Upset Doctor-crushing fangirls should learn from when Catherine Tate was announced as the full-time companion. A huge backlash from the (mostly) sexually-repressed companion-crushing fanboys decrying "she's too old!" and "she's too ugly!". And then she turned out to be the best companion Nu Who had had up to that…

I'd put series 5 at the top of all Who since it came back. And I'd put series 6 on about a par with RTD's series 4 (which I loved). But, faults or not, I'd still rank Moffatt above Davies overall. Even with Smith's lesser episodes (The Widow. The Doctor and the Wardrobe?) we are yet to see a Love and Monsters or Fear…

http://i5.photobucket.com/a…
Poor insecure, puberty-filled geeky tweenagers.

And whenever they open the TARDIS doors on a strange planet The Doctor will muse the same thought - "How much fucking shit is there on the menu and what fucking flavour is it?"

"Davros, with your big baldy head you are spoiling us"

I agree - he's an absolutely great choice. When it was rumoured the other day (along with every other actor in the country) it suddenly clicked as an incredible choice but one that was far too good to be true.

I look forward to him beckoning Clara to the TARDIS with "Come the fuck in or fuck the fuck off"

The kiss-ff line was one of my favourite moments. I'd lean more towards out of nowhere than unearned but that's what I liked about it.

I've never considered it before but Jesus, Tom Hollander would be fucking incredible as The Master.

It is remarkably easy to imagine "Fucking timey-wimey bullshit" in his voice.

"Smurfs 2 is at least slightly superior to the absolutely dire first film"

Great points. It also doesn't help that our generation seems to wallow in nostalgia, whether it be ironic or otherwise, so trends and pop culture from then are more likely to live on. Sure, there's still a good amount of the 90s that we can look back on and cringe at but nowhere nears as big a shift as the 80s/90s…

Thanks for the explanation @davidkordahl:disqus , I see what you mean. I completely agree that films should have ambition and I'm certainly glad that Cianfrance got a chance to make the film the way he wanted to, whether I thought it all worked or not.

In what way is it "essential"? I'm not being snarky here, I'm genuinely curious why it would be tagged as such. It was - to me - a solid but flawed piece of work whose ambition was greater than what it was capable of (I liked the idea of cross-generational consequences, I just found some of the coincidences and…

"Oh really, Jesse? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want her to have an abortion."

No, you're not exaggerating. It was his whole arc during the film - it starts off highlighting his selfishness and cluelessness and leads to him trying to figure it out. It runs through the whole film.

Here's something to age us - there's less distance between the setting and release of The Wedding Singer (13 years) than there are this film (20 years).How is that possible? Didn't there seem a bigger culture disparity between The Wedding Singer and its 1998 release than there does between us and 1993?

"Despite some occasional lip service (pun intended) to the female libido, American Pie was chiefly a boys’-eye view of sexual awakening; its interest in women’s pleasure came down to the mere mention of that one time at band camp"

Just so you know, I read all of your comments in a Tina voice. A sincere thank you.

But live-action comedy can just as easily bail out with gurning or a cheap physical gag. There are cheats/gimmicks with both but each also has its own strengths,