"...must be funny..."

One thing that's always been complained about, ever since I can remember, is the price of video games. Always, always, always... and it'll never stop. However, this post isn't about the cost of the likes of the latest games like GTA5 or the latest Gran Turismo, etc, no... this is about the insane prices of additional content in mobile games...

I was playing the new Angry Birds game the other day, the racing game "Angry Birds Go". This game allows you to buy new cars for real money. The game itself is free, so they've clearly got to make money somehow, so allowing people to buy additional carts is quite a nifty idea. However, the sheer price of some of these carts is phenomenally expensive. Take a look at this screen shot of one of the cars you can buy. And this is not, in any way, photoshopped;

Yes. That says the car costs £34.99. That's not imaginary in game money, it's actual real life proper money. To place this in context, a PS3 copy of GTA5 on Amazon is currently selling at £33.00

And of the levels I've unlocked, you can buy a further two more at £34.99, two at £6.99 each (advertised as "50% off"!!!), and two at a much more reasonable £1.99 each. To access all these carts would cost you £122.93. 

And that's with only half the tracks unlocked. If we extrapolate that the remaining half of the game has a similar number of similarly priced carts, that would cost you £245.86 just too access all the carts in one game! By way of comparing how ludicrous this is, you can currently buy a PS3, with GT6 and The Last of Us for £199.99 from Amazon. I know which I'd rather spend my money on...

This doesn't even touch on the other transactions in the game which allow you to buy crystals to allow you to upgrade your car quicker (you can earn these racing in the game) for prices ranging from £2.99 for 200 crystals up to £69.99 for 6500 crystals. This latter one is somewhat cheekily stated to be "Best Value". Hmm... I don't know on what planet £69.99 for a bunch of crystals could ever be described accurately as "best value"...

But, it's not just this game. There are games all over the place that have a similar pricing structure for their in game purchases. It is increasingly becoming the norm that games companies are charging such silly money for things that are only of use in the game. 

Surely a better model would be the "pile it high, sell it cheap" principle. I wonder how much more revenue would be generated by a lot of smaller transactions? Candy Crush Saga does seem to get it completely right in that every time I've come across a chance to spend money in that game, it's never been anything as like as high as £69.99. I think the highest I've seen in £2.49. I think. These are amounts that are small enough to tempt people to spend to get those extra power ups, and to get extra lives, and to get on to the next batch of 15 levels... 

To its credit, as well, you don't have to spend a single penny on Candy Crush Saga to proceed. I've done all 65 owl balancing levels and I'm up to level 225 in the main game, and not a penny spent...

This model is clearly working for them as they're churning out new levels at a fair old rate, and getting out new games. 

I'd be very interested in hearing what the justification is for these ludicrous prices for in game content...

"...a number on a list..."

So, I was having a play with the site stats, and apparently the all time most viewed post of all time is this one;

http://fatsosblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/does-somebody-come-around-in-truck.html

And it's not the most viewed by a small amount, it's got just over triple the views of the second placed post. It's also the post which has the least waffling by me in it... but I must remember what Mr Eko said... :)

Oh, and to follow up on the last post; still waiting, Pixies, for something even half as good as Bam Thwok... 

"...I've been dreaming of a time..."

Now my memory's not exactly perfect, but I was thinking the other day about the gigs I went to in 2013, and I'm reasonably sure I didn't go to a single one. it's the first time since, ooh, 1997 I've not been to at least one gig in a year. Oh, some years I went to loads. Others less so. Quite a few down to single figures. Heck, even in 2012 I managed to make it to the festival. 

So that means the last band I saw live was The Cure, and the last song I've seen live is Boys Don't Cry. Which is a lie. We do. 

I don't know what the reason is for this lack of gig attendance; maybe it links in with how little new music I listen to these days. Pretty much always retreating back to the old favourites. There was a time when I'd listen to the Evening Session, and Mark & Lard's Graveyard Shift, and there'd be so many new brilliant songs. I can't remember the last time I listened to a radio show regularly. I can't even remember if Chris Evans does breakfast or drive time these days. I bet Ken Bruce still does the mornings and PopMaster, though. Ah, the shift from Radio 1 to Radio 2...

Can't recall the last time I listened to Radio 1, but then really I shouldn't; not at my advanced age. Radio 1's meant to say nothing to me about my life, it's for the young. I see so many people comment that Radio 1's rubbish these days as the music's just noise. But then that's what us oldies should be saying. Each generation has its own music. Those listening to the likes of Grime and Drum 'n' Bass will probably say the same about Radio 1 in 20 years time. That's how it should be.

