PrymeStriker

And I thought I wanted to kill myself before.

I would convulse like a spastic until I was dead.

That being said, sweet dreams to the next unfortunate soul who has to snuggle with this sexy face. 

And context only matters with words like "hell" that have a biblical, non-vulgar other meaning but the word is used in hateful connotations as well thus it still qualifies as a "bad word" in many cases, albeit an extremely mild one.

I'm not sure I agree with that concept. Context is always important with any word, not just swear words. Context is fundamental to communication, and without it we couldn't share thoughts at all. It's also not limited to the Bible. Bitch and cunt both have secondary, somewhat completely unrelated definitions than a unpleasant woman. Same for cock, ass, and even fuck. Once again, context always matters.

Why, as everyone knows, I'm a fragile little snowflake that can't handle the tiniest ounce of krass language, 'cause then I get triggered. Somebody coddle me. 

should a person be punished for saying them?

Those of us in America settled that issue 228 years ago when we enacted the Constitution, but ironically I'm sure a lot of Americans today would vastly prefer living in North Korea instead. Language control can fuck a razor.

I shall commence my forum-wide mass murdering spree. Then, I'll think about my place in the universe for the remaining hour.

*patiently awaiting panic from those that lack sarcasm detectors in their asses*

Heh. I've been insisting this show end since season three and have been extremely vocal about it. I'm not worried the show's going to turn to shit. Rather, it's my observation that it already has. I only enjoyed half of season four (though the good stuff exceeded my expectations, so it still tops 1 & 3 on those grounds), and most of season five was a trainwreck. I can't speak for season six since I still haven't watched past the premiere, so I don't know if its any improvement, but by example it's usually downhill once the fuck-ups are more consistent, and it doesn't get better unless there's some kind of reboot or there's a new staff or something to that effect. That's why I prefer shows only have three to four seasons and then call it quits. That's what all the best shows do, at least. Though, we're past the point of return there, so screw it I suppose.

In this era, yes (with the exception of the Peanuts Movie because of the source material).

My point exactly. The MPAA gives anything that might have a character hitting its head on the ceiling a PG rating today. This isn't 80's PG where you were allowed to blow your characters to smithereens and say "shit". In fact, yes, a lot of G films nowadays are nature documentaries or Dora the Explorer-type flicks. Granted there are some that aren't, but the other half balances that out. PG films like Frozen are on the same demographic plane as My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic with all factors considered. I really don't think this is a debate. 

Implying that everything under PG is instantly educational or at the level of something like Dora the Explorer?

So you say, all G movies are educational and pre school stuff?

Nope. I'm proving that PG is not "too mature" for MLP's demographic.

Not really. MLP has had several PG moments before. Has nothing to with the Brony audience. Little girls have eaten up PG films like Inside Out and Big Hero 6 before. No reason why it has to be any different here. Remember it still has to be a MOVIE and not a 100 minute episode.

This.

If you make this movie PG, you pretty much deny entrance for the target audience that MLP was originally for. Where is the logic in that?

 

This is not a movie for Bronies and you can make it G to make it enjoyable.

You're right. A PG film would alienate the audience of My Little Pony. PG ratings are given to much more mature films, such as this one:

But I see what you're saying. If you make it PG, like Frozen here, then all the two-year-olds can't get in. And as we all know, MLP is an educational show that teaches children how to count past five and use the crapper.

1.rarity has tonnes of gems- one of the reasons i have seen. I mean SERIOUSLY, THAT IS SOOOO PETTY. JUST BCAUSE SHE HAS LOTS OF GEMS DOESN'T MEAN YOU HATE HER.

I also hate Applejack because she has too many apples.  :sleep:

S2 - Though i'm not very fond of the finale

S4 - Much Mane 6 interaction

S1 - The reason i even watch it, even though two other episodes are more entertaining

S3 - The time when animations started to be weird with weird faces, Pinkie becoming annoying, etc. Still an okay season

S5 - The season when FiM jumped the shark. The continuation of weird animations, bad pacing, boring episodes, etc.

This is literally place-for-place my ranking of the seasons. Good job.

SoL was fanservice, not fan pandering. Unlike EQG1's fandom references, SoL's fanservice has a plot-related purpose, valid reason for them to be there (it's a celebration thanking the fans), and don't detract from the story.

