.

[@thisguy9733]

Guys anyone else here know who else knows what SCP-173

[@zambekiller]

Ok I think I can explain the eye thing. 1. I think the angels reproduce via this method. 2. The angels are either all female, have no gender or a dead angel can copy it's self a certain amount of times until it is too damaged (like making a copy out of a copy that is a copy of three other copy's eventually you can't tell what the image originally was. 3. The angels can choose wether or not it works, the guy was high or something, maybe he has bad short-term memory and the angels image couldn't stick in his brain.

[@harveysabeale]

I just realised if the statue of Liberty was an angel, then it means the French gave America a monster as a gift...lol

[@penguinhowser8459]

French : that’s what they get for inspiring the French Revolution

[@symphonymelody9235]

The doctor clearly say in the episode that they're "they could take every statue in the city" means that they just "converted it", it was clearly built and couldn't have been an angel from the start

[@penguinhowser8459]

Symphony Melody but there is that small chance that it got turned in France

[@iloveyourunclebob]

@@symphonymelody9235 it's also established in that episode it is a place the Angels created to feed off of people repeatedly their entire lives. It's not actually New York and it's not actually the Statue of Liberty. That's why when Rory and Amy jump they end up back in normal time. It's the only issue I took with this video lol

[@milllipop]

a big thing I thought the video would mention is that the statue of liberty isn't even made of stone?? how is it supposed to be a weeping angel aka quantum locked into stone if the statue is made of metal? very frustrating choice.

[@Carlys2]

Plus, the creepiest part of BLINK is that there are moments when the only person "watching" the weeping angel on screen is YOU (the tv viewer).

[@maddiewing3542]

This! I remember watching it and thinking that I shouldn’t blink because I was the only one looking at it. Bringing the viewer into the show is perfect, especially when it’s a scary episode

[@bloodyneptune]

You know, I saw that ep when it aired, and Ive seen it dozens and dozens of times since. And I _never_ noticed that. So first: thats incredible and I cant believe I missed it, because yeah, there _are_ scenes nobody on the show is looking at them, but they're still not moving. They should be, but they're not, and I cant believe I never figured out the reason was that _we_ were watching them. And two: absolutely f*ck you for telling me that, now that episode is _somehow_ freakier now

[@Carlys2]

@@bloodyneptune You're very welcome! Love introducing that realization to friends/other Whovians because it freaked me the f*ck out when I caught it... And I need to share it. ❤️

[@dont_blink3578]

hehehehehehehe

[@lilkris3008]

Yeah that scene where one turns their head on screen ruins them next time they are show

[@jillpigott7959]

So, when I first saw the angel snap a neck instead of zapping someone back in time, it scared the shit out of me. Because it told me, that person that just died had no potential. The energy it would take to zap him back in time was not worth the potential energy he would generate, it made no difference to anyone whether he lived or died. Imagine dying with that being your final thought. Of course, the script did nothing to point this out, and they snapped necks of people who obviously had potential energy to take. So, my initial horror was scrubbed.

[@MediumRareOpinions]

Good take,

[@ThomasBomb45]

That would have made a great plot twist. The angels go around, zapping people back in time. Until suddenly they start breaking necks before disappearing suddenly. What the hell just happened? The doctor thinks and thinks... So they send people back in time to get energy from their potential energy. Why would they suddenly start killing their victims? It must mean they wouldn't get enough potential energy... meaning the angels didn't expect them to live much longer... but why? (Look of horror) [another alien invasion begins]

[@kedd6199]

damn that's rough

[@dumbdumb8526]

Thomas Warner that would’ve made an amazing story instead of the shit show that really happened

[@yuditepic3396]

didnt they say that the angels were snapping necks because they didnt have enough energy to send people back in time

[@tas7606]

We saw them move, that's what went wrong. Edit: Dafuq did all these like come from?!?!

[@HarboWholmes]

That is kinda it, yeah!

[@Pogal]

@Luka Macdonald I just think they didn't want to make much sound either they know she could potentially open her eyes even if she shouldn't if they went into there normal faster forms then she might have opend her eyes in shock seeing them and breaking there disguise and quantum lock.

[@obiwankenobi687]

Sharperstream 34 I thought that was perfectly fine as they were old and cracked and weathered so made sense. And it looked creepy AF. It went wrong when Moffat decided to do the same thing he did to the Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans, Zygons, Silurians etc. and keep cameoing them in episodes where they just had no place. So they lost all mystery and menace and got turned into nothing more than a background prop with no menace that does absolutely nothing for the plot. Just like every single one of his Dalek stories where he had them stand around doing nothing for full episodes

[@brandonporter8509]

One of the most important rules of horror. The monster is always scarier if you never see it. An angel in motion takes away the mystery that creates Suspense and tension of what exactly is the ange’s true form when in motion. By removing this mystery you undermine the potential horror by removing mystery

[@Arovna]

@@brandonporter8509 This ! What you said Best examplified with this kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJ2miKqkh9R0ptk About the SCP foundation including SCP 173, which has a similar functioning as the lonely assassins

[@MrMrMrprofessor]

Of course, another rule that the series 5 episodes completely toss out the window is that "The angels cover their eyes because IF THEY LOOK AT EACH OTHER, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY TRAPPED". The Angels in Blink work around this by turning the lights off in the cellar, so even if there are moments where they briefly see each other, it's negated by the lights going out. This rule is also how the Doctor indirectly defeats them in Blink, because the Angels end up looking at each other as the Tardis time travels. The Time of Angels and Flesh and Stone completely disregard this rule, seeming to say that it's totally fine for weeping angels to look at each other. In the scene where Amy has to navigate the woods with her eyes closed, a couple of rules are broken: 1. Several of The Angels are clearly looking at each other and yet move anyway. Apparently, other Angels do not count as observers now. 2. As established in Blink, the Angels become quantum locked when they are looked at. It is their natural defense mechanism that kicks in whenever they are being observed. The Angels don't really have a choice in the matter. The forest scene, however, completely changes this. The Doctor tells Amy to walk LIKE she can see the Angels and that'll fool them. Going by Blink, the Angels should NOT be quantum locked in this instance because Amy is not observing them at all. This episode now suggests that the Angels have complete control over whether they freeze or not, as they don't move because they THINK Amy is looking at them. This completely ignores the entire basis of the Angels defense mechanism as set up in Blink. In fact, all it does is raise the question of "If the Angels can control when they freeze, why do they bother freezing at all when they're looked at?"

[@jackstuhley1745]

I think the logic is that the Angels always freeze when observed, but also inadvertently freeze themselves when they believe they are being observed, like a possum playing dead or something.

[@MrMrMrprofessor]

@@jackstuhley1745 That contradicts how they are initially set up in Blink. The quantum lock is an automatic response they have no control over when they are observed.

[@jackstuhley1745]

MrMrMrprofessor I'm not saying that it isn't how it's set up. I'm just thinking that what Moffat added in addition to this is that they also freeze when they believe they are observed.

[@MrMrMrprofessor]

@@jackstuhley1745 I just really don't think that works, because it suggests that the angels have some modicum of control over whether they freeze or not. The original rule: Either the angels are being observed, or they aren't. If they're not, they can move. If they are, their body locks them in place. What the angel wants, what the angel is doing, or any individual action or thought on the part of the angel DOES NOT MATTER. If they are observed they freeze into rock. This is a natural reaction they have no control over. It's why Sally's angels had to resort to turning out the lights in order to get to her and Larry. The new "rule": The angels are quantum locked when they are observed...or when they THINK they're being observed. Doesn't this suggest then that the angels has some sort of control over whether they freeze or not? Because originally, the angels have no choice on when they freeze or not. It's not like how an insect can just use their natural coloring to blend in with their surroundings when a predator is near. For the angels, the quantum lock is completely uncontrolled by them. If they can freeze when they (the angel) BELIEVES that they're being observed, then that means the quantum lock is not involuntary and that the angel's own perceptions and beliefs have an effect on it. This is so much less effective because then it raises the question: if the angels DO have some control over when they freeze, why bother freezing at all? Moffat only changed the original rule cause he wanted this scene of Amy blindly walking through a forest of angels, but ends up completely undoing the incredibly simple yet effective set up of them in the first place. It's a change that doesn't add anything, isn't as effective as the original idea, and just raises more questions.

