172. To Be Continued...
As if to rather scarily continue on from things I was talking about yesterday and today; Liam raved on about ‘These Storeys’, and I went and saw The Spiderwick Chronicles.

First things first; I’m happy! Liam was raving on about ‘These Storeys’ and how he’d love to do it as a film as well, so suddenly my mini-laziness-cum-depression is gone. Gone! And it’s all because, I suspect, I rang him on the phone, rather than talking to him over MSN. MSN is great, it really is, but gosh, it’s impersonal. And for two guys that rarely use for emoticons apart for with ironic effect, it’s even more impersonal and hard to discern. We know what we both mean, of course, and there’s never really misunderstandings because we have a bigger bond than most, but yikes, it’s still irritatingly emotionless. It’s like talking to a Cyberman.

Not that I’d know, I suppose. And Liam doesn’t actually say “Excellent” all that often.


173. Aragog Chronicles
The Spiderwick Chronicles; I went to see this basically on the grounds that reviewer-in-the-paper James Joyce had made the claim that it’s “better than the Harry Potter films”. I was intrigued as to whether this could be true. And no, I didn’t research to find out his name (remember? Me no research, although I do seem to be crappily quoting that far-too-oft-used “I don’t speak English” variation), it’s just that I’ve read the paper for yonks and remember it. So.

So, it’s not as good as Harry Potter... in my view. But here’s the thing; I can actually see why it could be seen as better in other peoples’ eyes, and for me to make that admission means that it’s rather good. No, damn good. I like Lord of the Rings, and A Series of Unfortunate Events, and yet this shites all over them. It inhabits a filmic experience in a way that the seemingly-endless book adaptations of late (fantasy, I mean. And yes, I’m including The Golden Compass here) just haven’t. Which amuses me, because until Nina told me after the film, I didn’t actually realise it was based on a book. Yep, that’s how good it is. I mean, you could probably reasonably garner that it would be based on the trends of kids’ fantasy films at the moment, but really, it matters as much as finding out that Psycho is based on a book if you didn’t know that beforehand. Because – and I’m not slagging the book off here – it doesn’t matter. It works so well as a film that it really doesn’t matter.

Not that I’m suggesting Spiderwick is as good as Psycho, mind you.

But rather than reminding me of endless fantasy films of late, it reminded me of some unexpected sources. For one, conventional horror; the whole “stuck in a house” base-under-siege thing (which manifests literally at the end, but is present throughout the whole film due to the presence of the circle). Then there was elements of Home Alone in the way that – well, it’s a house under siege, but also – traps were set and the kids had to rely on ingenuity (despite having a sword!). And then, finally, it also reminded me heavily of Jumanji, though I’m buggered if I can work out why. It’s not to do with the story or style or anything, though the finding-out-more-about-the-book storyline does work similarly to the we-keep-playing-and-the-stakes-just-get-higher storyline of Jumanji. I think the main reason it reminded me of Jumanji though is that, like that film, it simply sits in a place where few kids’ films do; in a standalone section of isolated brilliance. You can pinpoint influences, and it’s based on a book, that’s true, but it really does inhabit its own world perfectly well thank-you-very-much.

Mind you, I did think the ending was a bit too happy. Considering the teeth-marks and suicide references earlier in the film, I thought that a bittersweet ending was going to occur instead, but nope. Pity, really, but never mind.


174. Splat!
Other reasons why it was really good? Well, two. The first - and more obscure - is that this resolutely is a Nickelodeon film, as it proudly says in the opening credits. Nickelodeon, for me, has at its core symbolised one thing for me, and that is: “SPLAT”. A gooey splat at the screen; a disgusting bit of grossness thrown at the viewer. Ren and Stimpy, Rocko’s Modern Life... those shows exhibit the Splat factor, because they’re resolutely Nickelodeon. And for me that’s what they are at their best. Even Rugrats had splats – in its credits, too! Unlike Disney and Dreamworks, which have gone from far-too-clean pure worlds to basically gratuitous fart jokes (Pixar’s mainly responsible for that, as much as I like them), Nick has had it from their breakout, and unlike the others, they never seem to be throwing these in to appeal to the kids – the Splat factor works because the worlds in which these Splats happen are inherently gross. Just check out the difference in style for the CGI in Spiderwick and, say, Pixar’s new upcoming feature Kung Fu Panda, and you’ll see what I mean. Trolls and snot and goo, oh my!

(Mind you, Nick is capable of going overboard with the Splat factor; that game show where they pour goo over people really does feel gratuitous. I can’t exactly pinpoint why, mind you, but it does)

And it’s so gross and foul a world, that a bunch of trolls cut off from saying “Oh shit” before an explosion isn’t a big naughty adults only moment, it’s just part of what happens, in the same way that the Slitheen’s cut-off “Oh bollocks” is resolutely Doctor Who because it’s just such a barmy thing to happen. Despite it being odd, I can perfectly accept trolls saying “shit” in Spiderwick because that’s just what Nick aim for, in the same way that I can accept that Spongebob watches jellyfish porn channels, Rocko gets caught in a big hippo’s cleavage, and Heifer carries sausages around in his pockets. It’s just part of the experience. But a phallic gag in Kung Fu Panda, for instance, isn’t going to go down well.

Speaking of which, that film really does look dull, and it’s not the casting of Jack Black that makes me think that either (maybe Pixar should make a Tenacious D film?); it seems to me that the creators have decided that the wonderfully lush Eastern scenery (and god yes, it is, it looks fantastic) is enough, that the oriental feel immediately makes this film different to their others, and that the plot really doesn’t matter. I’m judging from the preview, of course, but it really does look completely forgettable to me. At least their other scheduled film, Wall-E (or whatever it’s called), looks like it’ll have some measure of vague originality to it, if only because it’s not pointing to its subject matter and saying, for instance, “Panda bears! Kung fu! Isn’t that awesome?” Oh yes, but you need more than that. Heck, even the poster I saw screamed “Get ready for awesomeness” at me. Yes, I’m aware that it’s probably meant to be ironic, but parody doesn’t immediately make something worthwhile either.


175. Kids and Likeability
Oh yeah, the second reason. Well, it’s linked into the main kid, so I’ll just say this first off; dude, I forget your name, but you really are a great actor. Along with the kid from ‘The Family of Blood’ (who, I believe it’s been said, will be playing Tintin...?!) and Dakota Blue Richards in The Golden Compass (regardless of the film itself), I’m greatly enjoying the wealth of talent in kids’ films these days. Say one thing for Spiderwick over HP; it certainly didn’t take its key actors as long to actually act perfectly convincingly. The kid from Spiderwick isn’t the bland non-presence of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that I remember (which of course is the story’s fault; I don’t remember the Charlie in Willy Wonka either, and it seems to me that the other kids are designed to be the memorable ones), or in fact don’t-really-remember – he’s a genuinely good actor who can play two parts, so well that it wasn’t until halfway during the movie that Nina asked, “Hold on, is that the same actor?” The direction helps too, but he really does make the characters quite distinct.