"Slice of Life" was influenced by fandom references as well. And arguably, the story did suffer from it (it could become really messy, and a few scenes remained unimportant to the story in the longrun, such as the Big Lebowski section). I'll agree there was more harmless fan service than fan pandering, but the pandering existed nonetheless. 

As a matter of fact, I just found an article on TV Tropes that lists a couple of examples of "pandering to the base" under their Examples >> Western Animation >> My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, and Examples >> Films -- Animation >> My Little Pony: Equestria Girls. Along with the obvious "Last Roundup" scene, "Slice of Life" as well as Rainbow Rocks are used as examples of fan pandering. The article is here if you want to see for yourself, but I think they make some reasonable points. 

How can they stop pandering to the fandom when, other than Equestria Girls 1, they never did?

So long as "Slice of Life" exists.

Agreed

 

Also show aren't like books specifically in the way they are delivered, books come in one package, shows run per episode, this is what I meant. You and I are on the same page in that we want the show to end right, the way you word it is where the conflict resides.  

Yes, well, unfortunately, I can't be bothered to play my sense of humor safely anymore. So, to ruin the fun once and for all, I shall explain that "stop renewing it for more seasons" was a sarcastic remark formulated to contrast to the other suggestions. An evidently honest opinion, but sarcastic nonetheless. I didn't think I would need to write a paragraph of disclaimer for every word in that remark, because that ruins the irony. But since I already have written a disclaimer for every word in that remark across a series of frustrated replies, it's too late for that. 

gg

Shows aren't like books. Books come already finished unless its a series. A Show can run for a long time, especially one like this, and I'd rather it end naturally instead of on the whim of a person. 

You also said in that same post that you didn't even care about the writers employment and want them to just stop writing 

 

That doesn't sound like someone who likes the show or the writers.

 

Besides, they are probably bringing the finale with the Movie. 

For fuck's sake.

1) Show's aren't like books: Do shows have characters? Do those characters need to develop over the course of the story? Do shows have stories? Do shows have arcs, and do those shows immerse you in a world of fiction? No? Well, shit.

2) A show can run for a long time: Very good. Also, the Earth is a planet. 

3) I'd rather let it end naturally: A series finale would be natural. Also, this remark could be synonymous with "I'd rather let it end with a whimper than on a high note." I'd bold or italicize "could" to emphasize and stress the possibility in my quote, but I'll let my words be misinterpreted just because it's worked well for me so far.

4) Than at the whim of a person: It's such a fantasy for a show developer to only want to tell their story and leave with a happy product. That's never been done before, except for the fact that it has. And that's at "the whim of a person", if you would like to belittle that approach so much. 

5) You didn't even care about the writer's employment: I am incapable of feeling. 

6) That doesn't sound like someone who likes the show or the writers: I want the writers to forge a series finale so that it doesn't jump the shark. That's me trying to help the series live up to its overrated name. I'm sure that doesn't sound like someone who likes the show or the writers to you.

7) They're probably bringing the finale with the Movie: I highly doubt that, and so do a lot of other people, whether they would prefer it continue or not. There's a whole topic on that somewhere.

Well, this thread is running as smooth as my stool. 

Why are you here then? Why aren't you on a forum about something you actually like?

WOW. 

Clearly I want the show to end because I don't like it. Flawless logic. With that concept, why should I even pick up a book? The smart thing to do is not read it at all and go find the fabled endless book so that I can actually enjoy it for god's sake!

...

Ah, here's a good quote:

you get a sense of completeness after finishing the series. You can't say the same after just deciding to give up on a show after it's jumped the shark, because there's no finality to it, and you're more bitter with the series than happy with it.

Moral: I do like this show. Doesn't matter, I still want it to end.

As for your first question, this is the primary reason I'm still an active member of these forums.

Still makes no sense.

I want My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic to end. That's one hell of an enigma, huh?  

When Hasbro airs new episodes, chances are the scripts for next season's episodes are long complete. Usually, an episode takes anywhere from six to ten months to animate, and the scripts are usually locked anywhere from twelve to fifteen months before they air. Sometimes the scripts are changed so much during the editing process, such as Magical Mystery Cure.

I don't remember bringing up how far in advance the show is written in relationship to when it airs, so you can reasonably expect me not to care about this point at all.

If they stop, then the writers and editors will get fired, and they may never get another job in the industry. In layman's terms, they must write scripts and need very work-valid reasons not to (i.e., Charlotte Fullerton handing Putting Your Hoof Down over to Williams after her husband passed away).

