Digression...!

"...you are a pirate..."

2012-01-22T20:48:00.004Z

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days since the closure of Megaupload, and the Wikipedia (et al) blackout protesting at the forthcoming Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Now, it's clearly obvious that those who create a work of art (of any type) should have the protection of that work to ensure that they receive the remuneration they deserve for it, and to ensure it is not used for purposes they deem inappropriate.

However, there are flaws at the heart of the any estimate of revenue lost to piracy. The figures quoted always seem to be based on the premise that every download of a copyrighted piece of work constitutes a lost sale. This is, of course, rubbish. To state that every person who downloads something without paying for it would have bought that work has they not downloaded it is clearly a massive overstatement. I do not deny that there will be lost sales there, but actually gauging the percentage of these downloads that would probably have cost a sale is quite probably impossible.

Anyhow. I'm starting to digress here from the main point I was really going to be making with this blog post, and that's to do with the question of the ethics of downloading from non-legitimate corners of the internet; when is it okay to do so, and when is it not okay to do so?

Now, I know there will certainly be some reading this who will say it's never ethically okay to download something from a non-legitimate site, and I respect that opinion. It is not an opinion I agree with, and here are some examples as to why not;

You will never be able to convince me that a person should not download a copy of an off-air recording of a TV show. If there's a TV show someone wants to see, and it's available as an off-air recording, then they're downloading it. This is no different to borrowing a VHS or DVDR recording from a friend. If it's the latest episodes of a US TV show not yet aired... well, again it's no different to a friend over there taping it and mailing it. It's all the same thing, just via a quicker, more efficient, method. In no way can the copyright holders be said to be losing out here. If something's broadcast on the television, it's going to be recorded, kept, and copied. It's inevitable.

You will note in the above I specifically refer to "off-air"; this is to differentiate between this and a copy of a commercially released DVD. The downloading of a commercially released DVD can never be justified; if you can't find an off-air of a show, and only a dodgy DVD copy you should go out and buy the DVD... No question. Ditto any material exclusive to the DVD release; you should buy the thing.

Mind you, sometimes the off-air version of a show is superior to the version released on DVD; music substitutions sometimes blight a release with inappropriate music used in place of the originally aired songs. (In extreme cases, it can lead to whole scenes - sometimes important ones - being excised from the DVD.) The wrong music may seem a minor, trivial, issue; but it can have a massive impact on the scene. A notable example being the replacement of the song Georgia On My Mind with some generic plinky-plonking in the episode of Quantum Leap called MIA on the US DVD release; it completely ruined the impact of the scene, which is one of the most tender, sad, moments in the show. Fortunately, the UK version had the correct song intact.

And music... Music is a veritable minefield, but there are certainly examples that can be cited. Most notable is when you're a dedicated fan of a particular band. You'll want everything they release, and you'll buy it all. But there will come a time when there will be things unreleased. Those obscure radio sessions. Bootlegs of gigs. Interviews. Live TV performances. Now, being the dedicated fan that you are, if such goodies were released you'd buy them in a shot. But they're not... so, really... realistically if you find a website with those rare, unreleased, not repeated for 20-odd years, Peel Sessions (for example) are you really going to say "ooh, no; mustn't download these, must respect copyright..." Nah... of course not. You'll be downloading them in a shot. As a dedicated fan you just must have copies.

I would also say it's possible to mount a defence for downloading an album to see if you like it. The outcome here is obvious; if you decide you like the album, you buy a copy. If you don't like it, you delete it. I would suggest this is defensible purely on the basis that this is not really any different from borrowing a copy from a friend. Of course, if you decide you like it and don't buy a proper copy, keeping the dodgy one, you're clearly in the wrong. Obviously, opinions will vary here...

The trouble is, copyright is so often seen as a black and white issue, with no shades of grey in the middle. This is unfortunate, as it's clearly not an issue that can be polarised like this. Yes, there will be those people who never pay for any of the media they consume, and this is clearly wrong. But I do put it to you that there are examples - some of which are outlined above - where although copyright is breached there is no financial loss to the copyright holder, and these should not be bracketed with those breaches of copyright where the intent is to deprive the copyright owner of the remuneration they are due.

One final thought; there are currently 106 episodes of Dr Who missing from the archive. There are vast numbers of episodes of other TV shows missing, too. Loads of early Peel Session. Virtually everything the Beatles ever did for Top of the Pops.... I could go on... Just think... if the means and methods we have today for "breaching copyright" were available back then, the gaps in these archives would have been so much smaller...

"...come on..."

2012-01-20T22:03:00.005Z

Here's a question for you; is it possible to find an artist a reprehensible, loathsome, person yet still enjoy their art? It's a question that came to mind yesterday, when it was suddenly all over the internets that Gary Glitter had set up a Twitter account, and was talking of a book, new material, and gigs.

Now, no-one is suggesting that we should make light of what Glitter was convicted of doing. But does the fact that he has committed these acts change his songs at all? Should it stop us singing along to Rock and Roll part 2 (though, all the cool kids obviously sing the KLF's version of the words!) or The Leader of the Gang? Do Glitter's actions stop us enjoying his song?

Or is there a line? If a person does something very bad (as Glitter did) you can't enjoy their art, but if the thing they do is somewhat lower level is that okay? What if someone were a shoplifter? Would that be serious enough for a person to have their work consigned to the dumper?

It's a very thorny debate. If we do accept the premise that if a person commits a crime that this must mean their art is suddenly taboo, we then get in to the semantics of which offences are so bad to make this happen. If this is the standpoint you have, then where the line is drawn will end up coming down to a personal opinion as to what is beyond the pale. Most with this opinion would end up putting Glitter in to this category due to the serious nature of his offences. But, how many would place the shoplifter in that category? If you do... well, you'll have to avoid ever watching Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, and Star Trek (2009) as these contain a convicted shoplifter... so, where would you draw the line?

Then there is the issue of the rehabilitation of the artist; surely if a person commits a crime, have been punished, and puts that part of their life behind them they should be able to live as close to a normal life as possible? And again, as above, the question of where the line is drawn will come in to play. Whereas a rehabilitated shoplifter would be very likely to be readily forgiven, the comments on Twitter would suggest that the prevailing view on Glitter is that his offending was so beyond the pale that this could never happen for him. The opinion of Glitter as a person is overwhelming the opinion of his songs.

That Glitter's music isn't exactly the greatest in the world may very well play a part in this, as well as the size of his fanbase. By the time of his initial conviction, his career was already on the wane. He was a bygone relic from the 70s, someone who had a handful of hits and hadn't done anything of note for some time. It was easy for his music to be boycotted; I mean, can you recall the last time you heard his music on the radio? (As an aside; it'll be interesting to see if BBC4 edit his performances out of their repeats of 1977 Top of the Pops shows.)

Contrast this with the case of Michael Jackson, who was accused of some very serious offences, on a par with Glitter. At the time the allegations first came out, and when the trial was on, there wasn't anything like the vitriol towards him. There was some, don't get me wrong; but his fans fought back at them, defending them to the hilt. And his music continued to be played on the radio...

I have a feeling that an amount of distance can help as well; if it were to come out, after a person's death, that they had been responsible for some bad, bad, things this will certainly have a lesser impact. They'll no longer be around to either commit further offences, or to earn money for their art. Say, for example, it was found out that Shakespeare had murdered three people around the time he was writing his best plays would that make people stop enjoying his work? Would the Royal Shakespeare Company disband because they didn't want to associate with a murders work? No. Of course not. Nor should it. But... if it were someone contemporary... that would be rather a different matter.

It's a very thorny issue, and realistically it has to come down to personal tastes and opinions, and whether a person thinks that artist and art are capable of being seen as discrete entities.

[I apologise for the rambling nature of this post, but it's something I've been mulling over in my mind, and I don't think I've come to any sort of conclusion. I may return to this subject again in the future...]

"...you turn if you want to..."

2012-01-15T16:02:00.003Z

I should start off this review of The Iron Lady by stating that I'm not exactly what you would call a fan of Margaret Thatcher; I was reasonably sure that, before I went to see it, I would come out of the cinema ranting about it. In the end, I came out thinking it was an uncomfortable film, that was deeply flawed...

The Iron Lady has one of those trailers that, essentially, cons you; it makes you think you'll get one sort of a movie, and ends up delivering a completely different one. Which, if the movie it delivered was a better one that the one you imagined would be a very good thing. However, this is not the case.

The trailers, and indeed all the clips I've seen of it, emphasize the years when Thatcher was at the very height of her powers. When she was in charge, and everyone was terrified of her. Even many within her own party. But those moments are really only half the movie, as the framework in which these extracts of her life are placed are being recalled as memories by the aged, dementia ridden, Thatcher of the present.

We start off with Thatcher, having somehow evaded her protection team (which all ex-Prime Ministers have), slipping to the shops to buy a paper and a pint of milk, expressing shock at how much it is; grocer's daughter see, and a contrast with a later scene in the film where she rants at members of her cabinet who are out of touch and quotes the price of a pack of half a dozen different types of butter. This is a Thatcher who is in the advancing stages of dementia, who forgets that her husband, Dennis, is dead and has imaginary conversations with him about all sorts of things, including the old days. This provides the framework for the film as she recalls how she started in politics, her rise to become first Leader of her party, then of the country.

Frustratingly, too many moments are briefly glossed over, and the impression is one of just glossing over the surface of each event; there's never any real insight in to how her mind worked. Every time you hope for a little depth, we're pulled back to the modern day, and the "framework". And this is really the biggest problem with the movie, in that it's really rather less a movie about Thatcher's life in politics than that of a person who can't let got of her dead husband; this is the emotional centre of the movie, and really, it doesn't work. There were too many moments during these sequences when I was squirming, and feeling really uncomfortable. This isn't to say such a story shouldn't be told, just that it should not have been used as the framing story for a movie about Thatcher.

I think a better framing device for the movie would have been to have used the events of November 1990, when she was ousted as a result of a leadership challenge. Have that playing out with her remembering her rise, and her glory days, as she comes to the decision that she can't contest the second round of the ballot. That would have made for a much more powerful film, in my opinion.

Some have cited historical inaccuracies in the film, but I'm not sure these really matter too much; the framework here makes it clear that the events were are seeing are as Thatcher remembers them. This is a different thing to how something might actually have been (I'm remembered here about the comment's Bill Pullman's character makes in Lost Highway about how he dislikes video cameras...). Memories are not perfect. Mind you, the "rose petal" sequence had me rolling my eyes...

The actual performances in the film are pretty good. Streep's Thatch is played really well, and you do feel a sense of sympathy for her in the framework scenes. Many of the historical figures barely get a shoo-in. Anthony Head and Richard E Grant do little more than cameos as Geoffrey Howe and Michael Heseltine respectively; I would have loved to have seen many more scenes with both in. And the chap playing John Major doesn't even get any lines, or even a credit... (well; at least I thought it was John Major, could really have been a random grey cabinet minister in glasses, I guess...!)

I think this was one of those films that I'm glad I saw, but I don't think I actually got anything out of it. A biopic should give you an insight in to that person, what makes them tick, what motivates them; but here I don't think we got anything more than what we already know, from the public image, of Thatcher. I don't feel at all enlightened, nor do I get any sense of how she conducted herself as PM. It really was a misfire on pretty much all sides, bar the actual performances. I would probably have preferred an approach similar to that taken by The Queen; where rather than a whole life biopic, we see the events around a single, specific event, to really get under her skin to see how she worked.

Really, this was a wasted opportunity.

"...only in dreams..."

2012-01-09T19:29:00.005Z

Over at one of the forums I post at, I was asked for advice re which David Lynch films a person who has never seen a David Lynch film (except Dune) should see should they venture to the BFI for the Lynch season at the BFI, which is showing almost everything he's done so far. This is a rejigged version;

I guess it depends on how many you have the time to see, but the following is how you should prioritise, if you can only make some;

1 - Blue Velvet. Best movie ever made, IMHO. However, be warned; it is not an easy watch. There are some scenes that really push you to the extreme. Dennis Hopper's character is genuinely scary. It's a movie that expects you to keep up with it. I found it hard to follow some aspects the first time I saw it (I think I was still shellshocked in places by how far it goes), but the actual plot is pretty straightforward.

2 - Eraserhead. Lynch's first, and most surreal. Seen it several times; I still do not have a clue what the heck it's about. It's more of an experience than a film, but it's an experience worth having. Jack Nance is quite, quite, brilliant. Nance, of course, pops up in most of Lynch's films. Also, you get to see three shorts, The Grandmother, The Amputee and The Alphabet...

3 - Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. I disliked this when I first saw it, but then that was because it wasn't what *I wanted* the Twin Peaks movie to be (it'd take too long to explain). It'd be interesting to see the response of someone who's not seen the TV series, and how well it hangs as a movie if you don't know who all of the minor characters in the movie are... though, if you are planning to watch the TV show, and don't want to know the answer to the question "Who killed Laura Palmer?" it might be best to avoid.

4 - Lost Highway. I've still not got the hang of this one. Every time I think I've got a handle on it, a thought occurs that just makes me question everything. There's some great stuff here, and what Mr Eddy does to the tailgater should be required viewing for anyone that takes part in such behaviour. The comment made by [someone] about never getting more than halfway through it is very interesting... but I'll not comment further... *spoilers*

5 - Mulholland Drive. This one was a failed TV pilot that Lynch managed to get the funds to make in to a feature film (you can tell certain bits that were from the film version even if you've never seen the TV edit...!), most notably the scene that Rago would most want to see on the big screen... : ) It's another one that seems to be complex and tricky to understand, but I think it can (albeit briefly) be explained using three words... which I'll not mention here.

Then, after these you've got;

The Straight Story; which does exactly what it says on the tin. Even though the subject is nothing like a normal Lynch film, and there's no out and out weirdness in it, it has the usual Lynchian feel running right through it...

Wild at Heart; one of the most straightforward movies. Reminded me a little of True Romance. Probably the best performance you'll even see from Nic Cage. Better, even, than his performance as Cameron Poe in Con Air. It's that good.

The Elephant Man; you know, biopic of Mr Merrick. It's a pretty decent film. But, it's many years since I last saw it, so really can't comment further..

Dune; nothing to say here... : ) Worth noting that it's the only Lynch movie for which he didn't get final cut. It's also the only Lynch film I've not seen, despite having got a free DVD with the Grauniad some time back.

Which leaves...

Inland Empire. Oh. My. Word. When this was out in the cinema, it wasn't showing anywhere around here. So, me and a fried travelled in to London to see it (at the Odeon a few doors from Forbidden Planet). Even now, over 5 years later, he still talks of me dragging him along to see that terrible film...

I mean, I've left Lynch movies before thinking "what the heck was that about?", but it never mattered, as the actual experience of the film was an enjoyable one; that you leave the movie not understanding everything about it isn't a bad thing as it makes you think, makes you wonder, and makes you want to see the thing again.

With Inland Empire I left thinking "what the heck was that about?"... but the experiece...? Oh, no... not enjoyable at all. Trouble was, it just did not feel like a Lynch movie at all. Whatever equipment (some digital camera, and not HD; he doesn't do HD...) he used often made it look like camcorder footage, with terrible pixelisation, in some place (but not others). He'd seemingly randomly spliced in footage from his web Rabbits thing. Scenes just seemed completely random in nature, which is no great surprise as he was making the whole thing up as he went along. He'd write a scene (or group of scenes), film it, and then write some more. If that had been the first Lynch movie I'd ever seen, I swear I'd never watch another one. It was that bad.

Put it this way, if I had the choice to watch Inland Empire, and any other DVD; the other DVD would win almost every time. The only time Inland Empire would win would be if it were a choice between Inland Empire and Simply Red: Live in Concert.

I did actually buy the DVD of Inland Empire. Just to give it a second chance. Put it in the machine, and it was out again within 15 minutes... Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

"...another year over..."

2011-12-31T19:41:00.003Z

I've kind of been a little lazy on the ol' blog this year, as the number of posts contained here attest, as well as the large gaps between posts. Must try to improve this in the new year. Anyhow... 2011... what did you bring us...?

Well, politically speaking there was the realisation that Cameron and Osborne managed to succeed where Blair and Brown failed. That is, they appear to have achieved an end to boom and bust. The nation rejoiced, until they realised that meant we were stuck with bust...

Actually, much about the government continued to depress and annoy. The announcement, the day before the public sector strike on November 30th, that after a two year pay freeze for public sector workers (2011, 2012) that the next two years' pay increases would be capped at 1% (2013, 2014) was rather less a case of bad timing, and more a case of perfectly calculated timing by Osborne. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Prime Minster's questions continues to be a fascinating insight in to the machinations of government, and really makes you wonder how they ever get anything done. However, the reaction to Cameron's "Calm down, dear"comment was somewhat overblown, and totally out of perspective. I'm no great fan of his, but if you're going to berate him at least do it for something worthwhile, not because he quoted a Michael Winner TV ad.

The braying that goes on in the chambers when PMQ is on does Parliament no favours. The number of times the Speaker, John Bercow, has to upbraid unruly MPs for their behaviour is astonishing. These are meant to be the people governing our country; yet they act worse than a pack of unruly school children. And this applies to members on both sides of the house. When a member stands up to ask a question, I want to hear that question. And when the Prime Minister answers, I want to hear the answer. That's the point of it.

I can't help but wish more of the Houses of Parliament was available in an easily downloadable format. Only PMQs really is via a Guardian podcast, and that's not always entirely reliable. Other debates can be watched on parliament.gov (I think that's the right site), but you can't download the audio to listen to on your iPod on the way to work. There's been a few debates this year I wouldn't have minded listening to in full. Notably, the phone hacking one.

The phone hacking hoo-ha can't really have been any great surprise; back in the day when you could listen in to any old mobile phone conversation (with the old analogue mobile networks), the papers were at it al the time. There were whole conversations of Princess Di's printed, for example. So, if there were a way to listen in to voicemails, then it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that the press would do so... and, indeed there had been all sorts of mentions of it in years past. Piers Morgan even mentioned the trick in one of his books (though it should of course be noted that at no point in his books does he state that he ever hacked, or sanctioned the hacking, of a phone). But, a surprise it was to many, and in the end caused the closure of an entire newspaper. An action which many thought an over-reaction. It's not like they were the only paper to use the tactic.

The best single of the year arrived suddenly, at least to me, in the last fortnight of the year. On the way home one day very close to Christmas, Tarrant (standing in for Wrighty) played a song that entranced me. It was playing just as I was parking, and unusually I stayed sat in the car listening to the whole song to its end, even after the point Tarrant started yakking over the end. This song was Dance by The Brilliant Things, and as the band's name would suggest, it is quite, quite, brilliant.

Of the films I saw this year (and I am well aware there were some glaring omissions that I never got around to seeing; TTSS, and ROTPOTA, to name but two) my favourite came as quite a surprise to me. Not only was it a documentary, but also it was about a sport that I'm not overly enamoured with. This movie was Senna, which told the story of Ayton Senna's career in F1 racing; it was absolutely wonderful. All the footage was contemporaneous, and totally eschewed the "talking head" approach to documentary making that seems to be all pervading. All interviews were from the time, with none looking back from a 2011 perspective. This was quite a refreshing approach as it allowed the story to unravel as it happened, with everything seen as it was with no modern spin put on things.

Really, I would urge everyone reading this to watch Senna; even if you have no great interest in the sport.

The saddest thing on telly this year was the last ever episode of Spooks. It should have been expected that there would be no happy ending... but when it arrived it was devastating. The final shot of Harry, back at work, answering the phone... knowing how it could have played out, what the happy ending might have been. It just gave you a big lump in your throat. And you just knew that Harry would remain with 5 for the rest of his days.

