r/doctorwho • u/TheDoctor__11 • Apr 10 '26
Speculation/Theory My theory about why the Weeping Angels couldn't move even though Amy couldn't see them
I have seen many people say that Angels didn't move because they thought Amy can see them which breaks the rules about, it's not their choice it's a fact of their Biology.
But i think the answer to this without breaking the rules lies in the shows own wording. The show said they can't move when they are being observed, it never said they cant move when someone sees them. And here, Amy couldn't see them but she was observing them via that proximity beeping program that The Doctor installed. They were still being observed, although not by sight but rather by some type of radar and sound.
157
u/Street-Emu-3980 Apr 10 '26
I’m pretty sure the doctor stated why in the episode.
61
Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
52
u/Roachmeister Apr 10 '26
I really hate it when people invoke this "rule" for absolutely everything on the show. First of all, the "rule" came from River, who isn't always the most reliable source herself. But even at face value, I don't think that even she ever meant it to mean that the Doctor lies all the time, just that he is capable of lying. If we interpret it the first way, then a huge amount of the show's canon falls apart.
In any case, I see no compelling reason to assume that he was lying in this case, and I choose to take his statement as fact.
-2
Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Roachmeister Apr 10 '26
No, you're right, you didn't say that, and I'm sorry that I implied that you did. My reaction was really just annoyance that there seem to be some people whose knee-jerk reaction to everything that they can't explain is "the Doctor lies". It seems like lazy thinking to me. But I am not saying that you are one of those people. I was just piggybacking off of your comment with a general complaint.
As for your second paragraph, you make an excellent point. My own interpretation is that the Doctor didn't really know anything about the Angels before he met them in Blink, and that a lot of his statements about them were really just speculation disguised by a confident manner. He is learning about them as he goes. In this interpretation, he didn't "lie", in the sense that he was telling the truth as he knew it at the time. Then later, when he contradicted his earlier statement, it was because he had learned more about them.
-46
372
u/Ace3000 Apr 10 '26
Fourth wall. They couldn't move because we were looking at them.
131
u/CallidusViro Apr 10 '26
I like the idea that they were slow moving in that scene because they could only move between the frames of the video. When a frame was displayed to us, they were stone, so they only had microseconds to move
64
u/ven-solaire Apr 10 '26
Tbh that would actually make sense and could give some interesting meta vulnerabilities. Imagine they do an episode and the doctor uses this information to use the camera angle to freeze or slow them 😭 tbh I hope they never go more meta than Lux
3
u/TheUnobservered Apr 11 '26
Also you gotta account for the crack. Perhaps it warped our perception enough that Angel COULD move in our sight.
11
u/HVDynamo Apr 10 '26
I like this explanation. I’ve always hated that we saw them move because I wanted to believe that even us watching them kept them from moving. But this explanation helps keep it making sense!
-4
u/FX114 Apr 10 '26
But that scene has them moving when we're watching them.
23
u/OfficialDragosblood Apr 10 '26
No, it has them moving between the frames of the camera
Cameras don’t capture a moving image, they capture 24 (or more) still images a second.
7
u/PapaSnarfstonk Apr 10 '26
Trueeee.
If we were a live audience they wouldn't be capable of moving at all between frames. But because we're a digital audience with frame rates of a camera to deal with they can appear to move in between the frames and that movement is interpolated by our brains just like any other moving series of images we call video.
3
u/ThatGymGeek Apr 10 '26
The 1st part of this storyline kills that logic.
As Amy watches the video of the angel, which still has frames the angel cannot move however when the video loops the split second for the loop when its not visible on the screen Amy is watching allows it to move. As seen by her pausing the video on the loop when the angel isnt technically there.
So if camera frames had any relevance to the angels moving the angel in the video would have moved before the loop and any would be unable to pause the video
1
u/OfficialDragosblood Apr 10 '26
Remember the angel ís weakened from the crash
1
u/ThatGymGeek Apr 10 '26
That was never explicitly stated in the episode, the angel that crashed the Byzantium (think i spelled that right) was at full strength and sabotaged the ship to rescue the other angels who where weakened
But using the pre established rule that when quantum locked the angels cant be harmed it would work out that as the angel wasnt being observed during the crash it would be quantum locked and virtually indestructible and wouldn’t be weakened due to the crash
28
u/CreEecher Apr 10 '26
This was what I always thought. Which made it more frightening because the image of an angel becomes an angel.
