9

In the DW episode Flesh and Stone, the weeping angels are shown to turn to stone when nobody's looking.
This is when Amy is trying to find the doctor with her eyes closed.

The weeping angels turn to stone when they see amy. But then when they realize she can't see them, they start to move.

How are they able to move in stone form?

I am not asking whether they can change on will, but rather if they can move in stone form.

3

This question has no firm answer.

Weeping Angels are quantum locked. They are forced into their stone form whenever they are being viewed. The mechanism is unknown, but it's implied that the only exceptions are mirror images of the angels themselves -- even a video camera set to record (or another angel!) appears to do the job. Also, they would appear to have a stonelike texture even out of the lock -- the few times we are shown a moving angel, it retains its stony appearance.

Now, to your question: the initial rules given to us in "Blink" was that Weeping Angels were not able to move while stone, and that they had no choice in the matter; the very act of them being viewed would turn them into inanimate stone. In other episodes with Weeping angels, this rule was clearly in force. In "Flesh and Stone", however, this is clearly not the case.

Both episodes are written by Moffat, who is a notoriously bad writer when it comes to consistency in-universe. By Occam's Razor, I declare that Weeping Angels moving while in stone form is the fault of Moffat's inconsistency and, as such, cannot be declared true or false, as his writing consists of performing Shrodinger's experiment on plot. Moffat is a bad writer

  • Thanks. I figured as much, but I was hoping somebody could answer. – Riker Dec 22 '15 at 17:17
  • @RikerW I hate that I couldn't answer it for you! Let's hope the next showrunner values consistency. – Slacklord the Terrible Dec 22 '15 at 17:18
  • 1
    just because Moffet is terrible with continuity doesn't mean we can't add some for him :) – KutuluMike Dec 22 '15 at 17:29
  • 1
    I think that this will keep getting more and more inconsistent, and then finally somebody will realize they need to fix it. Then they will hire us and pay us. – Riker Dec 23 '15 at 1:47
  • 2
    @RikerW Best case scenario, Russell T Davies comes back. – Slacklord the Terrible Dec 23 '15 at 16:31
7

Part of the problem with your question is that we really have no idea what their non-quantum locked form looks like.

To my knowledge, with the exception of that one scene in "Flesh and Stone", we have never seen a Weeping Angel that wasn't frozen. Typically the director plays up the gimmick that the viewer seeing the angel locks them into their stone form, so even we can't see them coming.

The most logical answer, then, is that Weeping Angels look like rock even when they aren't quantum locked. That is, their natural flesh state is grey and pebbly; the only difference is that, when they are seen, they become stone. So what we're seeing is just a normal, non-quantum-locked Angel looking around and starting to move, once it's safe and it's able to do so.

  • 2
    Arguably, they literally don't look like anything when not being observed, because to "look like" something has no definition under those conditions. That sort of reasoning really forms the basis of the whole "quantum lock" conceit already, albeit in the reverse. – Lightness Races in Orbit Sep 4 '16 at 1:03
2

I always assumed it was because they were in a semi-quantum-locked state, where the possibility of being seen was real, but the actual "being seen" was not. But I'm not sure how the mechanism that switches them back and forth works.

Edit: There might be a spectrum between stone and non-stone. In this case, a "moving stone" intermediary stage.

  • 1
    How does this answer the question asked? – phantom42 Dec 23 '15 at 23:00
  • I guess I was trying to say that since we don't know the mechanism that transforms the angels, there might be more of a spectrum between stone and non-stone than a clear divide. – a soft pillow Dec 23 '15 at 23:15
  • 1
    I agree with this. Thanks for answering. This actually makes the most sense in world. Even though out of universe, Moffat can be weird sometimes. – Riker Dec 24 '15 at 2:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.