At the end of the Doctor Who episode "Angels in Manhattan," the Doctor (Matt Smith) explained that he couldn’t go back in time to rescue Rory (Arthur Darvill) and then Amy (Karen Gillan) with an extremely wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey excuse, leaving our favorite married couple in the TARDIS to their sad, depressing fate—being stranded back in time to live out the rest of their lives with no Internet.

That excuse? The Doctor says that after their last interaction with the Weeping Angels, it would cause a terrible paradox threatening to rip New York apart.

Since the Doctor’s language was really specific about the Big Apple, fans have wondered why our favorite Time Lord could not just simply swiftly go and pick up the Ponds elsewhere, in Washington or Boston, for example, or even across to New Jersey?

Here’s Steven Moffat’s answer to Blogtor Who:

New York would still burn. The point being, he can’t interfere. Here’s the ‘fan answer’ – this is not what you’d ever put out on BBC One, because most people watch the show and just think, ‘well there’s a gravestone so obviously he can’t visit them again’. But the ‘fan answer’ is, in normal circumstances he might have gone back and said, ‘look we’ll just put a headstone up and we’ll just write the book’. But there is so much scar tissue, and the number of paradoxes that have already been inflicted on that nexus of timelines, that it will rip apart if you try to do one more thing. He has to leave it alone. Normally he could perform some surgery, this time too much surgery has already been performed. But imagine saying that on BBC One!

Uh, what?

Our colleague over at The Mary Sue says that Moffat’s explanation is a bit wonky and basically insults everyone’s intelligence, Whovians and non-fans alike, even kids. But what do you guys make of it?

And about the Ponds' possible return to the series, Moffat is pretty much putting a definitive headstone over their graves, saying:

“You could never eliminate the possibility of dream sequences and flashbacks, but will the Doctor see them again? No. When I was first talking to Karen and Arthur about it, we said ‘let’s make it the proper ending’. Bringing back things just gives you sequel-itis. Just end it and get out. Heaven knows if they’ll appear in some form of flashback - I have no plans to do that I have to say - but the story of Amy and The Doctor is definitively over.”

How do you like them apples? Aka what do you think of Moffat's "explanation" as for the reasons why the Doctor can never see the Ponds again?

(Blogtor Who via The Mary Sue)