[CellarGhosts]

Some of that stuff was valid criticism and then other times it just felt like nitpicking.

[deanster321]

Yeah. There are definitely holes in this episode, but that article is a bit over the top. The Statue of Liberty being an angel shouldn't be that big of a deal anyway, in my opinion, because although it is pretty egregious it's clearly there just to let the director have a shot of it as a monster, and it doesn't really have that big of an effect on the plot either way unless I've forgotten something.

Come to think of it, including the angel Statue of Liberty probably wasn't worth annoying some people because it didn't seem that impressive to me, being as the only time you see it it's barely peering over what I thought wasn't a particularly big building. Fuck, now I'm doing it! Haha.

[I am Mick]

Originally Posted by IceAge/HeatWave

Eccleston is criminally underrated.

Eccleston is just as great as Tennant, annoys me to no end that people just say to skip him

[Handraa]

I loved Eccleston.

[ModernArtillery]

I think people need to remember that Doctor Who is also a show for kids, it's family entertainment. And Angels take Manhattan was pretty dark in places, so clearly the Statue of Liberty was there as an element that kids could enjoy, same as the footsteps. I personally really liked both of them, I thought it was hilarious when I realised what the footsteps were, which was nice because I spent the rest of the episode on the verge of tears.

Nitpicking the episode is only going to decrease your enjoyment of it, so I can't see the point. Sure, discuss plot points you had issues with, but people take it way overboard, especially in Moffat episodes - like its their own personal agenda to discredit his writing.

Also the Statue of Liberty is smaller than people think. You know that scene in Cloverfield where the head bounces down the street? When they rendered it actual size the test audience thought it was too small, so they made it 500% bigger for the final cut of the film.

[deanster321]

Yeah, I figured that me not really being bothered about how the statue looked here is probably to do with me imagining it as being really enormous.

[tonyC4L]

Originally Posted by I am Mick

Eccleston is just as great as Tennant, annoys me to no end that people just say to skip him

So annoying, and there's always the justification of "But the episodes are so cheesy and not as exciting as the new ones, [whoever I'm trying to get to like the show] might not get hooked!" Boo fucking hoo. If someone is so thick they can't enjoy any eps with Eccleston then I'm fine with them not being a fan of the show.

[CellarGhosts]

Originally Posted by tonyC4L

So annoying, and there's always the justification of "But the episodes are so cheesy and not as exciting as the new ones, [whoever I'm trying to get to like the show] might not get hooked!" Boo fucking hoo. If someone is so thick they can't enjoy any eps with Eccleston then I'm fine with them not being a fan of the show.

Bingo. There's some cheese in the first series, for sure, but it's hardly ever bad enough to ruin the experience. Even the Slitheen for me had redeeming qualities. Well, their episodes. Not so much the Slitheen themselves haha. Plus there's some important characterization going on in that first series, not to mention the fantastic quality episodes that are "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances", "Dalek", "Father's Day" and "Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways".

And as far as the cheese factor goes I can't help but cut the series some slack. It couldn't have been easy to bring back such a beloved show and I can imagine finding the right balance of old and new would be difficult. So a little cheesiness/silliness would be expected. Some of the classic serials are corny as hell and not just because of the dated special effects or whatever haha, but they're still enjoyable.

[stereokiller]

Originally Posted by CellarGhosts

And as far as the cheese factor goes I can't help but cut the series some slack. It couldn't have been easy to bring back such a beloved show and I can imagine finding the right balance of old and new would be difficult. So a little cheesiness/silliness would be expected. Some of the classic serials are corny as hell and not just because of the dated special effects or whatever haha, but they're still enjoyable.

I agree with this. What I love about Who is how cheesy/adventurous/fun it is. And all the little jokes and the heart. Probably why I didn't mind Angels Take Manhattan having so many plotholes. I'd rather enjoy the episode and cry with the Ponds (ern Williams) than try to point out every single flaw about it.

[liar23]

There's more cheesyness in the later episodes with Tennant than in Series 1.

[deanster321]

Yep, I rewatched most of the Eccleston episodes earlier in the year and for me they actually hold up really well. Definitely worth watching.

[ModernArtillery]

Anyone have any ideas on where Moffat's heading with the whole Doctor erasing his history? In ATM River said "the man I killed doesn't exist anymore" - The Doctor's really doing a thorough job. I can't really work out why he's doing this? At the end of The Wedding of River Song he says "I got too big - time to step back into the shadows" - but this is going far beyond that.

[I am Mick]

Originally Posted by ModernArtillery

Anyone have any ideas on where Moffat's heading with the whole Doctor erasing his history? In ATM River said "the man I killed doesn't exist anymore" - The Doctor's really doing a thorough job. I can't really work out why he's doing this? At the end of The Wedding of River Song he says "I got too big - time to step back into the shadows" - but this is going far beyond that.

I assumed that had to do with Oswin deleting him from the Dalek database

[jwicklun]

[deanster321]