Asha

User Group: Members
Join date: 24-Sep-2004
Last activity: 12-Dec-2009
Posts: 116

Post History

Post: #106930
Topic: ROTS: The Jedi Now Seen In A Different Light...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106930/action/topic#106930
Time: 20-May-2005 7:58 AM

The Jedi are totally devoid of compassion.

Did they go back to free Anakin's mother from slavery? The amount of money she was worth was a drop in the bucket for the Jedi, yet they left her to be a slave. Awful.

Ben leaves Anakin to die in the worst way possible ... that just blows me away.

The Jedi are petty and self-serving in these movies ... very little nobility to be seen.

Post: #106926
Topic: Luke's ROTS Review (plot holes included)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106926/action/topic#106926
Time: 20-May-2005 7:52 AM

At the midnight screening I attended, there was a deafening silence when the film ended, despite a round of applause at the beginning. There was a lot of negative grumbling as people left the theatre. The biggest laughs were all spurred by the love scenes ... and the "NOOOOO" at the end.

Post: #106922
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106922/action/topic#106922
Time: 20-May-2005 7:46 AM

The Jedi totally suck. Based on the original films, the Jedi seemed ultra-cool, but they're all jerks in the prequel movies.

Why was Mace such a dick to Anakin when Anakin was actually trying to help at that point? Why did they need to spy using such crude methods? How the hell could Ben leave Anakin to suffer so horribly?

And hey, folks: Return of the Jedi is the weakest of the original films, but ROTJ RUNS RINGS AROUND REVENGE OF THE SITH!!! Even if Sith is the best of the prequels (and I'm not convinced it's significantly better than Clones), it still doesn't come close to touching Return of the Jedi.

Post: #106915
Topic: My review of Episode III (minor, minor spoilers)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106915/action/topic#106915
Time: 20-May-2005 7:39 AM

Yes Kam: you're absolutely correct. I find your attempts at blocking all memories of the prequels to be admirable. However, in my alternate reality, the prequels still exist.

Someone said earlier that Lucas himself has touted the "virgin birth" idea in interviews. It's important to see that the virgin birth notion remains intact if you throw Sith into the mix. And just because the Sith manipulate the birth doesn't mean that Anakin was 100% dark side of the force.

Yoda himself acknowledges that the Jedi misinterpreted the original prophesy. The Sith likely knew how the Jedi were reading the prophesy and saw an opportunity within.

As for Darth Plagueis' age ... hate to tell 'ya this, but if the Sith history ain't in a movie, it didn't happen. Look how much of the Phantom Menace novelization is irrelevant in light of the films that followed Phanton Menace (re: Padme didn't lead an army against Anakin). Either way, if he trained Palps, then he could have been the sith who engineered Anakin's birth.

I hate geeking over details like this when there are so many other gaping plotholes in Revenge of the Sith. Plus, it's what Lucas wanted -- people quibbling over silly details that are neither creatively deep nor meaningful. In that, there's just no way Lucas would have tossed out this idea if he didn't mean it. The Sith manipulating the birth of Anakin fits their MO perfectly ... and I doubt Palps was lying in this one instance.

Post: #106718
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106718/action/topic#106718
Time: 19-May-2005 6:02 PM

Quote
How is the Frankenstein "feel" bad for something that was literally created?

It's bad because it pulls the viewer out of the movie's world by reminding him/her of an insanely famous movie that was released in the real world ... not the world of Darth Vader. Making a reference to something as famous as Frankenstein is the kiss of death when you're trying to present "a galaxy far far away," but it's unforgivable when applied to a climactic scene.

Had that scene been successful, Vader's first steps would have formed a unique image, not the well-worn image of Frankenstein's Monster.

And becuse the Frankenstein scene is such a cliche, Vader's motions practically fall into the realm of parody. Plus, the monster motions look plain silly when executed by Vader.