And this leads me on to what’s so great about the film; the main character’s a twat! Yeah, okay, divorce, he has issues, fair enough. But he’s not angsty from them. He’s just a twat. He lies for the hell of it, he’s reckless, he bangs a car with a stick, he tells his mum that he hates her, and he’s just generally irritating. I’d hate to be in the room with a kid like him. And guess what? He’s great! He’s quite simply the best main character in a fantasy film that we’ve had since... well... Harry Potter himself (okay, Lyra too, but Lyra’s brilliance didn’t extend to the entire film and was mostly condensed to her brilliant debut scene). I’m not suggesting that prats immediately make more engaging leads, but hell, they make more immediately interesting leads, and more importantly, more realistic leads. Look, Simon’s a great character too - a well-researched little boy who’s incredibly dull, and that makes him great. But he’s great because the main character is, in contrast, a dickhead. If the roles were reversed, the film would lose a hell of a lot (and probably wouldn’t be a Nick film – Harriet the Spy is another example of one of their films with a fairly unlikeable lead, despite Trachtenburg’s likeable performance). It’d lose its, well, charm. Because the thing is – and this is just my view of course – adult films get away with likeable characters as leads because, well, the world around them generally isn’t. It’s fair to say that nice people, whilst they definitely come first at times, they also fail in other parts of life, and adult films are often brilliantly blunt in showing us where generosity, niceness, kindness, and general likeability, can fail as well as succeed in life. But you often can’t get away with being so depressingly and cynically direct in kids’ films, so nice characters end up being heroic and flawless. Which is, well, boring; I’ll even take stock villainy over that.

That’s why, then, a lot of the best childrens’ stuff, for me, has often had unlikeable lead characters. Not all the time, mind you – my love of Rugrats prompts me to mention it, and all of the kids in that are cute (though I mean, it is a show about babies, so what do you expect? But Tommy’s parents and Chuckie’s dad are the nicest, actually, and they’re nowhere near as successful or well-off as Phil and Lil’s) – but mostly. Here’s a secret reason why I’m not looking forward to Prince Caspian. It’s the chief, main reason. It’s not because I’m sick of epic fantasy films. It’s not because I feel they’re barstardizing another “childhood classic”. It’s because the leads are... yes they are... boring! Utterly dull, noble, freakishly bland nothings! It wouldn’t be so bad if Edmund was still vaguely unlikeable, but after redeeming himself in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which works well within the boundaries of that book/film, he’s destined to be as dull as the other three forevermore. The problem with Prince Caspian as a book is that the four leads have nothing new to offer; we can no longer see the wonder through Lucy’s eyes, and we can no longer get treachery from Edmund, because all four are homogenised nobility and are as boring as one of the Queen’s visits to Australia. The four of them don’t fight their way through the book so much as travel on horses and wave regally at their subjects.

And as for Caspian... ugh. Bland pretty boy is only going a step towards my hatred of this character. He’s everything you expect a prince to be; that is, nothing. You know how with Will and Harry, you’re supposed to get excited about details like “I saw a kangaroo in Australia!” or, more appropriately to this rant, “I’m going to fight in a war!”, and you just can’t because you didn’t believe they had personality in the first place? Similarly, I couldn’t give a toss as to whether Caspian succeeds or loses in Prince Caspian because he doesn’t even really exist; he’s a plot point rather than a character. Yikes, I hate him. It wouldn’t even be so bad if he was contrasted with someone else interesting, but there is nobody interesting in the book. At least The Horse and his Boy had the forerunner to Donkey from Shrek (as evidenced by the name of the book itself, which shows off the sidekick more than the boring main character).


176. Naaa-na, na-naaaa-rnia
And it’s no coincidence, then, that my favourite book of all of them is Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Why? Because of Eustace Scrubbs! Right from the opening chapter we’re introduced to what would now be called a Draco Malfoy type, except brilliantly we see much of the story through his eyes. He’s a selfish little arsehole who steals water, hates talking rats, thieves gold and even enjoys watching fat people run. He’s a sadistic little cunt, and therefore a brilliant character.

Though of course, his redemption in that book doesn’t do him any favours for the succeeding books - and yes, he’s a bit boring (though thankfully, still more interesting than the Pensieve children) in The Silverchair (interestingly, considering the name, Eustace’s character development reminds me much of Daniel Johns’, from fairly interesting little shite to rather dull adult). But thankfully we’ve got Puddleglum along for the ride, a character who complains and moans the entire time, and therefore makes the world really come alive. Because, to throw to the real world, if you go through an entire day and realise that not a single person has made the slightest complaint throughout, then something really has gone amiss, and you’ve been living in a disturbingly fake delusion the whole time. If the marshes are wet, you tell ‘em they’re wet! If the giants are shit scary, you turn on your heel and run! You go, ‘glum!

Of course, by the time of The Last Battle, we’re not just sick of the unchanging Narnia (despite time apparently going really fast; gee, do they not have trends and cultural movements, then?), we’re sick of the characters brought back. Eustace really is useless here, and the return of the other children isn’t a cause for celebration so much as a kick in the teeth. Personally I’m glad they all buggered off to heaven, the place where nothing bad ever happens and you spend eternity dancing with boredom. Indeed, when the children darkly pronounced that Susan was interested in things like lipstick and parties, guess what? I wished I was with her! Pregnancy and drugs and binge drinking and shit everywhere... it may not be that original, but god it’d be more interesting! Take me with you, Susan! Pleeeease! I could live ever so happily with you.

Now that’s heaven, Aslan.

Mind you, this does make me realise that Anna whatever-her-name-is really is perfect casting for Susan in a way I hadn’t even imagined before; of course she’s going to be obsessed with her lips and lipstick, because they’re bloody huuuuuge!

Though not, admittedly, as big as Ms Browning’s.

Sorry, why am I talking about lips? Christ. Er, I mean, Aslan.

So. To wrap up. Spiderwick = worth seeing. Honest. I mean, it’s a Nick film. How can you resist?


177. Cole a Tank
I do seem to have a rather strange way of linking images to sounds in my head, you know. I won’t go too heavily into it, cos that’d be dull and an example of “Hey look, I’m different!” (which anyone who says so invariably isn’t, not in the sense that they mean it*), but here’s an example; I’m listening to ‘#1 Crush’ by Garbage (not of my own choosing, of course; it’s just come up on iTunes, that's all. Mind you, it’s still one of the few songs of theirs I actually like), and my image is not of Shirley Manson singing, but Christina Cole. Which does rather strange things to me.

