The internet fails, badly and and consistently, as an audience for actual criticism.

I agree with the general principle that we should be seeing a greater variety of body types in media, but c'mon: skinny legs aren't always the result of an eating disorder. Daria's body isn't unrealistically idealized in the manner of a Barbie doll. She's just a skinny adolescent, which do exist, and that's okay.

My assumption is that the tone of the headline (whch does that inane "refer to the actor as if they're actually their previous role" thing) continues throughout the article.

Jesus Christ, he was an actor playing a role. The "unfortunately for him" snark just seems childish and silly.

Yay! But this is the first I've heard him say that a third season would be the end. My guess? HBO said: unless there's a ratings miracle, you get one more season, and that's it. And this is the most graceful face to put on it.

The Simpsons has always had nice animation. The earlier stuff just had a slightly quirkier, animation-festival flavor.

"That was a painful thing for the reviewer to have forgotten."

Didn't realize the actor playing Moloch was black until I read this (and looked him up.)

Now, please cast Karen Gillan in something where she speaks in her own accent. No-brainer!

Yes, I wonder if this feels like more of a red flag to American audiences than intended.

I thought this too, but I wonder if I was transposing assumptions of American-style racial tension onto a British environment.

It's basically an 80's style tits-and-guns-and-explosions experience, made with a nice degree of self-awareness that never quite devolves into camp or irony. It's well-made and pretty fun in an uncomplicated way. Some eye candy for everyone tho it definitely skews towards boobs.

So, what *was* under the bedsheet? Another child? A consensual hallucination? An actual monster to be revealed later in the season?

Agreed, continuity has always been wobbly, and the show's mythology far more ad hoc than we pretend, but just last week they seemed to reassert that the Doctor's original moral indifference was overturned by the Daleks. So I was a little surprised! HOWEVER I completely buy into the idea (suggested by others) that the…

Fair enough. Thinking about it further, I guess that really is the point.

Okay, I'll buy this.

Anyone else bothered by the (implied) revisionism in suggesting that the Doctor stole the TARDIS originally out of some altruistic desire to help the unfortunate? Cuz as I recall, Doctor #1 began as a stone-cold scoundrel and only started growing a conscience after visiting Skaros. (And isn't it a weird lapse, given…

It wasn't really a great Daleks episode, but the one with Churchill had my favorite Dalek moment of the new series — a helpful, butler-like "friendly" Dalek pretending to chum around with the British military while the Doctor glares angrily at him. Hilarious!

Really wish the whole episode didn't feel like a plea to the audience to accept Capaldi. I get that they are worried about younger fans, but the whole thing felt vaguely patronizing.

Glad these are back. Goddammit if Nowalk+Wallflower aren't making me want to watch the whole damn series a third time.