Post: #106710
Topic: My review of Episode III (minor, minor spoilers)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106710/action/topic#106710
Time: 19-May-2005 5:15 PM

Yeah, but Palps was counting on the fact that one or two Jedis would choose to train Anakin. Qui-gon would have done so had he lived. All Palpatine needed was one Jedi knight to accept Anakin to divide the Jedi. And dividing groups of people from within is Palpatine's main strategy in everything he does.

Again, though: I don't like this idea a whole lot, either. I hate the concept of the fatherless origin for Anakin. It doesn't matter if Anakin's sire was Sith or the Angel Gabriel ... it sucks either way. But I think it makes sense that the Sith played a role in Anakin's creation. Lucas painted himself in a corner with this concept back in Phantom Menace, and I don't put it past him to have injected this idea of a possible Sith origin as a way of saving face ... without having to retread the "I am your father" business directly.

Post: #106705
Topic: My review of Episode III (minor, minor spoilers)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106705/action/topic#106705
Time: 19-May-2005 4:53 PM

But by being a slave, Anakin was already too old to be a Jedi, and it shows. He shouldn't have been trained in the first place, yet the Jedi were so entranced by their prophesy they couldn't resist training the boy. He's powerful, but he's pretty disastrous as a Jedi no matter where you look. A time bomb waiting to explode ...

You mention that Tatooine was too remote ... but how about Kamino where the clones were grown? I mean, if Dooku/Palps wanted the clones to be found (and they did), why remove the location from all of the maps?

Palps was pulling the strings all along ... allowing the Jedi to think that they were thinking for themselves. Palps set plenty of traps for them along the way, and the Jedi dove for every carrot dangled in front of them.

I hate the idea of a fatherless birth, but the Palpatine/Darth Bubonic conception plot works way better for me than a Christ-like birth. And I don't really think there's a question about what this midi-chlorian confession meant ... I can't see why Lucas would have included the line of dialogue in Sith had he not intended to suggest that a Sith lord engineered Anakin's birth. George is not exactly subtle, you know.

Post: #106691
Topic: My review of Episode III (minor, minor spoilers)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106691/action/topic#106691
Time: 19-May-2005 4:01 PM

Quote
So, really, only Palpatine could have created Anakin, and that just doesn't make any sense and doesn't fit into the story at all.

It makes more sense to me than most of the other plotholes. The Jedi were effectively set-up by Palpatine to train Anakin. Anakin was a ticking time bomb ... a trojan horse the Jedi accepted. In the end, the sole reason Anakin was so deadly was because he was inside the Jedi order.

Post: #106690
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106690/action/topic#106690
Time: 19-May-2005 3:50 PM

The Frankenstein thing was as accidental as the Tarzan scream (re: not accidental at all). Had Prowse been in the suit he would have been instructed to act the same way. Lucas WANTED that scene to "echo" Frankenstein ... too bad it's such a stupid idea.

Post: #106654
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106654/action/topic#106654
Time: 19-May-2005 1:13 PM

Quote
deep down the really wanted it to fail because otherwise they wouldnt be justified in hating the Prequals

No one started off WANTING to hate these prequels. The box office figures prove that people keep giving the prequels chances. This was the last chance, and Lucas blew it in my opinion.

The way I see it: it takes far less effort to justify hating the prequels than what's required to justify enjoying the prequels. Defending the prequels is like trying to explain why you enjoy the faint smell of skunk. Some people really do like the smell of skunk spray, but it's easier to explain why you don't like the smell ... 'cos it stinks.

Post: #106648
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106648/action/topic#106648
Time: 19-May-2005 12:54 PM

Ben on a cheesy lizard was worthy of more screen-time than a discussion of the fate of Anakin's children? The last hopes of the galaxy?C'mon. Given Anakin's powers, Yoda and Ben's decision-making process concerning the future of the children was woefully brief ... and not nearly as forward-looking as it should have been.

I would have gladly accepted two more meaningful minutes of Yoda and Ben preparing the fate of these children over the robot factory scene in Clones, the poop jokes in Phantom, and 90% of the opening battle scene in Sith.

The book had the sense to flesh-out this process a little more than the film, but clearly the novelizations are not considered canon (didn't Anakin have a vision of Padme leading a group of Jedi against him in the Phantom Menace tie-in?)