Though I suppose it at least makes sense, whereas me picturing Tim McInnerny as the secondary guitarist of Rammstein really just doesn’t. Unless it’s some bizarre extended Blackadder fan fiction where Captain Darling, after the last scene of ‘Goodbyeee’, ran off to enemy lines and managed to enter the enemy base where, much like Blackadder’s plan in that-one-with-Flash, he allows the Germans to assimilate him into their society and eventually joins Rammstein. And collaborates with Leni, leading to the eventual ‘Raped’ video.

Um... or perhaps not?

*By which I mean – just to clarify this – that they’re different in the sense that everyone is different. Unfortunately, whilst the phrase “everyone is different” is a great phrase for diffusing, as Ian Chesterton would say, “dislike of the unlike” (mind you, I’ve no idea if it’d actually work), it is, for anyone aspiring for greatness who’s also not held much cop with the idea of racism in the first place, a rather depressing thought. Because if everyone is different, then by the same token, everyone is the same. Because “everyone is different” is a positive/negative phrase in itself, being all inclusive and then divisive in one. “Everyone”, you see.

Mind you, it’s nowhere near as depressing as “everybody in the whole wide world!”, which just brings back painful memories of Vanessa Amorosi. Who, I’ll note, hasn’t seemed to have had much success with her recent single... what was it called? ‘Respect Yo Mama’ or something? Christ, it sounds like the Church getting down wiv da kidz with the Ten Commandments.

Feel free to substitute your own witty “Ten Commandments in niggaz” language here, because I can’t be bothered, really. I just rather generously set up the joke for you, that’s all.


178. Doctor Whoah! Series Four
...Having just mentioned Tim McInnerny, it’s probably a good time to – In a manner similar to Lawrence Miles, I’ve just disturbingly realised – look through this handy “What’s coming in Series Four?” thingo that DWM has (no, it’s not actually called that, because they’re far more capable of coming up with amusing and interesting titles than I am. Except for Doctor Whoah!, which would be easy to beat. Uh... Doctor WHY! See? I should be writing that mag, not them) and throw in a few comments, pre-me-watching-Series-Four, about how it’s looking.

(Just a point... in this issue’s Doctor Whoah!, there’s a joke about the “And duck!” moment in ‘Blink’. Disappointingly perhaps, the resolution is to simply show a duck, rather than to show my I-think-it’s-rather-clever-actually joke about the duck being a sign of Russell T Davies’ [supposed] gay agenda. But I suppose that would fly over the kiddies’ heads [though ducks don’t fly that gracefully, so the kids might notice]. Either way, the duck – which is weeping [over the fact that I didn’t write the joke] – says, in response to the Angel’s “BOO HOO! LET’S GET HER!”; “YEAH! SOB...”. Now, I’ve written it like that because, of course, comics are always written in capitals [well, mostly], but it rather does remind me of Jack Deakin, and the use of capitals actually seems to be suggesting that the duck is calling Carey Mulligan “Son of a bitch”. Which is rather unsporting of it. A good sport I recommend to it, in return, is duck hunting. Tis the season to shoot queers. “Queers” being a euphemism for “ducks”, of course*)


179. ‘Partners in Crime’
Doesn’t that title seem a bit like Russell’s taken the “keep ‘em peeled, Lewis” stylings of ‘Fear Her’ and decided that the Doctor and companion should be portrayed as linked to the law all of the time? Mind you, if those stories truly work in the way I’ve just described, we could basically swap the titles around; in that sense, ‘Fear Her’ actually warns us to be wary of... well, you know. The red bombshell.

Cribbins! That’s to be said as if it's an exclamation of surprise, by the way. Like Steve Irwin’s “Crikey!” “Cribbins!” I’m expecting the Doctor to yell that out in shock when he comes across Wilfred Mott (what a terrible name!) in ‘The Sontaran Stratagem’. He’s even listed as a “regular” of the series, which is a tad strange, but I’d be interested in where this is going. I’m suspecting that he’s actually not an alien or a spy for UNIT/the government/the royals at all, and is really just some bum who hears Donna’s tales of the Doctor’s adventures and decides to follow him around, which means we get an entire season of ‘Love & Monsters’, except, to appease the fans who disliked ‘Love & Monsters’, there won’t be any silliness or fat monsters, no, no! Instead, there’ll be the very-much preferable proliferation of such bummy adventures as stealing food from bins, injecting himself with used needles, and vomiting over himself as he sleeps. Cribbins! What a wonderful adventure! I suggest that Russell immediately dub this season the ‘Love & Mottsters’ arc.

Incidentally, since he’s a bum, and we know that Cybus’ cronies pick up bums in ‘Rise of the Cybermen’ to be converted except that was an alternate universe story so it’s feasible that the Daleks did that with the Robomen in ‘The Dalek Invasion of Earth’, and that when Dr Who and his companions turned up then Bernard Cribbins assimilated himself with the Robomen, and there’s a tenuous link for you! Um, wait. Forget it. That’s too stupid, even for me. Maybe, then, Wilfred Mott is the bloke from ‘Horror of Glam Rock’ who, after the Children of Tomorrow left the Tomorrow Twins, realised he had two untalented Irish tossers on his hands (although one was Clare Buckfield, and you’d be mad to get on her bad side because she’s impossibly gorgeous. Why isn’t she on TV more often?) and threw them out, was unable to find another star – not even Lucie’s aunt Pat – and became a street bum. In that sense, Donna talking to him about the stars reawoke in him the 70s and the-stars-who-never-made-it and, well, basically, the themes that Paul Magrs put into that story.


180. Mott Ado About Nothing
You know, I think I’m getting obsessed with Wilfred Mott. Cribbins! Maybe he’s the one in this mysterious Vault. To quote from Russell T Davies’ script for the-second-last-as-yet-unnamed-episode (which I’m certain will be called ‘Love & Mottsters’, or perhaps just a very simple, ‘Oh Cribbins! Oh My Giddy Aunt!’):

THE DOCTOR and DONNA wait as the door slowly wheels open. From the darkness, the fog, emerges a figure encased in black clothes, rugs wrapped around his body in an attempt to wave off the cold. He is a figure of pure evil, and he approaches DONNA.

MOTT
Got a light, luv?

DONNA
Oh, no you don’t.

MOTT
Why not, missy? I could light it on your 'ead, probably!

THE DOCTOR
Oh no... Cribbins!

MOTT
Hey, no need for that kinda language. I just wants me a fag.

THE DOCTOR
Oh, here, have a rubber ducky then.**

Sorry, I was supposed to be talking about ‘Partners in Crime’, wasn’t I? Well, anyway. Fat. Yeah, fat’s a good subject. A really good subject. A pity the companion isn’t Rose, because – NO I AM NOT CALLING BILLIE FAT, GEEZ! – Russell could have worked in a big thing about her chips obsession. Or Martha could have been all medical and patronising to fat people. Or the Slitheen could have attacked the facility on the grounds that they’d never again find any decent hosts. Though David Tennant, resplendent in black BAFTA suit, would make a great host.