[@jackstuhley1745]

MrMrMrprofessor the Angels have no control over not freezing when being observed. When not observed, they can move or continue to be frozen out of instinct if they believe themselves to be observed.

[@mrbojangles8133]

Blink is a great episode

[@HarboWholmes]

An all time classic!

[@dronespace]

One of the best

[@livinghistory9701]

Had me up at night for a month later. Finally got over it and went to a creative writing camp. Guess what happened. Day 4 and our instructor plays blink. In the dark. At 9pm. I'm there sitting stock still. A mere week after I got over the fear and it was back again. It was an overnight 6 week camp. We were separated in groups by our class that we are part of so we were watching after lights out and not during class time...

[@zaraarshad4346]

Blink is the best episode - imo

[@themostbritishpersonalive868]

@@HarboWholmes question didn't the neck snapping get addressed by the doctor also addressing that it was irregular

[@catherinespark]

Offer them a baby tortoise. 200 years of potential energy and potential eggs, offspring, lineages etc. is more than twice as attractive as 80-90 years of human life.

[@HarboWholmes]

Now there's an interesting question. Do Weeping Angels hunt Earth animals as well as humans? You would think that a baby tortoise would more than sustain an Angel. Now I'm just thinking of a story where a village is terrorised by Weeping Angels but provide sacrifices to stay alive, much like Craster's children being sacrificed to the White Walkers in Game of Thrones

[@ItsButterBean1020]

Harbo Wholmes I’m down for that (I had a similar idea for a Cyberman episode

[@Mithcoriel]

@@HarboWholmes Imagine what a crazy history that village would have in the long run. They'd have descendants living before their parents all over the place.

[@teddabear8890]

Now I want to know what “potential energy” means is it the impact that a creature has on the universe is it what they discover is it about offspring and lineages like you say or could it be tied to the individual people you affect and what they gain when interacting with you I need a scene where I can see who an angel would choose out of: a normal time lord who just observes, Albert Einstein (replaceable)or Mr Rogers.

[@Vesnicie]

but I want my turtle soup.

[@robbiesmith8055]

As much as the angels two-parter started ruining the angels, I will never get over the moment in the caves where they all flick off their torches and realise that every single statue has been an angel the whole time. The tension got ramped up to a million in that moment, it scared the hell out of me

[@jadenmurray1325]

I think it was decent. I think stealing bobs voice was a chilling and great idea. The part where they talk to the 11th doctor as hes leaving is the part I didnt like. The part where they werent hungry so they killed the clerics is such a thrilling idea. So angels will kill you if they want to.

[@mediakira6621]

Then all tension lost me when they started playing “I am the doctor “ during that revelation

[@aurumvale9908]

I got a colleague at work who's a reverse weeping angel. he only moves when being observed

[@Venkatesh.S.C]

Ohhh no , dont observe him or he/they will snap your neck by new method

[@R9naldo]

@@Venkatesh.S.C *he

[@qinjikofoxx5580]

​@@R9naldo You corrected them incorrectly. You should have said "*He", as in "Capitalize the 'H'." You not only made an @$$ of yourself by trying to correct this user, but you also made an @$$ of yourself by doing it wrong. Good job. You win the Stupid Award for today.

[@Mithcoriel]

I loved that Angel Bob had a voice. It keeps the mystery of how the Angels would really talk (their voice, their tone, their vocabulary) because the communication goes via Bob's way of speaking. And it's so beautifully creepy how it's expressing death threats in that casual Bob-voice. Not to mention the brilliant "oh shit"-moment when it reveals "I'm dead, the Angel snapped my neck, and it's coming for you now."

[@NankitaBR]

Angel Bob is cool, but the rest of the new lore introduced in this two episodes kind of ruins angels... Like, if they didn't introduce this "image of an angel becomes itself an angel" and stuff and if they actually zapped the rest of the people instead of killing them, the angels would still be a lot more scary today.

[@dippster8559]

@@NankitaBR i think the image of an angel thing is fucking stupid but the fact that they broke their necks so they can use them to communicate and piss off the doctor is cool

[@NankitaBR]

@@dippster8559 that's what I said, but the only one they used to speak to the doctor was Bob, the rest just had their necks broken for no reason.

[@dreamylunaa]

Bianca Durante They did the same to the others before Bob. (Angelo and Christian I think?) Used their voices to entice the each other to the Angel. Bob just so happened to be the last one and thus was the one to communicate with the Doctor

[@charlieharcombe7585]

I disagree. I think it’s silly giving a voice to a monster that it doesn’t work with. The whole premise of them is that they are objects in a way. They don’t talk. They don’t move. They are just statues until you look away. They aren’t human. They have no morals and no way to reason with them. The silent killers. It’s what made them so effective in blink

[@Atomicrow]

The reveal that the maze was full of starving Angel statues and that the first Angel purposefully crashed the Byzantium to feed the others energy was a perfectly fine twist that would leave the viewer wanting more. "Why are there so many Angels there? Why did the other Angel care to help the others? Do Angels have the ability to feel sympathy for other Angels??" If we trim the fat of the Angels having a voice, and all the image of an angel stuff, we'd still have a tense as hell story where everyone goes into a dark maze to try and contain a single Angel, only for the Doctor to get the tables flipped on him and has to fight to get everyone out of a maze filled with killing machines that are slowly waking up. The established Angel lore would have been fine for that story. Don't blink, the Angels can mess with lights, and if you get touched, your getting sent into a prehistoric cave to presumably starve to death. That'd have been 10x better than trying to wrap your head around an Angel living inside someones head and killing them slowly for fun.

[@hellacoorinna9995]

Exactly!

[@sumotoastdaddy5255]

The thing is Steven Moffat didn't necessarily make a mistake when bringing back the angels, it's changing them that did the damage. If he had brought them back without changing them, then the episodes could have still been brilliant, even with the weeping angels as the main protagonists

[@class87fan54]

Yeah, one of Moffat's biggest problems as showrunner was that he kept changing things that didn't need to be changed and he didn't know when to stop. The Weeping Angels are a case in point. That image of an Angel becomes an Angel thing is a mixed bag. On the one hand, having video recordings of Angels coming to life is fine, but the Angel in the mind aspect was going too far, as it contradicted Blink and defeated the whole point of stopping the Angels by looking at them. Moffat should've just left it at the recording coming to life. In fact, I think he realised that the Angel in the mind thing was going too far and ignored it in Angels Take Manhattan.

[@legendary2553]

Agreed

[@graaaaaaaaaaaaaaace]

@@class87fan54 A year late, but totally. It's why Moffat has such great episodes in s1-4, but has so many missteps as showrunner. No one's there to hold him back for a moment, and refine the ideas down a bit.

[@AngelCakes1997]

I honestly thought that Flesh and Stone’s showing of the Angels moving was actually how Amy imagined they were pursuing her rather than actual showing of how they move. Especially because it’s so stiff and weird, they’re meant to be super fast, like when they crossed the distance of the church to the police station by flight back in Blink. Why is a creature that can move at super precise and super fast speeds instead moving like a Dalek with Arthritis?

[@jetenginee.]

