In many of the classic serials from the 60s, the Doctor and companion are really just benevolent observers who happen to show up just as something interesting is going on, or at most, a catalyst for something interesting happening between other, pre-existing factions.

Everyone needs an editor.

Kids enjoyed Doctor Who almost as much in 1978 and the story arcs were much, much less centered on the Doctor.

I have been saying this since at least last season, and I agree with this article completely. Watching Moffat's Who is basically watching Q from Star Trek walk onto a new planet each week and then snap his fingers and solve all the problems. It leaves you wondering constantly "Well why hasn't he snapped his fingers…

I didn't really think that, either, but it seems like a lot of angry nerds were (and if io9 today is any indication, they still are.) It sounds like we're in the same boat - I also enjoy most of Star Trek and most of Star Wars.

Since his earliest movie was about seven years ago, it has indeed been a challenge for Abarms to make a movie that has held up well for 31 years thus far.

Although Kirk is absolutely an action hero, he spends a lot of time in the early movies talking to, listening to, comforting and respecting his crew. He's definitely more a leader than a follower but he absolutely sees his team as valuable and listens to them, Spock particularly.

I think it's actually not that bad. If you complained about the "Star Warsing" of the Trek franchise from Abrams' first time, though, you will definitely not like this one.

To what extent do you think this movie deliberately leaves elements hanging for the now-definitely-coming third act? I wonder if some of the dangling plot threads will seem less stupid if we see some continuation or resolution in The Last Star Trek (or A Star Trek To Remember, The Star Trek Rises, whatever)

I agree that movie leaned a little too heavily on fan-service, and there are a lot of questions thrown up in the first half that seemed to be either hand-waved or blatantly ignored the in the second half. There was definitely room for a rewrite or two.

My mom introduced me to Star Wars, Blade Runner, Miyazaki, Heinlein, Asimov, Carl Sagan and hundreds of hours of genre television that I would not have otherwise watched. It wasn't until adulthood that I realized she'd been deliberately raising me and my siblings into nerds so that she'd have someone to watch sci-fi…

This is the saddest part for me, too.

To be a time-traveling fly on the wall during those story conferences....

Larry Summers made his remarks as a keynote speech about diversity while occupying the post of Harvard University President. Given that a university president's job is primarily to raise funds and prestige for their respective organization, I'd say he was — at the very least — failing pretty spectacularly at his job. …

It's not disingenuous, and I'm not sure what two things I'm establishing an equivalence between, but whatever, nice buzzword retort!

I still think that the most effective way to equalize achievement outcomes is the Harrison Bergeron method.

I am late to the party, but I really enjoyed this movie quite a bit. It is stunningly beautiful and the music is awesomely hypnotic - both have a very refined 70s aesthetic that is the primary virtue of the film.

Scott Gray, who was the lead writer for much of the Eighth Doctor's excellent run in the comics, described using the TARDIS as a solution to any major plot point as a "Doctor Who writer's no-no" and I couldn't agree more. One of the biggest frustrations I have with Moffat as a writer is that the show seems to revolve…

This is cool, but I'm pretty sure that Han, Luke and Leia have each had enough adventures to last several lifetimes at this point, if you count all or even most of the EU events as canonical. Do these guys ever just get a chance to, you know, spend a Sunday play bridge (or Space Bridge?)

It's also great because it will give you lots of examples of "Well, no matter what I write, it won't be THIS dumb..."