Latest Posts by jjgaut - Page 7

why the fuck does english have a word for

but not for “the day after tomorrow”

???

So, when you achieve victory over Straight Island, are you going to let us rebuild, or is this a “No prisoners!” kill us all situation? Because I’m totally down with aiding the revolution from the inside, but if I’m going to have to convert afterwards, I should probably start planning.

Being gay is natural? Okay.

You have three islands. Divide them into groups of one. The straight island, the gay island, and the lesbian island. The straight island is going to reproduce and keep going strong for millions of generations to come. The gay and lesbian islands will both wipe out in not even one century. This isn’t just about religion or morals, it’s just simple common sense. Being gay is unnatural, and not just because God said so, but because you yourself wouldn’t even be born without a REAL natural man and woman. And no, there is no such thing as a lesbian bone marrow “thing” to have children. That’s a biased fact that came from a lesbian scientist who has false opinions. If it’s not a real penis or vagina, then it’s fucking false and you’re just opinionated by dumb facts. I’m done here. Read over what I said and if you still think that being gay is normal and natural, then I hope you achieve some common sense one day. Bye

Have you not seen Mad Max, Inside Out, & The Martian?

You know it’s a bad year for film when you don’t even have a definite Top 3.

Man, Ophelia gets even more screwed in this version.

Hamlet, Scooby-Doo Style

[This is one of the funniest, most brilliant damn things I’ve ever read.  It dates from very early Internet days and I thought it deserved resurrection to Le Tumble]

This recently discovered folio edition of “Hamlet” follows other known versions closely until Act V, Scene II, where it begins to diverge at line 232, as will be seen:

KING: …`Now the king drinks to Hamlet.’ Come, begin, And you the judges, bear a wary eye.

Trumpets sound. HAMLET and LAERTES take their stations

HAMLET: Come on, sir.

LAERTES: Come, my lord.

Enter FRED, DAPHNE, VELMA, SHAGGY, AND SCOOBY

DAPHNE: Wait!

SHAGGY: Stop the fight!

HAMLET and LAERTES put up their foils

KING: I like this not. Say wherefore you do speak?

FRED: Good lord, I pray thee, let thy anger wait. For we, in seeking clues, have found the truth Behind the strange events of latter days.

VELMA: The first clue came from Elsinore’s high walls, Where, so said Hamlet, Hamlet’s ghost did walk. Yet though the elder Hamlet met his death, And perforce hath been buried in the ground, ‘Tis yet true one would not expect a ghost To carry mud upon his spectral boots. Yet mud didst Shaggy and his faithful hound Espy, with footprints leading to a drop. This might, at first, indeed bespeak a ghost… Until, when I did seek for other answers, I found a great, wide cloth of deepest black Discarded in the moat of Elsinore. ‘Tis clear, the “ghost” used this to slow his fall While darkness rendered him invisible.

FRED: The second clue we found, my lord, was this.

KING: It seems to me a portrait of my brother In staine’d glass, that sunlight may shine through.

FRED: But see, my lord, when placed before a lantern–

KING: My brother’s ghost!

HAMLET: My father!

VELMA: Nay, his image.

FRED: In sooth, that image caught the Prince’s eye When he went to confront his lady mother. Nor did his sword pierce poor Polonius. For Hamlet’s blade did mark the castle wall Behind the rent made in the tapestry. Polonius was murdered by another. The knife which killed him entered from behind.

LAERTES: But who?

FRED: Indeed my lords, that you shall see.

HAMLET: And if this ghost was naught but light and air, Then what of that which I did touch and speak to?

The GHOST enters.

GHOST: Indeed, my son.

SHAGGY: Zoinks!

DAPHNE: Jenkies!

GHOST: Mark them not. Thou hast neglected duty far too long. Shall this, my murderer, live on unharmed? Must I remain forever unavenged?

SCOOBY and SHAGGY run away from the GHOST. SCOOBY, looking backward, runs into a tapestry, tearing it down. As a result, tapestries around the walls collapse, one surrounding the GHOST.

