diflucan 2 doses

Wait, What? Ep. 77: The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking

Jeff Lester

Photobucket

(Illustration from Chapter 166 of Bakuman. Remember it’s a right-to-left world out there.)

Remember how The Uncanny X-Men would, like, get psychically mind-raped by The Hellfire Club, or shot full of Brood babies and be torn apart from the inside, or bound and gagged to the inside of Magneto’s rumpus room, and then afterward there’d be an issue of them playing baseball and walking around the recently rebuilt (since it had also been recently destroyed) mansion of Professor X?

This episode is a little bit like that, I guess, with Graeme and I recovering from answering (almost) everyone’s questions and having ourselves quite the crazy time of it on the Internet.  So Episode 77 is two hours of amiable chitchat from your friends on the Wait, What? team talking Graeme’s library picks, Spider-Island, the high initial ordering numbers of Avengers Vs. X-Men, our ignorance of current MTV reality shows, He Who Cannot Be Named, the pros and cons of going to the comic shop, The Hunger Games, Earth 2, Dr. Who, Tintin, and that one movie with Christian Bale and the gun-fu, as well as the One Piece Meets Toriko (which I brain-deadedly call “Tobiko” throughout) one-shot available from Shonen Jump Alpha.   (Which I almost ganked a picture from instead.)

Four out of five dentists who recommend choosy mothers choose iTunes, but Episode 77 is here, coiled and cautious, if you dare plunge your fists again and again into its evil, undying heart:

Wait, What? Ep. 77.1: The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking

As always, we hope you enjoy and thanks for listening!

37 Responses to “ Wait, What? Ep. 77: The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking ”

  1. Listening now – “Jersey Beach.” Oh, how I wish I never knew the correct name of that show.

  2. So, I listen to the podcast from about 3-5a on the morning of posting because as the “time to make the donuts” guy I get a pretty early start on most folks.

    I laid out my reasons for leaving the Marvel family in the fine “Arriving” list along with my buys for the week so I’ll save you all from that particular little missive here.

    On the podcast front, hearing that Wacker was saying something more to me – especially about Donuts – is interesting. Must have gone out after I blocked him. If he’d like some he’ll need to come to Columbus because Donuts (the fresh and real ones) don’t ship well. Otherwise, I’d be more than happy to sell him some and I’d even welcome him into my shop. Up till recently I’m sure he’d have really enjoyed himself. I’ve got a spinner rack that I stock with old comics that are free to borrow. Posters of Spider-Man, Hulk, Supes, and Thor all fight for space with my Steve McQueen Bullitt print and all variety of Buckeye memorabilia (try imagining the look on people’s faces when they see that $12 Rose Bowl ticket. Parking included, natch).

    Trouble is, Marvel’s rent check for my goodwill and open brand championing just bounced so the format of the shop, the rack, and my daily conversation will be undergoing its own “retconbootcha” or whatever that word was you invented.

    Any odd, moving on.

    I just wanted to say I really appreciate the work you put in to provide something of value to me. Whether you realize it or not your lack of format has become a format all its own – and a good one.

    The “Big” question of the episode is one that a great many people are asking – even in the open – at the shop I visit regularly. I only hope that more people aren’t getting their comics buying back broken by “little straws.”

    In isolation, the Wacker thing would have been one more eye roll to me but with the last year of news, price hikes, page counts, word counts, creator issues, ethical business practices being called into question…

    That one more eye roll, for myself and only myself, has proven to be the last for Marvel Comics.

    Keep up the work, gentlemen!

  3. JERSEY BEACH!

  4. Is it weird that you’re only getting a handful of Marvel comics nowadays? I dunno. I’m down to only 3 or 4 myself.

    Look, I’m always going to collect comics. Just not necessarily new ones. The Big Two apparently don’t want me as a customer (and haven’t for a while)… that bugged me at first, but, upon reflection, I guess I was okay with it.

    If I stopped buying comics monthly, the world would still go on. I’m not quite at a full stop yet… but I can see a time where I will be.

  5. Where is this giant guide to marvel reading order?

  6. To “JERSEY BEACH” I would like to add the following Favorite Quotations From This Episode Of The Podcast:

    “He ends up on an island where it starts raining meat…”

    “He wants to be a pirate and because he’s eaten the devil fruit, he cannot swim.”

    “The great thing about it is it really looks like a rainbow poo.”