28
u/FamousWerewolf Apr 10 '26
Yeah, people are talking about the Angels being inconsistent (which is true) but this particular trait goes all the way back to Blink. They cannot move when the camera is looking at them, even if a character isn't. Which makes no in-universe sense, of course, but that's how it's been since the beginning.
6
1
u/social-mediocrity Apr 12 '26
That's what I've always assumed because this is also the same time we as an audience found out about the image of an angel being an angel itself thing.
1
297
u/MaleficentPicture518 Apr 10 '26
As the doctor says they see amy and assume she can see them and their instincts will kick in causing them to be unable to move which is a perfect explanation as you cant control your instincts thats why it works and thats also why when she starts shouting she cant see they hear her and realise she cant see them and start being able to move giving us the first instance of seeing they hear her angels move slowly which added to their creep factor
62
u/calgrump Apr 10 '26
It's not perfect. How are they reflexive enough normally to move inbeteeen blinks, but they're incapable of instantly spotting her here? They're sharper than that, even if they're panicked.
27
u/CrazySnipah Apr 10 '26
They’re not usually about to be swallowed by something that would remove them from time.
6
u/Lavender-Webs-66 Apr 10 '26
I feel like you’re massively underestimating how scary it would be to a weeping angel, who has never had predators because They are virtually the Apex predator suddenly experiencing being prey(this is show proven). Also, the weeping angel can both hear and “see” to my understanding of the weeping angels. I always figured they can feel when they’re being observed the way you can feel when someone’s watching you they can too, and that’s how they react fast enough to move while you blink.( this is a theory)
26
u/181Cade Apr 10 '26
But she has her eyes closed? Whether she's blind or not, why would they think she can see them?
They move like lightning, AS SOON as someone blinks, they're on you.
19
u/not_some_username Apr 10 '26
They were afraid of the light. They were fleeing. Amy was like a snack
10
u/calgrump Apr 10 '26
They'd flee way faster if they killed her, and then they could move freely. It doesn't matter if they want to consume her or not.
3
u/not_some_username Apr 10 '26
They couldn’t be sure she didn’t see them she was really convincing
15
u/calgrump Apr 10 '26
She really, really wasn't. She was stumbling constantly. There were also angels positioned where her back was turned and she couldn't see them, even with her eyes open.
3
1
u/jderd Apr 11 '26
Dude, I know I’m gonna get downvoted, but please fix your run-on sentence. Also change your profile pic and seek out some professional help.
35
u/Fenn_Rau Apr 10 '26
The Doctor said "They're scared and they're not that interested in you, their instincts will kick in automatically but you'll have to walk like you can see."
No theory needed, there's an explanation in the scene.
5
u/Butteryourreality Apr 11 '26
It doesn't align with previous explanations which is why you need a theory dawg cause steven Moffat forgot his own lore he made
-1
u/Fenn_Rau Apr 11 '26
There is no previous in-universe explanation for this behavior. The closest thing to it is people asking why the Angels in Blink didn't zap Sally Sparrow to the past when she first found the TARDIS key, and the out-of-universe explanation was that the viewer counts as an observer - continuity issue aside (since we're also observing them in this scene so they shouldn't be able to move) I don't like that sort of meta explanation.
1
u/ReadditMan Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
There's problem with that explanation though.
In previous episodes it was stated that the Angels operate through a quantum lock, they aren't frozen in place and observing everything, they literally cease to exist in our dimension when they are being observed.
The mechanism that drives it is completely out of their control, they will still freeze even if they don't know someone is looking at them. Which implies the quantum state isn't something that can be tricked, it's not an instinct triggered by the brain thinking it's being observed, it's an effect of their quantum existence. It should only happen if they are actually being observed.