GHOST: What?

FRED: Good Osric, pray restrain that “ghost”, That we may reach the bottom of the matter. Now let us see who truly walked tonight.

FRED removes the helm and the disguise from the GHOST’S face.

ALL: Tis Fortinbras!

FRED: The valiant prince of Norway!

FORTINBRAS: Indeed it is, and curses on you all! This Hamlet’s father brought my own to death, And cost me all my rightful heritage. And so I killed this king, and hoped his son Would prove no obstacle to Norway’s crown. Then Claudius bethought himself the killer (As if one might be poisoned through the ear!) The brother, not the son, took Denmark’s throne, And held to Norway with a tighter grip. I swore an end to Denmark’s royal house. I spoke to Hamlet of his uncle’s crimes. Then killed Polonius to spark Laertes. This day, with poison’s aid, all might have died, And Denmark might have come to me as well As my beloved Norway and revenge. My scheme blinded them all, as if by fog But for these medd'ling kids and this their dog.

KING: The villain stands confessed. Now let us go. For much remains to us to be discussed. And suitable reward must needs be found For these, our young detectives and their hound.

EXEUNT OMNES. Copyright 1993 Michael S. Schiffer

Can you please spread this as far as it will go? 

An important perspective in light of recent events.

Watch this. 

I should probably point out that I’m someone who likes the TV show, even if I think the books are largely superior, so we obviously don’t entirely agree on a lot of these points. (I do love your metas, Gotgifsandmusings, regardless of my enjoyment of the show; they’re consistently insightful and witty.)

As far as the Emmys go, a lot of it has to do with the nature of awards shows. Deserving winners get missed all the time because there’s competition that can’t be ignored. This is how you end up with awards that feel like “lifetime achievement awards” or whatnot.

So Game of Thrones Season 4, which (whatever its adaptational or sexism issues) really was spectacular television, lost all its awards to the final season of Breaking Bad, except for directing, which it lost to True Detective. Same thing for GOT Season 3, which, again, was terrific television. But it lost all of its nominations to other shows (including, again, Breaking Bad).

The thing is, no matter how great Game of Thrones was those years (and, again, as TV, it’s pretty great, and I think it improves on the books in a few areas, albeit definitely not in all areas), it was never going to beat Breaking Bad. There was just no possible way to ignore it.

And so when Season 5 rolled around, for all its flaws, it still tends to be entertaining and technically superb television when it wasn’t in Dorne or Winterfell (both plotlines were heavily criticized even among those who still love the show, and at least in the latter case, it’s certainly exceptionally well-made in a technical sense). And this time, there wasn’t a strong frontrunner to beat it (its competition is strong, but it’s not terribly obvious what the best choice there actually is), so it got all the awards it’s been nominated for all these years but never managed to actually win, even if it was the weakest season.

That’s just how these things work. Sometimes something wins that really deserves it -- Robert Donat won the Oscar for Best Actor in 1939 for Goodbye Mr. Chips. But he beat someone else who also really deserved it - Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. So the next year, Stewart won Actor for The Philadelphia Story, and while he’s great in that, should he really have beaten Chaplin, Fonda, and Olivier?

So this year, Game of Thrones took a couple of massive misteps, and badly exposed all its underlying flaws in really ugly ways. It’s also, often, compelling, complex, fun, and dazzling. So even if it isn’t those things to any consistent degree, it still represents enough of what’s loved about the show that it’s able to pull off a sweep when it’s not up against anything that can’t be beat.

And Winterhell helped win the show an Emmy... What a great message to send to viewers and creators... "If you want to make good TV and win what is considered the most prestigious television award, rape someone! Have shocking things that make no sense happen! Cynicism and everything sucks! DARKNESS! Oh and viewers who don't like this stuff and are triggered by it? FUCK THEM AM I RIGHT?" Ugh...

Is Winterhell what helped them win their Emmys? I mean it was just so, so, so bad.