A dalek with arthritis, that quotes going on my wall

[@NankitaBR]

New headcanon

[@docmitchell8070]

That’s a good point

[@justgame5508]

The issue I had with it was the angles never moved while the audience was watching them, even if no other character was watching them too, this gave the impression the angles knew we were watching them and couldn’t move, which made them seem eerily real. Allowing the audience to see them move just disconnected us from the scene and made the angles feel far less threatening

[@bloodyneptune]

Oh....oh _this_ right here. I mean, I dont think thats what he meant it to be, but it sure as hell what Im choosing to believe from this point on

[@davidalang1055]

I am just gonna throw this in to add to the list of flaws the Weeping Angels got after Blink: During The Angels Take Manhattan, we see an angel being tortured. TORTURED!! Isn't the whole idea of turning to stone their "best defense mechanism?!" Aren't they "quantum locked" so that "they only exist when you aren't looking at them?!" If they don't even EXIST when they are looked at, how can they feel pain by simply cracking the stone? On top of that, River explains that the Angel is screaming, and that others will come for it, which also completely contradicts Blink. They are supposed to be seen as lonely because they can't even look at each other, so how in the world are they able to communicate with each other? Even if you found a way to justify that, wouldn't a screaming angel mean it makes a large, stone-like noise when it screams, like the Angels' supposed laugh in Flesh and Stone. Also, the throw the laugh from Flesh and Stone in the pile. Moffat even contradicted HIMSELF. In Flesh and Stone, Angel Bob says that "the angels have no voice." Yeah, there is ONE bit that seems logical, but then later in that episode, they all laugh, a stone-y laugh, might I add, as if they are stone when they move (which they shouldn't be!), and in The Angels Take Manhattan, it screams. While it was kind of nice to see the angels in some more episodes, the contradictions in the lore not only cause us to ask "Seriously?" but it also takes away from the fear of the Weeping Angels. As a very smart youtuber once said, "Putting more of a spotlight on the Angels only damages them." Remember when I said I was just gonna add one more thing? XD Sorry, I got carried away

[@DarkSunGameplay]

And that's another error right there by Doctor Who. When the Angels are being observed and become quantum locked, they actually aren't made out of stone. Now, the lore behind the angels goes back and forth between, "They're indestructible in this state" to "You can break them, but not kill them".

[@DarkSunGameplay]

And that's another error right there by Doctor Who. When the Angels are being observed and become quantum locked, they actually aren't made out of stone. Now, the lore behind the angels goes back and forth between, "They're indestructible in this state" to "You can break them, but not kill them".

[@riahfromthecityofflowers9393]

I always thought it was exclusive to that group--because it seemed like they had chosen the time to take people to, and create a big enough paradox that it was dangerous to travel there so it would be dangerous to visit. If the Doctor doesn't visit, your plot doesn't get interrupted.

[@selalewow]

What about just going back to save Amy and Rory? The Doctor and Martha were saved in Blink, so why not Amy and Rory? And don't give me that "fixed point in time" nonsense.

[@selalewow]

@Dimes 4 Crimes what do you mean? There were no repercussions in Blink.

[@thesisypheanjournal1271]

"They are fast. Faster than you can possibly imagine." Stone angel slowly moves head.

[@FazeFalcon]

The Statue of Liberty isn't even stone. It's copper! OK, steel, too.

[@Sanouscha]

exactly!

[@tideoftime]

This is a case when/where some viewers are misunderstanding what the Angels are. They aren't actually "stone" beings; the stone statues we see are just the *images* of the Angels -- their metaphysical aspects-as-embodied-in-our-universe. That is, they aren't stone beings that move/"come to life" a la' like the Horta in the classic Star Trek sereis. The Angels themselves, proper, aren't physical entities at all but, as the Doctor related, "abstract beings". They can potentially manifest through _any_ representation of their image/metaphysical embodiment; the material used isn't relevant in that regard. (Note how the Angels manifested through a number of non-stone/rock embodiments: not just the Statue of Liberty, but also The Pioneer Woman and her child, along with the metal "baby angels", in the same episode, along with the Liberty poster in the elevator which is how they controlled it; or the energy manifestation via the TV screen in TToA.) As they gain power/usurp metaphysical aspects of our universe, they can-and-do potentially manifest in different ways/forms, as exampled by their usurping the aforementioned Liberty statue, The Pioneer Woman, and similar-such.

[@devisankhla4788]

Plus doesn’t an image of an angel become an angel? Imagine all those key rings coming to life and tourists turning into angels because they stared into the Statue of Liberty’s eyes for too long.

[@tideoftime]

@@devisankhla4788 That's the dark implication of it all: as the Angels usurp the meta-identity of various concepts, they gain steadily more influence in the world(s) they encounter -- particularly the more of their imagery that gets shared by the unwitting mortal fools! lol ;) (However, an implied limitation-factor is that the Angels need to garner enough/sufficient power in order to manifest and operate through all of their various images; without enough power, they can't operate very well in our universe. That's partly why they have to be cunning and patient about how they attempt to unmake all of reality (all of the universes) -- the very thing that gives them an advantage (their potentially ubiquitous imagery) also serves to restrain/limit them in other ways. The NY 1938 situation is a great example of how they can become powerful/influential if they can deceive enough of a given populace/"weak point in time" so as to usurp reality as we perceive it; on the flip, their relative imprisonment on Alfava Metraxis demonstrates how that advantage can be turned against the as the Aplans, again implicitly, were able to via self-sacrifice effectively imprison most-all of them in the burial-temple.)

[@SchardtCinematic]

It was stupid to make Lady Libertu a Weeping Angel. I only recognize the Lore set out in Blink. Moffet F upped his own Creation. Only way to retcon thos would be to say there are two diffrent kinds of weeping Angel's. Two separate but simular species. The Blink Angel's are more terrifying than the retconned ones.

[@whocaresreallly5886]

Sally Sparrow had a picture of the angel in the packet she gave the doctor

Oh yeah!

[@brandonstevens5628]

I've heard people say that the angel in the picture is the one that sent the doctor and Martha back in time

[@danvandehei3802]

EXACTLY! ive always wondered about the picture after watvching

[@fastpacedyt6273]

Yeah But the image of the angel cannot be kept from the previous episode... Oh I didn't even notice that..great job

[@Harvey-iv7jq]

Its not as scary as blink but I still enjoy time of the angels/ flesh and stone

[@HarboWholmes]

That's fair! The two parter is still a fun and good story to watch, I just don't like how they treated the Angels as a villain

[@Harvey-iv7jq]

@@HarboWholmes thank you for respecting my opinion

[@HarboWholmes]

No need to thank me! We're all allowed opinions and I enjoy talking to people with different opinions to my own, it's great to hear other perspectives

[@jasmintea8825]

I honestly didn't liked blink. The episodes with Amy and the weeping angels were the best

[@martinr4884]

I have to agree with you SuperStar Bros, Blink was epically scary: I've watched about 5 times now, it still makes me jump and raises the hairs on the back of my neck! Sorry Jasmin Tea, I have to (respectfully) disagree with your personal opinion, I liked the other episodes, but Blink has to be one of the most memorable episodes ever; it brings memories back to a 45 year old grown man of being an eight year old boy and hiding behind the sofa while watching the Daleks in the original series -deliciously terrifying, and maybe more so because it could be anywhere in southern England, near to where you live, that statue in the park, or the gargoyle on the town hall ...

[@samb5963]

Re: the angels suddenly changing their usual modus operandi from eating a person’s potentiality to snapping their necks - I think that could have been a cool mystery episode if they ACKNOWLEDGED that it was a shift and out of character, and then ran with the question of what could make the angels suddenly begin acting so ooc and irrationally. Are they angry? Why are they angry? Is it all of them, or just one? Are they scared? Is something going wrong with the wibbly wobbliness of the timey wimey stuff that makes it impossible for them to harvest energy and they’re killing their food in frustration? If there is, how can the Doctor piece it together and find a fix? Like that could be so cool! It could be the kick-off to a whole end arc of a series - the first clue that they need to fix the time thing!

[@jjba3571]

I agree, i guess even the good writers can make huge mistakes

[@hamishgoeden7852]

Another point to explain it from earlier in the thread. Something about these people means the energy left in their lives is less than it takes to send them back. The doctor tries to puzzle out what would be killing these people so soon when most of them are young. Cue alien invasion

[@Lernos1]

They actually do explain it in the episode, and I wonder how so many people in the comments missed it. The Doctor says that the angels don't need to eat right now: they're full thanks to the ship's radiation they've been absorbing, so they can afford not to feed on humans and just kill them instead, since they are psychopaths. Still a lazy explanation to me, and the whole "lonely assassins" and "nice psychopaths" concept from Blink flies out the window anyway, but an explanation nonetheless.

[@Morphstock]

I think Moffat said they thoughy of the Statue of Liberty idea and "just had to do it". So it was a good visual with no plot logic.

[@zemoxian]

Thus he invokes the *Rule of Cool* which is a common trope on Doctor Who. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

[@jakerockznoodles]

It wasn't even a good visual IMO. It was the moment I lost any sense of dread of them because the image of a giant angel lumbering around New York was just so dumb I couldn't take anything else in the story seriously.

