Should we be able to see the Weeping Angels move?

[RoJoHen]

I realize we are just the audience and don't really exist in the Who universe, but it really bothered me in Series 5 when we actually saw the Weeping Angels start to move. The whole point of them is that if ANYONE sees them, they cease to exist. I think it would be a really cool story device if we, the audience, were included in that.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I thought it added to the eeriness that we didn't see them move (too much).

And it might cost more (FX-wise) to have them moving, if that was CGI they used.

 

[The Wormhole]

I had no problem with seeing them move in S5. They still looked creepy as fuck.

 

[O'Dib]

The weepgels are a straight-up costume job.

 

[Sadistro]

One of the biggest problems with 'The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone' is that the angels just weren't as scary this time round.

And that's because it requires exacting camera work and an eye for good shots, to pull off consistent menace with something you know (or think you know) you aren't going to see moving.

Get it even slightly wrong, catch them in the wrong light or the wrong pose, too close in or too far away, and they just look like completely unthreatening props.

Take the bit where the soldiers are firing at them. The muzzle flares is supposed to recreate the amazing scene in 'Blink' with the flickering light.

But whereas that scene worked superbly, the scene in the newer episode did not. It wasn't as well shot, and it didn't have anything like the visual power of 'Blink's scene.

By the time the angels do start moving in 'Flesh and Stone', they have been all but forgotten. Other than the scene with the TV in TTOA, they had no good scenes up to that point, and were being upstaged in their own episode by the cracks story.

The scene with them moving is excellent though, and instantly recaptures the dread we all expected to feel at seeing them again, but didn't (again, except the TV scene).

It helps that the angels have actual actors (or at least virtual actors, if it was CGI) playing them in those shots, and seem that much more real and threatening, than the obviously prop-like angel statues.


I understand where you're coming from on this, but I really do think that scene where they move saved the angels from a generally underwhelming showing in this 2 parter.

To be fair to Moffat and... Adam Smith was it? Well, whoever it was directing, the 2 parter exposed that the angels, whilst seeming cool in an episode like 'Blink', have so many problems to overcome when putting them in a more action oriented episode.

They had to be given all sorts of new abilities (and also be basically stripped on one of the main abilties we know they had), and we had to be given the opportunity to see them move, because otherwise, they just couldn't hold another full narrative.

With no verbal interaction between them and the Doctor, no motives, and no way to consistently keep track of the threat they posed without constantly stopping and starting as people look at them, the episode would have been a bust.

Hence all the changes, additions and stylistic decisions. As I say, I still don't think it worked out that well for them over the 2 parter, but I respect the thought that went into how to use them in this kind of episode. (And I still think the episodes are alright, but more for the cracks story and not for the Angels themselves, this time).

 

[The Wormhole]

In a way, the Weeping Angels are sort of NuWho's most overrated alien. Mind you, I love the Weeping Angel episodes, but not because of the Angels themselves. Sally Sparrow is the primary appeal of Blink, and River and those soldier-clerics are the appeal of the S5 two parter.

Should I be ducking thrown chairs now?

 

[RoJoHen]

One thing that really bothered me about the two-parter was the scene with Amy walking around with her eyes closed "acting" like she could see the Angels, and that the Angels actually froze as a result, as if turning to stone was a conscious choice on their part.

Ultimately, that two-parter turned the Angels, who were scary as hell in "Blink," into a super lame enemy.

 

[Sadistro]

They were good for a one-off episode, I don't want to take that away from them. But once you strip away the 'Cool scary statues of Evil' thing, they are a pretty unwieldly race to try and use.

Like I said before, just look at all the extra abilities they had to be given, just to make them work at all. Otherwise it just would have been a rerun of 'Blink'.

Plus, they had to lose their super speed (the damage they suffered making them only fairly fast, instead of ultra, ultra fast, speeding up only at dramtically appropriate moments).

I mean, if you take away their super speed, that's kind of cutting them off at the knee. The clue was in the title - blink and they'd get you, because they were so fast.

And I was really irritated when they were given a power that only worked if people looked into their eyes - which no-one is supposed to be able to actually do!

So why would they have a power that barring extradordinary circumstances like the TV thing, would never get a chance to be used? Especially when it seems to be their method of procreation.

The whole thing of them never being able to look at each other fell by the wayside too, which invalidates the ending of 'Blink'.

They were so popular, it was inevitable they would return. The 2 parter showed just how diificult that was to actually do.

 

[Starkers]

The first part at least of the two parter was very good, but unfortunately the more we see of the Angels the bigger the holes in their concept become. Blink, brilliant though it is, is full of holes, it's just so good you don't really care.