So, no listening to the radio means that there's very little buying of new music. I look at the stuff I have bought lately, and it all seems to be collections and greatest hits, and so on. I can't recall the last time, for sure, I bought a CD (yeah, I know; so last century) of a new artist. I have a feeling it might have been The Brilliant Things, but that was a while ago. 

And this means no new radio, no new CDs, and thus no new bands to see gigs by... but there's still those old faithful bands around, but I've seen pretty much every band I want to see, some many times over. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the Pixies... do I need to hear Monkey Gone to Heaven live again (and would it even be the same without Kim Deal)? I didn't even bother with the Reading festival last year as the line up consisted of bands I'd either seen before and wasn't fussed about seeing again, bands I'd not seen and wasn't fussed about, and bands I'd not heard of. Heck, I only went in 2012 (and just the Friday) because the Cure were there and they were one of those few notable bands I'd not seen before that I really did want to see. 

What, then, for 2014? I guess the only way to change this is to make the change myself (a maxim that I very much need to apply to a number of other areas in my life). Seek out new things. Try them. It's the only way...

Anyhow, I'll sign off now. I just remembered I downloaded the Pixies EP2 today, and I've not listened to it yet...

"...we were quoted out of context..."

I guess that's one of the problems with writing the header to a post before you finish it. 'Cos the header's meant to at least slightly relate to what's actually in the post, and had I had a little more time I'd have gone on to talk about Sherlock, and the whole quote would have made a lot more sense. 

But, I never got around to it...

So. Other things that were good about last year in the telly;

Game of Thrones; I decided, on the spur of the moment, after having heard there was a massive outcry at the massive twist in season 3 episode 9 that I'd check out the whole show, and manage to miss the spoiler. Which, somehow, I managed to do. I splurged through 30 episodes in less than three weeks, and it was great. The agony of waiting for the next season to start is really twisting my melon. 

I found myself loving the show. It's violent, rude, and absolutely filthy, but compelling viewing. Loads of wonderful characters, and a propensity for killing them off that probably exceeds The Walking Dead (lets face it; Rick's never gonna die. At least not until the very end). I'm finding that of the characters the ones I like best are Tyrion, Baelish (oh, so slimy!), and Daenerys; although I do wish she'd hurry up and cross the Narrow Sea. Unlike the Walking Dead, though, I've not read the source material as the TV show is a much closer adapatation (within the usual lmitations) than The Walking Dead is. 

The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls; the leaking of three JD Salinger short stories was, to say the least, somewhat of surprise. Bowling Balls was the most surprising of the three, seeing as the only known copy is at a uni library in the states and security around it is tight. You can go in and read it, but they never allow copies. Maybe someone used hi-tech methods? Hidden camera, perhaps? 

Anyhow, it was a very interesting story to read, consisting of what's essentially a rough draft of some of the characters from Catcher in the Rye. Although whereas other rough version Catcher stories (I'm Crazy, and Slight Rebellion off Madison) are, essentially, early edits of Catcher chapters. the story here is not. Well, barring some references to things also referenced in Catcher such as Kenneth's/Allie's death. This one's not even narrated by Holden, rather by Vincent/DB. I don't think too much can be read in to the story, as in terms of Caulfield canon (it's not just Dr Who that yaps on about that) the canon is Catcher, and nothing else. Well, until the purported book of Caulfield short stories comes out... yes, me too; I'll believe it when I see it. Bowling Balls should only really be seen as a work in progress. For one thing, unlike the other two, it was never published. But, it is a fascinating insight to the progression of the work done in advance of Catcher.

Now, can we get some actual proper published Salinger stuff; the stuff he'd been working on since 1965. 

And, please, we're in the 21st century now; Catcher in the Rye on Kindle now, please! :)

More tomorrow, hopefully...! 

"...this is the voice of fate..."

I guess I've been lax. I look at the last time I posted here, and really it's not good enough. I keep on thinking of things to post, but never quite get around to it. If only Google or Apple or one of these TV tech types could do a thing where you think words and they appear on your blog. You'd need some kind of code word to start it off, and another to end it, otherwise every single thought you had would appear on your blog. In a way that might be quite interesting, but I suspect that if every thought a person had were to work its way in to a blog it would make for very odd reading. 

So, I have to stick with typing up this stuff. At least a post a week from now on, I think... 