The third generation of Skins arrived, and were probably the least impressive lot yet. The main trouble for me was that I really didn't think they gelled as a group anything like as well as the first two generations. It's not like I expect them all to be bestest of buddies or anything (that would make for terrible drama), but I just didn't think the group worked. There were individual episodes that were really great, but on the whole the weakest season yet. It'll be interesting to see where they go with Season 6, which must surely be on telly very soon in the new year.

There was good news at the annual Missing Believed Wiped event at the BFI in December with the return of two previously missing Dr Who episodes; Galaxy 4, episode 3, and The Underwater Menace episode 2. The latter was probably the most new episode of Dr Who I'd seen all year, and only went to reinforce how sad it is that the majority of Patrick Troughton's episodes of Dr Who remain missing, believed wiped...

A sad thing Dr Who related was that the new animated version of the never completed Season 17 story, Shada, was turned down for a DVD release. This version had been privately commissioned by Ian Levine, using as many surviving cast members as possible (the only notable omission being Tom Baker; whose lines were performed by Paul Jones, who does a decent impression of the great man). This version uses all the existing filmed footage, and animates the rest. It's a great shame that as things stand it's not going to get a much wider audience, as it's without any doubt the best version of Shada yet made (the other three being the 80s version with on screen text describing the action, the 90s version with Tom narrating the gaps, and the 00s version with Big Finish remaking the entire thing replacing Tom with Paul McGann). With luck, the position on this will eventually change and it will get the release it so very much deserves.

Of course, the other two sad events in the Dr Who world were the deaths of Nicholas Courtney, and Elisabeth Sladen. I made the mistake of reading Doctor Who Magazine's tribute issue to Courtney on the train to work; by the time I'd got to Tom Baker's tribute there were tears in my eyes. I made sure I read the Sladen issue safely ensconced at home.

So, farewell then, 2011... and hello 2012. What will you bring? Certainly not the end of the world due to "Mayan prophecies" or any of that load of old Tottenham... : )

"...every silver lining has a cloud..."

2011-12-13T19:36:00.005Z

After the good news about the two missing episodes of Dr Who turning up, there's been a bit of less good news, in a "so close, but so far" style. Over at the missing episodes forum someone asked;

Was reading through the comments of the Guardian article on the recent find and came across a poster who posted:
"An ex-brother-in-law of mine from Sierra Leone claimed in the early 1990s that he had seen a stack of tape reels of Dr. Who shows archived in a Freetown broadcasting studio. Some of the more intrepid Whoies may want to follow up on this as I've since lost contact with the man.
http://www.slbc.sl/ "

Not sure if Sierra Leone has been searched or not (I'm new, still reading through the thread!), just thought I'd bring it to someones attention

Paul Vanezis responded to this;

Well it's a good spot, although a few people have already emailed me with the info. I can now confirm that there is no material in Sierra Leone, but I can also say that we think the report is correct, that there were Dr. Who and other films in Sierra Leone in the early 1990's. In fact, we think we know which ones.

I'm afraid that between 1991 and 2002 the civil war prevented any meaningful exploration of their archives and we very recently discovered that the TV station, including their entire archive, was destroyed during the civil war, we think in 1999.

The list of material lost is far too distressing to print here.

A look at the episodes they got over there, and a bit of reading between the lines, makes for depressing reading...

"...he's as mad as a hatter..."

2011-12-11T22:26:00.003Z

So. Today was Missing Believed Wiped at the BFI. Only the second time I've been. The lure of a previously missing Dennis Potter play, and the... speculation... as to what the sci fi treat was tempted me down again. And, boy was I glad.

The event kicked off with a screening of the aforementioned Potter play, from the Thirty Minute Theatre strand, called Emergency Ward 9. Present at the screening was Kenith Trodd, who worked with Potter on so many productions (including this one), who spoke briefly about the play. It was every bit as good as I had expected it to be, and was well performed by the cast (I have a memory it was done live, but would have to check to be sure). The racism of one of the characters, Flanders played by Terence De Marney, was quite shocking, really, and there were many nervous laughs throughout the audience. The thing was, though, that you never got the impression he was being malicious, rather he was a very misguided character; so much so, that when there was a sudden act of violence towards him, you couldn't help but feel sad for him. I very much hope it gets a DVD release at some point in the future.

Next up was the Mumford Puppets, and this really was my least favourite part of the event. I'm not a fan of puppet stuff at all; I don't even care for Gerry Anderson's stuff. I can't help but wish that this section had been canned, and the time given over to showing one of the other shows in full, rather than an extract...

An episode of Overseas Press Club called The Man Who Changed Faces followed. This was... interesting. It was one of those shows that initially started off bad, and got worse, and then sunk to such depths that it became so bad it was good... a resistance fighter has plastic surgery to resemble a high ranking Nazi soldier, who then passed on information back to the resistance... The quality of the acting was such that the wooden chairs had more charisma. The script, for what it was worth (about 7p) was full of lines that made everyone chuckle. Yet, somehow, it worked. And made me want to see more...

Next was a clip of Pete 'n' Dud from a show called Showtime; it was just brilliant. But then any Pete 'n' Dud clips usually are brilliant; the way the par sparked off each other... wonderful.

Then came the sci fi treat... and what a treat. 35 minutes of previously missing Dr Who...

We started with about 10 minutes of Airlock, the third episode of the Hartnell story Galaxy Four. We got to see a Rill on screen for the first time in many years indeed, which for most of us would be the first time we've seen them. Poor ol' Billy had a bit of a fluff with one of the props in the Rill ship as a piece clearly fell off the controls as Vicki got trapped. There was, also, a great scene with Maaga berating her clones. The performance was great, a real sense of exasperation as she complains about how crap they are. But, just as it was getting started, really, the screen cut to black...

...and we got a complete episode, The Underwater Menace 2, which is now the earliest surviving Patrick Troughton episode, and boy it's a good one. Now, I love The Underwater Menace; I think its previously sole surviving episode, #3, is probably the single episode of Who I've watched more than any other. #2 is just as good. A good chunk of the first half of the episode consists of Troughton and Josef Furst's wonderful Professor Zaroff sparking off each other in the Prof's laboratory. And it works really well. The expressions on Troughton's face as Zaroff does the usual bad guy thing of explaining his plan are just brilliant, and make you so glad the episode was found. We don't get to see Zaroff's pet octopus, though...

Later, when the Doctor is trying to convince Thous that Zaroff is mad (as a hatter, in fact...!) we also get some great expressions from Troughton. In fact, the more Troughton you see, the more you wish that we could get lots more of his stuff back. Let's not forget, shall we, that this episode is the first Troughton to be recovered in the twenty (yes *twenty*) years since The Tomb of the Cybermen was found.

The episode is physically not in too great shape, but this was an unrestored copy, so I'm sure that by the time the restoration team get working their magic on it, it will look brilliant. It was also very interesting that the copy of the print was one that must have been down under in Australia at some point, as it was missing the censor clips recovered from there a few years back; these will be reinstated when restored.

I was just so blissfully happy watching the episode. I really never thought I'd get to see any more of the Underwater Menace, and had pretty much started to get to the thinking that there were no more to find. But, from out of nowhere these two episodes came. And, like The Lion and Day of Armegeddon, they were in the collection of a person who had no idea they had the only copies of these episodes.

Makes you wonder if there are any more out there...

"...where...?"

2011-10-18T14:23:00.001+01:00

Hmm. I see the last post is dated May 25th. Must do something about that...

"...I hear you call my name..."

2011-05-25T20:11:00.007+01:00

I am getting increasingly annoyed at US TV shows getting the axe, and ending on a whopping cliffhanger. This year it happened to both V and The Event, last year FlashForward and to a lesser extent, Heroes.

[Incidentally; spoilers for said shows follow.]

American TV has always been ready to chop shows with little mercy, and in the days when each show was always a self contained story, this was much less of an issue. However, now many shows have epic, overarching storylines, and when a show like this gets the axe, it mostly never gets an ending to the story. Instead we are left dangling.

V ended with Anna giving her Bliss to the world, a trio of key deaths, another character in peril, and the introduction of a whole new aspect to the show in the shape of Project Aries. Its axing meant that Marc Singer's character, instead of being the important person he was destined to be is now a mere footnote to proceedings; little more than a fan-pleasing cameo.

The Event ended with the plan to unleash the virus thwarted, the array rather than just brining Sophia's people to Earth bringing the entire frickin' planet; and even with that brief last exchange between the president's wife and her son; "What is it mommy?", "Home" just made you ache for more.

FlashForward ended just as we actually got to the point of the first flash forward, with tantalising hints of the end of the world in a few years time.

And Heroes... although the main points of the season had been wrapped up - the carnival storyline, there was that tantalising moment at the end where Claire announces the existence of those with powers to the world...

You see, the trouble is that by the time a show gets word it's getting the axe, it's too late to give a conclusion. Both V and Heroes had already aired when they got the axe, with the other two getting the chop after filming had finished with just a couple of episodes to screen. This meant there was no way that any of the shows could have an ending. They just had to put up with what they had already got in the can. Moments intended as cliffhangers had to serve as cliffhangers.

In the case of all of these, they were pretty much gamechanging moments; however, in the end, they're now only gamechangers in the same way that Eric Cartman picking up his ball and hissing "Screw you guys, I'm going home" is to the kids' ball game.

I really can't help but wish that they'd all got the word of the axing earlier; that way last episodes could have been changed so that they were able to fashion an ending, even if a rushed one. That's not an unreasonable demand, is it?

I remember Quantum Leap ending; that last ever episode was just meant to be an end of season episode. But, with a small amount of overdubbing, and a couple of captions (which still manage to make me wonderfully happy, and depressingly sad at the same time) the show got an ending. But, that was an episodic, rather than a serial, show, and thus much easier to tweak at the last moment.

Lost spoilt us, I think; from the end of Season 3 we knew that there would definitely be just three more, shorter, seasons and then it would be The End. That meant they had the space to give the show the ending they wanted, and they wouldn't have to to either stretch out or unduly compress the ending.

And it really makes you wary of investing time in a new show, as you'll have it in the back of your mind that there'll be a chance that it won't last beyond 24-ish episodes, and be unresolved. Of next year's crop I'm looking forward to Alcatraz (with Jorge Garcia; there's a trailer already. It's great), and Person of Interest (with Michael Emerson). But part of me thinks I should wait until the end of the season to see if they get picked up at least for a second season. I just don't want the disappointment should one or the other get the axe with a whopping cliffhanger.

Of course, there is one inherent irony here; my favourite show remains Twin Peaks. A show that got axed after 30 episodes. And ends on a whopper of a cliffhanger. And they knew they were getting the axe in time to give the show an ending. But Lynch and Frost chose to end on that cliffhanger.

"...we're going to need a bigger boat..."

2011-01-17T21:25:00.003Z

So, over the last week I've been watching, with quite some despair, the programmes on Channel 4 about fishing; notably, Hugh's and Gordon's.

The whole discard issue is completely stupid. The fishermen have a quota limiting the number of each type of fish they can bring back to land with them... only their nets catch rather more. To ensure they keep within the quota, the fishermen chuck swathes of dead fish back in to the sea.

Now, the idea behind quotas is that certain fish are not overfished. A noble sentiment. But, if they are being caught, and thrown back dead; what's the point? They are still being overfished. The entire point of the exercise is defeated. Better to say that each crew is allowed a set amount of time out at sea, and they can bring back whatever they catch. That would be a much better way to conserve stocks, and also to ensure that if a fish is caught and killed, it's eaten, rather than just thrown back.

More senseless is the shark issue; they are caught, have their fins lopped off, and thrown back in to the sea to die an agonising, slow, death. All to supply a trade in shark fin soup...

...and the thing is, it's estimated that some shark populations have been reduced by 90% in a decade. From whatever perspective you look at it, this is stupid.

From an environmental perspective, it's a disaster that could completely screw up the ecosystem in areas of the sea as species are driven to extinction.

From a shark fin soup fan's perspective, it's also a disaster; after all, if all the sharks are extinct, how are you going to ever have your favourite soup again?

It's bad news all round...

"...I've told you a million times..."

2011-01-02T21:15:00.002Z

2011 things for 2011

In which I make 2011 comments to start the year 2011...

1 - Watching Iron Man (or at least most of it) makes me think that the casting of Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark is probably the best piece of super hero casting thus far.

2 - Though Chris Evans (not that Chris Evans) as the Human Torch comes a close second.

3 - If there is a scene at the end of the credits of a film, this should be stated in the BBFC classification summaries. Missed SLJ when I saw Iron Man at the cinema.

4 - I swear there is a moral behind the movie Animals United, but it's so subtle I can't figure out what it is...

5 - Speaking of which; there are no wombats in that film.

6 - Frankie Boyle is less offensive than the Meet the Fockers franchise.

7 - David Cameron is an anagram of "A rancid demon".

8 - Statistically, 38% of people will believe that without checking.

9 - It is genuinely an anagram of Odd Maniac Rev, Avid Mac Drone, and A Man Divorced.

10 - iTunes is the biggest ball of sucky software in the world.

11 - Adrian Lester should be the next James Bond.

12 - The re-releases DVD of Our Friends in the North has the proper music.

13 - Since it started, it has raised over 5 hundred million pounds.

14 - There appears to be neither rhyme nor reason to the pricing of Kindle books.

15 - Did anyone really think this would get to 2011 entries?

"...the play's the thing..."

2010-10-28T22:05:00.001+01:00

(I know this is not exactly the most original title for a review of a production of Hamlet; this is somewhat ironic given that the production this review is about was a highly original production. And it's rather late.)

But, first, some background; every year, the Reading University Drama Society puts on a Shakespeare play or two in the open air. This year, one of the plays was Hamlet. However, this was a Hamlet with a twist. Shakespeare with a twist is not an unusual thing, there are all sorts of contemporarily set plays, or transposed locations, or even naked Shakespeare... but I can’t think of another time when Hamlet has been mashed up with The Catcher in the Rye...

Now you may think this is a crazy notion as the two source texts are so very different from each other, but think about it; for example, one of things Holden rallies against are phonies. What could be more phony than the “grief” of Claudius for his brother’s death; murdered at his own hands? Hamlet sees this phoniness, and endeavours to expose it. And once you start looking, you can find all sorts of little examples.

So. Hamlet, with Catcher in the Rye stylings. Does it work? Well. There’s really only one answer, and it’s a three-lettered one beginning with a “y”.

Now, I’m sure it’s not escaped your knowledge, but I am somewhat of a fan of The Catcher in the Rye. It’s my favourite book. I have no idea how many times I have read it. Often when I finish reading it, I’ll flip straight back to the start and begin again. If I’m carrying a bag there’s about a 97.8% chance there’s one of my four copies of Catcher in there. Look to the top right of this blog to see where its title comes from. I’m sure you’re getting the picture, yes? But then there is also something I’m quite militant about and that’s my loathing of the idea of adapting The Catcher in the Rye in to any other medium. Take a look at the post “...don’t ever tell anybody anything...” dated March 9th 2010 for more on why a Catcher movie would be a bad idea; the same really applies to any other medium. Including the theatre. Now. The thing this production got right was that the Hamlet here is still clearly Hamlet. Although there are stylings of The Catcher in the Rye, and influences, at no point did it feel Hamlet was trying to be Holden. It was enough that the world this Hamlet inhabits is a similar one to Holden. It didn’t need Hamlet to actually become Holden.

And the Catcher touches were all over the place. From the Little Shirley Beans record that Ophelia gives back to Hamlet, to the red hunting hat Hamlet wears occasionally, to the fencing, to the whole prep school look of several of the characters, to the game of chequers that Hamlet and Horatio play; with Horatio even shedding a tear on to the board. Although I did actually miss her doing that...

...yes. You did read that bit right. In this version, Horatio was female; she was the Jane Gallagher to Holden’s Hamlet. You remember; in the book, she’s the one who keeps all her kings in the back row. Actually, this led to one of the few prop errors in the production; when they were playing chequers, the kings were facing Horatio, when they should have been facing Hamlet. Having said that, though, chances are I was the only one in the audience that noticed this.

Having Horatio as a female changed the dynamic of the play a little; especially heightening the way how Ophelia acts. Her desire for Hamlet, and his rejection of her (“Get thee to a nunnery” etc) makes her gradual decline looks as if jealousy of Hamlet’s relationship with Horatio plays a part in it. Does this Ophelia see Horatio as a rival, perhaps?

Both roles were brilliantly played. The brilliantly cast. Katie Gunning’s performance as the reliable Horatio (one of the few truly honest, and stable, characters in the characters in the play) was spot on; I remember seeing her in a production of Closer (the Patrick Marber play) last year playing the Natalie Portman role, and in the intervening months she’s clearly improved her acting skillls. It’s not that she was bad in Closer, she was okay; but in Hamlet she shifted up a couple of gears to give a compelling performance, both when acting and reacting.
In any case, Marber is no Shakespeare; the only way his play scores over Hamlet is the gratuitous lapdancing scene. As far as I am aware, no production of Hamlet has yet found a a way to work a lapdancing in to the narrative... but I digress...

The flip side of the coin was the unstable Ophelia. It’s always a tricky thing to get Ophelia’s descent in to madness correct; it’s very easy to go a little too over the top, so that it seems hammy. This was not the case here; the performance was a believable one.

But at the core of every performance of Hamlet is one performance that will make or break the entire production. Clearly, I should not need to tell you which role this is... and luckily the titular role here was cast perfectly. The sheer energy of Ant Henson's performance just left you breathless. When Hamlet staggered, drunk, on stage, bottle in hand, splurging out “to be or not to be...” shivers went up the spine. It was that good. It felt fresh.

Now, I’ve seen three productions of Hamlet, and if you were to ask me about Rosencratz and Guildestern in the first two... well, I’d have to Google them to find out who played them, and really I can’t remember a thing about their performances. That’s not something that will happen with this performance; Matthew Clark and Lee Anderson came close to stealing the show every time they were on stage with their performances as the toadying little pair. The sheer physicality of their performance oozed lackiness to such a degree that Waylon Smithers would have felt confident in bossing them around. They were just brilliant. Even now, as I type this, I’m chuckling at the memory of their performances.

Ah... I could mention so many other performances... from one of the gravediggers and his Matt-Smith-esque attire (at one point he pinged his bow tie as if saying “It’s a bow tie. I wear a bow tie now. Bow ties are cool.”), to Alexander Wilson’s Stradlater styled performance as Claudius, and Fiona McIntyre’s very regal Gertrude... so much to praise.

There was some real talent on that stage. I don’t know how many of them will end up pursuing acting as a career option, or just dabbling with amateur theatre occasionally, but there are certainly a handful up there who really should think about doing a lot more acting, as they were so damn good; and were I to hear that they have not acted further, I'll track them down and slap them round the chops with a wet fish. Maybe a bream, or a brill.

In closing, I’ll just leave you with this one comment; I went to see the last of the three performances of this production. In hindsight, this was a mistake. I should have gone to the first. Then I could have seen it twice more...

"...Star Trekkin' across the universe..."

2010-07-31T20:06:00.002+01:00

Now, it's been quite some time since I watched any amount of Star Trek; it's kind of slipped under my radar for a while, even with the JJ flavoured movie... but the other day, I picked up a set of 4 DVDs containing all 12 Q episodes on it for a fiver. Bargain. So, I've been watching them, and thus far in, here's my thoughts:

Encounter At Farpoint

Now, this was a lot better than I remembered it as being. John de Lancie pretty much steals the scene every time he's on screen. He's a wonderful presence from the off, and you're never quite sure where you are with him. Otherwise, though, the story's pretty ho-hum. There's way too much "pilot"ing going on here, whereby things happen, and stuff is set up, just to show off the newness of the show. The most notable example of this is when they split the saucer section for a really spurious reason (I'm reasonably sure I'm right in saying this doesn't happen again until the Generations film, aren't I? Heck, they don't even split for the Borg in BOBW...), and also the backstories of Jean Luc & Beverly's and Riker & Troi's repesctive histories seems shoehorned in. But, overall, not too bad.