[@FTZPLTC]

It's a shame because they could've kept showing the statue throughout the episode and created the sense that it *might* be an Angel, and the episode would have lost nothing.

[@CorwinTheOneAndOnly]

I thought it was part of the illusory hotel, and the statue itself wasnt an angel, it was just something they incorporated into their illusion

[@tobiasurey1434]

It did scare the shit out of me xD

[@blazez9481]

I will say though, as someone who was first introduced to the angels in time of the angels, it’s an amazing story as long as you aren’t aware of the already established lore. But honestly this issue could have easily been fixed by saying that the angels in the two-parter were a subspecies (or something).

[@ThomasBomb45]

That's such a simple solution, it's actually incredibly frustrating they didn't use that excuse. The Doctor should have noticed the difference and come to that same conclusion

[@ThomasBomb45]

They explain why aliens like the Daleks have changed powers, why not the angels?

[@youraveragepersonwalkingth6850]

I like to think that because their image is so broken, that as a survival mechanism is that they stay at stone even when unobserved. Making them even scarier as they are stuck as stone, making them more mad, and angels when mad, they aren’t going to steal your voice or leave survivors behind, they won’t even let you live to death. Makes you wonder whether a mad angel would be easier to defeat than a normal(sadistic angel) Examples are blink, mad angels. They lose, village of the angels, normal angels, they win. Time of the angels/flesh and stone, mad angels, they lose. Angels take Manhattan, normal angels, they lose. From this, their sadistic nature is their downfall, but it makes you angry and angry people make bad decisions. Mad angels are just to desperate and latch onto victims, so, mad = run. Normal = stay rational.

[@someguy7629]

The tiny cherub angels freaked me out a lot

[@nightowl8477]

12:46 there are multiple lines throughout Moffat's tenure that go along the lines of "I know that joke was terrible, but I couldn't resist." I literally think half if the problems with Moffat's run come from him not knowing how to hold himself back.

[@user-is7xs1mr9y]

Just like George Lucas.

[@williamd2989]

@@user-is7xs1mr9y Moffat is the George Lucas of DW. Of fucking course. How did it take this long to occur to me?

[@GuzzleGulp]

I think the neck snapping actually makes sense because the goal of the angels in that episode was simply to escape, not to hunt. It is pointed out that the angel on the ship made it crash there specifically to rescue the others, and the others were very weakened, so they may not have had spare energy to waste on sending someone back in time. Killing them normally is far easier. I'm sure there are many examples in nature of predatory animals killing for reasons other than food, so this would naturally apply to aliens too.

[@thomaskirkness-little5809]

The Weeping Angels should have been a one-off alien.

[@HarboWholmes]

Definitely!

[@ItsButterBean1020]

Honestly there are decent sequels with them (Big Finish did an amazing one called Fallen Angels)

[@larniieplayz6285]

Nah

[@joshc1981]

Like the sashna nervada.

[@philswiftdestroyerofworlds1988]

@@joshc1981 Vashta Nerada

[@ionaf9]

Moffat's first mistake was his source of inspiration. He should have taken inspiration from Shrek 2.

[@rollingkirby]

True

[@Beregorn88]

So you would show the parents of the angels?

[@darudesandstrom1067]

He did, he took the giant gingerbread man and turned it into a giant angel! Weren’t you paying attention? Lol

[@ionaf9]

@@Beregorn88 we needed a fairy godmother villain

[@peanut4831]

When the angels moved when Amy wasn’t looking It felt badly written, when they are on screen and no one is looking. People say, “Why don’t they move, no one is looking.” But, since we are looking at the screen and millions are staring at the angels, wouldn’t they freeze because *SOMETHING* is looking. But no, forget nice little Easter eggs

[@Grimjr7]

That was true for the blink episode. The audience was counted as an observer for the weeping angels. Im not sure about the other times.

[@MareannaTGirl]

Ah yes *mirror*

[@ItsButterBean1020]

Yeah it just felt Jank

[@noodlepoodle3582]

Grim Jr. This is what terrified me as a child. The implication that the angels could see through the screen and knew I existed as an observer scared me when I first saw the episode.

[@laurahuynh8333]

Peanut SCP 173

[@telekinetic_mmd]

I noticed something, basically the book about the angels says an image of an angle becomes a angel, but in Blink sally takes photos of the angels and gives it to the doctor so shouldn't the angel get sally or the doctor as it's not like she's looking at it all the time ._. BUT BLINK is the best doctor who episode In my opinion

[@Mithcoriel]

That one's not a complete contradiction, more of a sort after-the-fact-"oh shit"-moment. Fans have concluded that this means the photographs of the angels became the angels that actually stole the doctor's tardis.

[@regiman222]

Some people think that's how the Doctor and Martha got attacked by an angel in the first place, so there is a workaround to explain it

[@thomastakesatollforthedark2231]

@@Cicen2 I like to think that only a direct capturing of an Angel makes an Angel. Like a video or a foto, which is why statues of made by humans that depict angels don't make more Weeping Angels

[@thomastakesatollforthedark2231]

@@Cicen2 well tbf, wasn't that an ancient text- and I just disproved my entire argument. They probably didn't even HAVE videos or photos then...

[@iloveyourunclebob]

@@Mithcoriel which would have made sense except Matt Smith's doctor had absolutely no idea and didn't even have a moment of realizing what had happened to him and Martha. So, it is still lore breaking.

[@Chrisindapurplehouse]

They don't need to zap people into the past here, because they're feeding off the energy from the crack in time.

[@HarboWholmes]

That's very true, good point

[@katymaurer388]

Something else I loved from Blink is that there were a few times that the characters were not looking at the angels, but they stayed frozen anyway. That essentially made the camera/viewer an active observer in the episode as well. Guess that was ignored in the later episodes too.

[@reece2321]

The image becoming an angel is strange, because initially you would assume the image becomes a seperate angel, but in the episode Matt says that it was in fact the original angel from the Byzantium getting a better look at those it was facing , meaning that the angel used the recording as a tunnel rather than duplicating

[@Sinchu9]

As somebody that never watched "Time of Angels" and "Flesh and Stone" because I found the Weeping Angels too scary, when I finally did get around to watching them both I was instantly cured of my fear Why? The whole 'image of an Angel becomes one' thing was too extreme, it was a horror narm. Moffet tried too hard to make them scary and the result was them becoming unscary, if he wanted the camera trick to not work he could have simply put it up to "Screens display at a limited fps, real life displays at infinite fps, during the times where the frames aren't changing the Angel can move and thus it'll eventually escape" but instead he went for "You'll just make more" Not everything presented in these two episodes was terrible, the idea of Angels decaying if they didn't feed, the 'oh shit' moment is good (would be better if the audience had some way of knowing it was coming though) and the use of muzzle flashes to slow the Angels is a clever one And I can think of 2 reasons (which hopefully don't contridict Blink lore) why they snap necks instead of time hop victims: 1. Time hopping takes time to perform, the victim may see it as instantanious but it is possible it actually isn't. Against a group that you cannot hit all at once another enemy can prevent it and help the victim escape, additionally it would take longer to neutralise everybody and thus give others time to escape 2. If you are dealing with somebody that knows how Angels work, sending them back in time could cause them to warn the past of upcoming Angels and create a paradox wherein the Angels are prevented from staying and sending the victim back, thus snapping their neck is a risk free way of dealing with them

[@matthewparker9276]

From a structural standpoint, the episode needed stakes. In Blink, the doctor is trapped without his Tardis, so being sent back in time is a problem, because there is no return, in Angels Take Manhattan they introduce the idea of "reading ahead" which is cleverly introduced, but a bit yada yada. In Flesh and Stone though, there are multiple people who can fly a Tardis, and a Tardis, present. If someone got sent back the doctor or river could have just gone back in time and rescued them.

[@kellygb4370]

I like of the idea of the paradox! This is a way to fix it! From Blink, the next step to me to make it scarier would be make the person crazy before send it back in time... like give allucitations, so when the person is living in the past, she/he can't ask for help, because lost sense of reality, logic, memory...

[@tommoconstantly]

‘There is Nothing to Gain from Snapping People’s Necks’ - Harbo Wholmes, 2019 -

[@TechnoBIan]

Here’s another question I always had when it came to contradictions of the original lore. “In the Time of Angels,” and “Of Flesh and Stone,” there were several weeping angels all around one another not protecting their glances. How were they able to move without quantum locking each other?