    And I can’t stand manga!

  7. I love how you spend an hour complaining about Wacker being a troll when your entire webcast is a weekly troll to Marvel. I mean, for hating Marvel so much, you all sure do spend a ton of time talking about them. How about spending some time on talking about DC or Image or any independent books instead of the non stop Marvel bitch session. Seriously guys…after 77 episodes the Marvel whining is getting old…

  8. Just throwing it out there, but if you’re getting tired of Brother Blood series, try Mark Rickett’s “Nighttrippers.” http://www.nighttrippers.com/

    Mark Ricketts is one of those underrated comics writers/artists that came out in the same time as David Mack and Brian Bendis that comes out with things that I really really like. Nowheresville is a beat generation crime novel. His follow-up, Night Trippers is a vampire story set in the swinging 60s at the height of Beatlemania. I highly recommend it if you’re looking for a good vampire book and you like the self-referential/metaphoric nature of BtVS.

    – Gary Ancheta

  9. @George: Somebody else posts are George – i guess it was bound to happen. I will need to come up with a new real name. On future posts I will go by “George T”

    I enjoyed the podcast as usual. I too enjoyed the first volume of Journey into Mystery, a Marvel book deserving of praise.

    you guys do need to read some comics soon thought or else you may run out of comics to talk about.

  10. Jeff, you really must persevere with Doctor Who, and especially “Vincent and the Doctor,” probably my second favourite story from the new ear. It is a story that sums up everything that makes Doctor Who: being both a sympathetic study of mental illness via science fiction and representing that mental illness via a giant rubber space chicken haunting a historical figure. It really is majestic.

    But Graeme is right: the series’ final two parter is a thing of profound beauty in the clockwork precision of it’s storytelling and ability to surprise the viewer while simultaneously making them laugh. And fez’s are cool.

    Meanwhile, I should add my voice to those thanking you for our regular fix of what is, essentially, two best friends simply talking about what they like for a couple of hours every week. I may not agree with everything either of you say, but you say it in such a loveable way that I couldn’t care if I did disagree. Long may you continue.

    As to the events of the last week: I wonder whether one of the drawbacks of the internet age is the fact that we, the consumer, simply know far too much about the products we purchase and those that make them. There is no longer a time delay, either in how soon we hear any breaking news or, more pertinently to this blog, when it comes to someone reacting to something, especially negatively. And I think it’s effecting the enjoyment of the material out there.

    Maybe some distance is needed: I know that, since I decided to stop reading any interviews with Matt Fraction, as I was finding myself disliking him more and more from what he said, I’ve started enjoying some of his work again. How I yearn for the days back when he was writing Iron Fist and I knew absolutely nothing about him and could judge him purely on his work. Once of my favourite new creators is Jeff Lemiere, and even though I follow him on Twitter it’s remarkable how little I know about him beyond his work, and I’m eager to continue that way. I feel that the comic star as pop star trend has gone as far as it can now, and really should retreat for a while.

    But this reinforces the immediacy of comics: I never knew Steve Ditko was an Objectivist when I first discovered his work (partly because I was eight at the time), but the nostalgic love I have for it means that I can now ignore it. If I were to have discovered him today, would that have been different, and would I have dismissed him because I disagreed with him politically? And is that any different from the Matt Fraction’s of the world? Or have I degreased to much?

    Anyway, stick with the good Doctor, Jeff, and definitely seek out the Tennant story from series two The Girl In The Fireplace. Moffat’s masterpiece: perfection on television as well as giving textbook advice of what to do if you have monsters under your bed. Enjoy.

  11. You guys are so much more generous than I am, just as human beings; so much less cynical. I don’t think that was trolling; I think that was honesty– that’s how people who works in comics see the audience on the internet. We’re “pundits.” All of them, not just any one guy. And they just pretend otherwise when they have some creator-owned book to sell– then they pretend we’re suddenly “patrons of the art” so they can separate the suckers from their money, and tweet their little lectures and pat themselves on the back for their lectures.

    Howard Chaykin told a story at a Norwegian comic festival called Bergen– it’s on youtube; he talks about how they tried to make an authorized Mad Men comic but it fell apart (that part gets cut off; very frustrating); it’s a really interesting talk actually, if you like HVC– anyways, how he got a bad review from the internet and got told by his editors to ignore it because “that guy lives in his parent’s basement and wants your job.” So, in the never-not-paranoid lens through which I view the world, this isn’t trolling; it’s just unwritten policy of this bizarre group of people that hates their audience but simultaneously exists irony-free in a state of constant bewilderment that their audience isn’t bigger.