The entire ending of Sith felt way too rushed … as rushed as Anakin’s sudden leap over to the dark side, which was dreadful, really. Sorry … I just can’t overlook this stuff. I don't know how you can. It’s all way too glaring.

Post: #106628
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106628/action/topic#106628
Time: 19-May-2005 12:14 PM

In the original RotJ novel, Ben and Owen were BROTHERS. It's implied Anakin didn't know Owen, which is why Luke was safe in his care. That's been tossed out of the cannon long since.

And why DIDN'T we see Yoda communicate with the Lars? Considering all the time wasted on eye candy in these prequels, why do we have to fill in these huge logical gaps? Especially given the fact that we have Yoda hiding Anakin's son on Anakin's home planet with people Anakin knows personally (that neither Yoda nor Ben know) ... while retaining Anakin's last name!? No wonder the Jedi fell under Yoda's not-so-keen leadership! It's amazing Yoda didn't sell the baby to Watto.

Quote
But when people say reasons they didnt like it was because of a characters name (plus Darth Pagueous was way worse a name then General Grevious) or because of unrealistic gravity on a space ship that is nitpicking and there is a difference between nitpicking and venting about a movie you didnt like that you may have truely wanted to like.

One man's nit is another man's special edition. Sadly, these prequels offer up more nits than thrills.

Grievous' lame name is relevant because the character was as lame as the name in the final film. Darth Bubonic is still an unknown, but given Lucas' track record, he's probably as lame as his name, too. (killed in his sleep? oh my.)

You admit you're consciously trying to enjoy these films by overlooking the faults. That's your choice, and I don't really care, but remember that you can enjoy a root canal if you try hard enough, too.

I tried to enjoy these prequels ... all three of them. In fact, i think I gave the first two films more shakes than they deserved in the beginning ... until I realized that it took more effort to ignore the flaws than there was entertainment to be had from the films. Clone Wars gave me a little hope that Sith wouldn't disappoint, but that hope is dashed now.

I admit I walked out more drained and disappointed after Sith than the previous prequels because it marks the third clunker in a row, and all three films have thoroughly exhausted my ability to forgive the prequels' flaws. There's no motiviation to ignore Sith's flaws ... the prequels are over -- they were all underwhelming -- and there's no hope for improvement. That's why I'm not going to bother seeing Sith again in the theatre. If I didn't even enjoy it the first time, there's no reason to try to force it now.

I'm not alone ... the audience at last night's screening was as unenthusiastic as I am today. The only shared laughs were inspired by the love scenes. The theatre erupted into a huge guffaw when Vader yelled, "NOOOOOOO." The only shared cheer came when Yoda squashed the royal guards (that was pretty cute). No applause at the end despite an energetic opening. Everyone who lingered outside afterwards was saying that the film was a loser. And I mean EVERYONE. "That's a Star Wars film I never want to see again," said one filmgoer. "My childhood dreams are now dead," said another. "I can't believe how much that sucked," growled a guy in red Darth Vader t-shirt.

Post: #106595
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106595/action/topic#106595
Time: 19-May-2005 9:30 AM

No, not all films are disappointing. If they were, no one would go to the movies.

You moan about nitpicking, but look at the source here. George Lucas is the Dark Lord of the Nitpickers. Such a nitpicker is he that he has to tamper with his own movies every few years. He'll screw around with his original films to no end, yet he lets huge glaring plot issues pass unchecked in these prequels.

I'm not going into "I Love Revenge of the Sith" threads to belittle the people who enjoyed the film, so please allow those who didn't enjoy this film some room to vent.

Post: #106586
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106586/action/topic#106586
Time: 19-May-2005 9:05 AM

I've got the "day after blues" now. Cripes, what a lame way to end the Star Wars legacy!

W2waytoo is right ... these movies should make sense without comics, cartoons, and video games. They don't ... especially this new one. Worse yet, Sith doesn't try to fix most of the prequel problems, and when it does it fails.