[@shaileeeliyahu8891]

My way of settlement for this issue is the evolution of the weeping angels. Blink and Angels in Manhattan (or whatever it's called) both happen around the start of the 21 century, while the 2 parter seems to happen in a far future. I shall note that the angels mechanic seems same between blink and Manhattan, while the picture of an angel thing and them talking moving and snapping necks only happen in the 2 parter. For that differnce i use their evolution as an explaination - that like all living creatures, their properties changed along with their evolution. It also help drive it to home and make this theory possible with the fact that no episode mentions their lifespan, so who know how many generations were there between those eras. And at last - this video is so true - i shouldn't have been needed to come up with that shit to explain the show. Too bad i like it so much

[@noahryan1000]

I love this theory so much! It totally explains the weird mechanics the angels had in the 2-parter, while they pretty much stayed the same in the other episodes with them.

[@thomaskirkness-little5809]

The comparison to Aliens is a good one. In Aliens, the marines could clearly defeat the aliens with superior firepower, so the film has a reason to remove the majority of their firepower. There's nothing stopping the Church of England soldiers from shooting the Weeping Angels with their eyes closed. If guns don't at least wound them when they aren't quantum locked, why do they even have quantum locks?

[@ItsButterBean1020]

Probably pure speed

[@InkHeart17]

What's to stop you from smashing them as statues? I know it says "You can't kill a stone" but you could limit its movements by turning it to rubble.

[@GreaterGrievobeast55]

@@InkHeart17 read a doctor who anthology book about a guy who basically carved an angel up into nothing but dust. Turned out it was still alive and pissed and long story short doomed all the colonies on that planet by taking advantage of the digital mental imaging system. It also reformed itself after a while.

[@undead_corsair]

I think the added lore of images of angels becoming angels and angels being able to climb into your mind through your eyes were really cool, surreal additions to their powers. It made them feel way more supernaturally powerful, stranger, almost Lovecraftian in how they were more than just stone statues, they were forces of nature that defied physical laws, truely beings of the abstract. Showing them moving was a bad ieda though.

[@dr.feelgoodmalusphillips2475]

They got overused. Should have only been used once.

[@waynecalhoun2802]

Yup. They were popular and that popularity ruined them. Blink is the only episode in which these beings exist to me.

[@tideoftime]

I am always semi-amused when people note how they're "overused" -- the appeared in *one* episode in 2007, then not again until 3 years later (for a two-parter, so one story), then a cameo the following year (when there had also been cameos by other Who-critters, such as the Cybermen in, for example, AGMGtW), a single episode the year after that (as an appropriate send-off for Amy/Rory) and then just a cameo (with a number of others making similar-such, effectively) in 11's send-off and then not for two years again until having another small cameo. In what way is that being "overused"? A whopping 4 episodes (3 stories) over a 5 year period where they were the main antangonist, with just a smattering of cameo appearances that were no more so than when other critters make similar cameos. I think this is a case of some people confusing/conflating the amount of conversation about them that takes place in/among fandom with the *actual* amount of screen time they had over a reasonable period. *4* episodes as the main villains, along with just *3* cameos, over an *8* year period? That's being "overused"? As 13 would likely say (however cringingly) : "Nahh, Fam..."

[@dr.feelgoodmalusphillips2475]

@@tideoftime Ever heard of the phrase one trick poney? So, yes, I still stand by that they were overused.

[@tideoftime]

@@dr.feelgoodmalusphillips2475 They were no more one-trick ponies than most villains who show up on DW, so that turn of phrase is ill-placed relative to them. The more direct point vis-a-vis "overused" is relative to how often they appear (that is, less often or no more so than the major/general villains of the series) and whether or not we learn more about them with each appearance. They didn't appear that often except for how much they've been discussed in fan groups, as I noted originally (over a period of 8 years they only appeared in 3 proper stories and a handful of cameos -- not by any reasonable stretch "overused"), and we learned more about them in each succeeding story (whether about the deeper metaphysics involved in their abstract existence or the instance when/where they nearly were able to usurp Earth's history via anchoring down in 1938's Manhattan). (Sidenote: one of the unfortunate and likely to have been even more informative about the Angels bits about the spin-off series "Class" not having gotten a second season is that the likely cross-over story that would have resulted after the season finale reveal that the Angels were behind the existence of a cult that was set about restoring one of the Angels' major images at the guidance of at least one (and implied to be more) of the Angels in present-day England. From what I've read, the general arc would have had another Capaldi/12 crossover which would have been nice... but, alas....)

[@dr.feelgoodmalusphillips2475]

@@tideoftime Cool man. You do you. I'm not your fam either.

[@daneroberts1996]

Wholeheartedly agree with every point made. All my favourite Dr Who villains are the ones that are compelling in their own episode but that are then never used again, like the Vashdanerada, the empty child, the being in Midnight, the 3D monsters...

[@connorb1775]

Instead of the lore that a picture of an angle becomes an angle, they could have instead just said that the angles can turn off recording equipment briefly. In the same way they were able to turn off the lightbulb in blink.

[@Kayley199514]

Except that wouldn't have fixed the issue. Maybe if it was a continuous live feed, yes, but it was 4 seconds of a pre recorded image.

[@a_random_soul_on_the_internet]

0:17 "The Weeping Angels have fallen from grace." Ladies and gentleman... The time of the Weeping Demons has arrived.

[@sammysammyson]

I'm many years late, and I'm not a Whovian, and I find them moving on-screen terrifying because I've always interpreted it as them moving between the camera shutters/frames.

[@eloii]

Personally I thought that the weeping angel image thing (where they come to life through images or videos) worked well cause you as a viewer feel threatened

[@WaspCameraInSpringfield]

Only if you couldn't distinguish fantasy from reality.

[@RosieOleanderDallinger]

“Whilst it does make for a good visual” And there lies the problem with the Moffat era for me personally, he put spectacle above everything even if it didn’t make sense. For me it’s where I started to stop consistently enjoying DR Who because I found all the characters boring or annoying. I like his first season, then after that the only story I liked within the era is Heaven Sent.

[@chakra8924]

If an image of an angel becomes an angel that means sally is dead because she had pictures of weeping angels on her desk just before she met the doctor in person.

[@MediumRareOpinions]

Retcon are the name of the game for modern Sci fi, they care little for continuity

[@TheyMightBeBricks]

I thought Angels take Manhattan was good, aside from the Statue of Liberty

[@boyar1978]

However wouldn't it be possible if the weeping angels were able to evolve? Perhaps the original weeping angels did not have the ability to reproduce simply by having people look them in the eye. In later episodes they could have adapted to be able to. Perhaps their energy source changed.

[@fellinuxvi3541]

Maybe, but they're implied to not have changed in the 13 billion years of existence given that the tenth doctor gives a completely accurate description of their powers despite them being nearly as old as the universe itself. They even appear to have survived the time war unchanged, why would they change now?

[@leowulf5280]

@@fellinuxvi3541 not to mention whether or not these things are possible isn't really relevant unless the show provides that kind of explanation.

[@fellinuxvi3541]

@@leowulf5280 Precisely, besides they work exactly the same in every other way, so the idea that they changed power sources also leaves a lot to be desired.

[@George_M_]

Wouldn't be Who without dropping quality of recurring monsters.

[@Gamelover254]

That’s why one off monsters are always the best. Midnight creature, the empty child, the adipose etc.

[@zecharchar1789]

When the angels snapped the soilders necks in season 5, it established that the angels were desperate and trying to make the docter angry, not for no reason:/

[@ItsButterBean1020]

Plus they had the crack so they might as well focus on that

[@racelkatyusha403]

looks like the dev of the SCP game gas watches this before they make SCP That snaps the *N E C C*

[@qdllc]

What if the angels are “full” and don’t need to feed? Supposedly the crashed ship’s drive was leaking energy that was resuscitating the angels stuck there.

[@louisvictor3473]

makes little sense. When you're desperate for food and come upon a perfectly fine bag of free snacks, you don't ignore it just because you know there is a full meal somewhere in the vicinity. You grab the snack first, and then look around for more.