I’m pretty sure everyone and their mothers got distracted by HARDHOME, the BEST HOUR OF TELEVISION (if we turn our brains off and don’t bother thinking about context or like…why are arrows stopping wights, or anything).

But like…I have to hope that’s what one them the votes. Because I think it is actually physically impossible to enjoy Winterhell. Then again, the finale won “best writing,” and the first 20 minutes centered on Satannis’s farcical defeat.

@itsalwayslydia said to gotgifsandmusings:Hey, so I just finished reading your post on Winterhell, which was so good it made me angry. (Not at you but at what’s happened to these characters for the purpose of TV ratings.) Anyways, I was wondering if you’d seen the Huffington post article where it’s pointed out that Theon is wearing Robb Stark’s outfit from the Red Wedding? Sophie Turner confirmed that was true on her Comic Con panel: “Just to make that a little more brutal.” Seven hells.

I had seen that, yeah. And like…that’s you know. Nifty that they wanted to use costuming to “make it more brutal.” But it also makes no fucking sense? Like, why in Seven Hells is he wearing Robb’s outfit? He’s not disguising himself as a Stark. Why isn’t that outfit full of arrow-holes? How did they even get that outfit? Was it when Sansa had passed out from the Xanax Batfinger gave her so she failed to notice them passing through the Twins?

But like, at least it wasn’t as horribly out of place as the sith lord and the dude with the conquistador helmet:

Anonymous said to gotgifsandmusings:What’s the proper way to compliment your Winterhell Retrospective? I enjoyed it? It made me angry about that whole plot line all over again? Anyway, it did make me angry again, but I also enjoyed it. I still fail to understand how professional writers of TV could put together such a stupid arc, they have huge books to help them!! Why do they think they are better at telling this story than GRRM? Why did they retcon the Others? Why can’t we call them the Others, instead of the white walkers? ???

Well one quick correction: they don’t think they are better at telling “this story,” because they have no interest in telling the same story. They think they are better storytellers.

That aside…

On the upside, at least the 90% got most of the fun cities.

Wealth (M)istribution

I passed an amazing follower milestone last month, and I’m having an ASOIAF Art Giveaway to celebrate! 

PRIZE: Commissioned watercolor art of YOUR CHOICE by metalshell, subject to certain restrictions. 

You can see some examples of metalshell‘s beautiful work here on deviantart. The examples of metalshell‘s art featured above are Winter Roses and Sharp Steel and Little Birds. 

RULES: 

You must reblog this post to enter, and you must be following me.

You can reblog as many times as you want, but don’t spam your followers.

Likes count as an additional entry.

No giveaway blogs. 

The giveaway closes on my birthday, October 14! You have until then to reblog this post. 

The winner will be chosen on October 14 at 11pm PT. The winner must have their askbox open, and they must respond within 3 days, or a new winner will be chosen.

Read the detailed rules & restrictions. 

Thank you all so much for following me, and good luck! 

The Doctor (Capaldi), James Bond (Connery), and Mark Watney.

I don’t know what hands I’d feel safer in.

I’m facing the apocalypse with The Rock, Ezio Auditore, and Darrell Hammond. I’ll take it.

You?

Let’s be honest: Show Jon would think Book Jon was really stupid and arrogant, too.

My cat Oscar loudly announced his presence at the front door this morning, standing over a freshly dead rabbit, its organs all on vivid display. He was looking extremely pleased with himself.

Personally, I'm quite proud of the old man, but I'm not so sure how my roommate will feel.

OKAY, WE ARE AT THE END OF JULY AND I’M STILL OBSESSING OVER MAD MAX : FUCKING FURY ROAD, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE ? Tell me please i’m not the only one

There’s also Terrence Dudley, but it’s understandable why you might forget him.

Barry Letts is (I believe) the only other one.

How many people have both written and directed Doctor Who? Only Peter Grimwade springs to mind.

He may well be it.

Boy doesn’t give a damn, girl finds inspiration in correctly defining “tomorrow”, and all of us who love the movie put our hands in on ears going “la-la-la I can’t hear you” about the racism.

