|
Oxx in general seems to like the episodes that feel most like standard old-school Doctor Who episodes. Maybe he really should give part of the old series a shot at some point. (If you're the sort of person that enjoys stuff that's incredibly bad in a funny way, there is much to value in the original series' special effects.)
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Watching The Master cavort around, at the end of the episode, when he reveals he has a laser screwdriver- "Who'd have sonic?" he condescendingly asks -is amazing too. Apparently the original line here was "my screwdriver is bigger than yours". I almost wish they'd kept it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I can sortof see Occ's viewpoint that this episode was intended as campy fun, but I think the ending totally ruins that tone. I don't see how you can indiscriminately kill 600 million people in a light-hearted and fun way. RTD's villains almost always have the motivation "killing people is super fun". There may be something else they're doing along the way, but that's generally in the mix somewhere. As for how the audience accepts it, well, we didn't know those jerks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:...since no one else has said it yet: I sang this as well at the appropriate moment. I think it was the most fun I had during the episode.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
terrordactle posted:E: Also, I'm attempting another run at the classic series. I've watched random bits and episodes that sounded interesting, but I want to watch them all for completions sake. I think there's something wrong with me. I've been doing that gradually over the past year. Keep in mind that it's actually impossible to watch the entire classic series; several of them are still lost and probably will never be recovered. Also, some of those episodes are boring. Super, super boring. Just hang on, you'll get to the better stuff soon enough.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Donna is really solid. It helps that she feels like she's in a bit of a different spot than the last two. Sure, she's still living with her parents and is a bit confused about what's going on with her life, but you'll notice that traveling with the doctor is something SHE wants to do and SHE goes after. Instead of having a mystical magical man pop out of nowhere and offer her a trip through fairyland, in this season we have Donna breaking down the door to fairyland with hobnail boots and yelling HEY, LITTLE MAN, YOU ARE TAKING ME ALONG, YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
I figured it couldn't quite manage an A because of 1) Rose and 2) how ridiculous the Adipose were. I suspect this is the last time I'll be right this season.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Man, I wish I had a friend good enough to force me to watch television I hate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:Again people were expecting a fairly positive review, but actually the expectation was more towards it being reviewed worse. I certainly thought it would get hit a little harder based on how he reacted to the last couple of episodes that used the same bag of tricks. Ah, well. It really is a solid episode, and it's great that Donna got some development right out of the gate instead of having to wait half a season for it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
I always figured the fixed point stuff (aside from moments like we get in this episode) was their way of saying "repeat to yourself that it's just a show, I should really just relax".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
It's funny, apparently (at least in these early season four episodes), I should have guessed what I thought of them rather than what I thought Occ would think, since so far he's given them the same scores I would have.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
drat, I thought it would be the right kind of horrible schmaltz and it was the wrong kind all along!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Pretty sure my guess on the next one is going to land me in solo last place.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Well, I did it, I cried to an episode of Doctor fuckin who I cried a single tear, stoically. I will not characterize the way in which I cried the rest of them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
This episode is amazing and I don't care if I lose one million points for my vote on it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
adhuin posted:Idonotlikepeas changes are smaller, but we believe in you! I can do it. I can be the very worst, like no-one ever was. idonotlikepeas fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:I'm hitting him as hard as I can but it's not fixing anything. Wear some rings next time. Maybe use a cosh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
I have pretty strong opinions about people stamping on your head and saying you're watching TV wrong. Like, I don't think it's ever profitable for someone to descend like Moses from the mountaintop with a pair of tablets and declare that actually the thing everyone likes was bad all along, or, of course, the reverse. Art just fundamentally doesn't work like that; the whole point of it is to make an emotional connection with people, and if it succeeded at that, it is in some respects good, and if it failed at that, it is in some respects bad. And yes, that applies even to loving Twilight. Or the Mona Lisa. It doesn't matter. It is almost never a good idea to tell people they should or shouldn't connect with something; you can explain to them what was being attempted, and sometimes that helps if they've genuinely misinterpreted it, but that piece of art is never going to affect that person in the same way as it will someone who connected with it the first time. Pointing out the good and bad aspects of some work of art doesn't magically transform it into something better or worse, or reveal it as being good or bad to an unsuspecting populace; it's largely an exercise into explaining what people who think like you will probably think of the work, and maybe helping people explore some aspects of it that they might not have considered themselves. Nevertheless, all that having been said, if your objection to what-if episodes is that the events in them never happened, you are watching TV wrong. What-if stories have one and only one purpose, which can be most ably illustrated by the most prominent what-if story of the last several generations, It's a Wonderful Life. In terms of objective quality, if you actually believe in that silly concept, It's a Wonderful Life has impeccable credentials; it regularly makes all critics' top-100 movie lists, generally in the top 20, holds a 94% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, etc. So let's talk about that for a little bit instead of an episode of a show for children written by Russell T. Davies. For the two people out there who don't know the plot of one of the most well-known movies of all time: George Bailey, a citizen of a town called Bedford Falls, New York, is having the worst day of his life. There's a run on the banks and his Savings and Loan is literally down to its last two dollars; his incompetent uncle has accidentally handed Mr. Potter, a local slumlord and George's arch-enemy, the money he was intending to deposit and he's likely facing charges of fraud which could wreck his career and life. He argues with his family, drinks, crashes his car into a tree, and is on the verge of committing suicide so that his family can have his insurance money. He's lost his faith, in God, but also in himself. At this moment, his guardian angel, Clarence, appears to him and offers to show him what the world would be like if he hadn't existed. Spoiler alert: it sucks. Without George, his brother Harry, a war hero in reality, dies as a child in a skating accident. Mr. Potter, without George's opposition, has taken over and ruined the town. George's friends are bums and thieves (one of whom is forced to work as a stripper to make ends meet, which was probably considered pretty scary in 1946). The local pharmacist accidentally poisons children by misfilling a prescription after receiving a telegram telling him of his own son's death in the war because George wasn't there to stop him. His erstwhile wife never met anyone else and lives alone. Everything is rotten, everything is terrible, everything sucks, and George bounces from horrific scene to horrific scene with no ability to fix anything, because in this reality he is nobody; just some random drifter from the outside with a meaningless name and an impossible past. In the end, he learns the lesson that the angel was trying to teach him, and returns to his reality to find that the problems he thought were insurmountable were things he actually could deal with, and that all the people he'd helped in his life were willing to help him in return. All of this happens on Christmas, of course. That's why it's a Christmas movie. So what is the point of the alternate reality? After all, nobody, not even the most naive and foolish person, could actually believe that George was going to stay there. That universe was never going to be permitted to exist; George was always going to return to his reality. There is one and only one point: to show George what kind of person he is. And, by extension, to show us, the audience, what kind of person he is. In the case of It's a Wonderful Life, the movie was also making the statement that all of us are people like that, that yanking you out of the world would destroy the people who love you and the people who depend on you, but only the best what-if stories manage to pull that trick off and it's certainly more than you can expect of Doctor Who. What-if stories are character studies. The point of the story is to show what reality would be like if the characters we know behaved differently, or didn't exist, or had different events happen to them. What does it take to turn someone to a life of crime? What is the impact if this character dies in childbirth? What does Bruce Wayne do if his parents never get shot? Those are the sorts of questions these stories ask. The actual events of the plot are simply an external device to show the impact of the character. Are we supposed to care that a quarter of America got wiped out by human fat monsters? No, of course not. We're supposed to understand that Donna is responsible for stopping that from happening. And she is supposed to come to understand it. Like all what-if episodes, the tragedy here is a personal one: seeing Donna without the strength to stand up to her mother or affect her reality or to save anyone, forced to be an observer of events and having no power of her own. If Donna in this state doesn't break your heart, after what she's been throughout the rest of the season, I don't know what your heart is made out of. The triumph at the end of the episode is, again, a personal one. It's not that Donna wipes out the alternate reality, which we knew was going to happen all along, it's that she comes to understand exactly how important she really is, how even though she isn't the guy with the fancy screwdriver and the time machine, her actions prevented regular global catastrophe and literally saved millions of lives. George Bailey isn't only important because he's personally responsible for saving people, he's important because he inspires others to become better people, to save others. Donna is the same way - she saves the Doctor so he can save others. She makes him into a better person than he would be without her. The episode is not really about Doctor Who without Doctor Who, it's about Doctor Who without Donna and, spoiler alert, that world sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I really like what idonotlikepeas says in his first paragraph because what he's talking about is wielding taste as cultural capital, which is bad. It doesn't mean that we can never be critical of popular fiction and we can even consider it garbage or, worse, harmful, but even when it is influenced by corporate influence enough to basically be a giant commercial, it's haughty to discount it as unworthy of discussion or "not art" if huge groups of people feel an emotional connection to the work. It's also why dismissing genre fiction wholesale is bad, and why I hate all those clever thinkpiece articles about how artistically bankrupt young adult novels are. Virtually everyone, including me, is guilty of doing it sometimes. I tend to hate police procedurals, but I should (and don't always) acknowledge that there are reasons they resonate with other people. Bingo. Lord knows I've talked about how terrible Twilight is with friends of mine, but a lot of people really do feel a connection to those books, even some people I like and respect. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't? I sometimes like to remind people that any given play of Shakespeare's contains a whole bunch of dick jokes, and he put those in there for the people in the cheap seats because he wanted to make money. Artistic merit is a tricky thing to pin down and sometimes springs from unlikely sources. mind the walrus posted:I was all set to say something snarky and cutting because of all these I figured this was already "Too Many Words About TV Shows: The Thread", appearing in "Too Many Words About TV Shows: The Forum", so why the heck not?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 18:24
|
|
about a stupid TV show, but yeah this guy has the right of it I'm afraid.