The whole Qui-gon thing wouldn't even be necessary had the prequels not existed. Really: when Ben turned into a phantom in the original films ... hey, it just happened! I didn't care why. It didn't need an explanation. It was a "super-powerful Jedi thing!" It wasn't until Phantom Menace did we learn that not all jedi can do that trick. Now it's something that Qui-gon astrally trains Yoda to learn? What?

More gripes:

* "Miss you I will Chewbacca." (I think that was the line.) Ew ... that's so tacky. Not as tacky as the Tarzan yells ... oh my God, I can't believe they used the Tarzan yells. Even when I was a kid I thought the Tarzan yell in Jedi was stupid, and now they've taken the worst moment in Jedi and transplanted it into sith.

* Yoda's dialogue is awful in Sith ... his verbal dyslexia is nothing short of annoying and forced. I also didn't like the CGI on him ... the animators went overboard on Yoda's skin texture. I actually liked the cgi Yoda in Clones, so I was surprised how bad he looked here.

* So Ben shows up with a baby at Owen Lars' joint and no one thinks twice. Oh ... except Ben Kenobi never met Owen and Beru, did he?! Anakin and Padme went to Tatooine in Clones, but Kenobi wasn't with them.

* I agree with anyone who says Vader's "NOOOOO" is the worst onscreen scream since Luke yelled like a girl in the Sp.Ed Empire Strikes Back.

* I wasn’t impressed by the opening battle ... the final fight in Return of the Jedi is a lot cooler. I was REALLY underwhelmed by the lava duel … you could barely see what was happening. All of the artistry of the physical fighting was lost.

* Speaking of the opening battle, why was Ben so willing to give up when he didn’t even try to push those annoying little robots off the ship using the force? He barely tried to save himself.

* No explanation of who ordered the clones (I guess the "66" command was intended to show you that Palpatine was somehow in charge of their construction). A vague possible explanation for Anakin's father was offered, but it deserved more screentime than Chewbacca did.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Revenge of the Sith was just as weak as the first two prequels … just a different kind of weak. A dark, disjointed “weak,” not a silly kind of “weak.” Revenge of the Sith was stop/start all the way through … you’d get a big, endless battle, then the film would stop in its tracks to show you static scenes from Padme’s apartment. The pace was totally off -- things that deserved explanation were breezed over or not addressed at all while battles went on forever.

The worst thing is: I just didn't care about any of these characters. No emotional investment whatsoever. Lucas had three chances to make me care and he squandered all of them.

As far as acting goes, I thought Hayden did a much better job with material that was almost as lame as Attack of the Clones. He *almost* pulled it off. Portman was sleepwalking, and Ewan seemed like he just wanted it to be over. Ian hammed it up way too much to be taken seriously.

Post: #106510
Topic: I am boycotting EpIII.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106510/action/topic#106510
Time: 18-May-2005 10:01 PM

You didn't miss anything, man. Sith doesn't save this prequel trilogy, and it certainly doesn't justify messing up the original films to make them fit with these crappy prequels.

Post: #106509
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106509/action/topic#106509
Time: 18-May-2005 9:59 PM

Quote
Why the hell was Grievious COUGHING?!

I think that was a reference to Mace Windu's force choke at the end of the Clone Wars cartoon series. Mace squished Grievous' innards using the force. I noticed tons of little nods to the Clone Wars cartoons.

No explanation makes it any better, though. The coughing was stupid and distracting in Revenge of the Sith.

Post: #106508
Topic: Episode 3 was disappointing on many levels...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106508/action/topic#106508
Time: 18-May-2005 9:53 PM

I just got back and I'm disappointed as hell (as well as very tired). Sith is slightly better than the previous prequels, but it doesn't make up for the damage those films did.

So many problems ... too many to count tonight. But here's a brief list:

* Padme's death just sucked.

* Anyone notice how Padme's pregnant stomach kept expanding and contracting throughout the film? Some moments she was really full, and then right before she gave birth her tummy was totally flat in profile.

* Grievous ... stupid name; stupid character. He was better in the cartoon.