*grins at awful pun*

Ah, sorry (I’m so sorry), reading this DWM thing properly for the first time, Mott isn’t a bum, he’s a newspaper vendor. Which takes away a bit of his charm (I had assumed he was a bum based on the Series Four trailer). I immediately suggest all of his money is taken away. Hey, maybe the Doctor stealing money in ‘The Runaway Bride’ is the cause of his, because he was actually stealing money from Mott’s bank account? Maybe that’s why Mott is now a bum?

Ahh, the mysterious Mott. Far better than the Mysterious Mim.


181. ‘The Fires of Pompeii’
I’m certain that millions of fans have already made a poor, “More like, the fire is on Catherine Tate’s head...! LOL!” jokes, so I won’t.

It’s a tad disappointing, considering the “can we change history?” argument that (for once) seems to be being raised in this story (bet it won’t be in ‘The Unicorn and the Wasp’, which will end up being smug “look, history!” stuff in the vein of ‘The Shakespeare Code’. Ah, good old Gareth Roberts, eh? Attack of the Arse, more like), that it’s not a pure historical. Indeed, the eruption of Vesuvius is apparently caused by alien involvement, which irritates me; I’d rather the eruption had simply woken up these creatures hibernating in the core of the earth or something, and the creatures threatened both the Pompeiians and the TARDIS crew, and Donna wanted to help the Pompeiians, and the Doctor wanted to both not help them (so as not to change history) and to make sure they aren’t killed by the aliens (because that would also change history, in the sense that the skeletons found by archaeologists would have different markings). That would be complex and interesting. In fact, why have them be aliens at all? They could have, ala the Silurians, just been life-forms that humans hadn’t found yet. I’m all for sci-fi finding bizarre alien creatures, of course, because that’s what sci-fi does, but it’d be nice if we found bizarre Earth creatures instead. I mean, the ocean’s full of strange stuff we haven’t even tapped into properly.

Sorry, my mistake, they have found bizarre Earth creatures; Donna.

Alright, I’m being an arse. She’s alright, really. She has great potential.

Anyway. I might be willing to let this “they’re aliens” irk pass by if they’re not deliberately plotting it, and also, because in that trailer, they looked and sounded disturbing, yelling - as I now figure they must be yelling, though it was incomprehensible at the time – “FIRE FIRE!” Surely no smart beings would yell such dull and incoherent things?

Sorry, Donna, that’s right, yeah.

Again, I’m being an arse. More so than Gareth Roberts.

Also, Russell T Davies’ comment in The New Statesman – “I control the mothership. I say: ‘I want Pompeii, with rock monsters!’” – is a tad worrying if we’re supposed to take him literally. What, is he going to turn out to be the alien menace or something? In a staggering bit of postmodernism, I feel he should be represented, in a wink-wink nudge-nudge knowing way, as a massive, lava riding, rubber duck.


182. ‘Planet of the Ood’
Hey, one great thing about Series Four; apparently, we’re going to visit four alien planets. That doesn’t sound like much really, but after the... um... none of the previous three series (sorry, but New Earth, an asteroid in ‘The Satan Pit’ and a quarry pit in ‘Utopia’ don’t really count, do they? Well actually, ‘Utopia’ has evidence of a lost alien civilisation, so maybe...), it comes as a bit of a relief. Four! Four out of thirteen episodes, true, but at least the Earth based stuff – if what I’m theorising about the military and UNIT and Earth/alien interaction is true – sounds like it will be interesting too, in a way that Series Two’s voyages to the amazingly imaginative streets of London in 2012 simply weren’t.

By the way, regarding my obsession with the military and royalty’s involvement in Doctor Who (‘Tooth and Claw’ is the first we know of, of course, but surely the first on-screen mention of the royalty finding the Doctor quite trying is in ‘Silver Nemesis’?), it is interesting that Donna’s last name is "Noble". "Nobility", you see. Oh, alright, nobility and royalty aren’t really the same thing, but you can see what I’m getting at, can’t you? I don’t think it’ll be a plot point or anything – unlike my I-know-it-isn’t-true-but-it-could-be-interesting “Do you reckon Rose Tyler is actually a long lost barstard child of royalty?” theory, seeing as that would tie up the Bad Wolf thing, as well as explain why the alt-Rose is a dog! – but it could be some sort of metaphorical or allegorical thing. And before you think I’m being silly again, keep in mind that I must surely be the only fan whose genuine first thought about the choosing of the name “Mr Saxon” was down to it being a wholly and rather disturbingly British name rather than an anagram of the Master, and – it would seem – this was the same with Russell! I seem to be on RTD’s wavelength, actually; I guessed the return of UNIT, and the military theme (which surely is happening; Sontarans, UNIT, I mean, really). There’s been a lot of disturbing symmetry between the Doctor Who work of us both, actually; back in my DW13 Behind the Fan Fiction writing days, I noted, pre-Series Three, that Russell was going to an episode set in 1930s New York that contained “the Doctor’s oldest enemies”; I was worried that it meant “oldest” in the New Series, i.e. the Autons, and of course the DW13 story, ‘Grand Theft Auton’, was set in 1930s Chicago and featured Autons. So there you go!

Anyway, uh, the Ood. Well, as long as Tate doesn’t make crappy “ood/odd” jokes, I’ll be happy; surprisingly, I can’t see Donna doing it, even though she’s played by a rather unfunny comedian. Shows how awful Rose is, then. And to be honest, though it’s a bit over the top maybe, the “why are you calling me ‘mistress’?” line is far funnier than any “ood” jokes I’ve come across. Far funnier.

Like in ‘The Fires of Pompeii’, I must profess my slighest disappointment that the alien race are presented in a predictable way; in this case, it’s that the Ood are again easily evilified (what are they, Kamelion’s family?). But if we get enough background to the species, and a genuinely brilliant alien planet – and the Ood-Sphere really does sound cool and high concept, in a way that "New Earth" just doesn’t – then I’m pumped for it. Mind you, I do sort of wish Russell was writing it, because he’d be good at fleshing it out; but then, I’ve no knowledge of anything written by this Keith Temple bloke, so he could be really good. At the very least, considering the fairly-tacked-on religious themes of ‘The Satan Pit’, he at least has an appropriate name.

Oh, just reading; it’s an ice planet. Most likely, the fire/ice contrast is – whilst being perhaps the oldest contrast in fiction, ever – a realisation and extension of little Tintin’s – uh I mean Tim Latimer’s – very-Cornell “he’s like fire and ice” line in ‘The Family of Blood’. Or, if we’re to take the “Catherine Tate has fire hair, LULZ” joke and treat it seriously, perhaps – due to her personality and hair and such – she really is the fire, whereas the Doctor is cold and calculating? It’s like a metaphorical version of the Seventh Doctor and Mel, almost.