I am too selfish an individual to worry about the employment of others, so again, I don't care about this either.

Furthermore, I'm not suggesting they put down their pencils and abruptly refuse to write anymore. Nobody wins. My point is, write a series finale already and end this show once and for all. Henceforth: "Stop renewing it for more seasons."

........Layman's terms? Like I need  "unemployment" simplified.

.................Everyone hated the finale?

Your suggestion makes no sense. DHX doesn't renew the show, Hasbro does. All DHX does is write out the content.

Stop writing episodes, then, since that changes the point so much. 

Stop renewing it for more seasons.

Last album I listened to - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by The Beatles (for the 175th time)
 
How would you rate it from 1 to 10? - 9.2 
What did you think of it? - I've listened to it 175 times.
Your favorite song from it? - "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!"
Which track you liked the least/hated the most? - "Getting Better" by default, but it's still good.
Was it from an artist which you were familiar with? - No, I totally had absolutely no idea who the Beatles were until 10 minutes ago.
Are you looking forward into listening more music from that particular artist? - Yes! I can't wait for their next album to come ou-
 

After their break-up in 1970, they each enjoyed successful musical careers of varying lengths. McCartney and Starr, the surviving members, remain musically active. Lennon was shot and killed in December 1980, and Harrison died of lung cancer in November 2001

....well, shit.

The Beats fall under the traditional pop umbrella, while PF was a more experimental sound.

Pink Floyd.

The Beatles are hugely overrated in my opinion. Their music is boring.

 

Pink Floyd (especially in their psychedelic songs), uses a lot of unconventional sounds and instruments, both traditional and synthesized which gives their music 'spice.'

Ohhh boy.

Alright, I'm about to go on a really long tangent. Therefore, I'll be fair to the attention deficit. Basically, I think the consensus in this thread has been vastly unfair toward the Beatles. TL;DR, I would love for some of you guys to listen to any one of the following Beatles songs, come back, and tell me that it's bland pop:

* Tomorrow Never Knows

* Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!

* I Am The Walrus

* A Day in the Life

* Because

* Helter Skelter

* Love You To

* Good Morning Good Morning 

* Eleanor Rigby

* Within You Without You

* Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

* Blue Jay Way

* Strawberry Fields Forever

* Come Together

* I Want You (She's So Heavy)

* Revolution 9

* Maxwell's Silver Hammer

* While My Guitar Gently Weeps

* Rain

* I'm Only Sleeping

* Nowhere Man 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rant time.

Okay, so, to the question of the topic, I choose the Beatles. Now, I'm not going to put down Pink Floyd as a whole, because I listen to both bands and the problem is, I've only listened to around half of Pink Floyd's discography whereas I've heard every Beatles song put on record. So, even though I'd still say that Pink Floyd's music doesn't interest me as much (though they have made some really interesting music, especially Syd Barrett), considering I haven't heard it all, I can't account for their entire body of work. Meanwhile, the Beatles have and continue to inspire me artistically, and for good reason. The Beatles are one of the most inventive, distinct, and diverse bands I've ever heard. And here's the reasons why.

Now, I will not defend The Beatles' early work or a good chunk of anything that gets radio play as groundbreaking. I am very aware that most of what people judge the Beatles on is what songs are most accessible. "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "Twist and Shout" (which is a cover), "Yesterday", "Hey Jude", "Let It Be", and so forth. It doesn't help that most media portrays the Beatles during their mop-top Beatlemania phase anyway, and talk about how they changed popular culture, easily connecting the popular image of the Beatles to the popular sound of the Beatles. However, the band's range and depth extends far beyond what was marketable, with complex music and incredible sound. Let's start by commending some of their early work, and then work our way through the years as to see why they're so amazing.

I'm not one of those pretentious fucks who dismisses pop music just because it's pop music. All music is a valid form of art, and each song should be judged on its merits rather than how it ranks on the Billboard Top 100's. That said, I'm not a fan of most pop music due to it being uninspired to begin with. Most early Beatles work is no exception, clearly being made to appease a popular teen demographic with it's "love me you to dance with you, girl" lyrical depth. But where there's merit, I have to give credit. Aside from a good chunk of catchy feelgood tunes (and yes, I do like some of those), the only record that is critically worth a damn from their Beatlemania era is A Hard Day's Night.  A lot of that album has a lot of musical merit on it, but also contains a lot of marketable filler that you might expect from a "boy band." However, "If I Fell" is one of my favorite songs from their pop days because it's compositional quality is so unlike anything they'd done before, or anything they'd do shortly thereafter. The song is approached in short sections, and each of which starts and ends completely differently. The key changes constantly, and the chord progression keeps it going through constant resolves and the tensions with ease. If there's anything I'd point to during this period, it's that song.