As it's New Year's Day, tradition dictates I should do a look back at things I liked and disliked in 2013;

As the last post, spoilers are encoded using rot13; got to rot13.com to decipher. They're not just random letters! :)

Likes;

The Walking Dead; both the TV show and the comic. The later of which I read every single issue of this past year, all 118 issues. What I like is that the TV show, although based on the comic, takes the basics of the comics and does its own thing, so that (for example) in the comics during his big attack on the prison The Governor pubcf bss Glerrfr'f urnq; whereas in the tv show it's Urefpury jub fhssref gur fnzr sngr. There were two episodes that really stood out for me, Clear; the episode where Rick, Glenn, and Michonne head off on a mission on their own. It's really just them (plus one other character) for the duration and it's a really powerful episode. 

The other one was the mid-season cliffhanger episode, which was an episode with events in it that many people thought would have been in the season 3 finale. It's one of those episodes that changes the direction of the entire show, and provides closure to one of its most memorable characters. Well, two of the show's most memorable characters. I also loved that the final shot of the episode was exactly the same as the last panel of issue 48.

Like I say, the comics give a flavour to what's coming, and 3 key comic characters are m,aking their debut in the back half of the season. And I'm *really* hoping there'll be an episode called "Fear The Hunters"... I'm also hoping at some point we'll get to see Negan (and Lucille!) in the TV show... but I suspect, as he doesn't make his debut until issue #100, we'll be talking, at the very earliest, a debut for him at the end of season 5 (or even the mid season cliffhanger of season 6)... Question is, will his debut have as much... impact? :)

South Park; a mixed season this year. The goth/emo episode was almost as bad as a towelie episodes, and the Game of Thrones/PS4/XBox trio of episodes was dragged out by at least one episode too many (though the final payoff joke at the end was inspired!). But, this season did have one of it's very finest episodes yet. And it was surprising...

One of the main criteria for a South Park episode is generally how offensive Cartman is during the episode. Or, how offensive the episode is as a whole, leaving you saying "I can't believe they did that!" (see also; Boyle, Frankie.). However, the last episode of the season, called "The Hobbit" had almost no Cartman in it. and had very little in it that could cause offence. There's a girl in the cheerleading squad called Lisa Berger, who lacks elan and style and is thought of as fat and ugly. Through a series of events, a picture of her is Photoshopped to make her look more attractive, and all of a sudden because of this altered image, she is suddenly popular. Then, all the other girls get pictures photoshopped, and they are all popular. Despite their actual appearances being exactly the same as before; only Wendy resists.

The whole theme of the thing is handled so very well indeed; the manipulation of images to create an artificial impression that people cannot live up to. The boys here are shown as very shallow indeed, only liking the girls once they have their altered pictures being more drawn to the pictures than the real girls. Wendy is ostracised for not following the pack. And, I tell you the final scene of the episode is just heartbreaking. When the episode ended I was dumbstruck. I was expecting some final gag, some final thing to lift the mood at the end, but no... quite wonderful indeed. 

And, looking at the clock (I said clock), it's getting late, so I'll do more of this tomorrow.

"...things were different then..."

[Just a quick point of order before I start this post; there are many spoilers contained within this post, but all are encoded in rot13; to decode, copy encoded text and paste at rot13.com. Anything unencoded is spoiler free, but encoded text contains MASSIVE spoilers, so please only read if you've seen the show, or don't mind reading spoilers. And, believe me when I say MASSIVE, I mean it... ]

In Australia, a TV show called Wentworth has just finished airing its first season of 10 episodes. It's a modern remake/re-image/re-whatever of the classic women behind bars show, Prisoner; Cell Block H (although in Australia, and other territories it was just called Prisoner). I guess a quick way of comparing PCBH to Wentworth would be like comparing original Battlestar Galactia with the remake of that. 

Wentworth is certainly a heck of a lot grittier than PCBH; there's f-bombs galore, nudity, sex scenes, and some quite nasty violence. (If I were being a lazy comedy slag, I'd say here "...and that's just the screws!") It essentially takes the original and beefs it up. 

There's a host of characters from the original show also in the remake (I counted 9; of which 5 were screws and 4 were prisoners). Notable changes have been made to many of the characters, though, in several cases very little beyond the name to link them with their original counterparts. I reckon if you showed a clip of most of them to someone who'd seen all 692 PCBH episodes, they'd have a hard job telling you who they were. 

But that's mostly not a bad thing, though, as it gives the new show an identity of its own. Frankie Doyle here remains a lsebian, and is prone to moments of violence (she's vying for the position of top dog with... well, I'll come to her later...); but pretty much every other aspect of her character is new. New Frankie doesn't get to tell Vera Bennett her new nickname, for one thing! 

And Vera... Vera, what have they done to you? New Vera is actually a great character, but I can't help but wish she was a new, original, character as she bears no resemblance to the original. Here, she's a quite shy, nervous, individual who doesn't have anything like the authority of PCBH Vera. It's not that there's anything wrong with her character, but she ain't Vinegar Tits...

