More thoughts on The Time of Angels

[eve11]

So, I am curious. Last week we had a giant improbable and never-explained WTF moment in the whole "stopping the Dalek bomb with love" plot point, and it really just didn't work very well at all. But this week we have another whole giant improbable WTF and not-well-explained moment in that oh yeah, "that which takes the image of an Angel becomes itself an Angel." Just as much out of the blue and not explained, the image on the TV gets imbued with an Angel soul (somehow) and steps out of its picture to become an Angel. Think about it. This makes no sense, really. But this scene actually seemed to work, at least better than last week's, if fan reactions on lj are any account (my reaction included. I am quite prepared to handwave that moment because I thought it was a cool, creepy scene).

Why does the first giant handwave fall flat and the second one get a pass? Does it have to do with tone and pacing? Or the fact that the biology of these monsters is already so ridiculous and improbable that we can just add new talents without suspending that much more disbelief? I think maybe it is actually a case of writing the improbable to obtain the "right" emotional response. If the "magic" ability tells a better story, then we forgive it, and as an audience we are quite good at judging what a good story entails.

Thoughts?

Comments

[auntiemeesh.livejournal.com]

I think the first handwave fell flat because it was so sappy and pathetic. Love/humanity overcomes all. This one was kind of cool because the angels don't follow any normal rules of physics to begin with (they only exist when you're not looking at them, that's a big handwave right there) so it's easier to add a bit more really weird stuff to them, like embuing images of themselves with themselves. It just makes them that much creepier.

On that note, I didn't find myself as bothered by them in this episode. There's the whole thing with the Doctor saying how they're the "deadliest, most powerful, most maleficient life-form evolution has ever produced." Because they trap people back in time? They're definitely the creepiest bad guys on the show, but I feel like Moffett's trying too hard to build up the scary badness of them for effect, when all it did for me was make it all seem a bit of a joke.

[eve11]

Yeah, there is a big handwave for "established" angel physiology as well.

I see the comparison all over the place (from Moffat as well) that Time of Angels/Flesh to Stone a sequel to Blink the same way that Aliens is a sequel to Alien, in that the first was a cerebral thriller, with one alien building to a mystery, and the second was a big action flick with thousands of them.

I also kind of think of it like the Matrix and its sequels? (Not that I've seen any of the sequels) There is a weird, creepy mystery surrounding the first movie, that they just absolutely cannot reproduce in the second or third film. so they have to change genres almost.

[infiniteviking]

I think it's because we all think we're familiar enough with technology and how the computer doesn't really cooperate better when you think happy thoughts at it, but the physiognomy of things that are already living stone that can't move until you look at it is already so far afield that the suspension of disbelief isn't strained too much more by the image thing.

*ninjad by auntiemeesh* :D

[eve11]

heh, ninja'd indeed ;) But yes, I think in Victory of the Daleks they tried to make it less tech-y by saying something about a stamp on a positronic matrix or something but it just fell flat. We just don't buy it the way we buy the angels. Probably because with the Dalek thing it's played to Deus ex Machina almost, but as astrogirl2 points out below, the Angel physiology is used to build tension as opposed to resolve it.

[infiniteviking]

I didn't even notice the positronic matrix stamp thing -- was too busy wondering why a Dalek-built android would have emotions in the first place, rather than being a sociopathic manipulative liar, which would have left them in a better position re: it self-destructing in the end when they tell it to.

But yeah, that's an excellent point about building tension. *goes down to read that*

[jjpor.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it's because the Angels are sort of magical creatures to begin with (okay, so they have some handwavy technobabble reason why they're not really magic in-universe, but...well, they are really. And unlike some curmudgeonly oldschool fans, I'm fine with that. Really. :D); and in magical terms it kind of "makes sense" - they are all to do with images and the eye of the beholder and that sort of stuff, aren't they? But I think the main thing is the creepiness of the concept - things coming out of the telly and getting you - that's somehow very disturbing and daft at the same time, and I think that's why it works.

[eve11]

and in magical terms it kind of "makes sense" - they are all to do with images and the eye of the beholder and that sort of stuff, aren't they? But I think the main thing is the creepiness of the concept - things coming out of the telly and getting you - that's somehow very disturbing and daft at the same time, and I think that's why it works.

Whereas "stop the bomb with love" is rather cheesey and daft at the same time, yeah. It's like, if we're going to suspend our disbelief we want an emotional or storytelling dividend in return, I guess.

[astrogirl2.livejournal.com]

Moffat, in my experience, has a real talent for taking complete nonsense like that and embedding it into a story in just the right was as to make one's suspension of disbelief happily go along with it. I'm not at all sure how he does it, though. I want to say something like, "He writes it as if he believes it," but I'm not entirely sure whether that statement means anything or not. Maybe it's just that he knows how to write a good, atmospheric, and apparently self-consistent story around his nonsensical premises. Or maybe it's just that the nonsense he writes about is nifty enough that you want to accept it and strange enough that your brain doesn't immediately go, "Yeah, come on, I know better than that."

Whatever it is, I sure hope he keeps it up. :)

[astrogirl2.livejournal.com]

Oh, and another thought I just had, because I can't help comparing Moffat's nonsense-but-it-works plot elements with not only things like the Dalek bomb, but also, say, the Cure for Every Disease Ever thing at the end of "New Earth," which still really annoys me every time I think about it. And it suddenly occurs to me that there is another big, important difference: Moffat is using his don't-make-much-sense-when-you-think-about-them ideas to set up an interesting story, not to resolve one. And that's much, much easier to accept, IMO.

[eve11]

Oh yeah, auntiemeesh and I were just talking this week about how LAME that was from "New Earth". "I'm the Doctor, I cure the world's diseases with Kool-aid!" Bleh.

I like the "interesting premise to set up a story as opposed to resolve one" idea; now that I think of it it does describe a big difference :)

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i must concur with the crucialness of "...not to resolve one." well spotted, astrogirl2.

[infiniteviking]

Gaaaaaah, that New Earth thing.... *headdesks forever* You've got a great point there with the tension vs resolution thing. The tension might be caused by mysterious and unexplainable stuff, but if the resolution is, our disbelief is unsuspended. Which is fascinating to think about in terms of storytelling and human nature.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i'd agree that it makes no sense except for the part where we're having a conversation about stone Angels that displace people in time. and i'm not trying to be snarky, but serious. it's *so* made up that, if done correctly, holds its own internal rules: see Tardis.

while your point about the Dalek ep holds well, i'd argue that the Angel "ability" flies better for a couple of reasons. the first, the simplest, being the scene was played soooooooo much better than the Dalek denoument, and had more substance and tension to it, so it felt, meatier (?)

but second, and more importantly i think, there is already existing mythology in most cultures about the power of the eyes to the soul. i think, imho of course, that Moffat wove that skillfully here. that Dalek nonsense was pulled out of thin air, but the Angel "ability" had some depth to it in mythological terms.

if you then add that to the Angels' existing ability to manipulate space/time, however haphazardly, and they clearly have some mojo goin' on. ymmvoc