And, a lot of that came from Hebrew books that didn't make it into the scriptures because they were written too late, but were read by early Christians. Whole swaths of Christian beliefs came from sources later forgotten, making it hard to reverse engineer them.

It should be noted that, while Rome fell, the rich part of the Roman empire was by then based out of Constantinople, and that Christian empire lasted for another thousand years without entering a "Dark Age". In fact, it was the Crusaders passing through the city (and sacking it a few times because, hey, they were the wrong type of Christian) who passed back word of the advanced culture there and kickstarted things back home.

Well, he's found the one form of social media that isn't permanent...

You also have to wonder why he lets children be born to parents of the "wrong" faith, as they're almost guaranteed to never convert and thus are doomed to hell from the start. Or why, pre-Jesus, he made no attempt to get non-Jews into heaven.

Actually, there was a strain of Christian thought at one time which said you were only doomed to hell if you had heard of Jesus and didn't convert. Thus, those with this view were against missionary work, as it would only send most of those heathen natives to hell, where as if you didn't introduce them to Christ God would send those who had lived good lives somewhere else.

Not really. It depends on the show. It's definitely possible for something to be too clever, or at least think it's being clever when it's not. Or, to put it another way, a show without tight plotting and clever construction can still be enjoyable if it's not done perfectly, where as one trying to be both those things has a better chance of failing.

Naturally. Mind you, I've never watched Doctor Who for the plot, so my solution would be to get rid of much of the stakes-raising altogether, at least that which extends beyond the current episode

In the introduction to the first of the 'New Adventures' Doctor Who novels, which started after the show was canceled, former script supervisor Terence Dicks wrote that when it came to Who, if continuity got in the way of a good story, you ignored continuity.

Hey, I've felt that since New Who started

That's a question you should always ask, and it goes both ways. Too many things are done live action that would work better animated. There is no reason, nowadays, for live action to be the default way to do a film.

With regard to Tin Tin, you're adapting a story that already exists as drawings on very detailed backgrounds. It certainly makes more sense to do an animated movie than to take it into live action, and since the original was known for detailed backgrounds one can understand trying to do that in the film. Perhaps photo-realistic wasn't the right way to go, but it's a choice.

All I want, with regard to Doctor Who, is the end of season long story arcs. Do two or three episode stories, sure, the equivalent of a 4 or 6 part classic story, but enough with having it all mean something. And can we have a non-Human companion again? Please?

Or we've caught our first replicant.

It probably depends on your definition, and the time period. Left-wing often means anti-status quo, and a superhero in that vein would be fighting the police and government more often than not. Catwoman, maybe?

I'm amused by her instructions with regard to the stage show done after her death: it could use songs from the movie, but no non-Brit, and certainly nobody associated with Disney, could be the one writing new material. I saw the touring version, which was changed from the Broadway show, and it wasn't bad.

very possible. So, how does adding the riches of Moria work into the mix?

Did you miss the part where this happens all the time? There is nothing new here. If anything, it's another reason studios should never make a movie based on something they don't own.