But enough about the two-guitars, bass and drums shit. When the Beatles start to mature musically and start to produce lyrical potency along with musical inventiveness, that's where I show my devotion. This starts around 1965, circa their sixth album, Rubber Soul. John Lennon was becoming more of an interesting lyricist in this year after listening to a shit ton of Bob Dylan. He started to think more introspectively about his writing, and churned very personal poetry in the form of "Help!", "Norwegian Wood", "Girl", "In My Life", and most importantly, "Nowhere Man". "Nowhere Man" is what I regard as the Beatles first successful attempt at being against the pop tide. The lyrics have nothing to do with love or having fun, but instead talk about a character who's letting the world pass by him and makes it universal by comparing society to being just a bunch of pebbles in the tide. This is all brought along to some of the dreamiest music and progressions set by their most basic instrumentation. This would also inspire the other writing Beatles to think more about their lyrics, as exemplified by George Harrison's "Think For Yourself" and Paul McCartney's (with Lennon's help) "We Can Work It Out". These songs, along with "The Word" and "Drive My Car", are some of the most objectively potent music during their days as a pop band. 

As 1966 rolls around, the Beatles grow as individuals. The four of them are now looking outside of their image to other ideas. With McCartney interested in pop art scenes, Lennon in the psychedelic experience, and Harrison in Indian philosophies, each of them were now bringing different ideas to the table, and were no longer approaching their albums as just a sequence of songs to record. Along with controversy, hectic touring schedules, and being fed up with said touring schedules, the Beatles were just about done with the mop-top image. Revolver was their only album that year, and of the fourteen songs on that album, only five could possibly be referred to as pop rock. Their interests began to influence their writing and their sound. One of McCartney's most interesting compositions is "Eleanor Rigby," which is a baroque-classical composition musically set to the lyrics regarding two characters, Eleanor Rigby and Father McKenzie, who live their lives alone. In their story, each of their average days are described with poetic bliss, and at the end of the story, the two lonely characters meet at the most unfortunate time: when Father McKenzie buries the deceased Eleanor Rigby. As the lyrics explain, she was "buried along with her name," "nobody came" and "no one was saved." 

In contrast to the rest of McCartney's semi-pop tunes on the album such as "Here, There, and Everywhere" and "Good Day Sunshine," Lennon was hard pressed on surrealism and existential lyricism. "I'm Only Sleeping", for instance, is a psychedelic rocker regarding, similar to "Nowhere Man", someone who's keeping an eye on the world going by their window. Except this time, the music is more experimental. The song contains a backwards guitar solo, and trippy effects made with acoustic guitars to convey the feeling of trance-like bliss that the lyrics portray. Similar introspective lyrics set to acid rock are all over Revolver, as Lennon was just about done writing pop music. "She Said, She Said", "And Your Bird Can Sing", and "Doctor Robert" all regard diverse subjects lyrically and intriguing guitar work musically. Meanwhile, Harrison's "Love You To", which cleverly speaks of a desire for sex behind philosophical statements like "each day just goes so fast, I turn around its past," "a lifetime is so short, a new one can't be bought," and "there's people standing 'round, who'll screw you in the ground," is set instrumentally to incredibly complex Indian raga. The Indian and psychedelic concepts combine themselves in Lennon's "Tomorrow Never Knows" which is a whirlwind of weird sounds, backwards music, and complex drumming patterns set to lyrics written after reading The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Do the Beatles still lack spice with this information in mind?