    It’s better you guys don’t see it that way, though. It’d make for an ugly chat.

  12. Spider-Island really worked for me because it’s pretty much a stealth undo of OMD/OMIT. I mean, MJ confesses she’s still in love with Peter, Pete and Carlie break up, and people can now figure out (or remember) that Peter is Spider-Man. That’s, what, 80% of what One More Day eliminated? Throw a ring on Pete’s finger and give him organic web shooters, and that story pretty much never happened. Seemed like a pretty clever trick, especially considering it was done by the guy who helped make the Brand New Day era such a success.

    Oh, and the Humberto Ramos art totally did it for me; Graeme was totally right on that point.

    Great podcast, as always, gents. I’d like to second J_Smitty_’s statement and thank you guys for putting as much time and effort into something I find so entertaining. Your hard work is appreciated.

  13. Loved this entire podcast. I feel like I’m really enjoying the looser structure you guys bring to the podcast; it’s easier to listen to.

    I have to say, though, Jeff: if you think your sullen workers at Walgreens aren’t being badgered beyond reason for numbers, you’re sadly mistaken. Pretty much any retail job these days involves massive pressure for nigh-unreasonable numbers on a shoestring budget. It’s beyond ridiculous.

  14. I love how you guys are apologetic about the lack of format.

    Don’t you realize it’s the rambling tangents, the brief unedited snapshots into Jeff’s life and the fact that he seems to be constantly eating while you record -and yet thinks that mumbling a few ‘mm-hmm…INterESTing…’s and chewing quietly will cover it all up — that we love so dearly ?

  15. Great though they are, the thing about these two hour episodes is that I think up all manner of responses to the podcast and forget every one of them by the time I finish listening. I blame the lack of format. What you really need are points where you pause the show for me to take notes.

    Anyway.

    My comment on the Wacker incident is that I found it kind of dispiriting in the end, it’s unfortunate that reasoned criticism of Marvel would be met with “trolling” from one of its editors. I have a niggling worry that this is par for the course, that this outcome is what is to be expected from voicing something other than great praise or insult.
    A crossover event like this -where some great commentators and a great editor clash- should be an awesome discussion, rather than the uncomfortable proceedings witnessed.
    Oh, and this is probably one of the few podcasts to have a protective concern for its listenership, which is a nice feature.

    Graeme’s view of Spider Island being made for 90s Spider-man fans has made me consider buying the other nine volumes of the Spider-man Clone Saga series. I didn’t follow Spidey in the 90s, but had great fun with Island and was always fascinated by the Clone Saga.

    Closing out this post, I’d like to make a suggestion to Jeff.
    Firstly, do try to watch through all of series 5 of Doctor Who. The Silurians two-parter is mostly a dull trip (though Murray Gold’s doom laden theme for them is lovely) but “Vincent and the Doctor” & “The Lodger” are very comfy adventures worth enjoying.

    If you find yourself addicted to Doctor Who, then do take a taste tour through the past Doctors. Start with “An Unearthly Child” for Hartnel, “The War Games” for Troughton, “Ambassadors of Death” for Pertwee, “City of Death” for Tom Baker, “Caves of Androzani” for Davison, skip Colin Baker and watch “Remembrance of the Daleks” through to “Survival” for McCoy.

    Or maybe just skip back a bit and watch Moffat’s two-parter for the Eccleston series.

  16. As always, loved the podcast. I don’t really care what you talk about, as long as it’s pop culture related; I’ve discovered a lot of books, movies and collected comics editions because of your ramblings.

    Graeme said something that really hit home in this ‘cast. DC has never felt more distant to him as a company. I feel the exact same way. I am not the audience for their comics anymore, because I am over 20 years old, don’t wear a hoodie and don’t like Eminem. NuDC isn’t doing it for me. Earth 2 (a good topic of conversation for you guys) looks awful, truly and absolutely awful. And don’t get me started on “Shazam.” I collect maybe four DC books, and I wouldn’t really miss any of those if they went away. And I love DC! Well, Paul Levitz’s DC anyway. DC is over for me as a company, and that is sad to me.