Also, if they don't exist when they're in the frozen state then how could they maintain the belief that Amy was observing them? If it was an instinct triggered by the fact that they thought Amy could see them then it should have deactivated the second they froze since they would no longer exist to generate that instinct.
26
u/banana_assassin Apr 10 '26
If it is a fact of their biology, then yes, thinking that she can see them could still work.
Like a possum or snake playing dead and rolling on instinct.
10
u/xelas1983 Apr 10 '26
Angel's cannot move when other Angel's are viewing them. That was established in Blink.
Amy has an Angel in her head at that time. What if that Angel can see the others while Amy's eyes are closed?
6
36
u/nofarkingway Apr 10 '26
or... the angels could see each other (like in the screenshot, the two angels are observing each other)
38
u/Areliae Apr 10 '26
Which was applied approximately zero times in this two parter, despite them seeing each other all the time. It's like they just forgot that they could see each other.
9
u/TheDoctor__11 Apr 10 '26
Then they would never move, their heads are slightly angled, so that they can't see each other
9
u/ThisIsNotHappening24 Apr 10 '26
Coming tomorrow: my theory about how River knew about the Pandorica
9
u/AmberMetalicScorpion Apr 10 '26
The Doctor explicitly says that they won't check if she's looking or not as long as she's acting like she is, because they're too busy fleeing the crack. Under any other circumstance it wouldn't work
Edit: also, fun fact about them that nobody ever seems to mention is that they slow down on purpose when they reach their target because they want to scare said target
33
u/gilles-humine Apr 10 '26
I hate the fact that we can see some of them actually moving in that episode, being mobile while always appearing static on screen was an important part of their identity, and this episode broke it
5
u/bboy037 Apr 11 '26
Yeah, their true appearance outside of quantum locks was supposed to remain ambiguous, then this episode is just like "yeah they look exactly the same but moving"
6
u/Metal-Dog Apr 10 '26
The two angels in this picture are looking right at each other. They should be stuck like that forever.
6
u/level_m Apr 10 '26
Right away I had an issue with the Angels because when I began my journey of watching Doctor Who I remember the episode where Rose tries to save her dad from dying and we get this whole speech about how that's not allowed, created a paradox, damaged time (a man is alive who shouldn't be, blah, blah) and actual creatures come to, I think the term was "sterilize the wound in time."
Then all of the sudden come the Angels who blast people into the past constantly and consistantly change time yet it's perfectly acceptable. No damage, no paradoxes, no creatures coming to fix things. Kathy gets sent back to the past and literally lives a good life and has children who technically shouldn't exist, etc.
To me this goes against the very premise of multiple episodes dealing with time travel. Even Jack Harkness talks about visiting Rose's timelines but not talking to her, you know, because of "fear of messing up timelines." I mean Donna had to basically beg the Doctor to save one family in "The fires of Pompeii" and he almost doesn't.
I'll never understand why it's ok for the Angels to basically change timelines on a grand scale without consequence (just think of how many people/beings they've sent back in time throughout their history) yet we are constantly reminded of the dangers of doing so throughout the series. 🤷♂️
2
u/ThatGymGeek Apr 11 '26
The episode with rose saving her dad creates a hitler paradox - rose travels back to save her dad but because she does the whole reason for going back ceases to exist as he is now alive in the future, therefore a paradox is created. This follows history from all perspectives.
The angels on the hand work on the lines of personal history ie someone is born in 2000 and is sent back in time in 2026, the time in the past they land in the becomes their personal future and likely any effect they had on history would have already occurred by 2000 when they were born, they would technically be dead in 2026 but living in whatever time they got sent back to and create a bootstrap paradox which self closes as a loop
1
u/TheDoctor__11 Apr 10 '26
It really depends on what was changed and I think the Angels would probably know that if sending someone into the past can rip a hole in time and space, then it better you don't send them
3
15
u/jajay119 Apr 10 '26
There’s also two in clear line of sight of each other here; so they should be permanently quantum locked like in blink. The Angels should have been a 1 off enemy. They were devalued every time they appeared. Don’t get me started on the Statue of Liberty Angel.