[@zecharchar1789]

@@louisvictor3473 the Angel's were established as too weak to feed as in send the people back. But were gaining energy from the leaking engine. So they took the chance to make the doctor angry instead.

[@peaceofwestphalia]

While watching The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone I couldn’t stop thinking about how a lot of them weren’t weeping so that they could all see each other.

[@Whynotwastaken]

I personally like to believe when we saw the angles move in flesh and stone that was actually what Amy was imaging they were doing in that moment

[@TheGlobadier]

with your point on the neck snapping: the angels had no need to feed on anyone in that episode because the ship had enough energy to feed all of the angels there almost indefinitely, the neck snapping was to get more eyes out of the way so that the angels could move more. but the neck snapping does still contradict and not contradict the episode Blink at the same time when the doctor describes them as kind psychopaths, he doesn't say that the angels can only kill by zapping a victim back in time just that that is how they feed on victims but they can feed on other sources of time energy.

[@e.a.h.10.10]

The key thing that always really bothered me about the whole "the image of an angel becomes itself an angel" thing is that Sally had photos of the angels at the end of Blink that she gave to the doctor, so surely these pictures become angels too??

[@DarkSunGameplay]

A popular theory is that the angels that emerged from those pictures sent the Doctor back in time and were the four angels that were featured in the episode. Sort of a loose endless loop, I suppose.

[@e.a.h.10.10]

@@DarkSunGameplaywow I hadn't thought of it like that! That's genuinely shook me omg

[@firetarrasque4667]

Also, What the fuck counts as "The Image of an Angel"? We know that catching then on camera counts. But like... Does a painting of an angel count? Does a child's drawing? What about a really grainy image? What about a description of an angel in a book that causes you to form a picture in your mind? What if I took a picture of an angel, which we know counts, and fucked around in Photoshop until it looked nothing like an angel? What if someone took a picture of an angel, pulled a Treachery of Images, and added the caption "This is not an angel"? Hell, how can any image be "The image of an angel"? Images don't hold any innate qualities. They aren't of an angel until someone decides they're of an angel, it is the human definition of angel-ness that makes this whole fucking thing possible in the first place, how the fuck does any of this work???

[@DarkSunGameplay]

@@firetarrasque4667 Anything that depicts the image of a weeping angel becomes itself an angel. Recordings, paintings, photographs, a mirrored reflection, drawings, an image of an angel on stained glass. It wasn't verified in the show if the drawing or painting has to be relatively accurate or not though. They didn't go into a lot of detail on this, leading a lot up to speculation. If you want an explanation for this, perhaps the "image of an angel" is quite diverse and therefore few to zero actual weeping angel images exist, out of fear of what might happen. There was a spin-off of Doctor Who that was unfortunately cancelled, and a teaser for it featured a weeping angel that had emerged from a stained glass depiction of one and killed a woman. There is also an in-universe theory that every statue is secretly a weeping angel, so any photograph, painting, drawing, etc. of a statue just might be lying dormant. Just know that we've never seen a weeping angel move. (Forget that one time; the episode was at 24 FPS like all film, therefore we still technically did not see them move.) We don't know their true physical form, so perhaps an evolutionary advantage they have over other living beings is they can present themselves in a form wherever they find themselves in, if that makes sense. Therefore, an image of an angel really, literally is another angel, regardless if you're there to perceive one or not. If a human mother gives birth to a child and the room is pitch black, is the child really a human, or is it a nothing since no one has ever seen it? Answer: yeah, of course it's a human. Angels, as well as having a physical form, also have a quantum form. Technically, they don't move, just make microscopic teleports, as an in-universe hypothesis states. On a quantum level, things have the ability to exist in more than one place at a time, or teleport. Think about it that way. To answer your question at the end, anyone that takes the picture of an angel, records one, draws one, they know it's an angel, even if they don't know what it is. If someone has never seen a tree before and they decide to paint it, they still know what they're depicting in their art. Therefore, once the image is drawn, it now exists on a quantum level, being able to exist in two places at once. Whether or not the mind of the individual, their imagination, has anything to do with it is not specified, nor did Who lore go into any detail on how, well, detailed an image of Angel has to be. However, since none have been made into the DW universe, it has to be assumed that even a very basic, crude sketch depicting an angel becomes one. Therefore it has to be assumed that your mind creating an Angel and bringing it to life on a canvas, sheet of paper, whatever is one of the keys to bringing the Angel to life.

[@themightyjagrafess8596]

@@firetarrasque4667 well, you've sorta got an answer now

[@finnche9555]

An angel projecting it's being into another image of itself is stated to require a LOT of power to do and maintain, that's one thing that is emphasized enough that would make that part of the episode better and more consistent with other episodes.

[@themightyjagrafess8596]

It was nice to see that again in Village of the Angels

[@techcommenter]

This is part of a big problem in doctor who. Anything and everything is sacrificed if the writers think it will make a good story. This video deals with the weeping angles but the same is true for the Tardis, time-lords, Daleks and pretty much anything else.

[@Flaky1990]

At this point the best way to salvage this would probably be to make different 'choirs' of angels who act different/have different rules, or something...

[@cassian3968]

Pretty sure I remember Blink mentioning that they send you back in time if/when they need the energy otherwise they just kill you so snapped necks isn't a flaw...

[@amethystimagination3332]

The image of the angel Statue of Liberty looming over people creepy sure, but it doesn’t last long when you remember that no matter what time of day it is there will always be someone looking at it.

[@TheSmart-CasualGamer]

Right, question time. What would happen if an Angel saw a Silent? The Angel wouldn't be able to move when the Silent wasn't looking at it, as it wouldn't remember it was there. Oh, and seeing them "move" in Flesh and Stone was stupid. They only look like statues when they're still, not when they're moving too! I actually missed this one when it came out, and only saw it after Angels take Manhattan, where they don't do that, so I was slightly baffled why they thought was a good idea.

[@Phoenix2312]

@The Smart-Casual Gamer The Official Doctor Who Magazine here in the UK actually pitted The Silence Against the Angels in a Death Match and concluded The Silence Would Ultimately Win... Its a conclusion I always disagreed with! If anything, They would STALEMATE... The Silence rely on being able to Wipe Memories of Sentient Beings to remain hidden... OK Cool... ...BUT, Just like the Silence, The Angels are an Ancient Race. They do not live under the rules of Physics that we do - The are FASTER than the Silence, But their Self Defence Ability leaves them at a Disadvantage as they turn to Stone when Observed, And the Silence DO NOT BLINK! (or Extremely Rarely!) BOTH RACES have Abilities that Counter one another... When Quantum Locked, Angels are NOT LIVING. Did you ever notice that The Silence NEVER use their Explosive Voices to destroy walls or other obstacles? Yeah... It only works on LIVING BEINGS! As the Angels Quantum Lock, and Move Faster than any known Living Being - This also renders the Silence Ability to memory wipe NULL AND VOID! The Angels are TOO FAST, That simple... It makes me wonder if The Angels and The Silence were ever at one time Mortal Enemies - Hence how they evolved to develop the abilities they have... It makes sense! That being said, An Episode featuring BOTH... I would be up for that! Hell, Even a Prequel Episode explaining how they developed their abilities... and if my theory is even remotely right! But for Both, The thing that makes them work is THE MYSTERY! NEVER KNOWING HOW OR WHY THEY CAME TO BE! (Yes, I am going to say it and I know many will disagree - But yes they Screwed up The Silence in THE VERY SAME WAY! Even in the Background they started appearing TOO OFTEN and it spoilt any Mystery about them! They became Bodyguards to Characters, They were Created to Lock the Doctor in the Pandorica, They were Protectors of a Holy Order, They were there when Amy's Baby was kidnapped... ARE THEY AN ANCIENT RACE OR ARE THEY JUST LACKIES WHEN THE SCRIPT DICTATES?)

[@TheSmart-CasualGamer]

@@Phoenix2312 If it helps, I live in the UK. Always have done. But as I can't stand the magazine, I never buy it.

[@MrProbeNWatch]

I randomly found these video essays on my feed. And I gotta say I'm so happy I watched these. Such powerful points and very professional

[@HarboWholmes]

Aw, thank you! That means so much to hear :)

[@keiththorpe9571]

"The Angels have the phone box" I've got that on a T-shirt.

