WTF, why? Did they need the timeslot for a show about ghost-hunting wrestlers? Or ghosts who haunt wrestlers? Or the ghosts of wrestlers?
I admit it, I've watched Ghost Hunters more than a few times. They go to some really cool places that I'd never see or even know about otherwise -- that insane asylum in Western Pennsylvania or the antebellum plantation house that's now a private residence are not going to be on the Travel Channel. But dude --
they never find anything.
All they ever get on their super-sciencey devices is bumps and vague shadows and occasional noises that might be a voice from a nearby cordless telephone. How can they still be on the air, with websites devoted to analyzing their "results" (seriously, at least two) when
they never fucking find anything?
And SyFy is canceling Eureka. Idiots rule.
Sometimes shows just end, Zenkitty. Nothing lasts forever. I know it's trendy to blame showrunners and networks for everything under the sun, but sometimes shit just happens.
SyFy bringing Eureka to an end
Am I reading correctly that there is going to be another 13 episode season and then 6 additional episodes after that? If that is the case, I can live with that. We've had Eureka longer than I was expecting to, and I'd rather shows go out while they're still good.
Sometimes shows just end, Zenkitty. Nothing lasts forever. I know it's trendy to blame showrunners and networks for everything under the sun, but sometimes shit just happens.
I wasn't blaming anyone (okay, except stupid SyFy), and I do know that shows end. I'm just surprised. Eureka is really good, it does well and it doesn't seem to be losing viewers, and I can't understand the decision to end something that's doing well.
However, that was before I read that there will be another season of 13 episodes after this one, and then a 6th season of 6 episodes, if I'm understanding this correctly, so it's not the abrupt plug-pulling I initially understood it to be.
A blog post on Tiger Beatdown that pretty much well articulates the discomfort I've had with Moffet's Doctor Who.
I do not hate Rory as much as some of the commenters seem to, though.
Oh my god how can anyone hate Rory?
Oh my god how can anyone hate Rory?
Seriously! Without him, I don't care that much for Amy!
the show did not become truly amazing until Steven Moffat took over as lead writer and producer at the beginning of the fifth season, the same time that Matt Smith became the new Doctor.
Clearly, we don't hang in the same circles. I was super thrilled for Moffat and tired of RTD's maudlin attitude (that extended goodbye sequence in Tennant's final ep? Hurt my poor rolling eyeballs, even if there were parts I liked). And yet, Moffat has not lived up to my expectations.
[Martha] ended up married to Rose’s ex-boyfriend Mickey
Wait, what? Did this happen on TW? And didn't Mickey end up in the alt-universe? I'm so confused.
Can we all take a moment here to agree, unequivocally, that “feisty” is the single most condescending adjective in the English language, ranking even above “articulate” in its ability to convey disdain?
Hell no, I'd give that to "cute." Call me "feisty" and I might growl. Call me "cute" and I'm kicking you in the nads (present virtual company excepted). Tell me I'm "cute when I'm angry" and I will shoot laserbeams FROM MY EYEBALLS.
A small white room that bore a remarkable resemblance to a refrigerator.
Oh, damn. That is... a connection I had not made.
A woman who exists to bring a baby into the world (so that it can grow up and make out with Matt Smith) might as well be made of cardboard.
Excuse me, THAT'S her offhand summary of River Song? I get that this is an article about Amy Pond, but if you're complaining about how a female character is written while dismissing another fascinating female character, I feel like it weakens your argument.
I don't know. Reading all that, I can see why she might be annoyed, but it seems overly harsh to me. I mean, Rory has had many moments of insecurity, but if my best girl was super close with someone as charismatic as the Doctor, I'd be a little unsure, too.
OMG I generally love Sady Doyle but I do not get her hate-on for Rory. At. ALL. He's emasculated? Really? IDK.
Ack. Having a hard time separating meta- and intra-textual analysis. Tired.
But really, all that love for Donna and no bitterness over her fate? The shittiest fate possible for a companion and for her in particular, to forget that she'd ever been awesome or special or traveled the universe? And there was that ep where the writers had a chance to fix it, to have her remember, but no.
I'm probably not able to be objective about this, and I did watch Who back in the day, and remember the damsel-in-distressedness of previous companions, and I don't think Amy is all that bad. I also watch other contemporary tv shows who don't serve their characters as well. And while I'm at it, let me bring up Cordelia. TWO demon pregnancies and a season spent in a coma, thx.
::sigh:: tl; dr. Sorry for being all rantycakes. I do not intend to suggest that Who is not problematic, that Moffat is not capable of doing a better job of crafting storylines, that Pond would not be a better character with more agency. See my link in Press on enjoying problematic media.
But wait, there's MORE.
On River Song - I *like* that she knows things the Doctor doesn't. I don't find her two-dimensional at all. Who knows, maybe they'll fuck up everything now that mysteries are coming clear, but I'm finding the hints we find out interesting.