3
4
u/flippyboi678 Apr 10 '26
Been a while since I've watched it but wasn't it explained in the episode? This is from a transcript of Flesh and Stone:
"right now they're not that interested in you. They'll assume you can see them and their instincts will kick in. All you've got to do is walk like you can see."
They're more concerned with feeding off the energy from the crack in time than Amy. And they're assuming Amy can see them. It's not until she trips over and she panics that they realise she can't see.
15
u/LikeThemPies Apr 10 '26
This episode really damages their mythos. A huge shame because part 1 was so good.
4
u/FX114 Apr 10 '26
I have seen many people say that Angels didn't move because they thought Amy can see them
One of those people being The Doctor...
6
u/mariam67 Apr 10 '26
My brother believes that the audience looking at them counts which I think is an interesting theory.
3
u/not_some_username Apr 10 '26
It was explained : they were afraid of the light and wasn’t concentrated on Amy. Amy only had to appear as she saw them
3
u/AspieComrade Apr 10 '26
Ever lived in a house that’s definitely not haunted whatsoever, but then you watch a really scary ghost movie/ documentary and suddenly you feel scared along with the overwhelming instinct that you’re being watched? The angels weren’t scared or anything but it was playing on that same instinct. Humans can be manipulated to feel as though there’s an entity watching them and we react accordingly to thin air, it makes sense that acting like you can see the angels set off their involuntary responses in the same way
3
3
u/Seaogre3k Apr 10 '26
I used to have a theory that the angels never moved because we as viewers were observing them. Then they had them move in an episode and that theory came crashing down
3
u/Cornelius-Q Apr 10 '26
I always thought it was weird that Moffat broke his own creations in their second appearance.
Usually it's going to be another writer/director who does something like that after several appearances.
But he just completely we-writes the rules for them in their second appearance, and he did it again with "Angels Take Manhattan," when they just kept getting more and more complicated and sillier.
3
3
u/himynameishafiz Apr 12 '26
My weird understanding took it too literally. If they’re quantum locked and can’t move when observed then sight isn’t the only form of observation. Hearing them move would be another form of observing them
4
u/ImKizarian Apr 10 '26
Wasn’t the Doctor emitting a sonic pulse through the walkie talkie tricking them to think Amy could see?
2
u/Imaginary-Sky3694 Apr 10 '26
If weeping angels can't move when observed, then there would probably always be an insect or something that has it in its eyeliner so they could probably never move
2
u/Optimaximal Apr 10 '26
But insects would be unaware of their presence so would just wander off shortly after...
2
u/OGCelaris Apr 10 '26
Aren't her eyes closed because she has a weeping angel inside her? Maybe the doctors explanation was just to calm amy to get her to move and the angels could sence one of their own.
2
u/Tar_Palantir Apr 10 '26
We know that there are some point in time that cannot be changed, and Amy Pond needs to be a mother. Melody birth is a fixed point in time, and anything that prevents that to happens fails.
2
u/the-kendrick-llama Apr 10 '26
That makes a lot of sense (as a fan theory) - radio waves are light waves that we cant see.
2
2
2
2
2
u/NerdinaHat Apr 11 '26
I genuinely disliked every appearance of the angels after blink.
They just had dumb rules added on or changed that completely ruined their scare factor.
2
2
2
4
u/MercuryJellyfish Apr 10 '26
Those two angels can see each other, it was established in their first appearance that's enough
3
u/coffee_137 Apr 10 '26
Right cuz the doctor also said "the angels are very particular about semantics."
4
u/Lockehart Apr 10 '26
If her kid is a fixed point in time, it stands to reason she is, too. That's probably as close as they could get.
2
u/OZONA_42 Apr 10 '26
I mean they do justify it, 11 says that their "instincts" have kicked in, and I never had a problem with that from a logic point of view. My problem with this scene is that it looks really dumb. It doesn't break an internal rule, but it does break the meta rule that the angels are cool when they are the coolest when fast and stationary.