Also, DWM says of Tim McInnerny’s appearance in this episode that he “appeared regularly as both Lord Percy and Captain Darling in the various series of Blackadder in the 1980s. Hip-hip-huzzah!”. Huh? Since when did his characters, let alone anyone in a series of Blackadder, say “hip-hip-huzzah”? I don’t even remember Stephen Fry saying it!


183. ‘The Sontaran Stratagem’/Whatever-Five-is-Called
Yes, I know that episode five’s title has actually been released, but it’s not in these pages and I don’t have access to the internet and... oh, I know. I’m just whinging.

Right, well; I don’t have much to say about this, because I’ve bleated on about the military stuff enough, most likely, but I will say that Russell said a line of dialogue in this story featured (unless it’s been changed, he admits) the words “Code Red”. If that’s not military, I don’t know what is.

Wait a minute, going by Steven Moffat’s logic, will that mean that the Sontarans will see the Code Red and immediately start dancing to that “Everybody dance now!” song? No, of course it wouldn’t, silly me; because going also by Steven Moffat, dancing means sex, and we all know that the Sontarans can’t have sex.

Speaking of sex, Helen Raynor (oh alright, I’m joking! I’m not Lawrence Miles, after all) is writing this one, and I have high hopes. One, because she treated military themes quite well in her Torchwood episode ‘To the Last Man’; two, because ‘Ghost Machine’ is still utterly brilliant; and three because, no matter how wrong and silly it may have seemed to write the Daleks in the way she did, hell, at least she knows how to write monsters interestingly. And personally, I’m far more willing to see the Sontarans’ jock qualities made fun of more than the Daleks’ staginess. See: ‘The Two Doctors’.


184. ‘The Doctor’s Daughter’
I feel sorry for Georgia Moffett at the moment (who, by the way, Davison-look-alike-or-no-Davison-look-alike, really is bloody gorgeous). Because there’s so much riding on this. She’s Davison’s daughter! She’s the Doctor’s daughter in the show as well! Just look at that episode title! And if she ends up delivering anything but a faultless performance, I reckon she’ll be skinned alive by fandom (well, those members of fandom who aren’t captivated by her looks, of course, which, to be fair, will be a minority). Take a look at previous much-praised female stars in the show; Carey Mulligan’s performance as Sally Sparrow, and Sophia Myles’ as Madame de Pompadour... well, we weren’t actually expecting them, were we? They came as a complete surprise, which is why they’ve received lots of praise. Whereas take Martha, or Donna, or Rose, or Astrid; we’ve known about them in advance for ages, much is riding on their performances and/or writing, and the slightest misstep could ruin everything in some fans’ eyes.

Now, Moffett’s character isn’t a companion, but she bloody might as well be; she’s linked to the Doctor in a very special way (it seems; she probably actually isn’t), and as I said she’s Davison's daughter, and... oh, boy, I really wouldn’t want to be this girl right now.

Be with her, yes. But be her, no.

Hmm, which raises the question of, which girl would I like to be right now? I’ll have to think about that one. I’ll give you an answer at the end of this entry, I swear.

So anyway; this episode’s directed by Alice Troughton, who seems a dab hand at the tear-jerkers in Torchwood (not that, um, I actually cried in them) and going for the direct emotion, and therefore that seems to slightly indicate to me as to what way this’ll be heading (as well as the assertion made that this event will have “a real impact on the Doctor”... maybe we’re all barking up the wrong Rani’s-tree, though, and it’ll actually do something unexpected, like turn him into Peter Davison, or a woman). But the writer is Stephen Greenhorn, which worries me a tad; Helen Raynor’s lampooning of Broadway and cinema in ‘Daleks in Manhattan’ may not have been wonderfully clever, but it was still ahead of Greenhorn deciding to take the mad scientist cliche and actually bloody take it seriously. Yikes. Mark Gatiss or no Mark Gatiss, I really felt that that episode stunk.

Still, this episode’s already looking different and promising, and whilst it’s not a new idea – Miles pointed out that Parkin must be feeling pretty sad about now – it’s got to be interesting in some way. Surely.


185. ‘The Unicorn and the Wasp’
It’s got a wasp in it. And Agatha Christie. And Gareth Roberts jokes. Somehow, then, I think that’ll be it in a nutshell. Hey, I enjoy some of Roberts’ stuff, but he really doesn’t go for anything but “predictable”, does he?


186. ‘Silence in the Library’/This One’s Also Been Announced But Again I Don’t Have the Name in Front of Me
Steve Pemberton! In a Moffat script! Yikes!

Also, one of the other actors’ names is “Ot Fagbenle”, which is genuinely one of the most interesting and cool names I’ve seen since... well... Tish’s. As in, the actress. Gugu... something. I apologise, I can’t remember. I’m not racist, I’m just naieve.

Shadows, it seems. This episode is about shadows. *counts to ten* “Don’t mention ‘The Darkness of Cold Light’, Dom, don’t mention DW13, Dom, don’t... aarrrghgghghg” *counts to thirteen*


187. ‘Midnight’
It sounds spooky, of course, but brilliantly, Phil Collinson has said that it’s set in “sort of an intergalactic spa”. Ah, trust Russell T to do things differently. I’m envisioning that place in ‘Time and the Rani’, only, you know, good.

David Troughton’s in it. Somehow this news hasn’t exploded like the casting of Moffett has, presumably because a) he’s more experienced and we know more of his stuff, b) it seemed inevitable at one point anyway, and c) he’s simply not as fanciable.


188. Episode 11 (probably also released, this title. I don't even remember anymore)
I figure that this is the Doctor-lite episode, which is how Rose can get reintroduced quite smoothly. Apparently Tate gives a “towering” and “stellar” performance in this episode, which leads me to expect that she’s going to act like a space building. Oh, sorry, am I misinterpreting that?

Chipo Chung, the actress who played Chantho, is back in non-Chanto form. Though I’ll be disappointed if she didn’t say her character’s name over and over again like a demented Pokemon. Incidentally, her first name contains the word “chip”, and it’s therefore wholly appropriate that Rose should return in this story, then. Perhaps that’s what lures her out of the alternate universe.

Hmm, do wolves like chips? If not, that ruins my Bad Wolf theory. Bugger it. Perhaps they do in Doctor Who. Bats and vampires don’t, as ‘School Reunion’ showed us, but dogs and werewolves do.

Er, not that I’m suggesting Rose is a dog, in the literal sense! Er.


189. Episode 12/’Journey’s End’
The latter was the original – though never actually used – title for ‘Gridlock’, dontcha know. And no, that doesn’t mean New Earth is back, because Russell has said he’s done with that, and may instead use the 42nd century (‘The Satan Pit’, ‘42’. Hopefully he’ll somehow make it work this time, then!). Then again, he’s a compulsive liar, that one.

