[ SECRET POST #2724 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2724 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 035 secrets from Secret Submission Post #389.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

In every particular what? Are you missing a word?

Also are you calling Stephen Moffatt a fangirl?

[(Anonymous)]

Is it grammatically incorrect or something? I've been using it that way for years...

[vethica]

No, it's correct. I think ayrt just isn't familiar with the expression.

[(Anonymous)]

It sounds like it's missing something in that expression. I've never heard it before.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Seconding that 'in every particular' is a common phrase used to mean 'in every way possible', basically. And OP isn't calling Stephen Moffat a fangirl, he is saying that Stephen Moffat makes 'lesser' media sci fi (as according to the sexist male 'real' book SF fans the OP describes in the secret) that panders to silly fangirls by having handsome male actors in the lead roles.

No, I think Moff IS the fangirl in this

[philippos42]

I think the point is that Stephen Moffat writes bad "sci-fi" ("skiffy"), with neither any consideration of internal logic nor any actual clever SF ideas, that reads like random fantastic events wrapped around ship-baiting.

Because he is a silly fangirl.

From an SF fan's perspective, that's actually a pretty fair characterization. I don't think it's really that ship-centered, but no doubt Moff's Doctor Who is largely juvenile monsters with illogical powers rather than smart SF as such.


For the record, my SF background, other than lots of Asimov as a kid, is pretty heavily New Wave: I kind of grew up on pretty heady writers like Tiptree, Harlan Ellison, J. G. Ballard, Michael Bishop, Joanna Russ, and Alexander Key.

When I say I get what OP's saying, grok this: This isn't about sexism, or extreme old-school "scientifiction."

TV attempts at sci-fi are often way off the squishy end of "soft" and not all that smart. Stargate and Star Trek at least had some consistent treatment of imaginary tech, though.

Doctor Who (not just Moff) is even further into nonsense, practically surrealist dream sequences.

Re: No, I think Moff IS the fangirl in this

[(Anonymous)]

Nooo, I'm pretty sure RTD was the one who came up with 'cuddly monsters made of fat cells' and 'giant pig things which fart all the time'.

You don't really get more juvenile than that.