[@rileygoddard7181]

The thing that really makes me upset is that it's so obvious in SO MANY scenes in the later episodes that angels are looking at each other, and ywt they still move.

[@JAProductions494]

You can get a good, scary story with the weeping angels (even if it’s just for one part of it). It’s called a Dalektable Adventure and it’s from Lego Dimensions.

[@stachu5049]

I never watched Doctor Who but I laughed my ass off after hearing "the Statue of Liberty is itself a weeping angel". I immediately saw so many contradictions, for example, weeping angels were supposed to turn into stone, but that statue is made of copper

[@Chrisindapurplehouse]

The snapping of necks I would assume came from the novella Man-Size in Marble or the legend of Black Aggie. I have a feeling that Moffat came up with the Angels on his own, but in the years since he presumably did a little reading and found that statues that come alive are prominent in mythology and that they often throttle or break people's necks when the catch up to them.

[@HarboWholmes]

That's a very interesting theory! There could definitely be some kernels of truth in that idea

[@Tonii_Say_So]

so my first assumption was that the reason they snapped the next was because they just wanted to kill them because they did something in these two episodes that we didn’t see in blink, which was basically give the weeping angels a kind of personality if you will, where we see them try to make the doctor angry and things like that so my first initial thought was they’re not feeding they are just killing. They’re playing with them kind of like how when they turned the doctor into a weeping angel instead of sending her back in time go to your friends we’re having fun watching you figure this out It was like a cat playing with its food

[@LeifUwU]

Blink was the first episode I ever watched, and the only reason I ever heard about doctor who, was because my sister was catching up with it on Netflix a long time back. -Scared the heck out of me then, and it still holds up today, sad to see the first thing that got me into Doctor who fall from so much grace.

[@HighlandHellboy]

The idea of giving the Angels the Alien vs Aliens idea works great, the issue is he changes them too much, Aliens works because the Xenomorphs stay as Xenomorphs, things can be added such as the image of an angel is an angel but that again goes too far, when it comes to reflections, and doesn’t add too much more. It would have been far more interesting to see more limitations to the angels, and how they overcome those, than even more abilities that just make them op. The Angels in Blink work so well because they’re incredibly grounded as monsters, there’s the time travel part to it but in a show like Doctor Who that’s fully grounded.

[@Johnny_Serenity]

*S N A P N E C C S* But seriously though! I love the Time of angels & Flesh and stone. But i still hate it when they Revealed the Angels moving. We're not supposed to see How The angels move We have to use our imaginations Just like what you said, Showing how the weeping angels move is just Basically breaking the fourth wall EDIT: I also forgot to mention on how the Statue of liberty (Weeping angel) Managed to get to the Hotel,There should be destroyed buildings after making it's path lmao

[@HarboWholmes]

For the Angels moving in Flesh and Stone, I've kinda made it my headcanon that we just see what Amy is imagining during that scene, because her eyes are closed but she can hear the Angels moving. It certainly makes the scene less frustrating!

[@Johnny_Serenity]

@@HarboWholmes if i We're to change the Screen, I'd just have the Lights flashing. Basically The Angel moves while the lights are flashing ( Like in blink for example gives it more scary factor into it )

[@HarboWholmes]

Oh, yeah, of course. That'd be a much better way to do it, but annoyingly we can't change what they've already filmed!

[@Grimjr7]

They want us to believe that the Statue of Liberty moved to that hotel and then got back to its original position without anyone ever seening it.

[@TheZProject115]

@@Grimjr7 its an altered reality so no one is seeing it

[@adegoodman9053]

The thing that bothers me most about Angels Take Manhattan is that when Rory’s running from the angels, he gets in a lift that has a big poster of the Statue of Liberty. Why didn’t that then become an angel? Moffat pulled out Chekov’s gun, waved it at the audience, said “OH HEY LOOK AT THIS IVE GOT A PLOT POINT”, pointed it at Rory and then promptly forgot about it. I know it’s a small detail in that shitshow of an episode, but that in particular keeps nagging me.

[@NotAgnor]

“There is nothing to gain by snapping peoples necks” - Harbo Wholmes 2019

[@tsuaririndoku]

Weeping Angels Snapping people necks…. Moffat… this is Weeping Angels…. Not SCP 173…

[@oshura2506]

I always thought they stayed stone because they were to weak to even take their original forms.

[@NatjoOfficial]

I think the best way to do a weeping angel episode is not to reveal it’s a weeping angel’s episode but too slowly reveal it’s a weeping angel episode. Take the Byzantium episode for instance; what they should have done is have left kept all the damaged angels as the only angels in the episode, slowly picking off the cast, while every so often eluding too the fact weeping angels were around through dialogue, debris, statues moving in the background. Maybe explain a weakened angel can’t send people back in time, the idea of spending energy to make more energy. I also like the idea of the angels being able to become images of angels, but I think it needs to be more limited; the angel can turn itself into the image of an angel somewhere else by using up a lot of energy, blinking out of existence where it once was, so only one copy of the same angel can exist at any given time. It might be a bit complicated, but I think leaving the episode at that, expanding the idea of the angel’s energy consumption would have been amazing, and the reveal of the angels towards the end of the episode without directly showing your traditional angel would have captured the tension of the first episode perfectly. As for the Angels take Manhattan, they showed it was an angel episode too quickly which I don’t think was the issue: the issue was that it showed it’s angel gimic of cherubs too early. Imagine only being shown directly images of angels, but since the cast knows what they’re looking for they’re able to combat them with ease, but in the background are more moving statues, or statues watching them which aren’t angels. There is one thing I absolutely hate with angel episodes tho; the amount of angels. Every episode it’s has a small army of angels. I’d find it was better if it was just one or four angels, tactically planning their next move, attempting to trick the cast instead of Soviet style rush em down with all the bodies.

[@tommurphy4770]

Honestly as a kid the weeping angels were one of the most terrifying things ever but moffat just overdid them really and took away their edge.... as with everything Moffat does

[@legendary2553]

Facts

[@etherraichu]

I figured the neck snapping was because they werent feeding, they were under threat of a military force. They were fighting, not hunting.

[@Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaqqqqqqwwaa]

One thing I’ve always wondered is what if you only blink one eye at a time?

[@HarboWholmes]

Amy tried doing that in Time of Angels. I'm sure it would work for a bit, but I don't think anyone could keep it up for long

[@Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaqqqqqqwwaa]

Oh okay, thanks for replying though

[@HarboWholmes]

No worries!

[@waynecalhoun2802]

The funny thing is that your eyes don't shut completely when you blink.

[@whitneylivingston5706]

The weeping angels from Blink are quite possibly the scariest villain I’ve ever encountered in anything I’ve ever seen. So much to the point that I still get chills when I see a statue of and angel. Time of Angels failed to meet that level of fear inducing.

[@Rosecorfield]

Great video I agree with everything you said and that's why Blink will always be my favorite weeping angel episode.

[@HarboWholmes]

It's definitely the best Weeping Angel episode. It's up there with Midnight as some of the best horror episodes

[@Rosecorfield]

@@HarboWholmes that's true 😀😀

[@KingKeanuTheFirst]

I didn't search for a Doctor Who channel but since I've found one I'm gonna binge watch as much as possible for tonight.

[@alyssadurante8739]

blink is scary in a way the other episodes could never be

[@Cloudstrife112233]

Holy CRAP! I just had an epiphany. I always wondered why we never really saw the angels move in Blink, and it's because the camera, and therefore, the viewer, is watching them. So only when the camera and character turn away from them do they move.

[@ClassThrash]

I was discussing this exact issue recently with a friend & this was exactly the conclusion I reached, I'm glad my opinion is shared. Top video, really enjoyed it! P.S, I also found it odd how many times the angels looked at each other in all the Matt Smith episodes, yet another piece of lore the writers chose to ignore.

[@firebird_5282]

Well, the whole comparison between the Weeping Angels and the Alien, sorry Xenomorph it needs a cool name and more backstory for the second film is interesting, because Aliens actually already fails in my oppinion at it. The Alien and the Weeping Angels are scary when you know basically nothing about them, "dont blink"/ "quantum locked" and "You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? The perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility". Well that means we just make them a lesser threat by simply throw a bunch of them at the screen and let them get blasted by aMeRIcaN SUpErheRo mArINes in the second movie? Aliens was already at the wrong tracks, but because it was just a new take it was accepted. Plus the fact that most people seem to like mindless action more than a creative horror movie. Same happened to Doctor Who.