A lot of people have been speculating about this one, and its title. Death of a companion? Tennant regenerates? Personally – and to my surprise – I’m not at all intrigued about finding out, and am more intrigued about the development of the series arc, the military themes, and other things, far more than finding out what happens in the finale. Hmm, that really does feel strange.

Mind you, Mott just has to be in there somewhere. Please.


190. *Ducks...
If “duck” is really a euphemism of “queer”, we can have a lot of fun reinterpreting childhood things with innuendo and such, I suspect. But thinking about it, a lot of them are rather in the wrong place. For instance, Daffy Duck may make us giggle, but actually it was Bugs Bunny who was the, uh, bicurious one (I now vote that we call him Bicurious Bunny from henceforth. Okay, Warner Bros?). And speaking of “bros”, the original Super Mario Bros on NES came with a game called Duck Hunt, where you had to, uh, shoot ducks. This could be seen as a vicious homophobic-subtexted game, except if so then it’s, ahem, aiming in the wrong place; it is after all Super Mario Bros that has a rather distressing outbreak of moustaches and images of men seemingly happy to insert themselves into phallic images.

Princess Peach? Bah, Mario was never interested in the first place. Why do you think he deliberately went to the wrong castle so often? “Peach is in another castle!” therefore becomes a euphemism for, “I’m sorry, Mario, but Peach is probably in Daisy’s bed!”* That’s a tad strange though, because if any of the cast of the Mario games are quite openly gay, it’s little man Toad.

*My knowledge is lacking here; is Daisy Peach’s sister? If so, it’s not so much a case of lesbianism as incest. And, I think that’s enough for now; I’m beginning to sound like Dash, even if I am joking.

**Though of course I can stoop to making terrible euphemistic jokes that reference Sesame Street, it seems.


191. “191”? 99, more like.
Completely off-topic; I discovered, at my film-going experience, that they’re making a Get Smart movie. With Anne Hathaway. I think the appropriate response is, “Get Fucked!”


192. The Dom’s Daughter
...Actually, my question about being in the body of a girl – specifically an actress’ – reminds me of something. No, not Freaky Friday, and no, I really don’t want to be in either Jamie Lee Curtis or Lindsay Lohan’s body (the latter for obvious reasons. Enter your own comedy here). It’s because I was just discussing ‘I, Yin and My Yang’ ideas beforehand (which, when this text is thrown onto my blog, you won’t know), and that just seems rather appropriate. That’ll be meaningless to you now, but when that book is released – uh, years and years away – and you seriously have nothing better to do with your time, look back at this entry and smile with a newfound understanding. Serenity, man. Serenity. It’s like, peaceful, and a movie version of Firefly, man.

My answer? Um... oh, go on, then. Georgia Moffett for a day, I’ll be. Hooray!

*transforms*

155. Note: Okay, I'm Better Now, I Swear.
Views on things I skimmed over in the paper just a couple of minutes ago:


156. Graphic Libraries
Apparently libraries in the area are doing their best to incorporate graphic novels into their kids’ sections. Though the lack of anything adult being mentioned is a tad irritating, it’s still a good move. It’s barely going to change what the kids are reading, mind you, because I noticed some of the graphic novels on display were Artemis Fowl and The Babysitter’s Club (of all things – how to make something banal even more so? Illustrate it! And without a discernable Larisa Oleynik likeness*, the whole venture seems pointless to me). That said, a bit of emphasis was placed on the graphic novel Maus, which is, from what I can gather, a rodent reinterpretation of the Third Reich (probably called the Third Rat by crappy journalists who can’t let different species get in the way of a good joke. It’d seem strange to me, though, akin to making a black joke where the black man in question was white. Er, unless you were talking about Michael Jackson). So perhaps this will give kids some sort of unprecedented historical knowledge, or perhaps it won’t – how many kids actually care about the allegory of Animal Farm? ‘Sides, it’s the adults who are saying the books are popular, so you can’t exactly trust them.

I would quite like a sequel, though; Baumaus, a school of mice who were integral to the progression of art?


157. Of Mice and Nazis
Mind you, I’m unsure how far they go with representing the whole period through mice. Would Leni Riefenstahl’s film Olympia show buff mice running around treadmills? All I can say is, I’m very glad that it’s mice and not dogs; not only would a reinterpretation of Hitler’s holiday house make little sense, but the author could get away with showing Hitler nude with an explanation that it was a neutering operation gone wrong.

Some of the top Nazis’ declarations don’t make much sense when animalised, mind you; Hitler’s accusation that disabled people leech off Germany would have to surely be changed to “human off Germany”, and Goebbel’s suggestion that women should be “birds” also throws new light on Maus, suggesting that the women in fact become predators.

Indeed, I’d venture to suggest that the entire idea is flawed if you’re representing Nazi history properly. After all, the big reason why Hitler and the Nazis were able to so horribly suppress Jews – and this is why calling it “racism” is bland and very wrong – is because they turned them into animals. It wasn’t racism, it was pet abuse. But how would that work in Maus? What lower life-form, lower than mice, could Mouse-Hitler actually call the Jews?

(Of course, I’m being wildly pedantic about what is surely a very fun and stylish graphic novel. I’m doing it for fun, not because I genuinely think it’s stupid. I haven’t even read it, for god’s sake!)


158. *“Larisa Oleynik Likeness”...
*By which I mean, none of them were wearing hats to bed. And we all know that Larisa was unable to shred her hats until her twenties; before then, it’d been a massive growth that had shrunk as she’d grown older and – off-screen, since Alex Mack was cancelled – shed itself from her head at some stage. This isn’t as ridiculous as it sounds; she was hit by a vat of radioactive chemical, and you’ll note that whenever she turned into water, her hat and clothes morphed with her. Obviously the old "how could that work?” scientific flaw is actually negated here since the clothes in question are part of her body. So any fan watching Alex Mack and enivisioning her nude is unfortunately truly indulging in wishful thinking.

And of course, considering the generic representative colour of radiation, this gives new meaning to Alex Mack’s singing rendition of ‘Greensleeves’. On the other hand, if the sleeves are a part of her body, this is a tad disturbing and akin to her singing a song called ‘Blackpubes’.

...Why have I mentioned Adolph Hitler and Alex Mack being naked in this Journal entry?


159. The Big Bulkanana
The plans for the new-look Newcastle in time for, they reckon, about 2020. The main difference I can see is a park. Whoop-di-doo. Oh yes, there’s some new architecture there too, but it seems to me that the revamp is based more on aesthetics than functionality, and that seems pretty pointless to me. Coming from someone who’s into artistic qualities like me, that probably sounds like a strange statement, but it’s not; because, despite what they say about tourism opportunities, I don’t see why tourists would bother with the foreshore. Maybe the Bogie Hole, or the “Hey-that’s-where-the-Pasha-was” stretch of water ‘round Nobby’s, and maybe even the phallic obelisk that points to the stars. But as to why the foreshore should be a tourist destination, I don’t understand. I enjoy walking along there, but only as a means to get from somewhere to somewhere; I wouldn’t actually go there for the hell of it. Not even for that mini-lighthouse-like thingo (I’m not a kid anymore).