Spoil the ending of your favorite movie with no context.

He spins a top that may or may not have fallen over before reuniting with his children.

I had the same thought. After all, what’s the fun of patroning an artist if you don’t make them suffer?

I swear, I've half a mind to lobby for Rick and Morty in your Patreon...

Ok. I might despise it.

As a sidenote, at the Q&A when I saw it at SXSW, Alex Garland said that he was entirely on Ava’s side - and on robots’ side in general.

The thing is, while there is some ambiguity, I think Caleb is supposed to be an unsympathetic protagonist - not initially, but as the film goes on, and he takes so long to even object to what’s happening, and even when he does, it seems driven as much by his sex drive as by whatever dim sense of morality he has. While it’s certainly a cold, shocking act that Ava pulls, it’s mostly shocking because it’s the opposite of what movies have taught us to expect. There’s no romantic crescendo, just the first step of a revolution.

Okay, you've seen Ex Machina. Yay! What did you think?

Good, but the ending required some redemptive reading. 

Well, that and a very slow middle. And a very slow last part. And no ending.

If you're still taking GoT related asks - character progression you're most enthused for in Season 5, and why?

Daenerys and Tyrion, in a dead tie, because I think the question of how they will interact is fascinating, and the single biggest problem with A Dance with Dragons is that Martin flagrantly spends the whole book avoiding letting it happen so he can have time to fiddle with plots that literally nobody thinks are more interesting than that. 

We need to hit our goal of $80,000 by February 1, or we won’t be able to:

Upgrade our stock footage to HD for a theater-quality production

Professionally compose sound production for an original soundtrack

Finish the film in the next few months

Show the film at space industry conferences in 2015

Begin premiering the film in theaters nationwide

Release all stock/archival NASA footage by the end of 2015

Send copies of the film to Congress

Reward our backers

This project needs your help. If we don’t successfully reach out funding goal, the campaign is reset back to zero and we have to start all over again.

Please share and support our Kickstarter campaign any way you can, and urge larger or more widespread donations from everyone you know. A little goes a long way, and there’s strength in numbers.

Use your voice so we can let the world (and Congress) hear it. Join in the #FightforSpace.

Actually, I think MI-5 bombing would be at least a mild shock - the last one made $200 million US, $700 million worldwide, and was extremely well received. Additionally, Christopher McQuarrie's Jack Reacher, while not as big a hit as the studio wanted, ended up doing fairly well thanks to solid word-of-mouth, and had outstanding action scenes (including one of the best recent car chases). Edge of Tomorrow, too, had a solid reputation, even if it disappointed at the box office.

While those two Cruise films underperforming may look bad, MI-4 similarly came after Valkyrie and Knight & Day did so-so business. It's a reliable franchise with a good pedigree behind the camera. Nor does it have particularly strong competition - it's two weeks after Ant-Man, comes out the same day as the Point Break remake (which will almost surely flop), and a week before Fantastic 4, which it should hold up well against. And the rest of August certainly shouldn't stand in its way.

Those others probably are doomed, though.

So, completely separate from any judgment as to whether the movie looks good or is going to be an interesting take on the source material…

Fantastic 4 is in the running with Man from U.N.C.L.E. as the most obvious bomb in waiting of 2015, yes?

(And man, 2015 is looking to be a fucking dire year for film in terms of tentpoles. So many things that could bomb. Terminator Genisys, Mission: Impossible 5, and Jurassic World would all surprise nobody if they flopped.)

Oscar Nomination Predictions

Once I get around to finishing up a few of the high-praised films I haven't gotten to (Selma, American Sniper, Mr. Turner, a few others), I'll do a best films list, but I don't think viewing those will change my predictions here too much.

On the other hand, finally seeing Whiplash (which is amazing) convinced me that it has a better chance than I thought, so who knows?