And they didn't stop there. After Revolver, they took a three month break and came back to record their 1967 psychedelic anthem, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. This is an album, in fact, that Roger Waters himself recalls listening to when it was released with the rest of Pink Floyd and the Jimi Hendrix Experience, sitting there with jaws dropped on the floor. Pepper is so complex and diverse musically that absolutely none of the songs on the album at the time could possibly be performed live whatsoever. Regarding the genres of the album, it constantly moves around between hard rock to psychedelic rock, baroque pop, classical, and circus music of all things just on one side of the album, followed by Indian classical, music hall, experimental rock, and psychedelic pop on the other side. And that's just musically, as lyrically, the album's subjects span from creating dreamlike worlds to philosophical teachings, along with stories of domestic abuse, runaway teenagers and day-to-day life, and from heartfelt love songs for the elderly couple to real 19th century circus show advertisements set to music. Each song was immersed in inventive chord progressions, like "Lovely Rita" and "Fixing a Hole", weird experimental sounds with tracks like "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!", "A Day in the Life", and "Good Morning Good Morning", contemplative arrangements with tracks like "She's Leaving Home", "Within You Without You", and "When I'm Sixty Four", and just some overall trippy-ass shit with "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." Even its more pop-orientated music is of lyrical competency, such as "Getting Better", or of musical merit with the aforementioned "When I'm Sixty Four" and "Lovely Rita". The closest the record comes to pop is "With a Little Help From My Friends", but that track is made to segue with the album's thin concept of an Edwardian military band's concert performance. And the merits I just listed - lyrical competency, inventive sounds and progressions, and complex arrangements - that goes for every single track on the album. Pepper set the Beatles far away from their moptop pop and brought them into a new era of incredibly complex music that, unlike some Piper at the Gates of Dawn tracks, is not a drag to listen to. 

Not "spice"-y enough? Don't worry. The Beatles were far from done fucking around in the studio! Enter Magical Mystery Tour. While technically not one of their UK albums, Magical Mystery Tour is the only competent US Beatles record. It takes the six songs from their UK Magical Mystery Tour double EP and combines it with the five singles they released in 1967 for a full album of 11 tracks. For all you lyrical hard-ons out there, unlike Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour contains no "love songs." Lyrically, the album's topics span from psychoanalysis to anti-war messages as well as more character-driven stories and more dreamworld-building. While we're on the topic of lyrics, one of the album's songs, "I Am The Walrus", is Lennon's sarcastic response to the over-analyzation of lyrics, Beatles lyrics in particular. So he put a nonsense song together using fine melodic rhythm and one of the Beatles best musical arrangements. Nonetheless, the rest of the tracks are of similar merit to Pepper, including complex musical arrangements ("Strawberry Fields Forever", "All You Need Is Love"), inventive sounds way ahead of its time ("I Am The Walrus", "Blue Jay Way", "Magical Mystery Tour"), engaging progressions ("Penny Lane", "Hello, Goodbye") and so forth. These three albums, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Magical Mystery Tour, each as a whole, have the spice, the inventiveness, and the creativity that some people here claim their music lacks. 

By 1968, the Beatles went back-to-basics with their instrumentation, only sparsely using studio tricks and complex arrangements, as exemplified by their 1968 double-album, The Beatles, but they weren't doing it to "combat" some kind of "prog rock uprising" in the UK. Going back to basics was a decision made completely for and by themselves just like becoming experimental was a decision made completely for and by themselves. And even though they majorly went back to just performing straightforward rock and pop rock, their lyricism didn't dwindle whatsoever. They were still writing complex lyrics using more basic instrumentation. And they never got tired of experimental ideas anyway. The Beatles is nicknamed "The White Album" because the cover is completely blank aside from their name being printed on the front. One of its tracks, "Revolution 9", is an 8-minute avant garde sound collage. "Helter Skelter" is one of the first heavy metal songs. So they were still open to abstract and unusual ideas. However, it was on this album that the Beatles were essentially breaking up, so complex music became almost impossible when 3/4 of your band didn't even want to work with you. They went even more bare-bones with Let It Be, but that's a terrible album.