And the reason I’m not contradicting myself here is that Newcastle already is artistic, but I don’t see where architecture was ever its artsy side. The music and art scenes are pushed up as being far more prominent and worthy than they actually are, but they’re there, and if any money is to go into Newcastle, it should bloody well be for them instead. Yes, I’m talking selfishly here, but at the same time, how many tourists will know Newcastle for any of its current architectural landmarks? Clue: about as many Japanese tourists care about something called “the Big Banana” (and even that has an infamous quality to it that nothing in Newcastle does). But Newcastle is the place where Silverchair came from, for chrissakes! It’s already got a slightly famous bent to it, and yet we don’t utilise that. I don’t mean exploiting it, because heaven knows I’m sick enough of the Silverchair bandwagon as it is (not necessarily them themselves, though!), but pouring money into it so that more bands can come to prominence, and not just rock either.


160. Alcohol: It’s a Process, Michael.
And my last thing is something that was in the newspaper actually a few weeks ago, but I forgot to write about it then. In regards to binge drinking and measures to stop it, one of the ideas the government were apparently considering was following the cigarette packets’ lead and warning people on alcoholic bottles what they could be getting themselves into. Which is a rubbish suggestion; the reason why cigarette labels are in any way effective is because they’re disgusting, they’re graphic and, more than anything else, they’re inevitable. Oh yes, you hear about people who miraculously manage to stay healthy after years of cigarette smoking, but I sincerely doubt that smokers take up smoking with the view that they could be invincible. But plastering images of people binge drinking on alcohol surely makes the drinker go, “Ahaha, I’ve done that, and I’m gonna do that tonight!” and plastering images of people who’ve died from binge drinking is not only excessively morbid and boringly-school-information-week-quality, it’s also not going to work because there’s no inevitability to it. I’m perfectly aware of the risks and yet I don’t really drink unless I can get plastered, so the idea of anyone less rational than me being scared off by the images, or connecting the images to themselves, is even more ludicrous and unlikely.

...I’ve just realised that I managed to use “plastered” in two different ways in that paragraph without realising. Just pretend I meant to and that it was an extraordinarily clever pun, please. Please?


161. Partners in Time
To kick off my next argument (“And my next argument is...!” *drum roll, crappy flashy grin*), I was going to say something about, “As Saturday approaches...”. But of course, that’s blatantly stupid because Saturday was yesterday. The reason why that didn’t immediately occur to me is because I was about to talk about the anticipation of watching the first episode of Series Four of Doctor Who – ‘Partners in Crime’ – and since that began on Saturday, but since I haven’t watched it yet (and haven’t been on the net, so I’ve missed any potential backlashes – I’m sure there’s thousands of “Ok, she’s not that bad” or “Goddammit, kill Tate now!” threads on Outpost Gallifrey that have begun), it feels like it hasn’t aired yet. Even though it aired in Britain, not here, so my viewing of it wouldn’t be restricted to its air-time, but by its torrent-time (gasp! I mentioned torrents!).

So I’ll reshape that in my head a bit. “As torrent-time approaches...”

Forget it.


162. Tate-tastic
I was going to go on and make a big disclaimer about Doctor Who Series Four. In my Series Three review – which I mentioned here anyway, so don’t bother going onto Tds4a Tardis* and looking at it unless you’re incredibly sad – I said that I was vaguely excited about Series Four now that I’d worked out my own little theory about military forces. Well, the return of UNIT (as UIT – even the rebranding ties in to what I was saying) seems to have slightly confirmed where I was heading with that, and I’ve managed to not dance on the tabletops and declare that I was right (we don’t have tabletops anyway), apart from on the aforementioned “other blog”. But I haven’t done it on any forums yet, even those where I posted the theory before the announcement, so that’s me restraining myself in quite a surprising fashion.

But as torrent-time swings around (there we go!), I’m remembering my obvious dislike about the idea of Catherine Tate being cast as companion. Despite my intense hatred and completely OTT reactions a while ago – including my roar of frustration when I first read the news, which in retrospect was much like Elin’s in Fucking Amal – my overall reaction to it, since the news and even up until today, has been “wariness and disappointment”. Because though I hate the idea on one level, I can perfectly appreciate the virtues of it on another.

For instance – Martha may have been fun, but she’s hardly very interesting, is she? Whereas Donna is argumentative, and whilst I’m not going to suggest that that’s a more intelligent and groundbreaking way to script someone (yeah, right), it does provide a different dynamic, different to the Doctor/Rose one in nearly every respect. And so you see, on paper, ‘The Runaway Bride’ was actually a fun script in that regard. Oh, the plot was dull, as was the creature itself, and it was a bit too smug and self-important for its own good (though ‘Voyage of the Damned’ had even more of all of those elements, and hence, despite the lack of Tate, I think I find it even worse. Just not irritatingly worse), but the Doctor/Donna dynamic was fun – and moments such as the Doctor getting a slap for scanning her are not only well-deserved but really quite amusing. But I just didn’t like Catherine Tate’s portrayal at all; she was far too shrieky and over the top, and – this is a personal quirk, akin to my not being able to take Natalie Portman seriously – although I recognise that she was acting, and developed the character, I don’t actually engage with her at all. When watching Catherine Tate, I feel more like I’m at school watching a teacher self-consciously explain what comedy and acting are, rather than an actual comedian or actor being part of the show. She’s doing it, but she’s not convincing. Not for me, anyway.

But then, even that assertion isn’t entirely true; for instance, I thought her reminiscing of Lance-asking-her-out on the rooftops (the point where the story deliberately calmed down, and was hence the best bit by far) was well-done and genuinely funny, but I note that that’s because she’s playing it straight. There’s a twinkle in her eye, perhaps, but she’s still talking normally, and that’s far funnier than anything else she does in that entire show, as well as being better acted than anything else she does in that entire show.

Basically, I have a feeling that Series Four will be more of the same in that sense; there’ll be more time to calm down and allow her to flex herself convincingly rather than whackily. Much like, indeed, Tennant in Series Three as opposed to Series Two (and it’s got nothing to do with the light/dark tone of the show; I adored Tennant in ‘Love & Monsters’ for instance, and look how light and silly that was! Same goes for ‘Fear Her’. Whereas in the other Series Two eps, including the dark ones – ‘The Satan Pit’ – I didn’t really think much of him at all). So when a fan says to me, “But the dynamic is more fun and more interesting", I agree on principle, because on paper it definitely is – and I’m certain that the Doctor/Donna NSAs are going to be really fun to read (and hopefully it’ll mean that the books have to, simply by including such a loud character, steer away from bland horror). But when I actually watch the stories, I doubt that I’ll be able to get over the fact that it’s Catherine Tate because, well, I just don’t believe in her. I believe in Donna, but not in her. If anything, Donna is sabotaged by being Catherine Tate (like how Astrid was far less convincing than she could have been because, um, she was Kylie Minogue).