[@frde2190]

Honestly, the whole “That which holds an image of an angel, becomes itself an angel” is stupid. If it was never a thing then all the plot holes in The Angels Take Manhattan wouldn’t exist.

[@michaelolsen7000]

So, I'm not much of a Dr. Who fan personally. But the concept of the Weeping Angel has always been the one thing from the show that I walked away with loving. I DM for D&D a lot, and I introduced a monster that runs along the same basic rules as the Blink episode variant. The way I handled explaining the Angels was: They are beings of unknown origin but they are tied to the quantum structure of the universe. They have always existed and will always exist so long as there is a universe. When observed, they become statuesque because their quantum superposition collapses. When not observed, they are both statue and not statue at the same time. Their touch can cause the victim to shift backwards in time, adding that person's quantum energy to the total potential of the universe prior to now. This allows them to "feed" as it were, because they've increased the available quantum energy across all points in time prior to now. The construct of the angel statue is actually purely our own creation, and it's an image we can most associate with when their quantum structure is observed. They don't have an actual "form" as it were, and instead it is our observations that contort the data to fit our observations. (Basically, what we see can only be described as angel statues when we look at them because our brains can't handle what we're actually seeing. Like the color magenta isn't a real color, just one our brain makes up to fill a gap between two colors on a spectrum that don't cross over each other.) If they observe each other, their wave form collapses over time and across time. The longer they observe each other, the more likely their eventual "death" will occur. If they observe each other long enough, their wave forms collapse permanently across time. There are more than two angels, so they don't go extinct via this but this is also why they'll cover their eyes as often as possible. Their faces never contort, they will always appear to be saddened, weeping, or neutral. When the lights go out, they can move but only in perfect darkness. (For D&D characters with vision that grants limited sight in dark places can see a faint shimmer or "shadow" that moves around but they can't observe anything.) Having a camera (or permanent arcane eye) observe the angels doesn't work because their statue moment isn't tied to just being "observed" by something but observed by someone. So on film, even if they were moving around, when someone observes the film it will collapse their state across time to make it so the film only shows them in statue form. This also means that filming them does not keep them current, and placing a camera on them doesn't mean they're always going to be in the jail cell when you go to check on them. (I had one pass through the bars of the cell, and when the party went to interrogate it, it was outside the cell and scared them nearly to death.) For D&D purposes, they are immune to magic and can only be handled by divine intervention. In this case, they aren't destroy but merely shifted through time to a point before or long after the party exists.

[@tehuselessguig3138]

the images of an angel being an angel too sounds like a fitting reproduction method for this kind of creature

[@SailingMetal]

My thought also, and just think we humans practice reproduction more then that it occurs.

[@White.Rabbit.Productions]

I think... I have found my new favourite Dr Who channel. Explained very calmly, and with less bias, more objective than subjective thought. You also have a good idea of the classic lore as well. Great job :)

[@imillusionn2062]

Dam, imagine SCP-173 and Weeping Angels teaming up......

[@peanut4831]

Illusion We already have

[@MareannaTGirl]

Fuck didn’t know SCP’s had and devices

[@MareannaTGirl]

Did you escape?

[@MareannaTGirl]

*I am NTF*

[@MareannaTGirl]

*I am a cadet but I will tell the commander*

[@Lightbulb43231]

when i was watching the 2 part episode i was thinking "maybe they evolved"

[@user-cn3dq3cu1g]

9:09 yOu sPeLt uNnEcEsSaRy wRoNg XD (I’m just playing =3) Great video :D The angels and lore, it’s just so interesting!

[@HarboWholmes]

Oh no! I genuinely never noticed that mistake and I try to comb through constantly haha! Thanks for pointing it out and I'm glad you liked the video :)

[@bonweech3346]

I still rewatch the two parter because the reveal of "this isnt the species we were talking about" is INCREDIBLE. The two parter has some good things that are in line with angel lore though, "its a rescue mission" was a great motivation for them. I didn't even mind the angels trying to piss the doctor off, it totally worked for me because it made them scarier because they could animate other beings for their own purposes and that they knew him and his personality. I thought it made them smarter, and proved them to be a thinking race not an instinctive one. The image thing however, yeah I get it, personally, in Jodie Whittaker's flux episode about the weeping angels, when they kinda retcon it into "a manifestation of the original angel" and not a brand new angel, I thought that worked so well. The manhattan one is fun but you picked it apart fairly and you're right. Overall, I think Moffat was trying to put too much in for new and should've let their existence as a large horde be scary enough. I still like angel bob trying to make the doctor angry and river getting visibly concerned, I thought it worked very well but what I didn't like was the "time crack" stuff, it was meh for me.

[@AndrusPr8]

"The image of a weeping angel, is a weeping angel" is an amazing rule to Play with the viewers. Whenever a weeping Ángel appears on screen, it means you are face to face with a weeping Ángel, so dont blink. Blink and you are dead!

[@jonah8231]

The new episodes effectively ruin that feel though. In Blink, angels didn't even move when observed by just the audience, even if not by the characters. Seeing them move ruins the illusion that we are part of the story, that we too should Not Blink.

[@racelkatyusha403]

how about a weeping angel and another weeping angel look at each other

[@lordbuss]

@@racelkatyusha403 That's literally the plot of Blink.

[@Shelan4884]

Imagine an angel who looks human. But when looked at it just disappears and is disappears from memory until eyes are taken away from it.

[@eemelikorteniemi3966]

That... Sounds kind of like reverse silence, when you think about it.

[@anidleteen]

I remember watching Blink when I was still young and i swear i couldn't go upstairs by myself without being super scared that they would be there I couldn't even open my curtains in the morning in fear they were outside 😹

[@alexpotts6520]

I think the problem is this: 1) The lore of the Weeping Angles established in Blink was written specifically to support the narrative of the episode Blink. It was highly imaginative, *but* it was conceived to answer the question, "how can I make Blink work as a story?" As a result the quirks of the Weeping Angels are so unique and restricting that they can't really service any other story *except* Blink's. 2) People loved Blink; but they confused that with loving the Weeping Angels. The idea of bringing back the angels proved irresistible to Stephen Moffat, even though they were really just supports to the narrative structure of Blink, and wouldn't really work in a "normal" Doctor Who story. 3) Stephen's solution to this problem was to just ignore pretty much everything about the Weeping Angels apart from the stone statue thing. The monsters that appear in The Time of Angels look like Weeping Angels, and call themselves Weeping Angels, but they aren't the Weeping Angels that appeared in Blink.

[@bongcloudopening5404]

Weeping angels: starts snapping necks Peanut: Finally a worthy opponent our battle will be Legendary!!

[@triplejazzmusicisall1883]

I think they should not have come back. As a theme to have them back is going going to harm them as we know what to expect. Consequently strange changes were made to them that lessened their scariness. To be fair though, no franchise ever keeps the classics alone.

[@peterullinger2814]

Gosh, I´m not alone with this impression and critique. Thank you! Although this Christmas´ cameo was also weakening to the Angels as they are part of the alliance, thus have been part of a negotiation, graped Clara on her ankle without consequences . (Plus, the Doctor´s Kamehameha at the end was just a weak buyout from the corner the writers have put themselves into.)

[@HarboWholmes]

No worries! It's something I noticed upon rewatching New Who earlier this year. The Weeping Angels are just not strong enough to carry an episode as the main antagonist unless it's something like Blink. They really should have just been a one-shot monster, in my eyes. In regards to your feelings about 'Time of the Doctor', i wouldn't say that they would have had to have been part of negotiations to reach the surface of Trenzalore. It could have been entirely possible that they were able to get past before the planet was locked down, or may have simply been there already. The issue of Clara not being sent back is a harder case to dispute, but it could be down to the Angel not having enough power to send her back, or something along those lines.

[@amandaearnhart8395]

Sorry my dude, but I thought the moments they created with them were so enthralling that it was completely worth it to overlook details.