  17. Here’s a possible topic: What do you guys think about the digital presence of DC Comics? I used to like the DC message boards and now it seems like they’ve killed that virtual dc community with just designing it away and focusing more on twitter and Facebook top-down rather than bottom-up community building. Is DC trying to distance themselves from the older comics fan community in order to get fresh blood into the mix? It seems like they’re shooting themselves in the foot by not giving the community that has formed up around their comics a place to play around in.

  18. Here’s the thing about New Who: they’ve been pretty slick about updating the show in some ways (incorporating romantic tension into the “companion” relationships, upping the melodrama and bombast, adding a lot of soap opera elements) but really clumsy in others – particularly when it comes to arc plotting. When Davies relaunched the series, he pretty clearly patterned the show after Buffy in a lot of ways, including the one plotline/villain per season model – but the way Davies did it was laughably lazy (having a couple characters mention a phrase once an episode, then have that phrase have something to do with the closing two-parter).

    Moffat’s put a little more effort into his plotting… but the result has been actually worse in a lot of ways. As you can tell already, the running arc of Moffat’s first season has to do with the “cracks in time.” You’ll find out what caused them at the end of the season… but you won’t find out what caused the thing that caused them. And while there’s the implied promise that you’ll get a satisfactory answer next season… you won’t. It’s the X-Files model: plotlines aren’t resolved so much as they’re deferred, put off, buried, abandoned, or hastily replaced with an even sketchier replacement. The end result is a lot of running around from one Maguffin to another, storylines cluttered with one-dimensional ciphers lacking backgrounds, coherent motivations or distinct personalities, but whom we’re meant to care about nonetheless. In the meantime, Moffat is too busy jugging half-a-dozen arc threads to actually tell the satisfying stories that he used to, ironically enough, under Davies.

    Other irritating things with Moffat: his reliance on Mary Sues, his habit of giving his protagonists big speeches in which they lecture heavily armed bad guys who are ostensibly trying to kill them about how awesome the protagonists are while the bad guys just stand around scratching their asses and not doing anything, his tendency to confuse “time” with “magic.” (Doctor Who is one of the few series about a time traveler which has never bothered to have a coherent explanation of how time travel works. Most of the time it seems like the Doctor can do whatever the fuck he wants, sometimes it seems like the Doctor can do whatever he wants as long as he is not at a “fixed point in time,” which seems to mean “anything or anyone you may have learned about in eighth grade social studies”, and on at least one occasion it is directly stated that if anything in history is changed at all, magical black bats will fly out of nowhere and eat the universe.)

  19. Incidentally, I’m not bored at all of listening to Jeff agonize over whether or not to jump ship on Marvel. I understand his line of reasoning and sympathize a lot with it.

    The larger problem is there’s kind of two ways of approaching this sort of thing. One way is an actual boycott, which means an organized campaign of getting people to not buy something, in order to pressure a target to change its behavior. When anti-apartheid organizers, for instance, campaigned around a boycott of South Africa, they didn’t just decide to cancel their personal vacation plans to Sun City, they campaigned for everyone to stop traveling there, to stop buying products made there, for corporations to divest from there, etc., and they did all this under a unified set of demands that represented what the government of South Africa would have to do in order for the organizers to drop the boycott. A successful boycott takes a lot of effort, but it can get serious results.

    The other way of looking at it is the way that an ethical vegetarian approaches the consumption of meat. When an ethical vegetarian stops eating meat, he’s not abstaining from meat because he’s engaging in an organized campaign to put pressure on the meat industry to change its treatment of animals. He’s just trying to opt out of a product whose production has moral consequences he finds troubling. The actual act of opting out doesn’t actually put any significant pressure on the system to change, because it’s not an organized act being done as part of a mass movement – it just makes the vegetarian feel slightly better about not being quite as complicit in that system.

    Jeff’s relationship with Marvel feels more like the vegetarian’s – or maybe like a meat-eater who’s trying to go vegetarian but keeps sneaking home with a bucket of KFC while looking guiltily at his loving parrot. As a pretty shitty vegetarian myself, I can sympathize with this. Ultimately I want to see something like a movement for real workers’ rights within the comics industry, and a movement like that could be supported by readers by something like an organized boycott. I don’t know what it would take for such a movement to come along, though – the death or transformation of the industry itself seems more likely to happen first.

  20. I didn’t follow all the Wacker stuff, because I’m not on Twitter and I wasn’t all that interested in the subject being debated on this site. But Graeme’s wife is right. Only in comics do established professionals engage consumers and each other in such a way.