|
Oxxidation posted:Not "you guys," just me. I have never seen this particular argument turn out well for anyone involved, and I'd prefer to wait until at least the end of Davies' run before this thread burns down. Yeah, this probably isn't the thread to go too deep on that discussion, but I think we're pretty well done with it now. I agree that nothing good could come from... Bicyclops posted:I always picture the genres actually fighting with the literary when it comes up. Like Veronica from The Gathering smacks a sparkling vampire with her Man Booker prize, and the vampire gives up from the deep sadness he experiences at her compelling voice and the human drama of the Hegarty family. Then the Power Rangers ride in on Godzilla and tell her that a literary agent would have accused the book of being "quiet" if it were her first venture. Wait! I changed my mind!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
AndwhatIseeisme posted:Honestly I based my grade entirely on Occ reacting to Rose coming back and blowing up daleks with her giant gun and getting the Doctor killed less positively than he did. This influenced my thinking. Insanity = A, plus Rose = B.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
I basically agree with the functional parts of Oxx's review, except that I don't hate Rose enough for her triumph to derail everything for me to such a degree. What happened with Donna, well...idonotlikepeas posted:the tragedy here is a personal one: seeing Donna without the strength to stand up to her mother or affect her reality or to save anyone, forced to be an observer of events and having no power of her own. If Donna in this state doesn't break your heart, after what she's been throughout the rest of the season, I don't know what your heart is made out of. Rose never made the impact on me, good or bad, that she seemed to for a lot of Who fans. My reaction to her leaving for her own universe, aside from being a bit weirded out by the clone thing, was to feel bad for the Real Doctor who was clearly still hung up on her for some reason. So I go back and forth on this episode. It ties up a lot of loose ends well enough, I guess. But Catherine Tate really needed to have another couple of seasons as Donna; there was juice in that character left unsqueezed, so I'll always hate it a little for preventing that. idonotlikepeas fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
One thing you can always count on in Doctor Who is that there can always be more bullshit. It's the same reason the Daleks got brought back a few times already even though they were super-all-dead-we-swear multiple times. There is an unlimited supply of bullshit to justify whatever the current writing team wants to happen and no matter how ridiculous it is, something equally ridiculous has already been done in the history of the show, probably more than once.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
I actually honest-to-god forgot how bad this episode was. As you say, there's basically nothing to it, so somehow it slid through my brain without forming any kind of actual memories at all. I started poking around through episode summaries a few weeks back, since this thread has made me want to revisit the older episodes of the show again, and when I saw this one I felt physically ill for a few seconds as it all came rushing back. This is a bad, bad episode of television and I wish I'd looked it up earlier.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Everything sucks. Sometimes things just suck in really cool ways.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
People who want to use Blink as an introduction to the series are people who feel like they have something to prove. If the person you're trying to convince to watch it thinks of Doctor Who as being bad, or too silly to watch, or whatever, it's an episode you can use to demonstrate that the series can do something effective and scary even using the relatively silly pieces it's made out of. That doesn't necessarily make it a good introduction, because you're basically selling people something that isn't representative of the series as a whole, but it is understandable why some have the impulse to use it that way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Oh boy I'm going to be last place! No! This time, that title will be mine.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Martha deserved better than this, folks. Martha deserved better. One thing I will say about your reviews: you made me look at Martha again as we went through Season Three. See, I hated Martha. Not, like, virulent hate, but she was annoying and unpleasant and I was glad when she left. I actually preferred Rose. (That's Season Two Rose, mind.) But looking back on it now, with more perspective, I think you're right; she was an interesting character that the production team just didn't know how to deal with properly. I think that was, in fact, the major source of my annoyance with her; it felt like the character's background and theoretical off-screen abilities just never showed up enough in front of the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Let's have that debate! No, wait, let's all eat a gun instead. This episode has always felt very bumpy to me. There's definitely some good stuff in there, but there are a lot of slipups, too; I feel like it's a story that needed a little more time to cook, basically. The thumpingly-obvious drop of the moral at the end that others have mentioned is definitely part of it, but the plot is also unusually full of holes for a Moffat Joint. Examples: the whale will not eat children. Everyone knows this. Why, then, is there a system that is designed explicitly to feed children to it? The idea is that dumb people are sent down to feed the beast, sure, and testing them is one way of weeding out the dumb ones, but after a few hundred years you'd probably adjust the system so that it only takes effect when the dumb person has grown up. Now that the Day Has Been Saved, what will the whale eat? Presumably it still needs to eat? Are they going to just keep right on feeding people to it? Should the Doctor and Pond maybe have done something about that before leaving?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
