Yes. She didn't read it because he stopped her, why did that change?
Tamo240
joined 10 months ago
Sorry what the fuck was this episode? Why did the Doctor disappear and the tardis lock? What was the resolution? Why 73 yards? What was she telling them? How did she go back? Why did the Doctor know not to read the notes in the second timeline but not the first?
The moments of tension were really good, and as a short story even independant of Doctor Who it was very compelling, but the end was so fast and made no sense to me.
'I recently took a french class, and yet I don't even know half of these german words'
Funny, I thought it was rather obvious, but I guess not for everyone.
For me sci-fi as commentary works best when it shows a better world, and laughs at the primitive ideas of the past (our present), rather than presenting a hot-topic issue from our time as being still relevant 20000 years in the future, as that just dates it to the current conversation.
Overall I enjoyed this one, felt like a return to a classic monster-of-the-week format, with a decent setup and good intrige, although the reason that the monster was created being 'the computer thinks babies needs monsters' fell a little flat for me.
The commentary on abortion and refugees was a tad shoehorned also, but not a deal breaker for me.
Really liking Ncuti's take on the Doctor and his chemistry with Millie Gibson, and definitely excited to see where the overarching story line for the season goes.
Not voting is still participating in the system because you live with the results, sorry mate. You don't get to opt out then absolve yourself of guilt from the result if its the worst case.
Your principles are sound, but not voting in any election is imo equivalent to voting for whoever wins. If that turns out to be Trump your moral high ground has no basis because you actively enabled that result.
Voting for a candidate doesn't have to mean endorsing their entire being, it can be for many reasons, most noteably tactical voting to ensure the least bad outcome.
Interesting to see it as being freed from a constraint rather than a crutch that viewers can be relied upon to watch all episodes. IMO writing satisfying one episode arc that also makes up part of a wider arc is much more difficult, and many shows now really have just a single arc that only gets good in the last third, making it essentially a 6-8 hour movie rather than an episodic show.
Fully anecdotal, but one of my 6th form rugby teammates went to watch a high school american football game, and said they were comparably as good as we were. Only difference is they filled a stadium and we'd get 3 dads on the sideline.
Junior teams for professional clubs do very much pay attention to school leagues and youth club rugby for players to 'scoop up'.
Seems like a purely cultural difference around going to watch lower level matches to me, rather than the player skill and career trajectory being different.
Unfortunately he's burning the governments money too so I wouldn't be too excited about his constant lawmongering.
I think often cases are won or settled based on who has the most money to keep them going.
Perhaps the OP intended this, but I have seen the snowflake version of this much more commonly than yours:
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
And notably, the odds for this happening were extremely low, because the vast majority of the time the team that catches the snitch wins