The whole show, really, spins around Bea Smith, as the whole thing starts with her arrival inside. One of the main arcs of the show is Bea learning to acclimatise to life inside. This isn't the battle hardened Bea of the original who's top dog, and not afraid to push her weight around. She has a real hard time of it inside, finding the whole experience bewildering. She's our viewpoint character, the one who has all the Basil Exposition stuff explained to her, so that we can understand the rules of the prison. Initially, I had my doubts about her, but as the season drew on and things started to happen to her I really warmed to her. 

But, overall, the feel of PCBH was mostly absent. I say mostly, as there was one notable character that was very PCBH, and somewhat ironically she was the biggest character not based on someone from PCBH. She is Jacs Holt, and she's the top dog. 

Jacs is very much cut from the same cloth as the "baddy" top dogs of PCBH. She's in for murder, and the wife of some big crime boss. She really runs the roost, and if you cross her, you know it. The bitter rivalry between Jacs and Frankie just lit up the screen; especially when Jacs insists on calling her Francesca, which you can tell Frankie hates. Sometimes one gets the upper hand, sometimes the other, and sometimes the violence... strewth.

The show does use some key plot points from the original show, although most of it is original plotlines. One very notable original plot point comes early on, and is clearly done as a massive statement of intent.

Va rcvfbqr bar bs obgu fubjf gurer'f n svtug gung trgf bhg bs unaq naq gheaf va gb n evbg. Va CPOU, Zrt'f uhfonaq vf xvyyrq qhevat gur evbg. Jragjbegu unf n evbg, ohg qbrf vgf bja guvat; nyy gur juvyr guebhtu gur evbg V unq n srryvat gung gurl jbhyq qb fbzrguvat enqvpny, naq V gubhtug... jung jbhyq or gur zbfg enqvpny guvat gb qb? V pbaivaprq zlfrys gurl jrer tbvat gb xvyy Orn Fzvgu. V jnf jebat. Gurl xvyyrq Zrt Wnpxfba. Zrt... yvgrenyyl gur bayl punenpgre va CPOU gb ynfg nyy gur jnl sebz svefg gb ynfg rcvfbqrf bssrq va gur svefg rcvfbqr. Vs rire gurer jnf n jnl gb fnl "jungrire lbh guvax lbh xabj, lbh'er jebat..." gung jnf n grkgobbx rknzcyr bs ubj gb qb vg. 

Gurer'f n pbhcyr bs bgure zbzragf va gurer gung ner fbzrjung fubpxvat, gur rcvfbqr jurer Qroovr Fzvgu qvrf vf whfg fb urnegoernxvat (lbh pbhyqa'g uryc ohg ubcr gurl'q yrg ure yvir), juvpu frgf va zbgvba n frdhrapr bs riragf gung yrnqf gb Orn zheqrevat Wnpf. Guvf vf nyy pyrneyl trggvat gb gur fgntr jurer Orn'f tbvat gb znxr n zbir gb gnxr bire nf gbc qbt qhevat gur frpbaq frnfba.

And a second season has been commissioned. It'll be interesting to see if any other PCBH characters pop up; Lexie Patterson was name checked in one episode, so I was expecting to see her, but she never appeared. 

Most intriguing, though, is the teaser poster for season 2 that's very recently been released showing a close up of a pair of hands; one of which is pulling a black leather glove on to the other...

I've got just one thing to say to the Wentworth people; don't fuck up The Freak. She has to be the most corrupt, bent, screw in the place, and she has to be perfectly cast. 

"...I liked him best in the play..."

The regular reader of this blog will recall a good while back a review of a production of Hamlet with a unique twist, fusing said Shakespeare play with the stylings of The Catcher in the Rye. Well, the director of this production of Hamlet, Gavin Leigh, has been at it again, only this time the twist was Naked Shakespeare...

...actually, it wasn't; but I figure the more I mention that idea, the sooner someone will run with the ball. And in the case of the Shakespeare play produced this time, given that it contained the line "My naked weapon is out" it would have fitted entirely with the play. But, I digress... (what else would you expect?!?)

The production this time was Romeo and Juliet fused with Alice in Wonderland, and the conceit here worked very well indeed. Here we have a Juliet, blooming in to womanhood where she enters this wonder land of love and romance as she meets her White Knight, Romeo. Everything is strange, and new, and it's such a joy to experience it all. Thus, the performance must get over this sense of wonder, and I have to say that Eleanor Massam managed to capture this just so... wonderfully. I really believed in this Juliet, that she was so in awe of the new things she was experiencing, as she drew closer to her Romeo. The scene where they first met was spellbinding, as they exchanged looks, and slowly edged together... I was never anything other than completely entranced by her performance. 