Their last hurrah was their final album together, Abbey Road. After in-fighting on The Beatles and Let It Be, they put aside most of their differences to put in one more good album. While Abbey Road lacked a lot of the experimental sounds that clouded Revolver, Pepper and MMT, it had all the variety and all of the complex music topped with fine lyricism. This is as close as the Beatles come to a progressive rock album (though they've done plenty of prog rock on previous works). "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is blatantly prog rock, and is full of experimental work despite being one of the heaviest rockers since "Helter Skelter". Again, there's very little pop music on this one, the closest of which being "Something" and "Oh, Darling!". Even "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", considered by many to be a boring, uninspired music-hall diddy from McCartney, is incredibly unique and fun by being a joyful song about a serial killer and using interesting sounds in the mix. "Come Together" is similarly as heavy as "I Want You" and "Here Comes the Sun", "Because" and "Sun King" hark back to the Beatles' psychedelic period by being three trippy-as-fuck songs. All capped off by a kickass nine-track rock medley to finish the Beatles spicy career together. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say all this to prove and explain, in my words, why I think some of the comments made against the Beatles is unfair, and why they're my favorite band. I understand why some people aren't as familiar with their experimental work, though, as the music that gets the most airplay and media attention are, indeed, the rather bland ones. However, the Beatles depth spans far beyond a "traditional pop" stamp. Hell, they span even beyond their four approximate periods of "pop rock", "folk rock", "psychedelic rock", and "progressive rock." The Beatles knew no boundaries. They made a variety of different songs, spanning multiple different genres, and it was never just one outing. What you could consider pop music from the Beatles is just under one half of the body of work they put out. The other half is all kinds of weird and unique works, jumping around from Indian classical to ragtime, island ska to heavy metal, country to power rock, psychedelic to piano ballad, and beyond. That's why I even prefer the Beatles over Pink Floyd. There's so much different and unique music to listen to, and considering they (with the help of producer George Martin) arranged, wrote and composed all but 23 of the 224 songs they recorded (those 23 being American rock'n'roll standards recorded during Beatlemania), I'm constantly reminded of the genius that these "four lads from Liverpool" really churned out. The Beatles will always be my biggest inspiration artistically and personally, and those are the reasons why.  

Sorry to necrobump. 

What was the last thing I ate?

Oh, that's easy. Your mom. 

The fans don't matter.
 
...
 
...
 
Okay, well, the fans matter, but the fans shouldn't control the direction of the series.  On an artistic level, shows should tell their story and move on. It should subsequently be praised of its strengths, not for its longevity. I'll bring Avatar: The Last Airbender as an example. Three seasons and it was quits. The creators wouldn't let the industry 'nor the fandom decide whether they keep up the story. They had an idea, they mapped said idea out, they produced the idea, and they finished that idea. What became of that show? The fandom ran strong regardless, and it spawned a spin-off.
 
The great thing about spin-offs is you can disregard them if you so please. You can point someone to watch ATLA, and they can enjoy the series in its entirety, and then chose not to continue watching the spin-off. That way, you get a sense of completeness after finishing the series. You can't say the same after just deciding to give up on a show after it's jumped the shark, because there's no finality to it, and you're more bitter with the series than happy with it.
 
Take Docto-
 

Shows don't always loose that much quality just because they go on for a long time. Dr Who has been going on for 50+ years, and it is still going strong.

...
 
:okiedokielokie:
 
Take DOCTOR WHO for example. So many fans, including myself, have become incredibly bored with the direction of the series and have stopped watching it. When I was watching Series 1-5, I would rave and obsess over the goddamned thing. Doctor Who was one of the best series I'd ever seen. Then I got around to Series 6, and I was disappointed. Then Series 7 bored me. Then Series 8 tested my patience. Then Series 9 lost my interest. You see what I mean? I don't feel complete having watched Doctor Who, because I know it's still going, and I know I probably won't be alerted, bothered, or even alive when the "finale" comes.

So, I don't recommend Doctor Who to anyone anymore. I've stopped buying the merchandise, and I haven't even bothered to acknowledge it as one of my favorite shows anymore. That's the effect of a rotting series. It may have been incredible for a period of time, but the longer it goes on, and the more bullshit that piles up, what's the point in praising it anymore? The bad outweighs the good, and it doesn't become an overall pleasurable experience anymore.

And, just for El Duderino's information, Doctor Who hasn't been on a non-stop 50-year run. There was an original series that ran from 1963-1989 (IIRC), and then there was a reboot in 2005. The original series went through seasonal rot in and of itself, meaning Doctor Who went rotted TWICE.

Anyways, my point is, the fans that leave because a show has ended, or because it's not "popular" anymore, weren't as hard-pressed into the series as you might assume. Some might say they're not "real" fans. Rather, the "real" fans will stick around long after the show's over. That's the bottom line.

I still need to see the second season.

Alright, say what you want about season 1, but stay FAR AWAY from season 2. To visualize...

This is you ---> 

(79¹⁰ light years away)

Season two of SAO ---> 

You'll thank me later.