Hide and Q

This was another one that surprised me. Q's temptation of Riker was a lot better than I remembered, and I'd forgotten the glorious moment when Wesley gets a spike through his guts. Even the game he gets them to play isn't too bad. Still, despite this, it remains one of the weaker Q episodes... especially when it's up against these next two;

Q-Who

Before they started fucking around with continuity, this was humanity's first encounter with The Borg. The way how Q maliciously flings the Enterprise halfway across the galaxy (well, two years away at maximum warp...). This episode is one of those rare beasties; an episode where the good guys can in no way be said to have won; faced with a choice of being crushed by the Borg or submitting to Q, Jean Luc wisely chooses the latter. It's a stunning, powerful, episode that sets the stage for what remains the best Star Trek ever, thus far; The Best of Both Worlds.

Deja Q

From the relentless doom of the previous Q episode, we get a complete inversion with an episode that's got some of the funniest moments of Trek ever. Taking the omipotent Q and making him human worked brilliantly. The look on Q's face as Mr Worf chucks him in the brig... priceless! It's a testament to the versatility of John de Lancie's acting skills that he's able to portray these varying facets to Q's character equally well; you've never quite sure when playful Q will turn in to vengful Q... brilliant.

Q-Pid

But, it couldn't last. This episode is the nadir of Q TNG episodes, and pretty much only comes to life when Q is on screen (not enough, in this episode). The Robin Hood sequences really don't work, and are only enlivened once, by Worf's best ever line; "Sir, I protest, I am not a merry man"... Overall, quite a dull episode.

Still, 5 TNG episodes down, three to go... and then there's the DS9 episode (*shudder*) and the Voyager ones... Hmm...

Actually, you know what... I'm surprised they never had Q in Enterprise; I know, in terms of continuity it would not have worked... but hey, continuity stated they should never have had the Borg or Ferengi in that show, but they still did. : )

"...we've been waiting for you..."

2010-05-29T20:05:00.003+01:00

Okay. So I have been rather slack in respect to the ol' blog of late. I had meant to post after every episode of Lost, for example, but events seemed to overtake me. So, I never got to say how moving I felt the sideways Ben episode was, how great it was to see Sawyer as a cop, the brilliance of the Richard episode, and how moving the Libby & Hurley scenes were, and how it was great to see Charles on the island, and the sense of dread that pemeated through episodes 12-14, and how shocking the events on the sub were, and how flat the Jacob episode was (could have been done in half the time), how I shed a tear at a scene of two people talking in a kitchen, and how Charles was so offhandedly killed... and... so many things.

But, in The End...

First of all, I would like to stake my colours to the post right from the off; I loved the final episode of Lost to bits. It wasn't what I expected from the show at all, but it gave a resolution to all that really mattered in the show. Yes, there were questions remaining unanswered, but that really doesn't matter. I have seen so many posts just whinging that a minor plot point from an episode in Season 2 (or whatever) has been left hanging. I've even seen people complaining that things that had already been answered hadn't been. And there were also many questions that, although not directly answered, can be answered if the brain is put together and you actually think about the show. Does everything need to be spoon fed? Strewth. Get a grip. I've seen people say that if a pseudo-scientific explanation was given for, say, the light, or for how the island moves that would have improved things. I mean, would it really matter if, in all solemnity, if Jacob had said to the Candidates that this was due to the transperambulation of pseudo cosmic antimatter, or something...??? I mean, really? Damon and Carlton had said in interviews during the season they didn't want to get all "midi-chlorian" with answers, as sometimes if you know too much about something, it lessens it. Does the midi-chlorian explanation enhance understanding of the Force, or does it diminish it. I suggest the latter...

Anyway; what is needed from a resolution is that it is true to the programme, and true to the characters, and what we got most definitely was. I tell you; for about the last 10-15 minutes, when it was becoming obvious what was going on with the sideways world, and the significance of the location of the light (behind the bamboo grove), I started to blub. It had such an impact on me, so by the time Vincent lays down next to the almost dead Jack, I was in floods. All I cared was that the finale was a fitting end, and that when that last "Lost" pinged on screen it felt like a complete whole. And that's exactly what it did.

I also loved that Hurley ended up as the islands latest protector, with Ben as his "number 2". I was so glad Ben made it to the end, as I had long feared he would end up dead by the end (when the tree fell on him, I thought that was it and was shouting "noooo!" at the screen). But, no. He lives. It was good also to see Rose & Bernard living their idyllic island lives.

Also a suprise was those who made it off the island in the plane... the "Ajira 6", if you will... Sawyer, I was sure, was going to make some noble sacrifice (probably to save Freckles, and without his shirt) , but he made it off.

You do have to hand it to the producers, though, for the spectacular misdirection they used for the sideways world; all along the theory was that this was a timeline, created by the bomb going boom at the Swan site, that had time changed completely from 1977 on... right from the Comic-Con videos of Hurley, Kate, and the Oceanic Ad, that was always what it was; an alternate time line... In hindsight, given that all signs pointed to that interpretation, it should have been obviously an incorrect assumption. The eventual, afterlife, explanation was far more satisfying than any other alternative. It harks back to the idea that in each life we find ourselves with the same people.

I just love it. The perfect end to what, to my mind, has been the best TV show ever.

"...life can always start up anew..."

2010-03-20T21:31:00.002Z

Do you remember the first time we saw the second cast of Skins? That wonderful sequence where Freddie hops on his skateboard at the top of Park Street and dodges his way past all the obstacles on the way down, before meeting up with Cook & JJ. Cook already on, what, his third or fourth pint of the day and they'd not yet started their first day at college. And Effie's dad crashing the car, and Cook pretending he'd crashed in to him, and the old granny sticking up for him, and Effy looking call in the car. And as she walked away all three of them were in love with her...

...it seems like such a long time ago now.

Of course, then it was a really brave thing. Axing, essentially, the whole cast (bar Effy, obviously), and replacing them with completely new characters. It was like Grange Hill on an epic scale; there there was always the turnover of characters, as each year left the school, there was another new year waiting in the wings. But as that was set in a secondary school and sixth form college, each character could be there for up to seven years, so even if some left, there was always a core of characters from the previous series there. Not so, with Skins. Such a wholesale change of cast shouldn't have worked; but it did.

Whilst it's true the old cast were missed, we soon grew to love the new one. We became as invested in this mob's lives as we were in the previous.

Now, we're going to have to go through it all again, as Seasons 5 & 6 (already confirmed as definitely happening by E4) will again have a completely new set of characters (no word on if there's an "Effy" as yet, but if there is, the smart money's on Karen...). This last Thursday we bade farewell to Cook and company with an episode that managed to be both inspired genius, and a massive disappointment at the same time...

Most episodes of a TV show have to do just one thing; be a damn good episode. That's all. There's no denying that was what we got. However, there are a couple of exceptions whereby an episode has to do more. One of these is the first episode of a show, which has to get you hooked on the show's premise and characters; the other is a finale.

The Skins season 4 finale was a damn good episode, but it failed as a finale.

Now, I'm not saying I expect every loose end to be tied up, every question answered, or that kind of thing; just that there should be some kind of satisfactory ending to the characters. It doesn't even have to be a definite ending. Take for example, the end of Skins season 2, which was the finale for the first set of characters. That was an episode that did indeed work perfectly as a finale. You could have ended Skins right there and it would have been seen as a coherent whole.

That whole episode was all about moving on. You had Chris, who had just died, and the rest of the gang coming to terms with his death (the coffin stealing sequence was just brilliant; as was the scene on the beach), and you had the characters moving on to the next stage in their lives. There was the moment when Maxxie was heading to London, with Anwar feeling left alone; until he makes a spur of the moment decision to go with him, changing his life completely. There was Sketch with her totally screwed up existence. Jal's eulogy to Chris. The scene with Tony & Michelle in the car at the airport when they break up. Sid searching for Cassie in New York, and coming so close to finding her... even with the cut away before we see if he notices her or heads off it doesn't seem like a cheat... and that last shot, of Effy in the bed, smiling a cheeky smile that (at least to my mind) brought back echoes of Alex in A Clockwork Orange. It worked.

Whereas the gen-2 cast's finale, mostly, really didn't. There were too many characters whose "resolutions" just came from out of nowhere. Thomas's sudden Harvard Scholarship, and Pandora's extra exams she'd taken being the most obvious examples.

But. As I said earlier, this was not a bad episode. It was a damn good one, as there was so much in it to love. Naomi's declaration of love for Emily was beautiful. Wonderful writing. Brilliantly acted. Also, I actually ended up liking Cook by the end of it (see previous Skins entries in this blog). I do really, really love the show; it's probably the best contemporary drama series around at the moment. I just found this last episode, when judged as a finale, to be so very frustrating.

Which is a shame.

I get the feeling that the show suffered from its cut from 10 to 8 episodes. I wonder how much of the season had been scripted by the time this cut came through, and whether they tried as best they could to cram the ten episodes in to 8, by cutting various elements, and whether these elements would have ensured there was a more finale-esque feeling to that last episode, and that things that appeared to come from nowhere had been seeded beforehand.

I'm still wondering exactly what the point of Freddie's death was. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those loons that's going "oh, noes, Fred's dead, I'm never going to watch again" or anything; I just cannot see why you bother with as shocking a climax as episode 7 had, and to more or less completely ignore it in the finale. I mean, it's not like these characters are ever coming back or anything. In Season 2, Chris's death had a massive impact on the characters, and it became the centre piece around which that season's finale was built. So, I guess they figured that they'd done the whole grief and moving on thing with the show then. But this was a different death. A murder. And there's a whole range of things they could have done.

Instead, he's barely mentioned all the episode, and only Karen seems worried he's not around. They just seem to think he's run away or something. Really, it strikes me that the only reason for having Freddie killed off is in order to get a scene like the very last one with Cook. And even that came from nowhere. With hardly any time left in the episode, Cook notices a figure watching them, follows, finds Freddie's blood stained clothes and twigs he's dead. The phrase "deus ex machina" is somewhat overused in many circles, but seems to apply here perfectly... that last confrontation, however, was great... where it cut off was not.

'Cos you just know that at some point early in Season 5 there'll be some offhand comment whereby they'll be talking about a court case or something, and it'll either be Freddie's murder, or Freddie and Cook's murder, or the Doctor's murder, as it'll have been in the news or something, or gossip around the college and it'll be just like Grange Hill when Jonah left to go to another school... I hated that kind of thing then, and I still hate it now. Little info dumps telling you all about the stuff that's happened off screen that you, really, should have seen on the screen.

The really odd thing is that had that been the very last episode of Skins, ever, with no more to come, I would have liked that ending more. It's that knowing that we'll almost certainly get comments about it next season that sours it. As the last ever shot, it would have worked. But it'll just be relegated to a footnote in a random scene in season 5. It deserves more

"...Dr Linus, actually..."

2010-03-14T11:47:00.002Z

There is, to my mind, a general rule of thumb with Lost, and it runs something like this; if an episode concentrates on Ben Linus, it will be a fantastic episode, and probably the best episode of the season... The latest episode of the final season of Lost does nothing to disprove this theory, and in fact is not only the best episode of this season, but one of the very best episodes so far (The Shape of Things to Come; Ben episode from Season 4 is probably the very best).

There was so much about this that was great, it's hard to know where to begin...

The parallel Ben showed all the same Machiavellian tendencies as his on-island counterpart, but he lacked that killer instinct needed to follow through with his plans. When it became obvious that had he gone through with his plan that Alex would be unable to go to Yale, he backed down. This is something that on-island Ben would never do. Even when faced with the situation of a ruthless killer with a gun to his "Daughter's" head, he would back down, and we know how that ended...

...this was also something that came up in the on-island thread; that he had been unable, after all this time (I forget exactly how long it would have been as I forget the date he arrived in Tunisia) to come to terms with the action that led to Alex' death. Tying this in with the reasons he killed Jacob, and then Illana's subsequent forgiving of him was quite something. The range of performances put in by Michael Emerson in this episode only goes to prove, once more (if it were needed), that he's one of the very best actors on the planet. I was convinced island-Ben was going to die... but then, I was also convinced of this last season when he went up against Smokey for judgement... (and subsequent events put that in a whole new context...)

But this was an episode just jam packed with greatness. From Ben's "stood over them with a bloody knife" line being used back at him by Miles. Miles getting his hands on Nicki & Paulo's $8 million worth of diamonds. To Smokey-Locke attempting to out-maniplate the arch-manipulator to Jack and Richard...

That scene in the Black Rock with the dynamite was, well, for want of a better word; dynamite. Jack is finally coming to terms with his role in the bigger picture. The sheer tension there was as the dynamite came closer and closer to exploding... and then fizzled out. Ooh... It was just like Michael in Season 4 when the island wouldn't let him die as he still had work to do. What is the work that these two have to do?

Cast your mind back to the web only Missing Pieces, especially the one set immediately prior to the first scene of the first episode, in which Christian speaks to Vincent and tells him to wake his son up as "He has work to do..." It's a phrase that has appeared many times in the show. Walt appearing to Locke when he's in the pit of Dharma bodies, for one.

With only eleven episodes to go, things are getting hot...

And with Widmore almost back on the island...

[Incidentally before I carry on, I should mention this blog's spoiler policy. The following are not considered spoilers to my mind;

1 - titles of forthcoming episodes.

2 - centricity (that is, which character is focussed upon) of episodes.

3 - contents of trailers and officially released "sneak peaks".

4 - officially released cast information.

All other details of forthcoming episodes, plot points, events, anything else is a spoiler. If your spoiler threshold is lower, please do not read on...]

Sawyer fans should like next week, Recon, as it's the Sawyer parallel-flash, and he is seen in the state all Sawyer fans love to see him in the most; shirtless.

But I'm rather more looking forward to the week after, Ab Aeterno, which is all about Richard Alpert, and his backstory. Also, it's six minutes longer than normal. Excellent! : )

"...don't ever tell anybody anything..."

2010-03-09T21:30:00.002Z

I think there is a certain irony in the fact that the front cover of the 2010 UK paperback edition of The Catcher in the Rye, if looked at right, resembles a £ symbol. Salinger had been dead less than a month when it appeared in the shops, an almost indecent haste with him barely cold before these new editions showed up. On top of that, it looks rubbish too. Now I know there are all sorts of restrictions on what new editions of covers of JDS's books can have on them (no pictures, no plot summary, no author biog, no author photo etc), but this new covers shows a supreme lack of imagination. It is almost as if it was polished off in five minutes in order to get the edition out quicker. It's massively inferior to the old, red, edition; that had class and style, and there was a uniformity of design across the yellow (Seymour), blue (Esme), and green (F&Z) books. Oh, and whilst they've re-done Catcher, they didn't bother with the other three books... ho-hum.

I had intentionally not posted on Salinger's death until now, as really I needed time to reflect. I remember finding out about his death upon reading a flippant comment on an message board (which seems to be the method du jour of findind out these things), and doing a double take. First things I did was to head to the BBC site for corroboration (best news site out there, and thought that it might be neutered by stupid people makes me sick; but that's for another time), and there it was. He'd died. Only three weeks after his 91st birthday. Now, I know it's a cliche to say that it was a shock, but it genuinely was. He was 91, so it's not like it shouldn't have been unexpected, but it did sadden me immensely.

His uncompromising nature was legendary; if things were not done his way, they didn't get done. He had such clout, despite his not publishing anything new since 1965, that he could make the demands as mentioned above about his covers. His steadfast refusal to submit any more material for publication would have got many lesser authors struck off from their publishers, their books allowed to slide out of print. But, I guess when you have a title that still shifted (apparently) circa 250,000 copies a year that must have counted for something.

The thing I most admired about him, though, was his refusal to allow his work to be adapted in to other media. There was no Catcher in the Rye move, stage play, TV show or anything; I really do agree with him on this point. The trouble with, for example, movies of books is that whether bad or good they affect the book. A bad movie can taint the book on which it is based; it will be supposed by many that as the adaptation was bad, the source novel will be also.

A great movie of a book can also be bad for the book in that it will supplant the original text in the minds of the public, so that the only thing people think of is the movie. Now, this is one of those areas where I often say contradictorary things; for example, I love the movie A Clockwork Orange, but I am aware that when I think of Alex, what he looks like, what he's wearing, his swagger, the image in my head is the one designed by Kubrick, and Alex is Malcolm McDowell. Even when I read the book, I picture Alex in his white outfit, with the bowler hat on; even though Anthony Burgess tells me that Alex looks completely different, and his Droog outfit is completely different. I just can't help it. Ditto with Trainspotting; Renton is Ewan McGregor, Begbie is Robert Carlye, and so on.

Now, when I read The Catcher in the Rye, there is a picture in my head of Holden. There is a rhythm to how he speaks. I imagine him narrating the book at a frantic pace, with words tumbling out of his mouth; almost fighting to get out. He's yammering, he's got to get it all out, he's digressing all over the place, he's fast.

Ten years ago, the BBC did a list of best books, and in one programme they did Catcher, and in this they had someone reading the book. But they read it in a really slow drawl, that almost sounded like the K-Billy DJ in Reservoir Dogs... That wasn't how Holden should sound... but clearly someone thought that was how he spoke.

So, should they make a Catcher movie, it will be the director's Holden. They'll get it wrong. Anyone doing it would get it wrong. I'd get it wrong.

And, within days of Salinger's death, there were talks that there may now be a movie... it would all depend on his will. There was talk that a couple of decades ago he made a comment that once he was dead it was up to his estate if his unpublished work was published, and if movies were made; and that he was just glad he wouldn't be around to see it.

I'll tell you this; I don't want to see it. It could be the best movie ever, but I don't want someone else's version of Holden to interfere with mine. I've read that book a million times, and I'll read it a million times more, but I want to read it my way, unpolluted by actors and directors.

There'll be more books by him published in due course, and I'll devour each new one as it arrives. Chances are, most (if not all) will be about people called "Glass", but we shall see.

There's a bit in Catcher where Holden talks of reading a book and wishing that the author was a really great friend of yours you could call up at any time and shoot the breeze with; I always got that feeling every time I'd read Catcher. I would have loved to have called Jerry up and shot the breeze about anything and everything.

He loved the movies, apparently...

"...it only ends once..."

2010-03-01T09:21:00.002Z

I had meant to blog weekly, after every new episode of Lost, but thus far this appears to have fallen by the wayside... ho-hum.