Matt Young's Romeo played off her with just the right note of heroic stoicism. There wasn't as much of a sense of wonder from him, but then there probably shouldn't be (as the notion of Alice is that it's her experiencing the wonder, whereas to all else it's normal). The performances  complemented each other very well. 

And I have to mention the balcony scene, probably the most iconic scene in the play... it was a very brave directorial decision to do the scene, erm, without a balcony, but it worked really well. The pair of them were in each other's arms, sharing a tender moment, and it just felt right. 

However, when it comes to Romeo and Juliet, I'm in agreement with Holden Caulfield...

Mercutio, ah, Mercutio... he was styled as the Mad Hatter, and very appropriate this was indeed. We got here an exuberant performance from Ant Henson, which was so full of life. He strutted his way across the stage, stealing scenes all over the place place when he wasn't the focus, and owning the stage when he was (oh, the Queen Mab speech...). Whether this was intentional or not, I don't know, but I got a real sense of the Ford Prefect (TV version) from his performance; the guy who'd rather go to a party than save the universe... 

So, when he does die it's all the more sad... he was so suave he even put his hat back on head after it fell off... 

I think the one real criticism I'd have of the production is that its aims were possibly a bit over ambitious for the budget available. There was the occasional character who I couldn't work out what the Alice in Wonderland equivalent was, as some outfits were a little generic. But, really, this is small potatoes.

The play was edited down quite a bit, which didn't have any negative impact on the play at all. Shakespeare fiddled with his plays all the time, so there's no reason why a contemporary performance shouldn't follow suit. 

The only time any of the cast are out of Alice garb is at the end of the play, when Romeo buys poison from the apothecary. Here he's in an ordinary suit. We're about to get to the end of the story, wonderland will be left behind, and we plummet closer to the tragic ending. 

There's a whole host of other things I could say; I could list all the cast and say how great they were, but that could get a bit boring (although I have to give a quick nod here to Jack Wilson's performance as the Prince; such great regal nonchalance), and it would be more shopping list than review. I don't recall a singe duff performance. 

I understand that the director's next production will be King Lear fused with the TellyTubbies... the scene where Tinky Winky has his eye gouged out will be a sight to behold. Well, it's either that or Naked Shakespeare...! :)

"...you eat your cutlery instead of your food..."

Now, I'm not the most fashionable of types, but as the weather hots up yet again I see the same sort of things going on whilst walking around town. So, here are some fashion tips that, frankly, if I notice should be blimmin' obvious to all... yet, somehow they are not...

Ladies; if you want to wear a pair of those shorts that are cut in such a way they show of the lower part of your bottom don't pull them down over said bottom every few seconds. After you've taken a couple of steps they'll rise up, and you'll be pulling them down again. I would humbly suggest if you don't want any part of your bottom to show, you should not wear such shorts. Shorts which offer proper bottom coverage are widely available. (See also; short skirts. If you're spending all your time pulling down your skirt; it's too short for you. Wear a longer skirt.)

Gents; sandles with sock are never acceptable. Ever. Wear one or the other, but not both. Even sandals with really horrible toenails are better than sandals with socks. If you are so attached to your socks that you must wear them; wear them with shoes. 

Ladies; if you are wearing those leggings that are so thin they're indistinguishable from tights, be aware that everyone can see your knickers. Everyone. At least make sure said knickers are complementary to the colour of your leggings. Wearing white leggings with (for example) neon pink knickers only goes to alert the world to the fact you're wearing neon pink knickers. Oh, and unless you tuck them in we can also see the labels on your knickers. 

Gents; whilst walking around town, wear a shirt (or at least a vest; you'll look like Bruce Willis, at least!). You may like to show off your six pack, although it's often more a keg, but we really don't need to see it. 

Ladies; if you are wearing clothing with writing on it, expect it to be read. The sole purpose of a  piece of writing is for it to be read; even if said writing is a single word, or a short phrase, printed across your t-shirt. No, chances are we are not looking at your boobies; we're reading the words on your t-shirt that happen to be written across your boobies. If you do not wish people to look at the words on your clothing, don't wear clothing with words on it,. 

Gents; the waist band of your trousers should be positioned in such a manner it is above your buttocks. Wearing your trousers halfway down your arse makes it look like you can't find clothes that can fit you, and makes you look a fool. At the most, a glimpse of the waistband of your pants above your trousers is acceptable; any more is not. 

Ah... now I know how Gok Wan feels...! :)