    I work in theater, which is full of spiteful bitches who love nothing more than to gossip, snark, and wallow in schadenfreude and hathos. But all that happens privately at the bar after the show. We’re also subject to public critique (in fact, we seek it out), but it’s exceedingly rare for a person to publicly rebuke a reviewer. “No, Ben Brantley, YOU’RE the moron!”

    I always find it mystifying when this happens in comics circles. Engaging your audience is one thing – and one of the great things about comics is that you’ve always had a good chance of actually meeting the creators you follow, at a con or a store event or now at least online – but the extent to which comics pros will get down in the mud with fans or each other is always really off-putting to me. Whether it’s this thing with Steve Wacker, or the back-and-forth between Scott McDaniel and John Rozum, or Dwayne McDuffie running down his DC editors while on JLA, or Jim Shooter settling scores with revisionist history on his blog, or Alex DeCampi’s ad hominem attacks on Karen Berger, or the innumerable flame wars various creators have gotten into with anonymous fans and other creators, it all just strikes me as super-unprofessional. I looked up that ESPN memo Graeme mentioned and it makes sense to me. Don’t guys like Wacker know that they’re the public face of their employer? Doesn’t his superiors know (or care) how their employee is presenting them in public? And aren’t freelancers concerned with the possible repercussions for their public statements? I guess not, but it sure seems weird to me.

  21. Here’s a question for you, Jeff, re: Brother Blood (which I’ve never heard of). If it’s that bad, why don’t you stop reading it? Do you feel compelled to finish a book once you’ve started it? I used to be that way. I’d slog through a novel even if I hated it, but at some point I realized that there wasn’t going to be a test, so I didn’t HAVE to finish any particular book.

  22. You guys wonder how Wacker can be everywhere all the time. I think he outsources his trolling to Indian virtual assistants, hence the weird hours.

    Jeff, no offense but you don’t seem to understand what a sociopath is. You go into how a troll is different than a sociopath, then list a bunch of behaviors and mindsets that are pure textbook sociopathy. Not all sociopaths reach the point of murdering people. I’m with Graeme, Wacker’s definitely a sociopath or at least acts like one.

  23. “his habit of giving his protagonists big speeches in which they lecture heavily armed bad guys who are ostensibly trying to kill them about how awesome the protagonists are while the bad guys just stand around scratching their asses and not doing anything”

    Oh, you didn’t like that speech Matt Smith gives at Stonehenge? I liked that speech. I thought that was one of the high-points of that two-parter. I think one of the smartest things Davies did was have the Doctor being super-excited to be the Doctor– I think that’s great. Why wouldn’t the audience root for a character who’s psyched about himself? So I guess I’m a big softie for those speeches, I guess. Or the trap speech in the Weeping Angels two-parter? I like that one too. It’s Doctor Who– I’m not really watching for the action…

    Plus: as sympathetic as I am to complaints about Moffat’s plotting (I find him very entertaining in the moment but his arcs are a mess; I’m really doubtful that last season actually made a lick of sense) … I really like the overall story he’s told over these last two seasons with Amy Pond. When they’ve had to hit big moments with her, they’ve mostly landed for me. And I don’t know that I’d chalk that up to her being any kind of great actress, so. Like, the trees definitely have problems– but I guess I like the forest there…?

  24. “Why wouldn’t the audience root for a character who’s psyched about himself?”

    Too true. It’s a great way to get a reader/viewer to adopt a character.

    Do we still have characters in Marvel/DC who’s psyched about himself? Waid’s Daredevil maybe? Used to be Spider-man, but is he still? Superman? Buehler?

  25. It’s not about the Doctor “being excited to be the Doctor.” It’s about the Doctor being written as a blustering action hero type. It marks a shift in portraying the Doctor as an underdog who instinctively sides with his fellow underdogs to portraying him as a galactic-level threat who swaggers his way around the universe with some cosmic reputation, who gets recognized everywhere he goes because he’s such an amazing fucking badass, and you know he’s such a badass because, Poochy-style, whenever he’s not telling you what a badass he is, all the other characters are stepping up to remind you what a badass he is.