So, the final season so far, five episodes in;

This parallel timeline is clearly there for a reason (everything happens for a reason, remember...?). But what that reason is remains a mystery. It's clearly not there as a "what if?" kind of aside, as there are clear indications of both timelines bleeding in to each other; I mean, you'd remember if you'd had your appendix out, wouldn't you? You'd have seen the scar every day of your life...
Claire being claimed and acting all Rousseau makes me think that Rousseau was claimed, too, and that this, not the time displacement exhibited by Desmond and Minkowski, is "the sickness" previously mentioned. Now, I contend that by enterting the Temple, Rousseau's party got protected from the sickness (captured by the others and innoculated, perhaps?) and the sick person all along was Rousseau. (Or was it the businessman in his suit and tie?)
The numbers return in force, both on the roof of the cave and on the contraption in the lighthouse. That contraption had space for 360 names, but there were clearly higher numbers on the cave roof.
As for the Candidate; I'm going to call it now, and say that Sawyer will take over from Jacob as the islands protector. Unless the real Locke is somehow brought back to life in which case he'll take over. Or maybe there'll be a mashing of timelines and parallel Locke will take over. "Don't tell me what I can't do?"
Sayid's an odd one. He appeared to die, but did not die. Dogen suggests he'd been "claimed" like Claire, and Miles keeps looking at him funny... something's clearly wrong there. I think we may find out this week what it is...
In anycase there's a theory that the whole malarkey as to what's really going on with Jacob and the Man in Black (I really wish we could learn his name; I suspect that when we do it will be a significant name) is like a game of chess on an epic scale. Remember that in a game of chess that kings cannot take each other, and have their pieces do their work for each other. Smokey-Locke is getting his pieces (Sawyer, Claire, previously Ben) in to place, and Jacob is doing the same (Hurley, Jack). Whereas there is something going on between Ben and Widmore, this may be small potatoes in comparison to the Jacob/MIB feud.
Oh, and seeing the skeletons in the caves this week is a definite precursor to the imminent revelation as to who they are...

Still, 108 episodes in, 13 to go... part of me can't wait until May 23rd (well, 24th...!), but part of me wants it to never arrive.

"...random shoes..."

2010-02-14T22:20:00.002Z

It's been a while since I updated this ol' blog, and this in some ways is normal for me, but in other ways, not so. Especially since there's been so much I really need to be writing about. So, this post will cover most of the things I wanted to cover. And probably in a much briefer manner than I really should. There's one thing that I really want to cover in much more detail, and that will be the subject of another post, entitled "...you start missing everybody..." If you can't work out what it's going to be about, please hang your head in shame.

Okay. So. Things.

Heroes

So, Season 4 of Heroes is now ended, and it's been almost a return to form. It was a much better season than 2 and 3, and whilst not reaching the heights of season 1, it's certainly been damn good. There have been patchy moments, and I'm unsure with the direction they're taking Sylar in... but, I do hope that there's a season 5. I'll not say what the end of season cliffhanger is, as it's not aired in the UK yet, but it offers up intriguing possibilities.

Oh, and there's a scene in the finale which, if it does not make a tear flow from your eye... well, you have no soul. It's beautiful.

Lost

We're in the home straight now. 15 to go, and the ending approaches. The parallel timeline is most intriguing. It is obvious that this is not a mere frippery; a "what if?", but rather something integral to the plot. How it is integral is another matter... it'll be interesting to see how.

I'll blog properly on each new episode from now on. But here's some comments I posted elsewhere on the latest episode;

The whole business with Sayid potentially being "claimed", like Jack's sister... that does raise some interesting possibilities. I do not think it was any coincidence that when we see Claire in the woods at the end of the episode, her pose and manner is very much that of Rousseau... Think back to the last time we saw Claire even pick up a gun, let alone shoot one, let alone as expertly as this...

Imagine if, for example, the "sickness" that Rousseau described in prior seasons wasn't in her colleagues, but in her? And that it was some kind of "possession"/"claiming"... And with Rousseau's obvious death, it had to find another consciousness to inhabit... and found Claire.

'Cos there was something not right with Claire since the attack on Dharmaville in The Shape of Things to Come. Even if the entity that "claimed" them could reanimate the dead, it would probably be too conspicuous to bring Rousseau back to life. But Claire... trapped under the debris, not see to be dead. Well, there's an obvious candidate. I dunno, it may be a mile off of what's really the case...

The "not-crash" timeline is getting more and more intriguing; the sudden thought of the name "Aaron" is interesting. There's talk that there's some bleed through in the time lines, and this is one of those occasions. Also, remember that there's no way this "not-crash" timeline is a mere interesting diversion. It's fundamentally important to the story is some way that's yet to be revealed.

Fanzines

I will have something interesting to say about fanzines soon. Both about the old, and the new... Two hints;

1 - it makes me want to shout.

2 - September's not so far away.

Ah... cryptic. : )

Anyhow, must get back to playing Desktop Defender. I tell you, it's like crack...

"...I always have a plan..."

2010-01-09T11:42:00.004Z

I've now finished my big Lost rewatch in preparation for Season 6; I watched all of the first five seasons over the last three months or so. Or was it longer? May have been. Anyhow, I've been thinking of what to do when Season 6 ends, and to console myself that when it does I should plunge myself headlong either in to a rewatch of something else in its entirety, or something completely new that I've not seen before. The thoughts that are going through my head;

Babylon 5 - a good, big epic story. 111 episodes should last me just long enough until I'm ready to do a "complete Lost re-watch" when I'll watch all six seasons. B5 would be good in this respect as that's all one big (albeit "incomplete") story, with some truly wonderful moments in it.

Twin Peaks - I've not seen Twin Peaks all the way through in quite some time now. I don't even think I've watched most of Season 2 on DVD at all. It'll be good to revisit it.

The Wire - I started this a little while back, but only got three or four episodes in to season 1 before getting distracted by other things. Having heard so much about it, especially the praise heaped on it by Charlie Brooker, I really should get around to watching it.

There are of course other shows. Battlestar Galactica would probably frustrate me too much, as I'd have to skip some of the really bad episodes and concetrate on the great ones. Oz is a possibility too; Mr Eko's in it. Even The Sopranos; never seen a single episode of that. Some of the box sets of these can be picked up quite cheaply now...

...still, I guess I'll decide closer to the time... : )

"...I was there at the dawn of the third age of man..."

2009-12-31T11:27:00.002Z

Reading a post over at one of the internet forums I frequent, I was reminded that today, December 31st 2009, it is exactly ten years since Channel 4 aired the last ever episode of probably the best pure science fiction show ever made; Babylon 5. It was one of those shows that really grabbed me by the throat and never let go.

The idea behind the show was a great one; it was to run for five years, and in those five years tell one, big, self contained story with a clear beginning, middle, and end; and by the time we got to that end that would be it. That's where the story ends, and there would be no loose ends...

(Of course, mice and men intervened; Season 5 was, for about 2/3 of it somewhat below par, there were loads of loose ends, some left deliberately to set up a spin off series which only managed half a season, and a movie that never happened... Anyway...)

At the point Babylon 5 started, TV sci-fi series were pretty much just a string of separate stories, with episodes that could (with odd exceptions) be watched in pretty much any order. They were designed so that you could turn on an episode and watch a complete story in 45 minutes. Babylon 5, initially, appeared to follow the same pattern, as many of the early episodes did tell complete stories. There were some obvious threads running through the episodes - such as the hole in Sinclair's mind, and why the Minbari surrendered when on the brink of victory in their war against Earth - but these were background. However, pretty soon this changed and B5 pretty much became a serial. I hesitate to use the phrase "sci-fi soap opera", as that will stir up negative connotations in people's minds, but that's more or less what it was.

There were turning points in the first season; the sixth episode, Mind War, introduces us to the Psi-Corps, and the wonderful Mr Bester, played with a chilling menace by Walter Koenig. You always knew you were in for a treat when he turned up... but the biggest shocker in this episode was the glimpse at the end of a creature not seen for thousands of years... just the briefest of appearances, but enough to make you think there is much more going on here than we know of.

This would be expanded further in the biggest turning point of all in the season, Signs and Portents, in which a mysterious man, Morden, arrives on the station and goes to the main ambassadors asking them one, simple, question; what do you want? (Of course; that question is at the core of all drama. Remind me to tell you about that one day.) It is their reaction to this question that shapes the entire future of the show. It is Londo Molarri of the Centauri Republic who Morden, and his associates, ends up allying with, doing Londo a favour with a promise that somewhere along the line, Londo will do one for him... Faust, anyone? When we see his associates at the end of the episode, and what they can do... we know there's only one way this will end; in fire.

Mention of Londo brings me to, what in my mind, was the best thing about the show. The relationship between Londo and G'Kar. The changing relationship between these two characters over the course of the show was a joy to behold. Every time they had scenes together the screen was on fire. Episodes that were humdrum and run of the mill were elevated just because they had scenes together (the "mad bomber" episode, for example, is completely redeemed by the scene when the two of them are trapped in a lift. G'kar's reaction is priceless.). This is largely due to the fact that the actors portraying them were so great; Peter Jurasik and, the late, Andreas Katsulas were just perfect. They sparked off each other brilliantly, no matter what was asked of them. There is a scene, in a bar, in the season two episode The Coming of Shadows where this is exemplified; Jurasik has hardly any lines in the scene, almost everything about his performance is conveyed by the expression on his face, he doesn't need to say anything. It's all there.

Now, I could go on and write a couple of dozen more paragraphs about how great the show is, and wonderful scenes, and moments that will make you cry, and moments that will make you laugh... but if you've seen the show before, you'll know them. If you haven't I'll end up spoiling it for you.

And, if you've not seen it; get it. But, be warned; don't bother with the TV movies or Crusade. Just watch the 111 episodes from The Gathering to Sleeping in Light.

Thinking back to how eager I was to see each new episode, it's really like how I feel right now with Lost. I'm just so keen to see these last 18 episodes. And the anticipation and speculation as to what will happen next. And the spoiler avoidance... oh, it's going to be fun...

...but when it's all over; what then...?

"...what...?"

2009-12-28T10:28:00.003Z

Okay. Now I've seen some bad list TV shows in my time, but Channel 4's The Greatest TV Shows of The Noughties easily tops the list of the worst of the lot. It was billed as;

It's the end of an era: the decade no-one can pronounce is coming to an end; and Channel 4 is celebrating by finding the greatest music and TV programmes of the past ten years. Channel 4 has conducted a survey with the leading TV critics and industry figures, and asked the public in a YouGov national poll, to tell us what they think was the greatest television of the last ten years. In a decade apparently dominated by box-sets, will the number one show be The Wire ? And where will Big Brother chart? The Greatest TV Shows of the Noughties counts down the 20 shows that represent the best of the decade.

With a description like that, it surely couldn't go wrong, could it...? Well... Let's just say it was the most bizarre list of "best shows of the Noughties" that could possibly be imagined, with shows that didn't belong there, shows that didn't deserve to be there, and great omissions... Here's the list, with comments;

First of all, before it started, I confidently predicted it would be The Wire that wins it; after all it gets plaudits everywhere, and even Charlie Brooker gushes over it like a 15 year old gushes over the Jonas Brothers... Anyhow;

20) Dragons Den

Alarm bells should have started ringing here. I mean. it's not a bad show, in fact it's quite entertaining. But 20th best, of the whole decade...?

19) I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here

And if the alarm bells hadn't yet started ringing they should have by the time we got here...

18) Strictly Come Dancing

And by now they should have been a cacophony of noise and pain.

17) Spooks

At last, something deserving of its place.

16) Coronation Street

Okay, alarm bells again. Now, whilst Corrie has indeed been on all through the Noughties, it's not really a programme that's really a "Noughties" show; it's the same it's always been. Constant. Confortable. Ever reliable.

15) Gavin and Stacey

Whilst I'm not really a fan of this, it does deserve its place here; it's been phenomenonly popular.

14) Grand Designs

Really. The will to live it lost.

13) Shameless

Glad to see this one there.

12) Harry Hill's TV Burp

Now, I was somewhat surprised to see Harry in the chart; pleasantly surprised, but surprised none the less.

11) Friends

No, sorry; this is very much a 90s show; everything about it is rooted in that decade. Yes, it ended in the 00s, and was repeated endlessly throughout the 00s, but that does not make it, to my mind, a 00s show.

10) Life On Mars

Hooray!

09) Planet Earth

I never actually saw this, but it certainly deserved its place from the clips shown. I think this is going to be one to track down on Blue Ray when I finally go HD...

08) The Office

Strewth! Three deserving shows on the trot... surely things are looking up...!

07) The Simpsons

D'oh! No. Similar comments to Friends; yes, new episodes througout the 00s, yes, endless repeats throughout the 00s... but common consesnus is that the peak of Simpsons episodes was the mid-90s run, and it's been losing steam throughout the 00s... a point even made in the programme yesterday. Several times... Ho-hum...

06) The X Factor

Hmm... Certainly a phenomenon, but worthy of being so high...? Nope...

05) QI

Yeah... I can see this being worthy of being in the list, but not so high...

04) Britains Got Talent

Stone me, how anything with Piers "Morgan" Moron in it could get in this chart is beyond me...

03) Doctor Who

Hooray! Glad to see it here. Now, I know there will be some of you here that will cite the arguments I gave for # 7, 11 and 16 and say that for those arguments this should not be here... however, there is a difference. That difference is that the new, Russell T Davies, series of Dr Who is an entirely different production from that which went before; it's not a contiunation of the same processes, it's something entirely new and 00s. With 7, 11 & 16, you could interchange 00s and 90s episodes and there would be no real difference.

02) The Apprentice

This surprised me greatly; I can see an argument for it being in the top 20, but at #2...? I mean, I enjoy it, but would never have seen it placed so high.

It was, when watching, at this point I repeated my earlier prediction to The Mrs that The Wire would win. "We've gone the whole list, one left, and The Wire's not been on yet; it's #1." After all, why would you have Dominic West as a talking head if The Wire wasn't in the list.... So they announce the #1 and it's;

01) Top Gear

Hang on... Top Gear...? I can see it belonging in the top 20 list (see #3 argument, rather that 7, 11 & 16)), but at the very top...? Even Clarkson seemed surprised.

Frankly, at least half that list didn't belong there. How any such list could ignore Lost, which pisses on everything else the 00s had to offer from a great height is beyond me... (But that's my pure personal opinion).

Speaking more objectively, the omission of shows like The Wire, The Soparanos, The West Wing, or even Battlestar Galactica, from the list was quite shocking (and it should be noted that of those four shows, there's two I've never even seen an episode of; so it's not my own bias, just knowledge of shows with a high critical acclaim). I mean, Grand Designs better than The Wire...? Charlie Brooker is probably laying catatonic on that sofa of his, brain reduced to mush at the inanity of it.

It's unusual for me to agree with every position in such a list, but usually it's possible to understand the reasoning behind why shows are rated so high. Here... well, the mind is well and truly boggling...

"...don't ever tell anybody anything..."

2009-11-27T23:04:00.003Z

The more I think about it, the more annoyed I get whenever I hear JD Salinger described as a "recluse". I just don't get it at all. A brief definition of a recluse, as filched from Wikipedia is;

"A recluse is someone in isolation who hides away from the attention of the public, a person who lives in solitude, i.e. seclusion from intercourse with the world."

Now, it strikes me that this is an entirely incorrect description of Mr Salinger. For one thing, all the while he's been living in New Hampshire, he's regularly seen in his home town doing all the things any ordinary person will do. If you can be bothered, you can search for all sorts of reports of sightings of him by people, be they fans or journalists, on the internet. Photos even. I don't like looking at the photos, so I never do. I remember when they did the top 100 books on the BBC a few years back, they did a segment on The Catcher in the Rye, and in that they showed some video footage of him going about his business. That really made me uncomfortable; it felt like an invasion of his privacy.

At least one of the books about him mentions trips made by him to London. Is that the action of a recluse?

I would suggest that there are plenty of people out there who go about their lives in a manner entirely similar to Mr Salinger; they live private lives, going about their business as they see fit.

The trouble is, that as Mr Salinger is seen as a public figure, by dint of his writing, that means the expectation is that he must, therefore, live his life in public as well. The celebrity culture we have insists that the minutiae of every celebrities life should be part of the whole parcel of that person; that we have a right to know. Know, there are certainly celebrities who cherish a lifestyle like that, going to the extent that they have cameras following them essentially filming their life story. Unfortunately, it does appear that the people who tend to want the most exposure are those who deserve it the least.

We have no right to know the details of any other person's life, unless they choose to tell us. Another person has no compulsion to give interviews, appear at showbiz parties, or do anything they don't want to do; and we have no right to demand it of them. Yes, we'd all love to see more writing from him; but we have no right to demand it of him. It is his choice, and we should respect it. Everyone has the right to a private life, and all Mr Salinger is doing is exercising that right.

He is a private individual; he is not a recluse.

Run 1

2009-09-20T22:01:00.003+01:00

Saturday September 19th 2009.

Today I ran for the first time in over twenty years. When I say run I really mean run. That is, proper running. Not the sort of running you do when you realise your train's leaving in 42 seconds and you sprint to the platform to get it. I mean, proper running. Running for the fun of it.

"Ah," said Arthur, "this must be some strange usage of the word fun I wasn't previously aware of..."

There is, of course, a reason behind me running. Last Monday I put in an entry for the 2010 Reading Half Marathon, to be held March 21st 2010. That's 13.1 miles. For someone who hasn't ran in over twenty years (the last time being during PE lessons in the 80s; but more on these another time) that's one heck of leap.

So why did I do it?

To answer this question, we have to go back to the 2009 Reading Half Marathon. There we were, me and my daughter Maddie, stood watching the race go by. Part of the course goes just round the corner from where we live, so we went to have a look and to cheer people on, and to see if we could see a few of my work colleagues who were running. They they were, all manner of people running by. We were cheering them on. Maddie was especially cheering on anyone in pink or yellow (or even better; both) as they're her favourite colours. It was great.

Then, she looks up at me. And in the way that only small four year old children can do, she asks;

"Why aren't you in the race, daddy...?"

And I was stumped. I just could not think of a good reason why I didn't enter. So, I promised her I would enter the race the next year. I was half thinking that she might forget about this, and the idea could be quickly dropped. For anyone else thinking along these lines, I offer this piece of advice;

Never underestimate a child's ability to remember things you want them to forget.

So. She mentioned it again. And again. And again. There was no way out of it.

Unless, of course, I couldn't actually get a place in the race when the entries came out. After all, the London Marathon apparently fills its places within about 108 picoseconds of the entry list opening.

But, no. I got the email, and submitted an entry. And got back an email that said "Your entry into the Reading Half Marathon has been successful."

There's no way out now.

So, today, I went for my first run.

I had a route planned out. It was quite a short one, really, two miles. Round the block, more or less. I should have been able to do it quite easily, I thought. But, no. I start off well, going at a decent pace. It's not too bad at all. I can do this, I think. But then I get to about half a mile and already the old lungs are starting to feel a bit tight. I slow down a bit, but it's not enough, so slow to a walk. I walk a bit, then run a bit more, but realise that I'm really not going to do the whole course, so I cut off the end of it. Just over a mile and I start to regroup a little. Get a bit of a second wind, and start to think that I could have done the whole course. By the time I'm home, I'm feeling tired, but essentially quite good. The whole run was about 1.5 miles, over 16 minutes.

For a first run, it's not that bad at all. Not really. I could have had an asthma attack and died, I guess. One thing I think I do have to gauge is the difference between when the ol' asthma is affecting me, and when I'm out of breath due to the exercise. That will come with time.

Also, no music today; apparently listening to music whilst running can help give you that extra oomph. Maybe next time.

Anyhow, I'll end with the stats;

Run 1

Distance; 1.47 miles

Time taken; 16:07 mins

Average speed; 5.5 mph

Average heart rate; 152 bpm

Culmulative distance ran; 1.47 miles.

Culmulative time running; 16:07 mins

"...I sometimes feel I'm sweeping the nation..."

2009-08-03T23:25:00.004+01:00

Just looking at this blog, I realise I've not updated in almost two months. I managed to go the whole of July without typing a word. I mean, it's not like the time since June 10th has been uneventful; it's been packed. New baby. New job. New Dr Who costume. Teasers for the last Season of Lost. It's not like I've had nothing to write about. Odd.