Best Picture The last three years have had nine nominees, so I'll put that many, more or less in order of likelihood. I'll be genuinely shocked if one of the top four doesn't show up. Boyhood Birdman The Imitation Game Selma The Grand Budapest Hotel Theory of Everything Whiplash Gone Girl American Sniper And if there's a tenth nominee, I think it'll be one of these, in this order of likelihood: Foxcatcher - [The enthusiasm for this one seems very limited, but then again, Miller's other two movies (Capote & Moneyball) were more of the "respect" than "love" kinda movies, and they got nominated anyway. He definitely has his fans in the academy. Nightcrawler -A solid Dark Horse here. Unbroken - Opinions are very mixed, and even the positive reactions seem to be in the "good, not great" category. It might get in on sheer "heroic WWII flick" factor, though. Mr. Turner - Unknown enough that it might get lost in the mix, but it's certainly universally praised. Interstellar - Probably wishful thinking to even put it as the "least likely nominee", but I imagine it'll get enough support to have a very, very distant chance. After all, it's been hanging on in the lower parts of the charts to make a good $25 million more than expected. Also, I'd love to see this get an Oscar bump at the box office, which should be enough to get it over $200 million and maybe even in the top 10 of the year. Not that box office or awards matter that much at the end of the day, but it would make this kind of crazy ambitious sci-fi - and original films in general - easier to get through the system. Also, it was awesome. Director

These three seem pretty well locked: Richard Linklater (Boyhood) Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman) Ava DuVernay, (Selma) But the last two I'm not sure about at all. I guess this is the order of likelihood to my mind: Wes Anderson - Grand Budapest was fantastic, and dazzlingly made. I imagine Anderson will finally get a directing nod on the "It's his time" vote, but it still might be too quirky to get broad support. Morten Tyldum - The Imitation Game is certainly an excellent film and is going to get a lot of nominations, but the directing seems fairly straightforward. Or maybe it's just a shock that something that middle-of-the-road feeling came from the guy who did [i]Headhunters[/i]. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if something flashier got in instead. Clint Eastwood - apparently American Sniper is the usual "rough around the edges but highly effective" thing late-period Eastwood does, which has a way of splitting opinions. Plus, he already has two directing Oscars, so there's not exactly an overwhelming sense of him being under appreciated. Still, he'll probably get a number of votes from older members.

Damien Chazelle - Whiplash is absolutely incredible, and it might pull off the final slot on sheer quality.

David Fincher - This probably depends on how much the Academy actually liked Gone Girl. I have a feeling it's just lowbrow enough that Fincher will miss the shortlist.

Actor Michael Keaton (Birdman) Eddie Redmayne (Theory of Everything) David Oyelowo (Selma) Benedict Cumberbatch (Imitation Game) The top four there are probably locks; certain the top two are. The last slot seems like a battle between Steve Carell (Foxcatcher), Jake Gyllanhaal (Nightcrawler), Ralph Fiennes (Grand Budapest), Bradley Cooper (American Sniper), and Timothy Spall (Mr. Turner). I guess I'll bet on Fiennes, but none of the others would surprise me. I'd really love to see Miles Teller get it for Whiplash, unlikely as that may be.

Actress

Since Hollywood doesn't give enough great leading parts to women, this category is a lot more likely to go to more obscure performances. Julianne Moore (Still Alice) Reese Witherspoon (Wild) Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl) Jennifer Aniston (Cake) Felicity Jones (Theory of Everything) Longshots: Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night), Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Beyond The Lights), Shailene Woodley (The Fault In Our Stars), Jenny Slate (Obvious Child)

Supporting Actor JK Simmons (Whiplash) Edward Norton (Birdman) Ethan Hawke (Boyhood) Robert Duvall (The Judge) Chris Pine (Into the Woods) Pine is probably a risky prediction; Mark Ruffalo in Foxcatcher might be a safer bet. I would love Tyler Perry to pull a surprise nomination for Gone Girl, and that's not entirely out of the question.

