Article about Rachel Nichols' new show Continuum - posted here because I believe a recurring character getting a new show is real spoilers, no?

Set photos from Continuum.

What is she recurring on?

“It’s rooted in some hard facts,”

Oh, you should just not say that. Just...no. Someone on the internet will take that as a challenge, and they have more free time than you do.

I am willing buy the concept that the revolution will not start in Vancouver. However, global warming may well alter the North Pacific Current, making Vancouver a pretty chilly place.

Hey, what about living in a world where all forms of energy have stopped working?

I bet that's rooted in some hard...bullshit.

Sorry, I really want to know what the actual premise of the show is. If they wanted to get me interested, I guess it's working, but do they really want this level of disdain for the project this early on? I could have been interested in an accurate premise too.

The final days of the Ponds are coming. It's during the next series – I'm not telling you when and I'm certainly not telling you how - but that story is going to come to a heartbreaking end. We have only so many more adventures with the lovely Amy and the lovely Rory. So that story, next series, during the series, will be over.

And then, the Doctor is going to meet a new friend. And I'm not going to tell you anything about he, she or it.

[link]

Does the fact that Amy and Rory are leaving Doctor Who this coming season have to go stay in here? Because they've announced the new companion (basically just the actor's name and when she'll appear), but I don't know whether it can go in Lite because of the whole thing where it means two series regulars are leaving. So, anyway - [link]

ETA: OK, if I'd read the previous post again before posting this, I guess I would have had my answer.

It's really weird to read reviews of Awake that treat the show like the "how" is a mystery that's going to be revealed, as opposed to something the creators have not only said has already been stated, but that they value sticking to what they initially said.

So there are not only all these viewers saying "they're giving the mythos short shrift" when they're not, at all--they've already dealt with it and are moving on, but there are critics talking about it like it's going to be revealed at some later date. Like, reviewers I was sure were spoilt.

It's kind of surreal--I don't feel like it's a spoiler at this point, except that people are treating it like it's a spoiler, because we're so trained to not believe what we've heard. I mean, I didn't believe it until I read it in interview, because it' seemed "obvious" that it was a device.

Nope, no device.

So odd.

I'm just now watching the second ep... what is the thing that they've stated? Are they just never going to deal with what's causing his weirdness, or have they stated it? I'm good either way. In fact, it would be fine to not focus on what's going on if I know there's nothing to focus on. If that makes sense.

In the article I linked to upthread the creators state that one world is a dream, one is reality, and it's not important which is which.

Someone is currently trying to sell me on it as being genre because it's a thought experiment, but I don't feel they're actually experimenting with anything other than expressions of grief. Nothing to do with constructs of reality, so no, it's not speculative fiction to any significant degree.

Oh, I see. I'll check out the article. I must have skipped because I hadn't decided whether I was going to watch.