* The fact Ben just left Anakin behind to suffer in agony ... how inhumane! Man, the Jedi kinda suck.

* Why did Yoda give up so easily against the emperor? Because he lost his robe?

* R2D2 could have gotten out of dozens of scrapes in the first three films if he had half of the abilities and gadgets seen in Sith. And C3PO ... did he really deserve a memory wipe?

I will NOT see this film again in a theatre. It's long and boring ... the fight scenes go on too long to sit through in a theatre. I'll give this another shot when it hits DVD ... first as a rental. So this will be the first Star Wars film I haven't seen at least three times in a theatre.

Post: #104383
Topic: Close Wars cartoon - I'm sorry, but i thought this sucked
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/104383/action/topic#104383
Time: 6-May-2005 8:55 AM

Man, I loved the Clone Wars. I dig these cartoons way more than the prequels and the expanded universe. They're not perfect, but they're pretty close.

Post: #103616
Topic: ROTS Review by Kevin Smith... EXTREME SPOILERS!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/103616/action/topic#103616
Time: 3-May-2005 7:11 AM

Yeah, Kevin Smith has raved about all of the prequels in advance. Plus, word on the street is that he wants to work on the Star wars TV show, so it's likely that he's sucking up -- consciously or unconsciously.

I wouldn't put much stock in that review. But then, after the first two prequels my expectations are rock-bottom low.

Post: #101999
Topic: The Pope
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/101999/action/topic#101999
Time: 22-Apr-2005 3:48 PM

A poster claimed that homosexuality was unnatural. I mentioned the prevalence of homosexuality in animals to show that it is indeed natural. Not all male and female animals produce offspring, and many primate species are built on the notion that only one male out of like every five mates. Therefore, homosexuality has no bearing on the survival of the species.

As for being “hard-wired” into a genetic makeup, well, I doubt my peacock has a homosexual gene. It simply likes roosters. I don’t know why, but the peacock’s happy and the rooster doesn’t seem to mind, so who does it harm?

Bottom line: calling homosexuality "abnormal" is not a judgement based on any reality ... you're basing it on taste. You might also be basing it on an interpretation of the bible, but I think such interpretations are sketchy at best (re: was Sodom really destroyed because of homosexuality, or the fact that the townspeople wanted to rape an angel?). Now, if you're the sort of person who can't see behavioral similarities between mankind and the animal world ... have fun living in your oblivion.

Back to abortion, I don't believe a fetus is a baby, so all of the hysterical comments about murder here bounce right off me. Bringing miscarriages into this discussion is relevant to the abortion topic because *most* anyone who has miscarried early will tell you that the cell cluster was not a human baby ... regardless of whether it died or was removed. A cell cluster might be "alive" in terms of cell growth, but I don't believe it's a conscious human life. You have hair and skin tissue which are "alive” ... yet you're not 'murdering' anything if you pull out a strand of hair or scrape your finger. As such, a human fetus has roughly the same consciousness as the sperm cells and egg cells that exist in the human body.

Being pro-choice means that I believe every woman can make up her own mind if the cells in her body are conscious. After all, the cells will essentially be a parasite consuming the woman's resources for nine months if she so chooses. If the woman chooses not to provide the resources, the cells can not grow into a human being. If a woman chooses not to provide nourishment to her newborn child, the child can still live if someone else provides the nourishment.

Not all women think as I do, either. People are different... kinda like how some mothers believe her baby is smiling and other think the babe's just passing gas. It’s still good to have choices.

Personally, I think the most responsible route to choose is that of birth control if one wants to experience sex without reproducing. I’ll also admit that late-term abortions when the mother’s life is not at stake leave me uneasy. Yet I don't believe abortion is especially irresponsible .... it's more responsible than bearing a baby you will not love and are not willing to provide care for. "Better off is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."

I’ve said what I wanted to say here … y’all think abortion is murder. I don’t.