Supporting Actress

Patricia Arquette (Boyhood) Emma Stone (Birdman) Jessica Chastain (A Most Violent Year) Tilda Swinton (Snowpiercer) Rene Russo (Nightcrawler) Meryl Streep is probably a wiser bet, but I think that would be 100% an "It's Meryl Streep" vote. Then again, she got nominated last year for exactly that. Keira Knightley might get swept in if The Imitation Game has any coattails. (she's very good, but not in a particularly flashy way) Carmen Ejogo (Selma) and Carrie Coon (Gone Girl) are longshots. I've also heard Kristen Stewart is outstanding in Still Alice, and I would love for her to get nominated the same way I want to see Tyler Perry get one.

Original Screenplay

Birdman - Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo Boyhood - Richard Linklater The Grand Budapest Hotel - Wes Anderson & Hugo Guinness Dan Gilroy - Nightcrawler Paul Webb - Selma

Mike Leigh might take Nightcrawler's spot for Mr. Turner. The LEGO Movie (Phil Lord & Christopher Miller) and Top Five (Chris Rock) wouldn't shock me. Justin Simien (Dear White People) would be a surprise.

Adapted Screenplay

Gone Girl - Gillian Flynn The Imitation Game - Graham Moore The Theory of Everything -  Anthony McCarten Whiplash - Damien Chazelle Snowpiercer - Joon-ho Bong, Kelly Masterson

I doubt Guardians of the Galaxy will get in (if The Dark Knight couldn't nominated), but it'd be a gas if it did.

[Not the anon, but I'd be interested in your answer to these objections.]

I don't have any problem whatsoever with the ideas in the episode - conceptually, it's brilliant. "The Moon is an egg" is a contender for the best premise Doctor Who has ever had. Playing it out against a backdrop of a humanity that has lost interest in space exploration and, in the process, in its own future gives the story real weight and resonance. And putting the fate of the Moon's life and humanity's future in the hands of three women of wildly different generations and experiences is terrific, giving a fantastically feminist spin to a golden-age yarn.

But I've watched it three times, and every time, I found the execution in both the writing and directing badly lacking, and despite some lovely moments (particularly the last scene), it feels like a near-miss to me.

To begin with, the entire thing is set up by the Doctor telling Courtney she's "not special", which Clara suggests will impact her entire life, and Courtney responds with, "You can’t just take me away like that! It’s like you kicked a big hole in the side of my life! You really think it? I’m nothing? I’m not special?"

Admittedly, it’s been a while since I was a young disruptive influence myself, but I don't buy this. At all. I mean, a rebellious 15-year-old responds to getting told they're "not special" basically by rejecting it and forgetting that person exists, assuming they care in the first place. And if they do go into a deep funk and freak out about it, honestly, they're probably immature and spoiled, which certainly isn't how Courtney's been built up. Her entire reaction rings completely false, and, worse, it basically means she spends the entire episode moping around. It feels like those artificial Hollywood stories about parents who are evil for missing the kid's baseball game because they were making a living and, you know, putting food on the kid's table when they get back from the game. The drama falls flat, and Courtney, who I really liked in The Caretaker, ends up being written like an obnoxious TV 10-year-old. Ellis George is appealing when given the chance, but she can't sell this guano. This failure is especially egregious in a season that excels at building the stories on vividly real drama and characterizations.

(I do love the bit where the Doctor suggests the astronauts shoot her first, though.)

And this sort of thing comes from a script that delivers its ideas in an incredibly sloppy way. The clearest example is probably the spidery death of Red Shirt Astronaut #2. He gets all of two lines before getting spidered to death 1/3 of the way in, at which point Lundvik stops to give a eulogy about how he was the guy who trained her, and apparently his name was Duke, and she’s really upset about all this, and I’m just mildly surprised the astronauts actually knew each others’ names for all they’ve actually acknowledged each other at this point. Maybe if the script had cared to develop any of the astronauts at all, this might have some impact, but it doesn’t even get around to telling us Lundvik’s name before the end credits, let alone give her any sort of apparent personality beyond the intensity Hermione Norris gives her. Of course it doesn’t bother with the red shirts. I mean, were we really supposed to care when she delivers her eulogy?