Other things I've not written include any kind of fiction. I keep on trying to start, but end up failing. I seem to be as productive as Douglas Adams (early 80s on) only I don't have a publisher to lock me in a hotel room and refuse to let me out until I've written something. I'm not even sure that would work. It's not like I don't have ideas. I do. But it's the whole process of taking those ideas, those vague character notions, the stories (I hesitate to use the word "plot"), and weaving it all together in to at something at least bearing a slight passing resemblance to a coherent whole.

Now, reading back through this blog post; it's not that bad. I'm churning it out at a fair old pace, it's largely (typos, and the odd change of word) unaltered. It's not like I've been moving around sentences, changing paragraph structure, or indeed really doing much more than just typing the first thing to come in to my head. But it's working. Well, in as much as this is just meant to be a throwaway blog post that'll be the electronic equivalent of chip-paper tomorrow. Heck, with the speed the web moves it'll probably achieve that status in an hour or so.

So, why, when I have a screen in front of me in which to type fiction, do I freeze? Unable to commit to putting a word down in front of me. Even though, pinned to the top of the monitor is a quote from Paul Cornell reading;

"Don't agonise about what you're going to write. Have an idea. Write it. It will be bad. Then you re-write until it's good."

It's brilliant advice. Concise. Clear. To the point. Yet, I cannot get around to writing anything. From memory, my total finished fiction output since starting to attempt to write things properly amounts to four short stories, and really only one of them is any good. 25%. Not a bad hit rate, really. Oh, there's loads of fragments, starts of things, things that go nowhere. Some of these fragments are even quite good. But, rightly, no-one cares for fragments; they care for the whole.

I really, really, must get on with at least one of the ideas. So, I've been listing them in my notebook (that's olde worlde pen and paper notebook; not a 'puter), in the hope that something will spark off. Other ideas, and notions. I'll get there in the end. Sooner, or later.

Probably later...

"...I have in my hand a piece of paper..."

2009-06-10T22:50:00.003+01:00

It's not very often I talk about important topics on this blog; by important, I mean those things that can have a profound effect on people's lives. The Salinger post was rather important, but this one even more so.

Recently, the MP expenses scandal has been the main political story, overshadowing everything else. But, really, this pales in to insignificance when compared with what happened with the European elections last week.

The BNP won two of the 72 seats in the UK.

Their leader, Nick Griffin is now in a proper position of power and inlfuence.

Frankly, given the choice between an expenses fiddling, home-flipping, duck house owning, mortgage free (yet claiming mortgage payments) chancer of an MP or Nick Griffin I'd take the former any day of the week.

It is truly a sad day for this country that he, and his colleague, were elected to this proper position of power and inlfuence. But, at the end of the day, as much as we may loathe and hate this, he was elected fairly and squarely and therefore must take up his position in Brussells.

There are a number of issues at heart here. How on earth did he obtain enough votes to get in to office? The expenses scandal will have played the main part in this, with the Labour party especially suffering. I've heard people they expected the Tories to fiddle their expenses, but expected better from Labour. This rejection of the Labour party (the only party to lose seats) saw UKIP take joint second place with them (13 seats a piece).

But, as I said before, Griffin has his seat fairly and squarely as a properly elected MEP. The question is what to do about it. I say this is what we do about it;

nothing

We just ignore him.

Take his press conference in London yesterday. He turned up with his heavies, started making his speech, and in no time at all the protesters arrived and interupted him. He scuttled away, making a hasty exit. Then he was on BBC news decrying that his democratic right to free speech was curtailed by this mob (which, if you believe him - I don't - was organised by the Labour Party). The whole exercise appears to be a big piece of PR puff engineered to allow Griffin to appear as a poor suppressed individual, silenced by the mob. I swear, if you look at the footage on the BBC site of the incident, as the protesters arrive that he smiles a little smile, knowing that things will go as he always intended them to.

Now, imagine the following scenario;

Griffin arrives at the conference and is allowed to make his speech. But there are no protesters. Just one single TV camera, waiting for that moment when the mask slips and the real Griffin shines through. Other than that it's just him and his cronies. He's just stood there preaching to the converted, the handful of his supporters there and his heavies. It doesn't get reported as no-one cares. It passes without a thought.

But... that one camera. Sooner or later he'll slip up and the mask will slip off. Allowed to talk freely, sooner or later he'll give himself enough rope to hang himself. It'll happen.

Every time he is spoken about gives him publicity. Even this blog post is giving him publicity. And I hate the thought of that. The fact that this individual is even in my thoughts saddens me. The thought that he will be one of this country's representatives in the European Parliament is saddening. But the worst thought of all is that people voted for him in large enough numbers to get him, fairly and squarely, elected to office.

This is the fist post I have made about him. Wit luck, it will be the last.

"...if you really want to hear about it..."

2009-06-03T22:49:00.003+01:00

Okay. Some people have crazy ideas. It happens. But there can be fewer crazier ideas than that of a certain "JD California" (not his real name!). His bright idea was to write a sequel to The Catcher in the Rye...

Now, call me Picky McPicky, the Pickiest Person in Pickyland, winner of the Gold Medal in the Olympics for Pickiness, but if I were ever to be interested in reading a Catcher in the Rye sequel, really, there's only one person I'd want to have written it, and that's JD Salinger. The characters contained within the book are his to do as he pleases. No-one else.

So, this "JD California's" sequel, entitled "60 Years Later; Coming Through the Rye" again sees Holden Caulfield on the run, only this time it's not from his school. It's from his retirement home, where the setpugenarian Caulfield lives. And there also appears to me some element of meta-fiction in the book, as Salinger appears as a character within it, deciding whether or not to revive Holden's story. Hmm.

The question you have to ask about this book is a very simple, brief one; why? I mean, what is the point of it? Just because he got a publisher for it, what's really the difference between this book and any number of fan fiction Caulfield stories? None at all. As mentioned previously, there's only one person I'd be interested in seeing a Catcher sequel from...

It would appear that I'm in good company in not liking the idea of this book. A certain JD Salinger dislikes the idea also, and has taken legal steps to prevent its publication. I hope he wins. This chancer is standing on the shoulder of a giant; he knows there will be a certain number of people who will buy the book out of sheer curiousity as to what happened to Holden next. But whatever suggestions he posits on the book are irrelevant, and are no more important than my ideas, or your ideas, or anyone else but Salinger's.

There is talk that Salinger may not be able to block the publication of the book, citing the case of the unauthorised sequel to Gone With the Wind which had a similar lawsuit taken out to prevent its publication by Margaret Mitchell's estate. This lawsuit failed, and the book was published (though, the estate got a cut of royalties). It strikes me that the main difference here is that Salinger is still alive, and therefore could argue that the publication of an unauthorised sequel could harm the market for any sequel he might desire to write. Though, of course, chances of such a sequel are slim.

However, surely the most salient point is that Holden Caulfield is Salinger's character; he owns the copyright in him (and indeed on all of the characters within the book). For someone to be allowed to take characters which belong to someone else, and exploit them in a way that their creator does not intend is clearly wrong. Now, as mentioned earlier fan fiction does exist; but this is small potatoes in comparison. Fan fiction is shared freely between fan communities, and no attempt is made to gain financially. It's a very niche section of any fandom, as there will always be plenty of fans who do not care for it at all. Indeed, I count myself among their number. The release, however, of a published book takes things to a different, higher, level.

There are some very real issues at stake at the heart of this lawsuit; that of the right of the creator of a work to be able to control how it is exploited. If Salinger loses this case, this is a fundamental blow to the rights of creators of works of art.

"...I heart you online..."

2009-05-23T13:57:00.003+01:00

This song is a work of genius. Two girls sat on a bed. One singing, the other playing a ukelele... turn up the twee factor to eleven, please.

I heart it (online) to bits...

"...I sometimes feel I'm sweeping the nation..."

2009-05-18T23:03:00.006+01:00

Oh, mere days after the Lost season finale and I am becoming ever more aware of how a junkie must feel if told he's got to wait something like 8 months for his next fix...

But what of this blog? Surely it cannot have escaped your keen gaze that the number of entries here with the tag "Lost" is roughly the same as the four next most common tags put together... what will I write about? Never fear, oh faithful reader. (They always say you should address each reader as if they were the only reader; however, just between you and me, you really are the only reader...) There are many more things to write about.

This is the shape of things to come;

There's that thing starting the next Bank Holiday Monday (that's next week, dude). There's my further plan to start up some kind of new fanzine. Really, this time I'll get it done. There's talk of the novel; which will mostly be me berating myself for lack of output, and the sub-standard quality thereof. And plenty of other TV shows. I'm behind on Dollhouse by four weeks, and behind on Fringe by pretty much the whole season.

So, there's plenty for me to yak about...

"...it only ends once; anything that happens before that is just progress..."

2009-05-17T21:19:00.003+01:00

In my last post, I commented on how Heroes really doesn't know how to do end of season episodes... they could do well to take a few hints from Lost which, conversely, does end of season episodes brilliantly. The Incident, the two part finale to Season 5, does not disappoint.

Oh, where to begin, though...

...the beginning. And at long last we get our first, genuine, look at the elusive Jacob. Here he engages in a conversation with another, un-named, chap, who appears to be his rival, and we learn that all the people who come to the island are there because of Jacob. He brings them there. In the specific case at the start of tthe episode, we see a boat - presumably The Black Rock - appraoch the island. In an echo of the Ben/Widmore conversation from season 4, it seems that the other chap - already dubbed MaybEsau on the interweb (Biblical reference...) - can't kill Jacob unless he finds a "loophole"...

Intriguing is that Jacob is another ageless character (the first being Richard who says "I'm this way because of Jacob") who essentially looks the same in the Black Rock times, as the 70s, and through on in to 2007. He visits (and in each visit touches) various of the castaways. Kate, whilst shoplifting; Sawyer at his parents' funeral; Jack just after the operation on his wife; Sun and Jin at their wedding (the only time this season we see the two characters together); Sayid just before Nadia dies; Hurley, to get him on A316; and most intriguingly Locke just after his plunge from 8 floors up... he is unconscious to start with, and when he gets Jacob's touch he wakes up. There has been much talk in the past of how someone or something had been manipulating the 815ers in order to get them on the island, and now it seems that we have this person. How exactly all this works... well, that remains to be seen.

Anyhow... as per recent times we have two parallel story thread; 1977 and 2007. 2007 concerns Locke's plan to meet, and get Ben to kill, Jacob. As well as this Ilana and Bram have a mysterious box with something interesting in it. "Terrific" says Frank as he is shown in it... As ever, we're kept waiting for the answer...

... which comes quite quickly. As Ben and Locke enter the room under what's left of the statue, we get probably the biggest shock of the episode. In the box is Locke's corpse. Now, it's a skill that a show can pull the same trick in two consecutive finales and still make it work... and work it does... 'cos if that's Locke in the box, who exactly has been walking around the island since the A316 crash...? We soon learn when Ben and notLocke meet Jacob. He talks of a loophole, and is clearly, somehow, the same person Jacob was talking to in the opening scene of the episode. But, again, how does it work? If we take it there are these two forces on the Island, Jacob and MaybEsau, which is for good and which for evil? And how are they connected? We've seen various other dead people appear on the island - Christian, Yemi, Alex, etc - are they all some manifestation of MaybEsau? When notAlex told Ben to do everything notLocke commanded was this because they were one and the same entity? Is this other entity the smoke monster?

Still, whatever, Ben does exactly as notLocke commands and kills Jacob. Or does he? They make a great play of the stabbing, and how when he's down he's kicked on to the fire, and catches fire. As if to somehow intend to be saying "he's not only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead". So, I think we'll be seeing Jacob again next season...

Meanwhile in 1977 things are going as expected. Faraday's previous dictum, "whatever happened, happened" is once more evident. Whatever the 815ers do, the Incident will happen, and indeed it does. We get to see how Pierre Chang loses his arm. There's huge wodges of electromagnetism, the bomb is dropped... and doesn't go off. All sorts of metal things go rushing in to the drill pit... including some chains which wrap around Juliet who plunges down to what looks like certain death. There have been some comments that the way how Juliet is pulled down the hole is similar to how Smokey pulled Locke down a hole in Season 1. There's even a school of though that suggests that this incident is what leads to the creation of Smokey, and that Juliet is somehow turned in to it. Still. I think it's a load of baloney...

And then we get to see Juliet, down in the pit. Still clinging to life. She bashes the bomb with a rock. It goes off and we fade to white. Black text "lost" on a white background. And we scream "NO YOU UTTER SWINES, YOU CANNOT END IT THERE!!!" at the television. This is the mark of a wonderful finale. It built the tension up wonderfully throughout to a - literally - explosive ending. And all the events occurring followed logically on from each other (unlike the Sylar/Nathan thing in Heroes), which makes it ever more satisfying. That we also got to see some key moments in the characters' hirstories - Sawyer starting to write his letter, Jack counting to five to let the fear out for the first time - was the icing on the cake. Just wonderful.

We now have an agonising wait until February next year for the final season. Those last 17 episodes. It's going to be a long wait, and I kind of want to be even more spoiler-phobic about these episodes. I've long since disliked spoilers, but haven't minded teasers, but I think for the final season coming to not even look at casting lists. As soon as they announce the regulars for the next season, and early guest casts it'll be obvious if Jacob, or Juliet, are actually dead or not. And, really, I don't want to accidentally find out the final ending before I see it on the telly. I may, for the duration of Season 6, go to almost complete internet exile. We'll see.

Still, if the accuracy of some of the "spoilers" for this finale are anything to go by, it won't matter as they'll pretty much all be baloney. Such as:

Sawyer sacrificing himself for the greater good at some point during the incident. (Can you imagine the outrage if ol' shirtless were killed off and not be in Season 6?)
A scene some time in the future whereby we see Aaron and Ji Yeon in their twenties getting married. (Which actually turned out to be a flachback to Sun & Jin's wedding...)
An aged Jin, 30 years older, emerging from beneath the statue and being reunited with Sun. (Total tottenham...!!!)

I could list more, but...

Still, it's going to be very interesting to see where they go from here. It's very hard to see what's going to happen next. According to Damon Lindelof, once you've seen the season 5 finale and the season 6 opener you will have enough information to hypothesise how the show will end. This is again another reason why I'm kind of wanting to avoid, at least Lost places on, the internet in the approach to Season 6. 'Cos someone will work it out, and whilst it will be mere speculation, I just don't want to know it. I want to work things out myself. Maybe the only Lost place I'll go is Lostpedia as they are very good about ensuring spoilers are not shown. We'll see.

So, 17 to go. The last season. Let's just hope it doesn't go all Babylon 5...

As a coda to this post; one of the finest moments in the whole episode is the Rose & Bernard scene. The world and his lobster has wanted to see them again since they were last seen just before the time jumps started. It's a truly touching moment; the pair of them are clearly at peace with themselves, and are living a great life on the island. "We just care about being together; that's all that matters in the end" Bernard says. They're clearly unbothered by the hostiles; I can't imagine they do not know they are there. Maybe the hostiles realised that the pair of them want to live in harmony with the island, not exploit it, and are happy to leave them alone. It only ever appears to be those who wish to harm, or exploit, the island that the hostiles are... er... hostile to. The way the scene is played, I can't help but think this may be the last time we see the pair of them.

"...that hurt..."

2009-05-03T14:58:00.003+01:00

Strewth. Heroes really can't do Season finales properly, can it? The end of Season 3 is really only the second "proper" season finale they've had (let's not forget that the "end" of Season 2 was only meant to be the mid-point of the season; and, ironically, ended up being the best "finale"). Season 1 had it's somewhat anticlimactic fight at the Kirby Plaza; blink and you almost missed it. Which was a shame, as everything up until that point was pretty much superb. But, in terms of massive suckiness, it pales in comparison to the guff that is the Season 3 finale...

...oh, and I suppose I should interject here and state the blimmin' obvious; from this point on there are massive spoilers. Oh, and later on I'll be talking Lost episode 100, The Variable, and there will be massive spoilers there, too...

...so, of you've not seen them, don't read on...

...again, to start with it was going so well. Ever since Bryan Fuller came back, the show has really got back on track (even if that did mean one of the better characters, Daphne, being killed off in order that Janice could make a comeback). So, high hopes for the finale. And it started off so well; a great deal of tension being built up, with a great sense of danger that someone would be killed. Sadly, the lack of budget showed in a couple of places, most notably the Peter & Nathan vs Sylar fight which consisted of a bit of blue light shining through a door. Hmm... but we'll forgive them this one. Clearly the big Peter vs Sylar fight we've been leading up to since Season 1 is still to come.

Then we get the episodes big shock moment; Sylar slitting Nathan's throat and killing him dead. I mean, proper dead. Ange even says he's dead. Dead is dead is dead. And suddenly you think Sylar's going to win; he's going to get to the President and bosh...

...and there he is in the car with the Pres. But we get the biggest "YES!" punch-the-air moment as he turns in to Peter who injects Sylar with a trank. Beaten by his own game, with the powers Peter presumably took from him in the fight earlier. But before you know it... here comes the utter wank moment. The bit where, after crafting a wonderful work of art you think that the best thing you can do with it is to put it on the floor, drop your trousers and do a big shit on it. They turn Sylar in to Nathan...

...somehow, Matt is able to force Sylar to change his appearance in to Nathan (well, he did have the shape shifting powers), supress all Sylar's memories, and keep only the memories of Nathan that Sylar acquired by using the "touch an object and get memories" power... So, Sylar - to all intents and purposes - becomes Nathan. *sigh* Bunch of utter wank. And why didn't they inject Nathan's corpse with Claire's blood? It cured him before. It cured Noah when he'd been shot in the brain. Surely rather than go through all that bollocks with Sylar, that should have been the first thing they tried. It's not as if she'd have said "no". I mean, the guy's her bio-dad and all...

Anyhow, this Nathan/Sylar malarkey is, of course, going to lead to a most predictable plot (and one which any buffoon could see coming even before the teaser with Nathan and the clock) whereby Sylar will internally fight Nathan for control of the body. A Jekyll and Hyde kind of plot...

Far more interesting is whatever will happen to Hiro now? And how come Tracy can now turn in to water...? Also, it's a shame Greg Beeman's no longer on the show; his blog, with all sorts of behind the scenes chat, and photos and so on was an essential visit every week...

Much better this week was episode 100 of Lost, entitled The Variable. At last we got to see Daniel again, who had been absent since the first episode since they on-island Losties ended up in 1974. There was another unsurprising reveal that his mum is Eloise Hawking, also that she was the "Ellie" in the Jughead episode, also that his dad is Charles Widmore. All things that had been guessed quite some time ago. Still, it was good to see them confirmed.

In his time off island, Daniel's clearly come to think that his previous hypothesis that "whatever happened, happened" may be flawed; he thinks that the Losties can change the past as they are the variables in the equation. The people that are not constants... now it does seem to me that this new hypothesis is the flawed one. They were always clearly meant to be there. Whatever things they do in 1977 have already happened (from the perspective of the time frame of the crash and Oceanic 6 etc), so whatever they do to try to change things is doomed to failure as everything will happen as it always did.

This is best illustrated by the episodes big shock moment. Daniel getting a bullet in the chest and dying. Killed by his own mother (though, before she ever conceived him... time travel, don't you just love it...). Every action Eloise has made subsequent to shooting him was made with the knowledge that at some day in the future she would have a son, that he would do certain things, that he would be a scientist, go to the island, go back in time, and one day in 1977 be shot dead. There was nothing she, or even Charles, could do to stop this. It has happened. It will happen again. "All this has happened before and will happen again" was a phrase that cropped up again in Battlestar Galactica, but really it's far more appropriate for Lost. As the show moves towards the season finale, and the Incident it's clear that whatever Jack et al do in 1977 to stop the Incident occurring, it will happen. Their actions or inactions will cause it.