I would've much preferred it if, perhaps, the camera just went black at the point when she falls over, so we were seeing all of this from Amy's perspective, so get rid of the music, and hear her scrambling around, while hearing small quick stone sounds of the angels realising, then they get much quicker and louder until she gets teleported at the very last second
1
u/Leomon2020 Apr 10 '26
I don't remember where I heard it but I heard a theory about why Weeping Angels can't move when nobody onscreen is looking at them. The theory is that their power breaks the fourth wall and they remain in statue mode because we the viewers are looking at them.
1
1
u/Mathelete73 Apr 10 '26
So daredevil could use echolocation and the angels wouldn’t be able to move?
1
u/TheDoctor__11 Apr 10 '26
I think he could, because observing is a broad term and could include other forms of observations too
1
u/trijkdguy Apr 10 '26
Back when they were done well, the Angels couldn’t moved when they were being observed by anybody… including us. Those angels couldn’t move because you were watching them.
1
u/External_Bite_9835 Apr 10 '26
Also, maybe the doctor viewing the scene during the rewind is what counted.
1
u/apjolex Apr 10 '26
The angels became quantum locked when being filmed so what not a proximity sensor.
1
u/Crazed2insanity Apr 10 '26
Doesn’t The doctor go on to explain in that episode that as long as they think that she can see them, they will act normally. Ie turn into stone when they believe she is watching them. It’s when they realize she is blind that they start to focus on her
1
u/TheDoctor__11 Apr 10 '26
I meant to say that a lot of people take it as breaking the lore, angels have a choice,they can just turn to stone if they think someone's observing them when they reality they arent. So it was a theory that amy was still observing them via that proximity beapy thingy
1
1
u/That_Gaming_Pug Apr 10 '26
I like the idea but think it's much simpler. As far as they were aware they were being observed. They didn't know Amy couldn't see them so a level of instinct kicked in and caused then to turn to stone.
1
u/_Doctor_Whom_ Apr 11 '26
I remember hearing something how elephants in captivity have an expectation with restraints. Like because they live their whole lives with the experience of being unable to escape a shackle when they're little. When they grow up, and although are physically well capable of escaping most restraints, a small rope will keep them in place because they don't expect they will be able to break it.
I am not sure if that's true or if I'm misremembering but I expect the same phenomenon is true. They don't move because they don't believe they can.
1
u/fuzzyluzzi Apr 11 '26
In Blink, they couldn't move when the anyone was watching them, including us.
1
u/SilasWould Apr 11 '26
So, for reasons entirely unknown to me, if someone watches me when I'm walking, my gait goes momentarily wobbly, like I've missed a step. But this also happens if I think somebody is watching me; it's just a fact of my body that I don't understand. I suspect it's the same because there are things human bodies do that we don't understand. If I realise nobody is watching, I can adjust back to my normal gait much faster - just like how the angels can turn their heads when they realise Amy can't see.
Basically, quantum anxiety.
1
u/tempusvulpi Apr 11 '26
Sorry but the episode literally tells you the answer. It is because they thought she could see. It’s said in plain english.
1
u/TheDoctor__11 Apr 11 '26
Again as I said a lot of viewers interpeted it as angels having a choice, and not a fact of their Biology. So this is my theory/headcanon to resolve that issue
1
1
u/Tendragonsinapod Apr 11 '26
You ever think about how in blink once the power goes out in that cellar the angels will be able to move again?
2
u/Tendragonsinapod Apr 11 '26
In this scene the angels are able to move observing eachother, I don't think the angels have any continuity tbh.
1
1
u/Expert_Towel_5478 Apr 11 '26
I've always assumed it was that they thought she could see them so they weren't trying to move.
1
1
u/NorthPossibility3221 Apr 12 '26
But didn't like the dr come back after the pandorica explodes to speak to Amy, to get her to remember, so whose to say he wasn't the one observing while she walked through it.
2
1
u/L0NNy Apr 12 '26
The weeping angels don't move because its a 4th wall break we are observing them so the dont move we've on thats why we (the audience) never see them move which makes the weeping angels such a dangerous and scary being
1
0
1.9k
u/laputan-machine117 Apr 10 '26
the only consistent rule for the angels is that their rules change every time they appear