SFdebris

These are the same credits who, for most of the series run, including the first season of the new series, credited the Doctor as being called "Doctor Who"... It only got changed because Tennant demanded it. So credits naming him something is particularly meaningless in a show that regularly gets the name of its main character wrong.

edited 12th Jul '13 5:53:25 AM by CobraPrime

That's my main problem with Doctor Who of late. They repeatedly rewrite history to "start fresh" and make the Doctor mysterious again. Then Moffat can't resist winking and leaning on the fourth wall and openly referencing the viewing audience, and suddenly we're back to square one.

edited 12th Jul '13 9:40:12 PM by johnnyfog

...Are you describing Moffat? Or Cartmel? Or Robert Holmes? What about David Whitaker? Because they all did exactly that at least once.

I completely fail to understand the "of late" thing given that one or more aspects of that statement can apply to every single era of the show.

Rewriting history, starting fresh and winking at the audience is just a thing Doctor Who does.

First off, the first moment of "Introducing John Hurt As The Doctor" took place during the episode itself.

Second, the credits never got the main character's name wrong. The show did. It was in the bloody scripts. Pertwee, Baker and many other actors would often refer to themselves as "Doctor Who" because unlike Tennant, they weren't fanboys. And they used what was common and accepted among normal people for the character's name.

edited 12th Jul '13 9:58:45 PM by unnoun

Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee will always be the Doctor for me. I tired but the new doctors just aren't as interesting.

Meta humor is Doctor Who's thing, but it didn't affect the overall narrative, or the Doctor as a character. Occasionally you have an audience surrogate character who geeks out over the TARDIS. This endeared the show to the audience.

With Moffat you're getting a smug vibe, like he's addressing all 5+ million viewers at once. The companions aren't just audience placeholders any more, now they're actual fangirls and the Doctor is a sex symbol. There is a limit to how much pelvis-thrusting you can indulge in before it gets obnoxious, especially on TV; after all, it's all temporal. Ten years from now, you might rewatch these dated episodes and think, "what an ass."

...The less I say about Pertwee the better I think. Tom was great of course, although putting him as the "definitive" Doctor Who is about as ludicrous as it would be for anyone. There hasn't been a real "The Doctor" since Hartnell. Before that point, the Doctor was a single character, but afterwards? The floodgates opened.

I think you may want to watch more of the Second Doctor. What's left of him at any rate. Pretty much every Serial has him looking out of a television screen. And then there's The Mind Robber. I have no idea who was responsible for that, but I want to bloody kiss them.

...Yeah, see, I have no idea where you're coming from. Maybe if you were talking about Davies instead, yeah, I might agree. And even then I'd only agree on the "Sex symbol" part. I mean, the series rarely if ever did the "audience placeholder" thing, but even so. I don't see how any of the recent or current companions are more or less "fangirls" than previous ones.

...Pelvis-thrusting? Really? I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

And you can't get much more "dated" than a Britney Spears song in your second episode.

...And it's still better than thinking "what an ass" on the first viewing, at the airdate. Which, I mean, was pretty much most of my thoughts of Pertwee and Tennant's Doctors.

EDIT: Damnit, I said I wouldn't do that.

edited 12th Jul '13 10:39:04 PM by unnoun

Yeah, right, I know the feeling. Note that I never mentioned Davies' name.

But then I'm silly to even try talking with unnoun, master of deflection.

edited 12th Jul '13 10:51:17 PM by johnnyfog

...What's that supposed to mean? No, seriously, I'm confused by that statement. All of it.

You didn't mention Davies's name. You mentioned Moffat's. I brought up Davies, because I thought his representation of the Doctor fit with the "sex symbol" charge a lot more.

Yes, I use hyperbole a lot, but I'm actually trying to be serious here.

I mean, this is Matt Smith we're talking about. The clumsy one that walks like he's about to trip any second. I don't think he could even do a pelvis thrust without falling over.

edited 12th Jul '13 10:52:55 PM by unnoun

It means any point I raise won't penetrate your mind, you are so devoted to Doctor Who that you will view any contrary opinion as lunacy.

...That simply isn't true. Maybe you could try making actual points for me to listen to.

edited 12th Jul '13 10:54:02 PM by unnoun

I don't need to, I've seen your interactions with others on the Doctor Who thread. Discussion isn't your bag.

Aaaand done.

...I've done plenty of discussions. When I felt like being serious about something I more than delivered on that front.

I don't see why you feel the need to personally attack me and comment on my behavior when you could be doing something other than exactly what you accuse me of.

EDIT:

No, I don't think Doctor Who or any part of it is actually perfect. I think Moffat's writing does have some issues he needs to address. The Doctor is a bit smug, and sometimes the companions are treated a bit more as tagalongs than characters in their own right.

...The trouble is, that all of that was very much present in the Classic Stories as well, especially Pertwee. A smug Doctor with less than independent companions fits his era to a t. It cropped up a couple times in the Davies run, though I suppose not as often I admit.

The thing is, I still think that the show is improving, and I still want to give it credit for trying. Doctor Who has always been a show that was able to be loved not just in spite of but because of its flaws. Because the flaws were always an indication of the continued change, and the growth. There are always stories like Warriors Of The Deep and Fear Her, where the biggest problem is that they simply weren't trying. Those are always endlessly more disappointing though than the stories where they try so hard but still fall short.

edited 12th Jul '13 11:26:09 PM by unnoun

what is the name of the intro song of the Madoka Puella reviews?

magia its the ending theme of the series deliberately held back until episode 3....for obvious reasons

the full version with lyrics translated

edited 13th Jul '13 6:55:30 AM by shiningknight

Magia is not only ending theme since it was used as theme for 2 battle scenes before. I must admit it could be great music for intro. Like in way it was used in SF Debris reviews. I never liked Connect (but I usually dislike anime openings)

"Message in a Bottle"

As a side note, in the space of a year Chuck's article is quadrupling in size

So what does he do now (aside from awesome reviews)? Does he still teach?

Pretty sure the reviews are his only "job" now.

He still teaches last I checked

Wow, he does that AND makes THAT many episode a week? Damn.

Last year I listened to a podcast interview with him — it was some Star Trek fans' show, and he mentioned that he's now a substitute teacher, so he doesn't teach full time. But it might have changed since that time...

I sent him a tweet this morning asking about it, he hasn't responded yet.

Substitutes don't have to do their own lesson plans, which saves time. On the other hand, students don't respect them. I imagine they're even harder on male teachers.

I don't know. Depends on the teacher. I know we had this one substitute teacher in high School that everyone loved, guy was so damn cool. He was so damn good, by senior year the school just hired him on as there default sub, instead of going to what ever school in the area needed him, he'd come to ours everyday, get first dibs on any open sub slots for the day, and if none, just stick around as a general hall monitor/helping hand.