Daniel Bryan

When it comes to the idea of "Boxing vs. MMA", it's really about who would win in an actual fight. An MMA fight is a lot closer to a real fight than a boxing match is, and it's not like Toney was handicapped by stepping into the octagon; he could still fully use his fighting style (whereas a boxing match would have unfairly handicapped Couture). Couture demolishing Toney is a pretty good demonstration that, when it comes to fighting, a good MMA guy is better than a good boxer. Because if it was a real fight, it'd probably go exactly the same way.

On Firefly, which character was originally intended to be played by creator Joss Whedon?

I Am Legend?

Cera gets a bad rap, probably due to being typecast. He's actually really good.

You are correct, sir.

"Geech gone to Heaven, Mr. Terwilliger. "

Anyway. On Supernatural, the appearance of the character Castiel was based on which other fictional character?

Their old "smellhound", with a ridiculous name like "Geech".

Depp has great range if he works at it and researches a character, but name a film he's done since Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas in which he doesn't play Johnny Depp The Quirky Tim Burton-Friendly Anglophile Quirky But Loveable Quirky Outcast to some extent and I'll be amazed.

The Ninth Gate, Chocolat, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, the first Pirates of the Caribbean, Finding Neverland, Secret Window, From Hell, Blow, Public Enemies...

Depp does play a lot of characters who could be described as "quirky", but how does that translate into not having range? I mean, if he was playing characters with the same collection of quirks and mannerisms in every film, sure, but he's not. He's just in a lot of Tim Burton films, but everyone is weird in those, and even then he's not playing the same character; Ed Wood isn't Willy Wonka isn't Edward Scissorhands isn't Ichabod Crane. I don't get this idea that he's a one-note actor. He's probably one of the few actually good ones there is.

The proposed idea sounds terrible, gotta say. And I can't see a Doctor Who film working unless it focuses mainly on a Companion-type. Isn't the whole appeal of the concept that the Doctor can be doing something different in a new setting every week? The TARDIS is just a story generator and, considering it'll probably be a reboot, the Doctor doesn't have a set personality, so what can you take from that for a single 90 minute story? It'd just be a generic sci-fi movie with the Doctor Who name attached to it and maybe some Daleks.

That was really good. I was a little annoyed while watching that it was obviously going to be the Doctor inside the Pandorica, even with the misdirection ("I hate good wizards in fairy-tales. They always turn out to be him"), but I didn't see that ending coming. Great stuff, and props to Matt Smith, who was excellent throughout.

The Nestene Consciousness was a nice throwback, too. Rory showing up was totally inconsistent, implausible and awesome, so the explanation was all the more crushing. Well played, Moffat.

Just to clarify - the "culture" argument was against people saying that changing a character's race is the same as changing their hair colour, not that all black people behave in a certain way, just that there's a cultural and historical background to race that means it's not purely aesthetic, and that people arguing otherwise tends to make me a little uncomfortable.

I was never trying to say that in real life race is the same as hair colour. But when it comes to a fictional character like Spider-Man, they are pretty much the same, because you can change them as much as you like, and it won't have any effect on who the character is, just what he looks like. There are some comic characters for whom their race is important: Storm, Captain America, etc, but Spider-Man isn't one of them. He's as intrinsically white as he is intrinsically brown-haired.

It's not just a physically visual thing.

Yeah, it is. It doesn't change anything about the character other than how he physically looks, and like Sean said, if you think otherwise, that's your prejudice.

And yes, the character being black would be a big change in the eyes of most people when compared with hair colour. I know we're all supposed to be horribly anal with politcal correctness and all that fun stuff, but that's just fact. No one would go "oh, Parker has blond hair now" the same way they would go "huh, Parker is black now".

Hey, welcome to the point.

....thanks for agreeing with me, I guess?

Oh, I don't agree with you. But you've just arrived at and proved the point I was making: People aren't going to get up in arms about a change of hair colour, but will for a change of skin colour, even though they're both just aesthetic changes. So don't pretend like it's all about the character looking different, when it's really about him being black.

And yes, the character being black would be a big change in the eyes of most people when compared with hair colour. I know we're all supposed to be horribly anal with politcal correctness and all that fun stuff, but that's just fact. No one would go "oh, Parker has blond hair now" the same way they would go "huh, Parker is black now".

Hey, welcome to the point.

It's in no way the same thing - you can change your hair colour - people do it everday, characters do it in movies, characters do it in comic books. You can't change the colour of your skin.. that's just the bottom line there.

How is that even relevant? No-one's suggesting that Peter Parker gets bitten by a radioactive spider and turns into a black man. Every adaptation is a re-imagining of the character, and him being black this time would be just as much of a difference as him being blonde this time. Unless you'd insist that if they had a blonde Peter Parker, they include a line in the film about how he's dyed his hair recently. In which case, you're just weird.

You can't compare a change of hair colour to what we're talking about here and act like it's the same thing, it's no where near the same thing.

Sure you can. I mean, change of skin colour, change of hair colour, all it does is make the character look different in some way. And if you think that it's nowhere near the same thing, well then the objections obviously aren't just about the character looking different from how he does in the comics, are they?

I wonder, if it was suggested Spider-Man be played by a blonde guy, would people be as bothered as they are by this?

Rory didn't know, but we know that his heroic sacrifice was totally needless. The Doctor knows too, but (and maybe this was the acting) even though he was sad, I didn't get the sense he actually felt responsible. Either way, it's going to be really hard to watch the Doctor and Amy being all goofy in future episodes, knowing that he got her fiancé pointlessly killed, and she doesn't even remember him. :/

Did he have to go out saving the Doctor? Why couldn't it have been Amy he saved? That would have meant something, but his actual death was just pointless. I mean, the Doctor can regenerate, it's not a big deal. Rory basically died so the Doctor wouldn't be mildly inconvenienced. And the fact that the Doctor doesn't show any guilt about it, even though it was his fault they were still there at all because he wanted to play with the crack, makes him seem like a bag of dicks.

Guess I still haven't accepted Smith as the Doctor. I liked Rory quite a bit, but I feel like I'd be more willing to empathise with Eccleston or Tennant's Doctor...

I think the plan is to do the Avengers movie first, and then once Thor and the Asgardians have been introduced, it'll be easier to accept the Mandarin and his magic rings. I'm not sure how well it'll fit, given how grounded in reality (uh, relatively speaking) the Iron Man movies have been so far, but I guess we'll see.

The official website says something to the effect of "Time Lords used to have thirteen lives, but now that they're gone, who knows?" So, yeah.

The whole, being killed before he can regenerate, wasn't that the whole point of Turn Left? Time Lords can cheat death by regenerating, but they have to do it before they're, um, dead.

How is the ending a cliche from Whedon? In fact, he's apparantly notorious for this, a lot of fans see it as a badge of honour, or something, but I can't think of a single occasion he's ever actually done it. Why does he have this reputation?

Loved Dr. Horrible. Unlike most musicals, there was not one song I didn't like. Neil Patrick Harris is amazing, incredible voice too. Nathan Fillion was hilarious. Actually liked the ending, thought it was very cool, and didn't see it coming at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZnNsbtsUV0...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DjLTM2UoL0&NR=1