To address the topic at hand, I performed for the pope when I was a teenager … at a mass that was dedicated to the hopeful end of abortion. I was a pretty die-hard Catholic at the time. I now cringe when I think of “pro-life” articles I wrote for my school newspaper that purported many of the same ideas some of you are putting forth. Because I had no idea what I was talking about due to a lack of real-life experience. I scarcely understood how my own body worked, and I certainly didn’t grasp the complexities of truly bringing life into this world. Many circumstances have changed my mind since then which have made me place value on the ability to choose your own path ... that applies to birth control and sexual orientation.

Post: #101905
Topic: The Pope
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/101905/action/topic#101905
Time: 22-Apr-2005 5:27 AM

As far as I'm concerned, speculating about a scenario in which homosexuality is so commonplace that humans can only reproduce through artificial means to avoid extinction ... that's pure science fiction. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you believe most men would PREFER to be gay were it not for social pressures. Last I checked there were ample heterosexuals to keep this planet overpopulated.

And by the way, the 'fetus' is a blobby cluster of cells for a good long while before birth ... no heartbeat; no brainwaves. Ever know a woman who miscarried in the first month or two of pregnancy? I have -- there's no loss of human life involved. A lot of women would notice a broken nail before they'd notice they miscarried.

And enough with the "why can't we all get along" stuff ... this "discussion" went on for pages without only a scant few people willing to disagree, and with no opposing opinions the conversation devolved into comments like the "spread her legs" crap. I'm sure some people find tha enjoyable, but it's not at all pretty to look at from an outsider's perspective.

Post: #101821
Topic: The Pope
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/101821/action/topic#101821
Time: 21-Apr-2005 11:21 AM

The line is from Exodus ... I'm on my way out the door, or else I'd drudge up the exact verse #. The line has the potential to relate to the definition of human life in that the termination of the pregnancy does not demand a "life for a life." I say "potential" because, like most of the good book, you can find lines in the bible that will provide a flimsy pretext to support just about everything. Although I'm afraid nothing in the bible is quite as flimsy as using speculative science fiction as a way of framing a discussion on homosexuality.

Post: #101800
Topic: The Pope
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/101800/action/topic#101800
Time: 21-Apr-2005 8:36 AM

Quote
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Quote

That's really the closest thing to a reference to abortion in the bible, and clearly, only the woman's life is considered true human life. The destruction of the fetus is only worthy of a fine, while harming the wife demands "eye for an eye" revenge. Using this example as a guide, if a fetus is "innocent" it's only because it's not a human yet.

And surely you don't actually believe that homosexuality will EVER lead to the extinction of the human species. Look around you: there's no shortage of humans. If half of the world population turned gay tomorrow, the human race would still survive.

Post: #101795
Topic: The Pope
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/101795/action/topic#101795
Time: 21-Apr-2005 6:32 AM

Even though the people who posted the "can't keep her legs closed" comments will probably *say* they are merely championing personal responsibility, their words belie utter contempt for women and female sexuality.

That's why I'm so glad that the right to choose forms of reproductive healthcare such as abortion remains protected. I certainly don't want the fate of my womb decided by people who make statements like the "can't keep her legs closed" routine seen here.

I've read all sorts of people who've tried to distort the bible to cover abortion. The fact of the matter is: the bible doesn't address the issue and there are as many comments in the bible which support terminating pregnancy as there are glorifying human life at every stage. Moreover, Jesus hung out with hookers all the time ... and if you were a hooker in Christ's day, you probably had an abortion or two. Yet Christ never mentioned it. Abortion was a non-issue to the J-man himself.

As for the guy who said that homosexuality was unnatural: I've a pet male peacock that regularly mounts a male rooster. The peacock doesn't like the hens ... just the rooster. My neighbor has two male lop-eared bunnies that also engage in homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is quite common in the natural world.

Post: #101726
Topic: New Doctor Who
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/101726/action/topic#101726
Time: 20-Apr-2005 1:36 PM

Thanks, but my "I live in the sticks" connection can't handle that. I've seen episodes on Kazaa as well, but I need hardcopies.

According to the BBC site, there are still no plans to air these in the US. Not yet, anyway.