That's fair, actually. Maybe it can just forage for whatever now that they aren't electrifying its brain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
This was actually a B episode for me (although I think I voted A since I wasn't voting based on what I thought). There are certainly some muddled bits, and I agree with most of what has been said; normally I would put this kind of thing around C, but the Churchill performance and the moment with the spitfires bumped it up for me. The latter is significant because there is nobody, anywhere, who could possibly believe it makes any kind of sense. It's not as if they made a mistake with the science; they actually beat science bloody and kicked it out the window while screaming "we don't want YOUR kind around HERE, you little poo poo" and flipping science off with both hands as it sped towards the ground. It's audacious, and I respect that. It probably helps that I do not give even the tiniest poo poo about what color the Daleks are. No matter how much you love the show, you have to come to terms with the fact that these things are giant salt shakers with plungers glued to them. It's not as if they can get sillier.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:The Angels' big weakness is that they can't do anything if you look at them. That is the exact reason for the new powers: now looking at them is dangerous as well. This is part of the reason that I don't like the new powers, in fact. I thought the Angels in this episode were, bizarrely, less scary despite being more powerful. There are a few main reasons for that: In Blink, the Angels are ciphers. They can't communicate with you and you can't communicate with them. We know they're hungry and that they eat time, somehow, but that's it. There's such a vast gulf between them and every other living creature that it is impossible to say what they're thinking or feeling, or even if they do those things in any recognizable way. That implacable unknowability is genuinely frightening; how can you deal with something if you can't even understand how it works? We only have one rule, which is that you have to keep looking at the drat things. Which, of course, is another issue. In Blink, the Angels are inevitable. The tagline of the episode is "don't blink", and that's terrifying because YOU CAN'T NOT BLINK. You can hold it off for a while, you can close your eyes independently, but eventually you're going to slip up and blink and they'll be juuuust a little bit closer to you, looking serene as anything. Part of the reason zombie movies are effective is that, no matter how slow the zombies are, you know they are eventually going to catch you, because you have to sleep and eat and generally do things apart from run, and they don't. It's the gradual inevitability of them that makes them frightening. Every time you slip up, they're catching up to you just a little bit. In a way, the zombies ARE death. Your death is sneaking up on you every day, and eventually it's going to get you; any escape from it is only temporary. The Angels share this same sense of horror. Sure, you can get away from them for now, but that just means they're going to kill you tomorrow, and they'll kill you by making tomorrow yesterday. Speaking of which... In Blink, the Angels are unique. They kill you by eating your time. That's interesting! You get caught and the next thing you know all your friends are getting a letter from sixty years ago about how you're dead. Hell, forget interesting, that's goddamned fascinating, and it opens up all kinds of narrative possibilities. In The Time of Angels, all of these things are stripped away from them, and the Angels are turned into random B-movie monsters that murder people and taunt the heroes. If they're dangerous whether you're looking at them or not, where does the tension of trying to keep looking at them go? If they're murderous psychopaths who like murdering and hurting people, that's bad but it makes them knowable. In this episode, Angels just kill you in any regular old way, not by cool time manipulation. In fact, they boringly kill a bunch of shooting shouty soldiers that might as well have had "about to die pointlessly" scrawled on their foreheads. Making something more likely to kill you isn't necessarily going to make it scarier; you're more likely to die from slipping in the shower than from being shot by a terrorist, but which are you more afraid of? This is especially true since we know fictional characters don't follow the same rules for probability of dying as anyone else; overwhelming force is more likely to be met with overwhelming force. You'll also notice that, despite the new rules, looking at the Angels is basically still how they get dealt with during the episode; from a narrative perspective, the new Angel power exists solely to get Amy into more trouble, and there were probably better ways of accomplishing that than going back on the main premise of the monster. The Angels in this episode might as well have been Daleks, and we've already got Daleks. We don't need Daleks that look like statues. Also the Doctor's speech at the end is just too much. Sorry, it really is. If he'd expressed the same sentiment in half the time, it might have worked, but as it was it was pretty obvious where it was going and it