    The old series had plenty of faults, but I liked that at heart, it was about a weird old crank who traveled around the universe in a broken-down piece of crap, who was routinely outgunned and overpowered and whose most advanced piece of weaponry was a robot dog, whose plans were frequently thrown together half-assed at the last minute and whose reasoning was frequently questionable, but who could still beat the bad guys with luck and some clever tricks. The new iterations of the Doctor come off as some nigh-invincible, godlike superhero who shrugs off death based on his sheer him-ness. That character has no appeal for me.

  26. To blather on a it more, because why not: Jeff’s Bond comparison is apt, to a point – the recasting of the Doctor does act as a built-in reset/reboot/jumping-on point, and fans tend to define various eras of the show by the actors who played the Doctor then (and favor the actor who was playing when they started watching). But even that understates the show’s plasticity: just within Tom Baker’s run (which lasted seven years), you have the years when Hinchcliffe and Holmes were running the show as a sort of low-budget sci-fi tribute to Hammer Films, with the Doctor going up against cursed robot mummies, stitched-together reanimated zombie Time Lords, and alien Satanists, culminating in a serial set in Victorian London that combines analogues of Jack the Ripper, the Phantom of the Opera, Holmes and Watson, and Fu Manchu; later on you have the period when Douglas Adams is running the show as a mildly diluted Hitchhiker’s Guide; and you have the last season of the Baker run, when the show turns into an unexpectedly somber meditation on entropy, decay and death.

    And in this context, of course, there’s no such thing as a “true” or authentic version of Doctor Who, and I’d never claim that there was. I just happen to like the Tom Baker version best (although I’ve got plenty of time for the other classic Doctors, too, especially Peter Davison, who plays him as a kindly but world-weary old man trapped in a young man’s body), and as little patience as I have for the Davies or Moffat versions, I give them credit for managing to revive a show that had been dead for twenty-odd years.

    HAVING SAID ALL THAT: there was still a basic structure and format to the classic Doctor Who series that’s gone from the new one – and not without reason; no entertainment executive in their right mind would greenlight a show in a weekly serial format about a weird-looking older man who abducts children and flies them around the universe harassing aliens and dead people. BUT THAT’S THE SHOW I FELL IN LOVE WITH, GOD FUCK IT.

  27. Well, I still think “The Doctor Dances” is a Who that makes the series ring. But I just can’t get past Shovelhead’s overhanging brow and flesh-colored eyebrows.

    Anyway, what I’d like to ask is: what was the name of the series mentioned that was like “Life on Mars” done right in the States (which “Life on Mars (US)” most certainly wasn’t)? It was mentioned in passing and couldn’t make it out. Thanks in advance and long-time listener, second-time commenter.

  28. Thanks as always to Messrs Lester and McMillan for the podcast. And don’t worry about not “reviewing” comics; I listen not to find out about particular comics, but to hear what *you guys* have to say about comics.

    on at least one occasion it is directly stated that if anything in history is changed at all, magical black bats will fly out of nowhere and eat the universe

    If that’s referring to Cornell’s 2005 episode, I thought it was explicitly stated that it was crossing your own timeline to change your own observation of history that caused said Langoliers, sorry, bats, to come and eat everything.

    [One of my personal favourites, that one; despite having an utterly unclever plot, and a resolution/ending that's not so much telegraphed as fated, it worked really well for me as a character piece.]

    Rather ambivalent myself about that 5th series/season. Once commented somewhere, in slight bafflement/exasperation at the rave reviews it was getting, that it felt a bit like I was reading an X-Men comic: in a “here is my superpower which I shall mention now” sense. Or even a “hey, here’s Wolverine, we’d better find a bunch of Wolverine things for Wolverine to do, because, hey, Wolverine is cool”. (With Wolverine played by Alex Kingston.) Smith is an utterly charming presence, though, even if I think he doesn’t handle the angry scenes as well as some of his predecessors.

    I feel like there should now be some segue from the Happiness Patrol back into Equilibrium here, but I can’t quite see it. Bertie Bassett & gun-kata, now that might be worth watching.

  29. It may be my timing is off. When I just started watching as a kid it was Davidson and sometimes repeats of a Tom Baker (i have a very strong memory of the one where Tom Baker’s head is on a mountain?)… but then it shifted over to all of Colin Baker. Which…

    Davidson was great as a vulnerable guy struggling through this thing bigger than him, and that was definitely a big part of why I kept watching. I can see why that’d be a character you’d like more than Smith/Tennant. But then the Colin Baker Who was just… I think there were a couple neat bits in there, but I don’t think its reputation as a disaster is unearned. He just played the character as just the least likable character imaginable. I think McCoy had some good ones but I wouldn’t exactly call him cuddly, either, if not as problematic– you know, I was a young boy and there was Ace. And those are a big part of my memories of it all.