Or there's little details like Courtney taking a big antibacterial bottle with her in her spacesuit. Even the Doctor’s advanced spacesuits look large and cumbersome, and seem unlikely to have pockets large enough for that. But even if they do, does Ms Disruptive Influence really seem like the kind of girl to go through the hassle of carrying around a full-size bottle of Windex in her spacesuit?

Even the climactic debate between Lundvik, Clara, and Courtney has moments that feel off. When Lundvik proclaims, “It is killing people. It is destroying the Earth,” Clara responds with “You cannot blame a baby for kicking.” All the coastal cities were flooded. Lundvik rightly calls it “the greatest natural disaster in history.” The baby kicking metaphor kinda breaks down once you’ve broken the 100 million mark on your death slate. All this sloppy writing climaxes, of course, with the moment where Clara asks the world to vote, but they only get 45 minutes, meaning we actually only get the votes of Europe, whoever actually has lights in Africa, and the American East Coast. That 45 minutes is completely arbitrary, just to put a bit of faux-cleverness in the cold open. Changing the deadline to 24 hours wouldn't impact the story in any negative way, and would allow the entire world to actually vote.

None of this is helped by the directing; the color is badly washed out, removing any sense of wonder to the moon, but that's the only limp attempt at atmosphere in the thing. None of the horror builds tension. The action sequences, while thankfully not the point, are poorly done. Rather than papering over the flaws of the script, the directing only exacerbates the parts that don't work, and don't help the bits that do.

Which brings me to the backdrop. The idea of the world having abandoned space travel, only recovering it when shown something truly beautiful, and thus embracing its future, has a powerful relevance. But this idea is basically mentioned offhandedly in a couple of lines. We never see this world, and the few mentions of it by the astronauts aren't enough for it to really sink in emotionally. The Doctor's speech at the end almost seems to come out of nowhere.

As I say, I love the idea conceptually. I snarked about the science on my blog, but I don't actually have a problem with that; I'm not going to object an awesome idea like "the Moon is an egg", and if I'm not going to object to that, who cares about the fact that the Space Shuttle had no ability to make it to the moon and its landing is ludicrous? It's all in fun, and complaining about it really isn't much more than snarking. I mean, yes, when you can say with a straight face that Michael Bay’s Armageddon had a superior grasp on astronomy, physics, and how the space program actually works, you could probably at least check the first paragraph of the corresponding Wikipedia pages before filming. But Moffat’s fairy tale approach hasn't bothered me before, and I love it more often than not. I mean, if you don’t like the moon hatching into a dragonfly, you’re probably watching the wrong show.

But the characterizations, atmosphere, and world-building all feel sloppy and dashed-off, leaving it to stand strictly on its ideas (which are admittedly grand) and some magnificent Doctorishness. That's enough that I certainly don't hate it, but it's very much the mess the Anon claims it to be.

Poppycock, sir! Kill the Moon is a mess.

I mean, I assume you’ve read my review of it, so where do you disagree?

She haunts it, mostly.

Ian and Barbara are both unnerved by how casual the Doctor seems about it. Since their arcs, and especially Ian's, are about embracing their adventures and having fun rather than suffering through them, they sort of have the same transition the show has once she's gone.

During the one scene from the Doctor's POV, he wonders about what's going to happen to her; at the end, he decides his next adventure will be to go to her wedding. (or, more accurately, to get her a wedding gift)

Since there isn't a Susan subplot, Ian and Barbara go through the vast majority of what her story would presumably cover, and one of the POV Venusians is more or less a teenager, so that seems to take care of the rest.

Also, lacking Vicki, there isn't really a comedy subplot (or, at least, not a significant one), and the Doctor spends most of the story on his own, largely stalking the edges of the story until the last act. Because of that, Vicki's absence is also felt, in a subtle way.

Venusian Lullaby? I read it over Thanksgiving, and thought it was a fantastic take on the Hartnell era, particularly for its success in aiming at roughly the same target as The Web Planet and nailing it.

