If Yaz and Ryan are not going to pair off, then they then they need to start hooking up with Aliens and time-celebrities. I need soap.
Seems clear to me. Davies and Moffat were brilliant talents. Chibnall is average at best. Almost all show problems come less from the actors but instead from person in charge. Jason
The fact that you're on a DW discussion forum suggesting that others watch a YouTube video detailing the most recent season of DW belies the notion that you don't care about the show!
I stopped watching after the Rosa Parks episode. I like Whittaker, but I just couldn't be interested enough in sticking it out. I stopped watching Capaldi after the first 1 and a half seasons too.
Whilst they are popular slurs from people I would rather not be on the same side as an argument as, on this occasion... Well, I am reminded of the ‘without witness’ in Missy’s line. The point with virtue signalling is it’s usually tied to the biblical hypocrite. They are usually talking a good game without actually carrying through on it, or dealing with the repercussions, of what they are pushing...it’s a signal, when none should be needed. SJW is indeed a rather silly term to use as an insult, especially in the context of Who or Trek, but it does have the uncomfortable idea of privilege (private law) or vigilantism built in...social justice is a convoluted way of saying ‘mob rule’. So whilst I may disagree with the people who love using these phrases the most, I know what they mean. People in some quarters would no doubt use them to describe me, and I would be as unhappy as being lumped in with some of the people they are usually applied to as I would be to find myself in the same lane as those who use them. In this case, I think it’s the idea that every discussion becomes the playground for people with screaming righteousness unable to see any other side of the argument...for example, if you don’t like the show atm, or Whitaker, it must follow that the reason is misogyny, QED...that is very annoying when discussing it at the moment. There’s no nuance, and pretty soon the discussion/debate descends into political mudslinging. That I can agree with, as it is very much the case. Exhibit (a) the lack of Peter Davison on Twitter.
Not sure if you've ever seen the "Everything Great about ..." movie reviews on youtube. They're the only movie reviews I watch (aside from honest trailers). The guy who does them had a long discussion on this about Captain Marvel that you might agree with, where he believes that the to main views on the movie are believed (by the other side) to be "I hate this movie because I hate Brie Larson because she's a woman and women can't be superheroes, girls shouldn't be smug and cocky, and she breaks the law. I'd never admit to enjoying this movie even if I did, I hate her just like all women" And "I love this movie without even watching it, Brie Larson is a deminist god standing up against the devilish white men, and I'm so happy that Disnet has finally gotten on board with my agenda because white dude's (sic) time is up, let them die, kill them if you have to" His point is that very few people hold those views, however a great many people think a large number of people on "the other side" hold those views. I think the same thinking applies to Whitaker's Who.
If you stuck with the show after it introduced a vegan health nut computer hacker from Pease Pottage played by Bonnie Langford, you can stick by a dodgy Chibbers script or two or just admit you're a fucking hypocrite and walk into the Oubliette of Eternity.
Does it count if I never watched an episode with Mel in till I got dragonfire on VHS? It clashed with my boys club when it was on Mondays, I had to come back when it moved to wednesdays, and by then we had Ace. Is there a blows raspberry emoticon
I have t seen Capt. Marvel yet. To me she’s ‘huh that’s where rogue got her flight and bash powers’ but it does look fun. And yes...that is pretty much the state we are at with these things now. And everytime something annoys one side, the other side crow. It’s annoying as heck.
There's a cute cat on aboard that movie. 1. So hawt. 2. The Doctor enjoyed her company so greatly, that he sent her off with a white slaver. Seriously, she's a slave now. Little Princess Leia bikini and huge shock collar, shoveling coal in an engine room. How sad, who cares.
What is a sign for me may not be a sign for you. What made you quit watching during Capaldi's run? I'm curious to know if it's the same reason(s) that I quit. Indeed. He made a decent Doctor. But the scripts were crap and I hated Clara. Like really loathed, detested, despised her, wanted her DEAD, kind of hated (the actress herself is okay in the Victoria series, but was horrible as a Doctor Who companion). I learned a number of things from that video, and I'd rather spend an hour on that than a whole season of trying desperately to find something to like about the new Doctor and failing. As for watching YT videos about TV shows... I spend a fair amount of time on several YT channels that review The Handmaid's Tale. There are some interesting conversations, and one of the reasons I post there is to dispell some of the truly idiotic things some American viewers think about Canada. My reason for watching that was Tom Baker. Period. And there was one line from the 9.5th Doctor that I liked: "What do you intend to do, assemble a cabinet at them?" (paraphrase). I didn't like Smith at all as the Doctor. I didn't say I don't care about the show. I care about whether it's good enough to hold my interest and justify the extra $$ it costs for the only channel I can get it on. It isn't, and doesn't. I keep that channel solely because it's rerunning the various Star Trek series (I haven't bothered with DiscoTrek). NuWho has failed to make me want to watch it, so I haven't seen any of the new Doctor (other than the clips in this video). And I don't even care. It doesn't bother me that I haven't seen it, and I feel no desire to even try. That's not the same thing as not caring about Doctor Who. Yeah, it couldn't possibly be any other reason... So because I was able to enjoy a show that had Colin Baker or Sylvester McCoy as the Doctor and some guest stars that I had enjoyed on other shows (Good Neighbors, Keeping Up Appearances, I, Claudius), that means I'm required to enjoy a show that's rebooted 30 years later, after quitting because the writing got monumentally stupid?
Just so we are clear, the bit you quoted from me, in the context of when I said it was me referring to other people making that kind ofstatement. It’s a bit unclear why you are quoting it here.
I don't always read every post in a thread. If I've attributed the wrong person's post to you, I apologize.
There’s a guy who hangs out for hours every day on the street corner near where I work. He yells a lot. Just random crazy stuff. We should discuss it because he may have a point. You’ll never know if you don’t spend fifteen minutes on the corner with him.
It just seems to us that it is random and crazy. On the other side of the earth, in Australia, there is another guy yelling ostensibly random crazy stuff. It turns out that the two are in communication and carrying on a perfectly sensible conversation.
Well, with modern Bluetooth phone accessories sometimes it's honestly hard to tell the difference. At least, one hopes the person screaming on the street corner is wearing a functional and active Bluetooth device!
Indeed. That's the problem in a nut shell. Criticism and critique are knee jerked into the usual epithets, and no accounting for the various reasonings, and the media stokes these on various sites, and YouTubers in their respective corners. What I dispise the most is when you do make a statement and immediately you are assigned a designation, that is furthest from the reality of what and who, as a person you are.. I.E. internalized Mysogony, and so on..simply for having an opinion against the Status quo. Peter Davison didn't deserve the vitriol he got.