One thing comes to mind though; there's the video of Dr Chang recording a message in 1977 (age of the baby Miles means it can't be any earlier), and the camerman of this is thought to be Daniel (his voice is heard). So, when was this recorded?

What's left of the Season is going to be very interesting. It's still hard to see exactly how those on the Ajira flight will connect with the 1977 characters, or indeed what they're doing there. Ilana and Bram are the most intriguing as they are clearly there for a reason, but what is that reason? And will we get that Sun and Jin reunion this season?

"..you’re free to leave whenever you want; but I’ll shoot you in the leg..."

2009-04-06T22:09:00.002+01:00

We all knew that The Island in Lost was special; that it had healing powers, and that there were many things about it that are strange indeed. I never realised it had the power to move bullet wounds. Next time you watch the latest episode of Lost, episode 11 of the fifth season, Whatever Happened, Happened, pay heed to the side of the chest that Sayid shoots Young Ben (it's in the recap of the previous episode) and then compare and contrast with where the would is when Jin turns him over...

Anyhow. Small potatoes...

Much of the last few episodes has been relatively sedate, doing what Lost does so well; really getting under the skin of the characters. However, this episode is clearly a transitory one. Going from the character stuff, building up to the season finale.

This is one of those episodes that mixes the emotions so well. Any scene this episode with Miles and Hurley is practically a sit-com. Miles' efforts to explain how the time travel to Hurley are brilliant. Though, really, it's hard to fathom how Hurley isn't grasping how it's all working. Young Ben can't die as they know he lives to become Big Ben. But any of the characters who've gone back in time can, as their fate is not known. Hardly rocket science...

So, Young Ben can't die. Jack clearly knows this, as he refuses point blank to save Ben. He's ascribing to the Faraday theory that "whatever happened, happened". So, whatever Jack does or does not do, Ben lives. So Jack refuses to help. Kate, and Sawyer, however have to help; he's just a kid, and you don't let a kid die; no matter what he grows up to be.

And, yet, whatever happened, happened. The way things are going it's obvious that the way how Big Ben turns out is a direct consequence of the actions (or inactions) taken here by Sayid, Jack, Kate and Sawyer. When Ben's handed over to Richard, and taken in to the temple, that's where he becomes the Ben we know of old. And what exactly will happen to him in the temple? And what will Smokey have to do with things? It just gets more and more intriguing...

Intriguingly just before he's taken in to the temple, one of Richards people notes that Ellie and Charles will freak out if they find out; Richard retorts that he doesn't answer to them. Are Ellie and Charles somehow in charge of Richard's people - the Hostiles? And is he less than impressed at this? We know Ben will eventually lead these people, overthrowing Charles (and presumably Ellie?) and banishing him (and her?) from the island. Could this all be at Richard's instigation?

Other aspects of the episode were a little predictable; Aaron being left with Claire's mum was pretty much the favourite explanation for where he was. The only really surprising thing was that Kate's reason for going back was, essentially, to rescue Claire and bring her back. The sheer effort it must have taken for her to come to that conclusion, and to give away the child she'd been looking after the last three years must have been overwhelming. No wonder she orders Jack never to mention Aaron's name.

So. 11 down. 6 to go this season (and 23 more overall). Next week's looks like a corker. It's centred around Ben - both small and big - and we get to see Smokey again.

"...take a look at the law man..."

2009-04-05T21:58:00.003+01:00

Earlier today, I saw one of the funniest things I've seen in ages; the conclusion to the US version of Life on Mars. Now, I had reservations about the ending of the UK version... but they were minor in comparison to how the US version ends.

For the most part, the last episode is relatively straightforward. Some guff about Sam's dad, who gets shot dead by Gene Hunt (who, here is played by Harvey Keitel; who would have been about the right age for the part circa when he filmed Reservoir Dogs, but now...?). And all is going well. The plot threads are resolved. Sam & Annie get together, and she gets promoted. Then Sam and Gene embrace and the picture breaks up.

To start with I think it's the file. But no.

Oh, and before I go on; I really should point out that from here on in there are spoilers.

Really big spoilers.

And, if you do decide to read on, I promise you that all that follows is what actually happens. I am not winding you up.

So... the picture breaking up is a proper part of the episode.

We see Sam wake up, and he's in some kind of a pod, and he's in a blue uniform. And he's on a spaceship. Just arriving at Mars...

...you see, it turns out he's an astronaut, in 2035, on mission to find life on Mars; looking for genetic material. They're on a gene hunt. No, really, that's actually used as a genuine line in the show.

Whilst they've been in some kind of a suspended animation, they've been using virtual reality simulations to stimulate their minds. Sam's was to be a cop in 2008, but there was a glitch when they went through some asteroids and the program transposed him to 1973...

...and get this; his fellow astronauts are the characters from 1973; Ray, Chris, Annie, and Gene. But they're all a little different to how they appeared in 1973. It's almost as if someone had seen the Red Dwarf episode Back to Reality.

But there's more.

It turns out that "Gene's" real name is...

...and no, I'm not making this up...

...really...

"Gene's" real name is... Major Tom. And the absolute cherry on top of the cake is that Tom is Sam's real dad... (which is clearly supposed to resonate with Gene killing Sam's "1973 dad" earlier in the episode; unfortunately this is subdued by the peals of laughter.)

I promise; I'll never criticise the UK version again...

"...awaiting an audience..."

2009-04-05T10:58:00.003+01:00

Ah... Skins... what were they doing with that ending...? That last episode (which rather annoyingly completed excluded the twins, Naomi, Panda and Thomas) ended with somewhat of an anticlimax. The first had ended with that wonderful Tony gets hit by a bus (or was it a car? I forget now) cliffhanger, and the really odd "Wild World" moment. Season 2 ends with you just willing Sid to find Cassie, with that moment where they're so close to each other... and you just don't know if he's going to turn his head (and, of course Time to Pretend - but more on music in a minute)... and there's that cut to Effy in bed with a smile that oozes the same kind of charm and menace as Malcolm McDowell at the very start of A Clockwork Orange... but Season 3...

That last episode was actually a very good one. It brought to a head all of the things that had been bubbling throughout the season. Seeing Cook's dad really helped you understand the reasons as to why Cook is the way he is; the two Cooks were two peas in a pod, behaving in essentially exactly the same manner as each other. Cook Sr even tries to hit on Effy. There were so many things that were right about the episode. Perfect blend of drama and humour throughout (the Granny steeplechase was a partcicular highlight). But the ending... the boat speeds away.No-ones saying anything. They've reached some kind of understanding, and appear to have all made up. Though Cook looks a little contemplative. And finally Freddie says... "So, what do we do now?" And that's it. It just felt so underwhelming. It's almost as if they weren't confident of getting a Season 4, and decided to leave all the storylines at a place where if this occurred there would be some kind of a conclusion. It just felt a weedy way to end the season, and if there's one thing Skins never normally is, it's weedy. Even when there are things that are utter wank, it's never weedy.

Oh, and the last line is (almost) the same as the last line of the last episode of the last season of Buffy...

One thing I must also mention about Skins is the music. Back at the end of Season 2, the last couple of minutes of the action (from Sid arriving in NY) and over the end credits, they played a wonderful track; that was Time to Pretend by MGMT. And I found myself adoring, so I went out and bought the album. I immediately wished I hadn't as most of the album is tosh. Time to Pretend remains the only track from it I've ripped to my MP3 player.

So, at the end of the first episode of this season when I heard the track playing over the end credits, I downloaded the album to see if the rest of it was any good. Within a day, I'd ordered all three CDs that band had released, so impressed I was with the one I d/led. This band is Asobi Seksu, and you must buy all three of their albums. Though, if you want to try just the one, get Citrus. I haven't been this excited about a band in ages, and the more I listen to them, the more I love them. Sheer beauty!

(Note; if you're waiting for my regular Lost post, it'll be up here when I've seen the episode a second time. There's a few things to say about this one...!)

"...Namaste, new recruits..."

2009-03-27T22:03:00.003Z

I actually find myself with very little to say about the last two episodes of Lost, Namaste and He's Our You, as they're both relatively straightforward episodes. Just, really, a handful of points;

It was good to see Radzinksky at last, and even better to see his model of The Swan, which in 1977 had yet to be built. However... Pierre Chang, in his introduction to new Dharma recruits which we saw in Season 3 when Ben arrived on the island as a small boy (now dated to 1973), was wearing a Swan patch on his clothes...

Another point is that Sayid is meant to be trained in the art of the assasin. We see him giving the Russian bloke a double-tap (that is, two shots in quick succession). Yet, when he shoots the young Ben, he just shoots him once. Why not a double-tap? And knowing how slippery a fellow Ben is, and how he keeps on getting out of sticky situations etc, why not also just make sure with a shot to the head at point blank range...

...'cos there's no way Ben's dead from that shot. Not a chance in the world.

"...others, others, others, OTHERS..."

2009-03-11T21:03:00.003Z

Okay. So, in some sort of effort to pretend that this blog isn't really just a Lost blog at the moment, here are some thoughts on TV shows other than Lost:

Skins

My opinion (see previous posts) of Cook really hasn't changed. I'm still hoping for something bad to happen to him. I just can't work him out, though. He's odd. His reaction to when Naomi spurned him was unexpected; I expected anger, but instead he was very calm and cool, and even indifferent. Odd. Still, we're clearly building up to something.

Whilst I'm still loving this season, I'm finding I'm loving it less than previous seasons. I do still miss Cassie et al, and although this new lot are a decent enough bunch, I'm not really sure they gel as a group. Like previous seasons, it does veer between absolute genius and utter wank. The episode with the school elections at one stage seemed to be heading towards making a point about how politics these days is all about personalities and not policies; but it never quite got there. We just got a riot, which didn't work at

Still, overall it remains well worth watching...

Battlestar Galactica

BSG is nearing the end of its run now; three episodes to go by my reckoning. Again, this is a show that veers between absolute genius and utter wank, and I've never quite been able to figure out why. Until a day or so ago. Broadly speaking you can tell how good an episode is depending on which of these categories it fits in;

1 - militaristic episodes where either the Cylons are on the attack, there's a threat of attack, or there are factions within the fleet causing trouble; episodes like 33, or the Pegasus 2-parter, or the New Caprica arc, or the recent mutiny. They have all been stunning examples of great drama. Episodes that have kept you on the edge of your seat, and left you gasping for breath at the audacity of the things that are happening. The second of the mutiny episodes was breathtaking, it completely floored me. This is BSG on top form.

2 - any episode that focuses on prophecies, or Caprican Gods, or the Cylon God or any kind of mystical gumph. Sometimes I lose the will to live when watching these. They're not always all bad, but there always seems to be way too much padding. I mean, how many times do we have to see sodding visions of a Six taking Hera away...? Puh-lease!

And this is the fear I have for the forthcoming finale; that it will veer too far towards the latter, and not close enough to the former.

Law & Order: UK

Strewth! This moves at one heck of a pace. There's enough plot in each episode for a 4 hour Lynda La Plante style mini-series. Sometimes you can blink, miss a scene, and miss a vital plot point. Still, for what it is, it's enjoyable hokum.

Neighbours

I'll miss Harold. Ramsey Street won't be the same without Jelly Belly... : (

Lost

Oh, okay, I know I wasn't meant to speak about Lost here, but...

...the promo pictures that have been realeased for the next episode of Lost are very intriguing...

(Those of a really sensitive disposition towards spoilers should look away; even though what I'm about to say isn't really what I would call a spoiler; it's what I would call a teaser, in that it will tell you a little information about the episode, but gives no context.)

...they show Sayid, as expected in 1977. However, there is a shot showing Sun with Ben and Frank. So, she must somehow be in 2008 in the same time frame as the Ajira plane. Now, the question that this raises is this; why did Kate, Hurley, Jack and Sayid get caught in the time-flash that occurred as the plane approached the island, and Sun didn't? My presumption was that the time-flash affected the O6, which was why Ben wasn't caugt in it. Locke didn't go either as at that time he was still "dead". But an O6 split... that puts a different spin on it. It couldn't be at all contrived to give a delay to a Sun & Jin reunion, could it...?

"...wow..."

2009-03-08T19:10:00.004Z

It is a very rare occasion when an article in The News of the Screws makes me gleefully happy (mainly 'cos I never buy the rag), but my attention was drawn to this article:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/xs/208641/DR-Who-Celeb-XS.html

which does inded make me gleefully happy.

If it proves to be true, I shall indeed probably explode with excitement. The prospect that The Moff might give Hannah Murray the companion role in Dr Who is just too exciting to contemplate. I would go so far as to say that in terms of excitement, and Dr Who, only the return of Dr Who in 2005 would have been more exciting.

I just hope it turns out to be true...!

"...we're the good guys..."

2009-03-08T09:41:00.005Z

So... Another week, and another Lost blog post... Season 4, episode 8, La Fleur, was a rather straight forward episode, but none the less it was another quite compelling one.

First of all, we have an end to the time-flashes, leaving the Losties stranded in the seventies - the episode flits between 1974 and 1977 (another Star Wars reference...?). I was somewhat surprised by this, as I was sure that when time was stabilised they'd end up in the late 80s, shortly before The Purge, and circa when Danielle's lot arrvied on the island...

Still, like I said, although straightforward, it was an epsiode that raised many interesting points and questions;

* - just before the last time-flash we get a glimpse, albeit from behind, of what appears to be the four-toed statue first seen at the end of Season 2. Based on this glimpse, and endlessly pored over screen grabs, many theories have been posited as to what the staue is of. Most have talked of Egyptian gods such as Anubis, Set et al (after all, this would tie in with all the hyroglyphics that are dotted all over the island), but there is one rather out there suggestion that the statue is of Juliet...

* - after being told they were not "Dharma material" after arriving at the DI in 1974, how did the Losties ingratiate themselves with the DI to the point that Sawyer managed to get himself made Head of Security? I would guess it started with the encounter with Richard, which probably meant that the truce that there had been was maintained.

* - very interesting that the sonic fence around the DI camp doesn't keep Richard and the "Hostiles" out... It's been seen to be effective on people before, so what does that make Richard et al? Must mean the fence has been built for one specific purpose; keeping Smokey out. Which means he's nowt to do with the DI...

* - despite that the women of the DI "always give birth on the mainland", Amy manages to give birth on the island, and there are no ill effects. She lives, the baby lives. Now, we know from earlier, or in temporal terms later, events that any woman that gets pregnant on the island dies. So, this problem must have occurred since 1977. Well, either that or Amy got up the duff at some point when she left the island for a short while. Also, is the pregnancy problem one that only came to light after the Purge... or is it tied in to the discovery of the Frozen Donkey Wheel...? And is Amy's baby going to grow up to be someone significant...?

* - oh, and of course, being in 1977 there's a number of people who should be on the island that we've not yet seen; notably Ben and Widmore. We're seeing young Ben in the next episode (don't whinge about that being a spoiler; it's not. It's not. It's obvious we're going to see him), and for a few more epsiodes. Widmore certainly should be on the island as well at this time, as he said that it was Ben who banished him from the island. He says to Locke that he was on the island for 30 years. He was there in 1954, but we don't know how long he'd been there then. Could the reason why, when Ben visited Widmore at his home last Season, Widmore referred to Ben as "boy" be that it was when Ben actually was a boy that he manipulated Widmore in to leaving the island...?

* - and where are Rose and Bernard? And the other red-shirts. I would assume that's who Jin's looking for when he's saying his grid searches haven't found anyone yet. Could they all survive on the island for three years? Could R&B et al have stumbled across Richard's lot...?

* - oh, and someone who shouldn't be on the island; Charlotte. She wasn't born until 1979, so unless young Charlotte was doing some time hopping, the red head Daniel saw wasn't her. Either that or he was seeing things. Wouldn't be the first time someone's seen someone that wasn't there in this show...

* - also, is it coincidence or fate that the 06 were off island for three years, and that Sawyer et al have now been with the DI for three years also? The only one that three years hasn't passed for is Locke... (and if you really want to be picky, Ben, but for him it's circa 2 1/2 years...).

* - okay, returning to Ben. Young Ben is around in 1977. Juliet is around in 1977. Ben in the 21st century is obsessed with Juliet (there are plenty of episodes which bear this out). Could the reason be because she had some sort of efffect on him in his formative years? Will she do something to save his life? Who can tell...?

But, yes, it's going to be very interesting to see what's going to occur in coming weeks. Will they stay in 1977? I doubt that very much. I reckon we'll see them figure out some way to shift themselves in time again. Locke, (adult) Ben and Frank are seperated from the rest of the cast (well, bar the noobs Cesar and Ilana) by over 30 years. That won't last long. Also, Desmond... he's not even on the island at the moment. I can't believe (bar the forthcoming "what happened after he stormed out of the Lamp Post" flashbacks) we've seen the last of him...

...but we're going to have to wait. There's no episode next week. Grr! And there's another week long break after episode 13... Grr...

"...we're going to need to see that again..."

2009-02-28T23:20:00.005Z

For what is increasingly turning in to a Lost blog, I completely forgot to post at all about last week's episode, 316. So, this one's going to have to cover that, and The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham... So;

316

In which the Oceanic Six finally got back to the Island. Well, apart from Aaron. And Desmond, but he doesn't really count...

The most intriguing thing about the episode is how they had to recreate the circumstances of the original crash to ensure the return to the island. So, Jack once again was escorting a dead body, only this time it was Locke's rather than his dad's. There is a theory that all the others were tasking on the circumstances of other characters, albeit unwittingly, to aid the returm;

Sayid was taking the role of Kate in the original crash, in that he appeared to be under arrest and handcuffed to some sort of marshall.

Hurley was taking on Charlie's role; he came on board with a rock and roll guitar.

Ben took Hurley's role in that he almost missed the flight.

There is a suggestion that after Kate and Jack's night of passion she's pregnant, and thus she's taking on Claire's role.

The only doubt is which role Sun is taking... the only one that appears to fit is Rose, as initially she was seperated from her husband, but that occurred after the original crash, so doesn't really fit.

Then, of course, the fact that we saw events solely from Jack's point of view meant that there were many unanswered questions;

Who beat up Ben? (My money is on Desmond.)
Who told Hurley about the flight? (I reckon he had another vision of Charlie, who told him to take the guitar...)
Why is Sayid is custody?
What happened to Aaron? Where is he? Who has him? (I reckon she's with Claire's mum.)
Where did Desmond go to, and is he going to return to the island?

Still... I guess these are all things we'll find out in forthcoming episodes...

The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham

This episode did answer one question that was dangling from the previous episode; did Jack et al get back on the island via a time-flash or the plane crashing...?

The appearance of Jin in Dharma gear made it obvious that at least Jack, Kate and Hurley were caught up in a time-flash, but it's clear that this isn't the case for all of them. We know that at some point after the O6 rescue the Ajira plane arrives on the island, as we can tie this in with the earlier episode with the canoes. And here we see the Ajira plane landed on the Hydra island. Remember at the start of Season three where Sawyer and Kate were clearing a path of some kind... and Sawyer joked it was a runway for a flying saucer... well, he was half right; it was a runway. But for this plane.

So, now we have the question as to why some time-flashed and others didn't. We know Jack, Kate and Hurley time-flashed, and we can assume Kate and Sayid did. So... if these 815ers time-flashed, why didn't Locke...? It's odd.

This whole episode was quite something. We had more of Abbadon in this one episode than we've had in all of his appearances put together. And just as we get to know him... BAM... gunned down. Mind you, I guess Lance Reddick is busy with Fringe these days... There were some very intriguing things...