took an AGONIZINGLY long time for him to get around to the point, and the point was just "yes, I am awesome". I don't want another screed about how awesome the Doctor is, delivered by some character, I want the Doctor to actually BE AWESOME, and Matt Smith is loving good at that! Use him right! Speaking of which, I don't think this episode was complete poo poo; there are some genuinely good things in there too. I never would have believed this was the first episode in which Matt Smith played the Doctor, because apart from some of the stupid crap they gave him to say, he turned in an amazing performance. I did get a little tired of the "spoilers" catchphrase, but other than that Alex Kingston was pretty great too and I liked that her character was complicated a bit by the episode. While I disagree with the entire concept of Angel Bob, the actual execution of it was pretty much perfect; David Atkins did an amazing job sounding vaguely apologetic as he threatened everyone with horrible death. So for me it's a grab bag of good and bad parts; I'll still take it over a large portion of RTD's run, but it's nowhere near what I would have hoped for from a second Angel episode.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
I also enjoyed this episode more than its predecessor; by the time I saw this one, I was done being mad about the way the angels were made less interesting, although the scene with them moving is dumb for all the reasons people have already listed. I would have personally rated it a B or C, probably, but I figured the big emotional hijinks would up the grade here. Oh, well!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Rory is great, but he just wasn't enough to save this episode for me. It's too inconsistent and has too many boring bits and too many things that felt like retreads of earlier episodes. Still not a complete stinker, but meh.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
This episode definitely deserves an A, but I hedged my bets with a B because of fears about Occ's attitude about what-if episodes. I am delighted to be wrong. A few words on emotion vs. logic. I don't think of Amy's choice here as being purely emotional; she didn't make it in anger, or in a fit of passion, or even while blinded by grief. Sure, she yells at the doctor, but when she gets to the point of decision, she's calm. For the entire episode, they've been trying to figure out to figure out a way to determine which world is the real world. But now, she's examined two possible universes: in one, Rory is dead, and in another, he's just waiting for her in the TARDIS. In the second universe, the right choice is suicide to get back to the TARDIS. The first universe isn't one she wants to live in... it's not one she can tolerate living in, so in that universe the right choice is also suicide. The two possibilities have collapsed into one. It's a powerful emotional moment, but like all the best it's also a product of rationality. I generally prefer to think of the divide here as between art and craft. Fundamentally, an artist wants to express a feeling and a craftsman wants to create a structure. But the divide isn't clean; the best works of art are also works of craft, and the best craft is also art. Part of the reason that the best episodes are the best is that they bridge that gap, and the hope is that even with the improved craft in this season, the art doesn't have to be lost.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
I probably should have taken the fact that I didn't remember this one well as a warning.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Didn't you know? Everything that is changed sucks, forever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Mo0 posted:Rory Status: Never Owned Right there with you. I figured he'd like this one; after all, it's nothing but a series of emotional appeals.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
What I remember from when I watched this episode, ages back, is being utterly shocked at this moment coming out of the sort of vague mundanity of the earlier part of it. (Guess I should rewatch the thing - I don't remember it being that odious, just sort of vaguely boring.) I had never conceived that they would kill Rory off that fast; I figured he'd get a season at least. Moments of surprise like that are rare on television, and particularly rare in family shows like Doctor Who; even if you don't know the specifics, you can still get a feel for the shape of what's coming far in advance. And they didn't just kill him, they THOROUGHLY killed him, shot and dramatic last words and ERASURE FROM HISTORY, and every part of his death scene and what followed was pitch-perfect. I was seriously stunned into speechlessness by it. And I spent the whole rest of the season thinking "what is this crazy fucker Moffat going to do next?", which I have to assume was part of the intended effect. And really, you hit the nail on the head when it comes to the theme here. Amy's life has been comprehensively destroyed by the Doctor. He has completely screwed up everything for her. And he's been trying desperately to fix things, but this is the episode where he loses his last shot to do that. And it's heartbreaking. This might have been an episode where I'd have rolled dice if I were grading it by myself, because how do you even consider everything before Rory's death and everything after as a single unit? They might as well be two completely separate episodes of television that just happened to be broadcast one right after the other. (And one of which was super-short, but oh well.) idonotlikepeas fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Oh, hey, maybe I actually will get last place this time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 03:32
|
|