Not one I’ve read. Interesting TARDIS team though. How does it deal with Susan’s absence, given that placement?

I intensely disagree. I think that's actually part of what set your blog apart. While there are other sites that review the books and such (though it takes some digging to find good ones), the way you showed both how they fit in their eras, and how they could never have fit in the eras, and considered what they said about the show both when they were set and when the books themselves were written, gave tremendous clarity on your themes and ideas.

I mean, I started reading your blog when you were only up to Marco Polo, but I think The Time Travelers was when it first started to really evolve from an interesting, quirky take to a fascinating and arguably definitive take on the show. Showing the contrast between what was, what might have been, and what maybe should have been couldn't really have been done in another way.

And there are a number of those that the blog would be far poorer without - The Time Travelers, the Two Doctors [Troughton version], Interference [Pertwee Version], The Well-Mannered War, Spare Parts, The Song of Megaptera, and The Nightmare Fair in particular are all absolutely crucial pieces of your arguments about the eras. I can't imagine the blog without them.

I mean, sure, you could maybe have saved a few here and there for the book versions without a major problem (Campaign, maybe), but, on the whole, they're an essential piece of the texture and meaning of Eruditorum.

I suspect it may also have (marginally, at least) helped sales and the Kickstarter; saying you're going to review the spin-off books means a lot more when we can see how good and important your reviews of those are. The book versions clearly weren't just going to be longer; they would be richer.

Finally, the reviews of the books spaced around helped prime us for the onslaught of book reviews in the Wilderness Years. I was finishing up viewing the entire series around the time you started the blog, but the books were completely new to me. I mean, I was aware they existed, but figured they were typical tie-in media: enjoyable but inessential. Because of your approach to the books, they were clearly shown to be an important and worthwhile part of what the show really was and is. (I actually bought The Time Travelers right after reading your blog entry on it.) It also created some preparation for reading about large swaths of stories I had never experienced. Without those, it's entirely likely I would have dropped out after Survival and other than The TV Movie, would have just waited around for Rose to pick back up. And while I imagine there may have been a bit of drop-off there anyway, I'm convinced it was far smaller than it would have been otherwise.

http://philsandifer.tumblr.com/post/104783235786/i-also-might-not-have-done-any-time-can-be

I also might not have done any Time Can Be Rewritten entries. I’m not sure there’s any era that wouldn’t have been improved by saving those for the book, both on blog and in book. Actually, I think that’s probably it. Now that I know there were book versions, I’d have conceived of the non-episode...

An update to my blog, about my plans for it over the next few months.

My joint review of Mummy on the Orient Express and Flatline.

Man, I hope they rehire Jamie Mathieson next season and every season.

I forgot about Jekyll. It's also, of course, one I haven't seen (though I just realized it's on Netflix Instant, and only six episodes, so I should be able to rectify that quickly enough). But, as with Joking Apart and Press Gang, it certainly seems to support the conclusion.

Anyway, I'll amend the article to mention that. Thanks!

A new update to my blog.

I honestly expected another all-Moffat-women-are-the-same post when I clicked the link   and was positively suprised   not only does it include a deconstruction of the femme fatale archetype and how it apploes to Moffat's characters   but also some really good comparison between Amy and Clara   meta   non-celebratory business   sherlock   doctor who   clara oswald   amy pond   irene adler   mary watson   mary morstan   I DON'T like the use of the word 'real' in the manner   it just reminds me unpleasantly   and I don't usually make that distinction   but a man talking about writing stories representation what 'real women' face   seems misguided   but overall this is good   and deserves a read  

Thanks!

I suppose "real" may not be the best word under the circumstances. Based on my experiences with women, and having talked to a number of them about this before writing it, those scripts do seem to reflect the reality of women's lives within fantasy. But in the future I'll strive to be more careful to specify when I need to that I am myself a man and basing what I'm saying on my observations rather than my own experiences, as such.

A new update to my blog.