There's the whole timescale of events. It appears that from Locke seeing Jack in the hospital there is little time passed between that and his death, but then that should mean there's little time between his death and when Jack sees his coffin, and corpse, at Hoffs Drawlar. But that can't be the case as it's Locke's visit that causes Jack to start taking flights in the hope that one will crash him back on the island, and going by his beard growth that's got to be a good couple of months. So, the times don't seem to add up unless... there are events we've still to be shown. Which, knowing Lost, wouldn't surpise me in the least.

Also, you have Widmore and Ben on opposing sides, yet both are trying to get the O6 back on the island... this seems odd, as you would think that this would aid one side over the other yet both seem to be wanting the same thing. Curious.

But the oddest thing... after spending all that time talking Locke out of killing himself, at the mere mention of the name "Eloise Hawking", Ben strangles him to death. It is really most odd indeed. We see a different side to Ben when he's speaking to Locke. He's tender, compassionate even. And then, with the mention of the name it all turns on its head. It's a sudden, and shocking moment. Yet, when Ben apologises afterwards you know he genuinely means it. What is it about her that caused that reaction...?

You really have no idea what is going to happen next.

This is the best thing about this show; you make assumptions about what the show is about, and where it's going and it cheerfully leads you one way and then... oh, it takes you another. I mean, the assumption from the start was that the show would just be about how they got off the island... the end of season 3 smashed that assumption. I am really quite sure that any guess as to where the show will end up by the end will be somewhat way off the mark. It's very interesting to note that apparently one of the titles considered for the show before they settled on Lost was The Circle. I only read this recently, and in light of recent events, the whole time-flash malarkey, it does throw some light on things. Oh, and then you have Mrs Hawking's brooch from the first time she appeared; an ouroboros symbol. Now, Lost does have a habit of hiding things in plain sight, so I think this brooch is significant. Really, I can't help but think that the whole show will end where it began; with the crash of 815. How, I don't know, but it does seem like a distinct possibility...

"...it was twenty years ago today..."

2009-02-24T22:15:00.003Z

On Februray 24th, in a small town in the American North West, a body washed up on the banks of a river. Wrapped in plastic. That was the body of Laura Palmer, and this was the start of what was probably the best TV show ever, Twin Peaks.

A brief blog post like this cannot convey the true brilliance of the show, but it was truly stunning. It looked great, it felt great, and it sounded great.

The UK release of a box set containing all 30 episodes is due soon. Buy it. Watch it. Cherish it. Though, if you can't wait it's already available from the US.

Oh, but don't watch the film before the TV show... though set before the TV show, it was made after it ended and this is how its meant to be seen.

"...blogging in the name of..."

2009-02-14T20:42:00.003Z

Ah, I guess how this blog is perceived is entirely my own fault... an offhand comment elsewhere has made me realise that there must be a perception that this blog is dedicated to TV programmes. This is, by no means, the intention. The title of the blog;

Digression

should be a clue. It's meant to be about diverse, various, subjects. About whatever I feel like writing about at the time. It just so happens that at the moment, I seem to be writing mainly about TV. And in particular, Lost. This is mainly because I love and adore Lost more than any other TV programme at the moment. And, and the moment, we are 5 episodes in to the 17 episode run of season 5. So, there'll be plenty more Lost blog posts over the coming weeks... it'll die off a bit in the gap between seasons.

In many ways, this blog is meant to be a 21st century version of my fanzine. When I wrote things for that it was about my main interests at the time. Had I started a fanzine in January 2009, rather than 2008 chances are it would have been called 108 and had loads of articles on Lost in it. Rather than, say, Kenickie...

So, although it appears this blog is mainly about TV this is not the intention. There will be more digressions as time passes. Really.

Talking of fanzines, I did have an idea late last year about the old fanzine I used to do that lasted for 24 issues between 1998-2000. You see, I did have this plan to upload them all to my website, but this kind of got stalled at #3. There were all sorts of hassles with the OCR on the scanner, and even now you can still see blatant typos on there.

So I came up with the idea of reprinting the lot of them.

All of them.

But all 24 issues in just one volume.

The idea was to do this via lulu.com, the self publishing site. I'd set a nice low price that covered the costs of producing each issue and bosh... but it wasn't to be just a straight reprint of the 24 issues. I'd also include the one mini-Munch produced, as well as all the flyers. And maybe even reproductions of the actual Munch Questionnaires as filled out by various bands (they all had on the back page one request - draw a picture of anything you want - that never made it to the zine itself). There would also have been an article about how the zine came to be, and reminiscneces and so on, and introductions to each issue. And I was going to canvass as many Munchers as possible to get their contributions. Oh, and I'd have persuaded Timmy 2Hedz to have written something for it as well...

...however, the page count of the thing, and the eventual cost to get copies printed seemed too high to me. Maybe I'll have another look one day to see if it's viable. It's something I'd like to do, though. The thought that all 24 issues of Munch would be available to anyone, anywhere in the world, at any time... it's exciting.

Every now and then, I'll pick out an issue of Munch and have a flick through it and think "ah, I did good there". I know it sounds egotistical, but those 24 zines (well, 23; #24 is, really, a bit rubbish) are something I'll always be proud of. They're not perfect. Some of the stuff in them is a bit dodgy. But with all of them I kept on trying to do something different each issue; to keep it fresh and new, and not get in to the trap of every issue, essentially, having the same template. Ah, I still maintain that if you took Deadline #12, and The Zine #1 and mashed them together you'd have the perfect zine.

"...I can hardly wait, baby, I can hardly wait..."

2009-02-13T20:14:00.003Z

Pixies fans amongst you will get what the quote refers to... well, as long as you're a Lost fan as well. So, five episodes in and this latest one, This Place is Death, is starting to pull things together. Although it did pull things apart a bit.

With all of the Oceanic Six bar Hurley together at the end of episode 4 it appeared that all would be plain sailing... but both Kate and Sayid made sharp exits, and it was only Ben's quick tongue that saved him from a bullet in the head. Ben continues to be my favourite character in the show. He conveys a world of emotion with a single sentence. The moment where he pulls the van over and practically screams at Jack and Sun "What I'm doing is helping you; and if you had any idea what I've had to do to to keep you safe, to keep your friends safe, you'd never stop thanking me." and it's a testament to Michael Emerson's acting skills that it all sounds so convincing. His performances really do steal the show so very often.

So, instead of getting all of the Oceanic 6 together, by the end there's just the two with ; Jack and Sun. Although, conveniently, as they arrive to meet Eloise Hawking (Daniel's mum) they happen to bump in to Desmond who is also there to find her... It really does make you wonder how they'll get Kate & Aaron, Sayid & Hurley together to go back to the island. And will they need Frank Lapidus as well...? I guess we'll find out next week...

Locke's plight is intriguing. In order to bring the Oceanic 6 back to the island, he has to die. It is very interesting to note that in Season 1 he said that Boone was "the sacrifice the island demanded". Was he wrong then. Is Locke the sacrifice the island demands...?

The most frustrating aspect to this episode, however, was the minimal amount of time we spent with Danielle's party. I was hoping we'd get to see much more of them, how the sickness manifested itself and what drove Danielle to kill them all. However, Smokey's attack was very interesting. Smokey appeared to be emanating from the ruins of what looked like a Temple (is this the same Temple Richard has taken the Others to...?). The hieroglyphics appeared to match those on the door underneath Ben's house; from where he was able to summon Smokey to attack Keamy et al. But most intriguing was how all of Danielle's party went down the hole got "the sickness", but Danielle was unaffected. A connection, perchance? I do hope we see more of young Danielle in future...

And, oh, so many other things that I could mention... I've not really touched on the well, Charlotte's death, the convenience of some of the time changes, that the company name on the van - Canton Rainier - is an anagram... oh, so many things.

Also, they've swapped the next two episodes around, which suggests that the episode that was due next, but is now #7 - The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham - must be pretty self contained, telling only of Locke's adventures off island...

...and I bet when his corpse is brought back to the island, he'll come back to life. Which, I'm sure, is also what happened to Jack's dad. Which means, Jack's dad has been on the island before...

"...I've always been with you, Jack..."

2009-02-11T23:44:00.003Z

Okay. So, in the last episode of Lost, when Kate said:

"I've always been with you, Jack."

how many of you mentally added;

"...well, apart from when I was shagging Sawyer..."

: )

(And, yes, I blatantly nicked this from elsewhere...!)

"...I've been here less than two weeks..."

2009-02-07T12:10:00.003Z

Okay, so in the latest episode of Lost, "The Little Prince" (look away now if you've not seen it...) Daniel says that the nosebleeds etc that people are experience are related to the length of time they've spent on the island. The longer you've been there, the sooner you'll suffer. So... Daniel (on island a fortnight), Locke (4 months), Sawyer (ditto) have not experienced any nosebleeed. Juliet's(3 years) only just started to get them, as has Miles. Charlotte's suffered the most.

Now, we can thus deduce from this that as Miles started to get the nosebleeds at about the same time as Juliet, he must have been on the island for about the same time as her; 3 years in total. But as he says, he's only been on the island a fortnight... or has he...? Now, there is a theory we have already seen Miles on the island this season, played by a different actor... have a think about it, see what you can come up with, and I'll tell you when I think we already saw Miles later at the end of this post.

But Charlotte... ah, so when was she on the island before? She, too, has apparently only been on the island a fortnight, yet she suffers worse than Juliet who's been there about three years. So, when was she there before, and why was she there? Was she Dharma? Is she someone significant? We shall see.

Elsewhere, off-island, we see the Oceanic 6 et al getting ever closer to returning to the island (in episode 6, anyone...). Ben being the one behind the lawyers at Kate's house did surprise me. I'd had that one pegged as Sun's doing... but what about the people with the trank guns...? Are they Ben's, too? Or are they Widmore's?

I was very glad to see Jin alive at the end, and even more pleased to see that at long last we're going to see Danielle's back story. This has been promised as coming soon in Seasons 3 and 4, and finally here it is. The "surprise" reveal that the lady was Danielle wasn't a massive surprise - everyone's hopping through time and we see a group of French people wash up on the island? Kinda obvious... even listing them as "Frenchwoman" and "Frenchman" 1-5 in the cast lists posted on the web didn't really preserve the surprise. Better to have put them as "Woman" and "Man" 1-5, I reckon... Still, this lack of surprise doesn't make the huge sense of anticipation for the next episode dissipate at all. It'll be interesting to see what the sickness her party experienced was, and whether or not it's the same time-displacement sickness as experience by Minkowski and Desmond in Season 4. I'm possibly looking forward to next week's even more than the intriguingly titled episde 7; The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham.

Anyhow, to conclude this post I return to the Miles theory as mentioned above; we saw Miles before in the opening scene of Season 4. Miles is Pierre Chang's (aka Marvin Candle etc) son. He's the baby at the start of the season, who presumably lived there for the first few years of his life. Hence being affected by the nosebleeds etc sooner than Locke & Sawyer...

"...theorising that one could time travel..."

2009-02-01T21:28:00.005Z

Somehow Lost has turned in to Quantum Leap. Sort of. Only instead of just one person leaping through time, it's half the cast. And there's no Al. Presumably he's still too busy being evil in Battlestar Galactica.

Talking of which... (and I apologise for any Sky viewers reading this in case I give away spoilers; really I don't know what day it's on there, so if you've not seen S4 Ep 13, stop reading now and only come back for the bit at the end which is about Lost theories. That's safe as Sky viewers are enjoying episode I'm writing about as I type, and who's sad enough to read the internet whilst watching new episodes of TV shows. Well... as some loony forums attest, quite a few people. There are entire threads on some written by people who are giving their "OMG!!!", "SQUEEEEEEEEE" and "ROLF" opinions as things are happening. Losers.)

Anyhow... Battlestar Galactica's latest episode was an absolute belter. Rebellion. Insurrection. Mutiny. And with, erm, Felix Gaeta in charge... it was a real hum dinger of an episode, with each twist and turn bringing ever more unexpected happenings. Who would have thought that Gaeta could amass such a large amount of people to launch a successful (well, successful at this stage) mutiny without a single word of it getting back to The Powers That Be. Impressive. There's one thing that BSG does really well, and that's putting its characters in to dark and dire situations. This goes right back to the mini-series where virtually everyone is killed, followed by 33 (which I maintain is one of the very best single episodes of anything) where the Cylons relentlessly pursue the fleet with only a 33 minute window between each new attack. That one episode, actually, is BSG in miniature, summing up the bleak nature of the show, yet ending with a hint of optimism. The bleakness continued with the New Caprica arc at the start of season 3; with most of humanity under Cylon subjugation you got the impression, for a while, that this was it and that there was no way out. And I'm getting that feeling again. Only now, as the show enters its final run - just seven episodes to go, remember - all bets are off, no-one's safe. Though having said that, anyone who thinks Adama and Tigh are dead at the end of this episode has rocks in their head. Adama makes the finale, that's fer sure...

Also heading to its end is Lost, although rather than just 7 episodes to go, Lost has 31 more. The third episode saw several things slot in to place, and the great thing was that they weren't shoehorned in, and weren't over egged. For example we now know why Richard Alpert was at Locke's birth; because Locke told him where and when he was to be born. The bomb, which was to be buried in concrete is clearly the thing that was buried in concrete in the Swan in Season 2... oh, and as ever it opens up the possibility of theories...

1 - that Ellie chick who Daniel thought looked familiar...? 'Course she looked familiar, Danny-boy, she's your mother. Ellie = Eloise, and it's odds on that Eloise Hawking is Daniel's mum.

2 - "Do not mistake coincidence for fate," said Eko back in Season 2, but Eloise and Charles Widmore on the island together...? Could Charles be Daniel's daddy...? Who knows...

But my favourite is this one:

3 - Penny's dad and her son are the same person... think about it. Penny gives birth to Charlie who grows up a bit and ends up travelling back in time to the island in the 50s where he prefers to be known as Charles. Think about it. It works. It'd make Desmond Charles Widmore's dad. However, it does mean Charles would have to shag his own grannie to create Penny. But would he know he's doing this...?

Ooh. I do love Lost

"...cook/cock..."

2009-01-30T16:30:00.005Z

Okay, in my previous post referring to the first episode of this third season of Skins, I opined the opinion that in my opinion the character of Cook is, not to put to fine a point on it, a cunt.

The second episode was the Cook episode, and the plot - well, I say plot - revolved around his birthday shenanigans. So, with this episode we got to know Cook a little better and to evaluate whether the initial impression that he is a cunt was, in fact, an accurate representation of his character. I must say, I was wrong.

I underestimated his level of cuntiness.

He is an extremely massive cunt. He is the Crown Prince of Cunts.

But, despite being an extremely massive cunt, he is immensely watchable; you're kind of wondering what he's going to do next, and to what depths of cuntiness he will descend to. It's kind of spellbinding in this respect. It takes something to have a character who's such an extremely massive cunt and yet still make him compelling viewing. It worked with Tony in Season 1, and it's worked here again.

I found myself warming a little more to JJ this time, and have realised he's more of a twat than a cunt.

And the thing about the Good Twin being the lesbian rather than Naomi was rammed home this episode with a single line between the two when Naomi said "Why does your sister think I'm gay?" Subtle... nah.

But, two episodes in, I think they've managed to pull of this cast renewal perfectly. I was initially really doubtful it would work, but it has refreshed the show somewhat. This is, of course, not to denigrate the original cast, but every story has to have its time, and the two seasons we had with the orginal cast were - odd episode here and there aside - wonderful. I'm going to enjoy the two years we'll have with this gang...

...doesn't mean, however, I don't miss Cassie immensely...

"...random shoes..."

2009-01-28T21:57:00.004Z

Ooh, it's been far too long between posts, so here's a sort of catch up on things. Admittedly mostly TV things, but...

Skins Season 3

It was a somewhat bold move to replace virtually the entire cast for season 3 - no Tony, Sid, Michelle... No Cassie. etc - with essentially just Effy being retained (though Pandora, a one episode character from Season 2 is now elevated to a cast regular). The overall feel of the episode was somewhat like each year's new Season of Grange Hill; only with much more of a turnover than that show. So, if we take the Grange Hill analogy a little further, we have said goodbye to Tucker Jenkins (Tony) and friends, now we say hello to Zammo McGuire (Cook) and friends...

Initial impressions of the new characters are mixed. Within minutes of the show starting I'd already decided that Cook is a cunt. Mind you, I spent the whole of Season 1 thinking Tony was a cunt, so plus ca change... The opening sequence of Freddie skateboarding down Park Street in Bristol (about half the external scenes in any given episode of Skins are shot in this area) set the tone perfectly, and was suitably over the top. Initially I thought he was a cunt, too, but mellowed to him as the episod went on. As soon as I saw JJ I though, fuck me, he's a cunt. And that didn't change. Though, he does show potential as the UK's answer to Jack Nance.

And, ooh. Twins in their smalls. Marvellous. And get this, one of them's a good twin and one's an evil twin... now in what school based drama on CBBC did we see that before...? And only Skins could get away with knowingly calling a character Naomi Campbel, who is apparently a "rug muncher" who tried to get it on with the good twin. But, clearly, given her fact about herself she gave in class, "people tell lies about me", it's obvious that it's not her who's the lesbian it's the good twin.

Um. Are there other new characters...? Obviously we still have Effy and Pandora, but they're old favourites. Ardal O'Hanlan's teacher who doesn't want to be a teacher was a masterstroke; he was playing totally against type and it took me a few minutes to actually realise it was him. Just great.

As a season opener, set the task of introducing the new cast it was a pretty damn fine episode. It clearly wasn't as great as the show's peak (Season 1's Cassie episode), but it was good enough. Now let's see if they can keep it up.

Hustle Season 5

Within about, ooh, 30 seconds of the season starting it became obvious why Season 4 of the show suffered so badly. It needs Adrian Lester. From the moment he gave his first knowing look to camer you knew this was Hustle back on form. That Jamie Murray and Marc Warren aren't in it, and thus far Robert Vaughn's appearances are little more than cameos (he was even completely absent from episode 2) does not seem to matter in the slightest; Lester holds the show together. The show's plots continue to be ludicrous and over the top and entirely unrealistic, but that's part of the show's charm. The way how threads interlink can be marvellous; most notably in the third episode where you think you know everything that's gone on, but then suddenly there's another couple of twists to come. And it's just so entirely satisfying.

Lost Season 5

Two episodes in, and it remains the best show on the box. I love the way how the show keeps changing and renewing itself. Every Season has its own flavour and tone, and it is this constant change that helps keep the show fresh. These opening episodes don't let up; they constantly move things along. It's hard to see at this stage, for example, how Ben and Jack will get the rest of the Oceanic Six back to the island, or even if they are able to find the island as either the island, its inhabitants, or both, have become unstuck in time and are bouncing to and fro. The mysteries of this season are somewhat tantalising, and it will be interesting to see how they unfurl...

In other news:

In Poland they have Cherry flavour Jaffa Cakes. Well, they're not actually Jaffa Cakes, but they're exactly the same type of cake.
It was very sad to hear the news of the death of Tony Hart; again via the medium of a FaceBook friend status update...
Garry Bushell has a book out of his opinions. I understand the manuscript was written in green crayon.
Tender Trap are doing a gig for the first time in a couple of years. Yay!

"...half a dozen of the other..."

2009-01-14T17:23:00.002Z

Facebook is a great thing, but it does seem increasingly the case that my friends' status update/news page does seem to be the first place I read about people croaking it.

Today, it's probably the saddest one so far in that Patrick McGoohan, star of the 60s TV show, The Prisoner, has died.