Whilst I would like to see them again some day, I really hope we don't see them again for some time...

 

[Turbo]

I think the Angels work rather like the Daleks - a single one of them can make an incredibly effective story, but an army is too over the top for them to be believable villains on a regular basis.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

It could just be me, but I keep thinking there's a connection to Silence in The Library/Forest Of The Dead with that "consciousness in the communicator" nonsense.

Could River be the connection?

 

[Butters]

It could just be me, but I keep thinking there's a connection to Silence in The Library/Forest Of The Dead with that "consciousness in the communicator" nonsense.

Could River be the connection?

Isn't that just the application of a particular technology in that time period?

 

[Thestral]

Personally, I still love the Angels. They're still the most frightening villain in my book and after rewatching The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone it holds up better than I remembered. I was actually disappointed that Flesh and Stone had so little to do with the Angels themselves - I was annoyed that the Crack took over.

Anyway, while it was cool and creepy to see them move, I don't think we should any more and probably shouldn't've then either. The Fourth Wall leaning is part of what makes the Angels effective monsters.

Take the bit where the soldiers are firing at them. The muzzle flares is supposed to recreate the amazing scene in 'Blink' with the flickering light.

But whereas that scene worked superbly, the scene in the newer episode did not. It wasn't as well shot, and it didn't have anything like the visual power of 'Blink's scene.

Meh, I disagree. Aside from the tv-scene, the corridor defense was probably the most frightening part of the two-parter. Perhaps not the most startling (that'd be Eleven turning back around after not paying attention).

It helps that the angels have actual actors (or at least virtual actors, if it was CGI) playing them in those shots, and seem that much more real and threatening, than the obviously prop-like angel statues.

Err... the Angels were always played by actors. The Angel is a costume, not a prop or an effect. This is true in both Blink and The Time of Angels two-parter.

 

[EJA]

I was disappointed with The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone. It turned the Angels into just another bunch of ranting alien maniacs, and there's the aforementioned discrepancies between their depiction in Blink and their latter appearance. To see them actually moving just felt wrong to me; they should've retained that aspect of their eerie mystery.

 

[Stevil2001]

I remain baffled that they've never gotten Hettie MacDonald back to direct something again, especially the Angel two-parter. Okay, Moffat be praised, but it's obvious that half the impact of "Blink" (at least) comes from the direction. Why doesn't she get that Hugo?

 

[Starkers]

Actually what's great about Blink is that its a huge team effort. The script is great, the cast is fantastic, the direction wonderful, the Angels fantastically realised, the Gold soundtrack creepy, the setting evocative...the damn thing's like a perfect storm of an episode!!

 

[iguana_tonante]

Ultimately, that two-parter turned the Angels, who were scary as hell in "Blink," into a super lame enemy.

This.

 

[Sadistro]

My point was that the angels when viewed from a distance often don't look threatening at all. Its not like people flinch in terror when they see angel statues in real life, is it?

When they aren't moving, the camera needs to constantly come up with creative, arty shots that show them in as scary a pose, light etc as possible.

And that requires very deliberate shot making, and use of angles. It requires you to see them, then see someone reacting in fear to them, etc etc.

Another large reason why I didn't care for them, was that I just don't really like how they look. Statues of evil, majestic looking angels are always cool whenever they show up in any medium.

But these don't look that great, so as I say, it takes good camera work, direction and lighting to really sell it. That was done very well in 'Blink', not so in these 2 episodes.

I thought the bit with the soldiers heading off towards the light from the crack was far more sucessful in conveying that idea of 'Holy Evil'. Utterly beautiful, but extremely deadly.

So when the scene where the angels start to move came along, and looked really great, that clicked for me. It left me to rue the fact that the angels had looked so bland up to that point.

They just look so much more scary, so much more real a threat in that scene.

 

[Hennessy Badger]

I didn't mind the Angels moving. The Angels talking is what lamed them up for me. I think the story would have worked just fine without the Vashta Nerada 'using the voice of the dead' thing.

The Angels are like the shark in Jaws. You don't need the damn thing to tell you what it's about to do, or why. You know it's dangerous and it's after you and that's all that matters.

I recently learned that one of the upcoming Doctor Who books will center around the Weeping Angels. I might pick it up just to see whether the stone ladies manage to be as creepy on the page as on the screen.

 

[Gepard]

Ultimately, that two-parter turned the Angels, who were scary as hell in "Blink," into a super lame enemy.

This.

Ditto.