    So when Davies relaunched as focused as he was on “this is the coolest character ever”… I guess I like it more because I started with a phase of Who where I think they really, *really* took their eye off the make-him-likable ball and it just didn’t work. Granted, Davies went so far the other way where then it’s Tennant crying every other scene, but…

  30. I’ve got a soft spot for Colin Baker. He had probably the shittiest run of scripts in the series, but I liked the concept behind his characterization, which was basically that yeah, this Doctor was kind of a prick, and had to learn how to not act like an arrogant jackass over time. Now that I’ve gotten around to seeing some of the original Hartnell episodes, I see what they were really going for with Colin Baker’s run – Hartnell’s Who was an often morally dubious character, this crazy old man from god-knows-where who’s just off and kidnapped his granddaughter’s school teachers and is dragging them all over time and space for god knows why – and with Colin Baker they were trying to get a bit of that edge back, I think. Really, the switch between Jon Pertwee’s mannered, gentlemanly version of the Doctor and Tom Baker’s wild-eyed space bohemian was another attempt at that (just like the switch between Baker and Davison was clearly the pendulum swinging the other way).

    The thing with Colin Baker is that I generally really like his performance but can’t stand the actual writing of the stories he’s in (give or take a few, like “Vengeance on Varos”). I have the same thing going with Matt Smith, actually – of all the new-era Doctors, I’ve probably enjoyed him the most, but the storytelling style is so muddled I find the actual episodes hard to watch.

  31. If the character stuff is a draw for Doctor Who, you gotta see the Vincent van Gogh and The Lodger episodes. The Vincent episode would make Chuck Norris weep like a baby, and The Lodger is an excellent showcase for Shovelface and his Doctor’s character.

  32. @ddt The show they mentioned is “Awake”, Thursdays at 10 on NBC. I thought the pilot was pretty rad but was less impressed by the second episode.

  33. Thanks, @Matthew! I’ll check it out. And leave discussion of LoM UK v. US (including the unaired, LA-based pilot for the latter) for later.

  34. Hullo chaps, first-time listener, that was fun, cheers.

    As regards the Dr Who business, thank you Moose n Squirrel for so elegantly outlining my problems with Moffat Who. I’ve enjoyed Moffat’s writing even prior to Coupling – teen comedy/drama Press Gang and adult comedy Joking Apart also showcase some brilliant plotting, often farcical in the positive sense – but his Who arcs are just tragic. It’s tough for me to relax and enjoy individual episodes because I’m constantly wondering how little bugs of dialogue fit the season arc; it seems as if everything most serve the season closers. I hate this Buffy-esque copycatting … Buffy was terrific but it doesn’t mean every other show has to copy it.

    Plus, I hate all this business of the Doctor being a terrible storm or wet blanket or whatever. But again, MnS has covered this.

    That said, yes Jeff, don’t miss the wonderful Van Gogh episode, which features a superb performance from Tony Curran.

    I’ll also recommend going back to the Ecclestone stories, the man is such a brilliant actor that he makes almost every script sing. And Billie Piper is the biz. And as for the Tennant years, if you watch no others, don’t miss Paul Cornell’s two-parter, Human Nature/The Family of Blood. I cried my eyes out!

    @smitty, your doughnut shop sounds wonderful, I tip my hat to you, sir.

  35. I don’t understand the podcast team’s desire to make sure the the person they’re trash talking doesn’t know about it. I’m just not sure they’re being childish enough.

    Anyway, is this worth listening too? Not a big Dr. Who guy.

    SW

  36. Well, Lazenby is clearly the best Bond. (I say that in complete seriousness)

    I love your podcast, (it’s the only comic podcast I listen to) but I have had one problem for a while now. Sometimes you guys aren’t so hot at providing context or filling the listeners in on what you are talking about. It’s been a week since I listened to this one, but I will try to give an example. At one point Jeff asks if Graeme read the article on Amazon workers. He says he has and then you have a conversation related to it without ever giving a basic rundown of what the article says.

  37. Well I very much liked reading your post. I’m considering starting my own blog at some point Best Wishes.

Leave a Reply


− two = 0