The bloke was a genius; he was probably also stark raving bonkers. The Prisoner is one of those shows that, even after all these years, isn't fully understood. Things seem, odd, random and bizarre, yet somehow in the context of the show, they work. McGoohan knew how it all slotted together, and what things meant. Unlike others, though, rather than have Basil Exposition explain the plot, he made the show in such a way that things could be interpreted, and argued about. That's what makes good telly. And that why, probably, the forthcoming remake (of which McGoohan had zero input; fools) will probably be a pale imitation.

The world will be a little sadder without him.

"...mind the gap..."

2009-01-10T23:23:00.004Z

I was listening, the other day, on my MP3 player to the Popjustice compilation album (being the third best compilation ever* and I can't help but wonder why every MP3 player I have ever had is incapable of playing songs without a gap between them. There always is a gap. For most albums you probably won't notice as gaps are naturally built in between songs. But with an album like Popjustice where all the tracks either bleed in to each other, or crash straight from one to the other, it's really glaring and noticeable. Also, it's obvious with things like The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

It strikes me as really odd that with all this modern technology that this seemingly simple thing isn't a standard. Am I just unlucky with the MP3 players I've bought (I've had about 5) or are they all like this? And if they are all like this, why? I mean, surely it's not rocket science to get tracks to play seamlessly in to each other?

* - because someone will ask: 1 - There And Back Again Lane, 2 - Rough Trade Indiepop 1 (incidentally... will we ever get Indiepop 2...?).

"...the power of Christ compels you..."

2009-01-06T20:27:00.012Z

Okay, whilst browsing the Roobarbs DVD forum, I came across a thread about the poor quality of the Blu Ray version of the William Friedkin movie, The French Connection, which included a snippet from an article mentioning how the forthcoming Blu Ray version of The Exorcist will be treated. Read it and weep;

A couple of things...

Firstly, what is with this fiddling with the colour of the film? A B&W print combined with a bluish print? WTF? This sounds most weird, and if it works as badly as the fiddling with the French Connection went - it's been described thus; "The colour has been almost disconnected from the image. It bleeds horribly and looks like something from a dodgy VHS copy." - The Exorcist will look like something spewed forth from Regan's mouth.

Secondly, the edit on the Blu Ray; just the 12 minute extended "Version You've Never Seen Before"? Well... despite the name being about a decade out of date, releasing this version and this version only is a mistake. Never mind that the original edit is a much better one than the extended version, and that the four major cuts were all cut for good reasons... oh, no... Whilst Friedkin's statement that "people wanted to see everything" is perfectly true, this is does not mean that people wanted this extended version to supercede the original. We wanted to see these scenes because we were curious to see what they were as The Exorcist is such a brilliant film. When we saw them, as glad we were to have seen them, it was obvious why they were cut.

It is the original version of the film we all fell in love with, the pace of it, the way it looks. That's the film we want on Blu Ray. That's our Exorcist. The extended version is a mere curiosity, and curiosity has been sated.

I wonder what Mark Kermode thinks of all this...?

"...wow..."

2009-01-05T20:32:00.007Z

At the end of yesterday's blog entry I added, almost as an afterthought, that the person Steven Moffatt should cast as the companion alongside Matt Smith's Doctor Who should be Hannah Murray. So, here's a bit more about it...

Hannah Murray came to fame as one of the stars of E4's Skins, playing the anorexic character Cassie. Her performance there was quite superb, and a good showcase of this is in the second episode of the first season, which centred around her character. It is a testament to her acting skills that you are drawn in to the story, and her struggle with anorexia. That last shot of the episode of her about to take a bite out of some food just brings a tear of hope to your eyes. She did, to my mind, give the best performance in the show.

Last summer she appeared in the Polly Stenham play, That Face, at the Duke of York's Theatre, alongside a certain Matt Smith. She is soon to be seen in one of the new Marples, entitled "Why didn't they ask Evans?"

There is a Facebook group set up to, somehow, try to get word to Steven Moffatt to plant her name in his mind so that when casting for the companion starts the first name that springs to mind is Hannah Murray. If you're on Facebook take a look, join, and tell all your friends. Especially if one of your friends is Steven Moffatt...!

Here are some pictures:

And links:

Wikipedia

IMDB

"...doesn't your balloon ever land...?"

2009-01-04T21:14:00.008Z

It's been a rather hectic week and a half for Doctor Who fans, with two rather important things. First up was the fourth, now annual, Christmas special. Entitled The Next Doctor, the plot teased us to think that the Doctor had met a future incarnation of himself in the shape of David Morrissey. Initial speculation centred on how the episode was absolutely certain to be an adaptation in some form of the Big Finish audio CD, in which the Doctor bumps in to a person claiming to be a future incarnation of himself in the shape of, erm, Christopher Biggins. In this story, called The One Doctor, the other Doctor is revealed to be a con man called Banto Zane (Panto Dame, anyone...?). However, it was soon obvious that the only similarity the stories shared was that each had an alternative Doctor.

Prior to its broadcast, there was also much speculation (once the "One Doctor" theory had been explcitly denied by Russell T Davies) that Morrissey's Doctor was truly a future Doctor and was in fact, literally, going to be the next Doctor, the one to take over from David Tennant. Again, this was not to be the case.

Anyhow... enough of the speculatory talk.

What we ended up with was, to my mind, the best of the four Christmas specials thus far. It's apparent early on that Morrissey is not a real Doctor; the only question is that if he's not the Doctor, who is he? Like all good mysteries, the clues are seeded throughout and in hindsight, once you know the answer, it's rather obvious. Blatant even. But that first time you see it, when Tennant says "I think I've worked it out...", and it's only halfway through the episode (I was convinced Russell would keep us waiting until the end...), it's such a wonderful moment. As Tennant explains everything to Morrissey, you can see the latter is really struggling to come to terms with what he's being told; the sheer strength of the performances of both Doctors is what really elevates this episode up. I really wanted Morrissey to be a real Doctor, to be the next Doctor, but it was not to be. His performance is one of the very best guest appearances throughout RTD Who.

The episode is not without its faults, however; the most notable and glaring one is the Morrissey plays no part in the climactic scenes with the Cyber-KIng. Yes, he's there on the ground; but frankly he should have been up there in the Ballon with Tennant. Given that he had previously stated that he'd never been up in the balloon - his Tardis (Tethered Arial Release Developed In Style!!!) - and that was one of his ambitions, you really would have thought that Russell could have come up with a conclusion that put him there, in the thick of the action once again showing how it was his own courage that made him do the brave things he did, rather than just from the memories he had gleaned from the info-stamp about the Doctor. Really, the more scenes with DT and DM together, the better I say.

Anyhow, despite this minor qualm, it made for a great episode, and as I said earlier, the best of the Christmas Specials to date.

But... if David Morrissey was not to take over from David Tennant... then who? We did not have to wait for long.

The sudden announcement that the Eleventh Doctor would be announced during an edition of Doctor Who Confidential sent Dr Who forums in to meltdown. The OG forums spent the best part of a couple of days going in to, and out of, and back in to "patron only" lock down mode. Speculation became rife again as to who it would be with most commentators seeming to think it was a two horse race between Paterson Joseph and Chiwitel Ejiofor. Either of which who would have been great.

Meanwhile, over at the betting exchange website, Betfair, out of nowhere a new favourite emerged. Someone whose odds, at the time betting on the site closed at about half four on Saturday, were down to 1-10 (that is; bet a quid, and your winnings would be 10p...). Could this have been because people "in the know" as to the new Doctor's identity were out to make a few quid by putting money on to, what was to them, a dead certainty?

This person's name was Matt Smith, and sure enough shortly before 6pm on Saturday January 4th, he was announced as the eleventh Doctor.

Dr Who forums, once again, went in to meltdown. The reaction to his casting was somewhat mixed, most notably relating to his looks. Many people were whinging because "I can't believe they cast such a pretty-boy as the Doctor" and equally as many were whinging because "I can't believe they cast such an ugmo as the Doctor". Some of the vitriol and hate that spewed out was, to my mind, somewhat sickening, and went far beyond jovial mickey taking and in to the realms of out and out abuse.

What abuse there was that wasn't centred on his looks was instead heaped on his age. So, he's 26. Get a grip. This is the actor that has been chosen for the part by Steven Moffatt, and frankly I trust his opinion a lot more than any of the nay-sayers who seem to think his young age and his pretty/ugly looks automatically mean he's unsuitable to play the Doctor. There have been several people claiming they will never watch the show again calling the casting things like "absolute bullshit" and "the worst decision ever" and various other things like that.

I mean, give the chap a chance. At least wait until you've seen at least his regeneration scene, or even better, his first episode, before saying such things. But, I guess this is Doctor Who fandom we're talking about here where given all the spiel about how this is a show that can go anywhere and do anything, how the Doctor is always fighting for the underdog and for giving people a chance, that so many people who purport to be fans have such closed minds. It's sad really. You can see why Russell referred to some sections of fandom as "mosquitoes"...

I'm optimistic about how he'll turn out. I trust Steven Moffatt to get it right, and for him to place the future of the show on the shoulders of Matt Smith, then I have no doubt he knows exactly what he's doing. If I was casting, I can't say I'd have picked Smith - I'd have gone for either Adrian Lester or Stefan Dennis - but that's part of the fun of the announcement of each new Doctor, the surprise, and wondering how he'll turn out. Smith was certainly a surprise - well, until the Betfair betting patterns made him a dead cert - and it's surprise like these that make being a Doctor Who fan so exciting. It's hard to imagine how Smith will approach the role at this stage, but it's going to be fun finding out.

Spring 2010 is going to be a great time for telly as not only is that when this new era of Doctor Who will start, but also when Lost ends...

Epilogue:

I have now passed a milestone in that for the first time in my life the incumbent Doctor is younger than I am. Makes me feel so old...!
And how long will it be before we find out who Smith's companion will be... I reckon it should be Hannah Murray. She would be great!

Spot the difference #1

2009-01-02T18:06:00.005Z

BBC News headline:

"Fatal crash plane hits rail line."

BBC News text from corresponding article.

"It ended up between two lines where the track forked, missing the tracks."

Hmm...

"...and a happy new year; let's hope it's a good one..." part 2

2009-01-02T10:05:00.006Z

There was a decent amount of damn fine movies in 2008. Most notable was The Dark Knight, press about which was dominated by the untimely death of Heath Ledger. This had the unfortunate effect of various people claiming that the movie was only being praised so highly as he had died out of some sort of misplaced sympathy. This is, of course, a bunch of Tottenham. It was praised so highly as it was a damn fine movie, and Heath's role in it as The Joker was a wonderful scene-stealing performance which was the first time a movie Batman villain has been superior to their 60s TV series counterpart. You could see elements of Cesar Romero's performance in Heath's - most notably the laugh at time, and the way he keeps bobbing about. But, the best thing was that on first watching you really have no idea what he's going to do next. His very last scene in the movie, hanging upside down, where he tells Batman that they're going to keep on doing this for the rest of their lives - Batman won't kill him due to his moral code, and he won't kill Batman as he's too much fun to have around - is a neat reversal of a scene in what had previously been the key text on the Joker - Alan Moore's The Killing Joke. It's all the more saddening that at the end of the movie, The Joker is still alive, presumably carted off to Arkham; a scene in the asylum with the Joker in the third in this series of movies would have been a certainty had Heath not died.

Other good movies:

I Am Legend: probably the best film Will Smith has ever made. That he spends about half the movie acting pretty much on his own, with just a dog for company and manages to make it entirely captivating and convincing is quite a feat.
Wall-E: probably the best CGI cartoon since Toy Story. Even after you've seen it about a gazillion times due to a small child insisting they see it again. And again. And again.
The Mist: a rather engaging "base under siege" horror movie set in a supermarket. You never really learn the true nature of the threat, and the ending has to be seen to be believed. The DVD version has a black & white version of the film on it. Sounds intriguing...
Hellboy 2: the first movie was somewhat underwhelming, but this sequel takes all the things that were good about the first, expands them, and makes a movie that's much better than I expected. I love the smoke guy...

Best reads of the year were T is for Television by Mark Aldridge & Andy Murray, and Bad Science, by Ben Goldacre.

The former is a marvellous book all about "The small screen adventures of Russell T Davies" which looks at RTD's writing career right from the start, including all the obscure things you probably never knew he wrote, up to the latest season of Dr Who. There are loads of nuggets of information there, uncovering all sorts of things about his career.

The latter is an exploration of various misunderstandings, or outright lies, about matters scientific; things like so called miracle pills, the work of Gillian McKeith, bad stats, the media's misuse of science, and the MMR scare. The approach is one suitable for all, as complex topics are discussed in a manner that all should be able to understand.

You should own both books.

"...and a happy new year; let's hope it's a good one..."

2009-01-01T20:10:00.008Z

I guess it's a tradition, or an old charter, or something that everyone doing a blog should do a post reviewing the previous year. So this be mine.

The year started with the US writers' strike in full flow. This had a massive impact on pretty much every TV show, and meant truncated seasons, postponed episodes, and even in some cases shows being axed. My initial assessment that Heroes would be the show that suffered least proved somewhat wrong. The theory went that as Volume 2 was going to be the first 11 episodes of Season 2, and these 11 episodes were completed that this would merely mean Volume 3 was delayed. However, when they made V2 Ep11, they completely reshot the ending, ensuring the Volume 3 we had was completely different from that which was initally intended. Then, when Volume 3 did arrive, as good as it was there were some rather strong feelings of deja-vu with many re-treads of previously well worn ground. On top of that, there was some really quite bad continuity flubs (most notably the Sylar & Elle flashback).

Lost probably suffered least in that its fourth season was truncated by just 2 episodes, from 16 to 14, and these removed episodes will be added to Seasons 5 & 6. It also happened that Season 4 of Lost was the best telly all year. This season managed to answer questions, and heap on more layers of mystery, and managed to do both seamlessly and without appearing forced. The new characters - the freighter folk - slotted in really well, and now it's as if they've been there all along. Michael Emerson deserves special mention for his performance as Ben. He's really been through the wringer this season, and he always makes for compelling watching. The scene where Keamy is holding Alex, Ben's adoptive daughter, hostage with a gun to her head is on the face of it a typical "Ben in a problem" scene. You know he'll find a way out of the predicament, save Alex and whup Keamy's arse... It's what he does. As he later says to Locke; "Don't you ever learn, John, I always have a plan." But then it all goes wrong, and Keamy shoots her, at point blank range, in the head... We then cut to a shot of Ben, shocked, stunned, thinking. The expression on his face... oh, it says more than any line of dialogue ever could.

BSG had only ten episodes of its final, fourth, season shown, and really it wasn't that great for the most part. Early episodes trundled on by, and frankly had I been watching Season 1 of a show, rather than its last, I would have stopped watching. This is the main trouble with BSG; it's a show of extremes. Episodes like 33, and the New Caprica episodes, and Pegasus are wonderful slices of telly. But there are also depths like most of Season 4 thus far. It just seemed to meander along, and it wasn't until the last three episodes where it finally kicked in to gear... leading to one of the biggest surprises, the arrival on Earth. Now, everyone thought that would be in the very last episode. But, no, ten more to go. Question is, will these last ten be a high or a low...? And who is the twelfth Cylon? It's either someone dead, or someone on that Cylon ship right near the end of the last run...

Doctor Who had another great run of episodes. The new Davros was performed really well (although he does make my three year old daughter fall to the floor in spasms of laughter every time she sees him), and the big finale this year was essentially a celebration of Russell T Davies' Greatest Hits. But the best episode this year was Midnight, which was more or less a ghost story set in a single room. It was spooky, atmospheric, and kept you guessing until the very end. And even then it didn't really explain what the monster was... just wonderful.

Other random TV bits:

Diana should clearly have won the X-Factor. Cloth eared buffoons.
Knight Rider came back, and it was as cheesy as ever.
John Sergeant shouldn't have quit Strictly Come Dancing, and Rachel should have won.
Stefan Dennis remains the best thing in Neighbours.

Possibly the most surprising thing to happen this year was Guns 'n' Roses releasing their much awaited album, Chinese Democracy. The only other thing that was possibly so surprising was that it turned out to be a damn good album. It had been something like 14-15 years in the making so should have been a complete mess, but in the end it turned out really well, and is probably the second best of the four proper GNR albums. It started with a siren, a warning almost; and the first time we hear Axl's voice he is literally screaming. It's great. It's a damn fine collection of songs, with a couple more potential singles on there. It's really much better than anyone could have hoped for. If rumours are true there is a chance of a GNR tour next year... but with most of the original line up together again. Including Slash. But I'll believe it when I see them walk out on stage.

Another band returning after a long absence was Even As We Speak who performed a one-off gig earlier in the year. To see them was a truly great sight to behold. They even had Shelley/Orlando's Tim Chipping filling in for absent members. One of the very best performances I have ever seen was at the start of the gig when Mary did a few songs on her own, accompanied only by her guitar. The performance she did of Bizarre Love Triangle was so perfectly judged, with an eerie haunting voice... just bliss, sheer bliss.

More tomorrow...

"...I like it when somebody digresses..."

2008-12-15T08:53:00.003Z

Okay. So I now have a proper title for this place. Whilst I did like Jibber Jabber, it really didn't seem right. "Digression", on the other hand, is perfect as it's not only something I do all the blimmin' time, it's also a rather neat Catcher in the Rye reference (see quote to right).

I rather like it...

...and I hope you will, too.

That's if anyone ever actually comes here and reads this...

"...every day my confusion grows..."

2008-12-11T22:17:00.004Z

I'm confused.

I'm watching this programme about the first pregnant man, and the thing that strikes me is that the man appears to be a woman who has undergone some hormone therapy as the initial part of a sex change operation; but the operation has not yet taken place, and s/he appears to still have all of their female reproductive organs intact.

I may be being really naive, or daft, or missing out on a really important point; but in what way is this the first pregnant man?

I'd really be happy if someone could clear up my confusion on this.

Cheers!

Edit: okay. So I know that with gender reassignment a person can take the opposite gender to that which they were born with; but in this specific case this process had not been completed. They still had all their female reproductive organs. Thus, from a purely biological perspective; she was a female. I just can't see it any other way...

"...does somebody come around in a truck..."

2008-12-10T11:38:00.003Z

The Lagoon.

In Central Park.

In winter.

' Nuff said.

Now with extra added blog!

2008-12-06T11:47:00.000Z

A quick update on this site;

1 - There will now be no massive update to the missing Dr Who rumours article. I don't think it would serve any great purpose. I'll probably just do ad-hoc tinkering with it. There's a new bit I need to add in, some minor rewriting of some of the sections, and a bit about the best way to handle things if you think you've found a missing episode, but wholesale changes are out. The one thing I do still want to do is produce a fully annotaated version, listing sources etc for everything. That'll be in the form of a pdf, and will probably take me quite some time to do, so don't expect it next week. Or even next month... : )

2 - The TV page lasted a long time, didn't it...? It is over, and any stuff that would have gone there will go here. Which will be better as all you people reading this (yes, both of you!) can add comments!

3 - Another reason for this blog is to cross-post here things I post as notes on my Facebook account. Some of the things there - my Borg mission for one thing - could do with a wider audience. He says, egotistically...

4 - I am hopeful that, come next year, there will be more proper content on this site...

5 - There will be a new and improved Wombat page here, too... I mean, for a start the old one isn't even linked to anywhere...

6 - If anyone could do me a banner to go at the top of the page here, that would be marvellous; needs to say "Jibber Jabber" in it, but other than that... be creative. Got to be 660 pixels wide, though, apparently. Not sure about the height, but about the height of the current box would be perfect, I think...