*It’s called “Tds4a Tardis”, and I know that may be technically wrong, but “Tds4a TARDIS” looks really stupid, doesn’t it? As if the latter part is more important, or something.


163. Context over Principle
But the reason I’m being as clear as I can on this is so that I don’t get mixed up with reactionary fans – the kind of fans who’ll just say “Donna is crap” and things like that. Because I don’t think that, but more importantly, I don’t treat my favourite show with such boringly direct and un-thought-out criticisms as that.

I guess it comes down to the “context over principle" argument that I’ve harped on about before (though bugger me if I can remember when, I’m afraid); that a principle is irritatingly linear, whereas context appreciates what’s going on at the time. So whilst the principle may be, “Do not kill”, the context is, “Unless...” And that “unless”, that qualifier, that link into some more complex point, is what makes debate, and what makes life, more interesting. In the same way, I may think that Catherine Tate’s show is really rather poor, but I’ll happily admit that I laughed at the “Dating Daniel Craig” sketch (more because of his involvement than Tate’s). It didn’t strike me as “pointless celebrity-gearing" as the Tennant sketch did, where he played another character but they not only boringly referred to Doctor Who a lot, but he ended up being the Doctor anyway. I just didn’t find that idea intrinsically funny; whereas the idea of someone dating Daniel Craig and not knowing who he is is funny, so I found it a passable sketch. Though again, I found him more amusing than her.

But that’s the thing; a lot of people seem to feel that you either think something about something, or something else about something, but you can’t cross over the two. For instance, you either think left-wing or right-wing, but you’re not allowed to think bits and pieces of each. This seems like complete bollocks to me, frankly (and I’m not even British). Surely opinions come from analysing all of the sources and coming to a conclusion based on evidence from all of them, rather than one of them and disregarding the other. And at the end of the day, you should still be able to admit freely that you don’t know everything about a subject.


164. O.W.N.S.
Take as an example; acupuncture. Yesterday Nana (my grandma) said something about acupuncture being good for sneezing (or something, I wasn’t paying much attention; frankly that perplexes me, though it probably is), and then questioning why those of a medical mind don’t seem to hold much store in the practice. I thought that this was obvious as to why they don’t; because they don’t understand it. Because it’s not scientific.

Mind you, you’ll get psychologists explaining and understanding voodoo, but sometimes even that feels like they’re only doing it for themselves. By which I mean, sure, they may say “yeah, well, voodoo is based on the power of suggestion”, but they’re still putting it into terms they understand, and unless they can, they don’t feel it’s worth it. I’m generalising here, because obviously not all doctors and psychologists will think this way, but it is still something that irritates me.

Same goes for creationists; even if there’s something they believe that’s likely to be disproven, they don’t buy it and either deny it or have to put it into their terms to explain it away. Which is frankly ludicrous, because half of the time it’s details that are being disproven, not the entire fucking belief. For instance, I don’t personally believe Jesus walked over water and changed water into wine (did he walk over wine? No! Discrepancy!*), but I do believe that Jesus was real (historical documents also seem to corroborate this), and more, that he was brilliant. Even if he wasn’t the Son of God, he was A Brilliant Man. Jesus: A Brilliant Man. I’d prefer that to be said far more often than “Jesus: the Son of God”. Perhaps instead of writing “INRI” on the cross, they should have just written “OWNS”**.

I honestly think that some Christians don’t deserve Jesus.***

*I’m kidding, actually.

**I’m also kidding, actually.

***I’m not kidding.


165. Opinions over Attitudes
But it’s been hard for me recently to understand how this discrepancy works for me; after all, I feel that Star Trek is crap, but I feel that sci-fi is both capable of crap and capable of being gloriously imaginative. And in fact, I’m sure there’s great things about Star Trek now that I mention it; Patrick Stewart’s a great man, and, uh... “Borg” is a cool word. Or something. Well, okay, that’s probably as much as I can praise from the series. But I still don’t hate it, and I find the idea of someone making sweeping statements about an object’s quality often highly irritating. But I’ve been known to do so myself (though I wouldn’t anymore; I was a git back then). So what’s the difference...?

Well, there is none, BUT. I think I’ve finally worked out what I object to. I object to people saying things are “crap”, and yet that seems like I’m objecting to their opinions, to their subjective views. Even though I like diversity of opinion.

But therein lies the rub; terminology. In the same way that I’ll say principles don’t matter, but context does, I’m going to say that opinions are great, but attitudes aren’t.

And I think that’s the issue here. Opinions are often far more reasoned and thought-out, and also objective, than attitudes. And yet the thing about attitudes is that they manifest with objective language more often than subjective. Saying something is “crap” is more objective than subjective, because it removes the speaker’s point of view from it; instead of being “I don’t like it”, it almost seems to be saying “Everyone thinks it’s crap and knows that’s not the way to do it”. Which is – dare I speak in principles here, almost – garbage.


166. This Ain’t an Essay, Jim
By the way; in case you’re wondering why I never offer examples when tackling issues such as this, it’s for a very good reason. I can’t be fucked looking up examples. And though that seems unlearned and pithy of me, it should be noted that this is a bloody Journal (and blog) that covers many things, that it’s a rite of self-discovery rather than an informed discussion. Because here’s the thing; though you may believe I’m being more sophisticated or something about it (and thanks, if you do!), I’m still just writing a blog, not an essay. I’m a little insignificant man trying my best to say something worthwhile in a market where you don’t have worthy opinions unless you have qualifications, so I don’t think you can blame me if the system defeats me and I end up not bothering to research purely because I know it won’t make my opinions any more valid than they already are. The only time when I’ve considered my knowledge of something substantial enough to write an actual blog about it is Doctor Who, keep in mind; I haven’t even done that with music, despite my analysis of it (and the handful of reviews I’ve written), because despite knowing the trends and the conventions and such, I still don’t know many actual songs. I don’t even listen to the radio, for god’s sake.


167. Learn, Baby, Learn
Speaking of learning, despite it only being April, I’ve started wondering about going to Uni next year. I feel perfectly happy not going right at this minute - as discussions at yesterday’s after-christening party revealed to me (not my christening, I should add) - and I think I’m starting to realise what it is I dislike about Uni. The problem is the setup. For school, the reason why you’re marked, as irritating as it may be, is that it’s a period of your life where it really, really matters. For Uni, I don’t see why marking someone is worth it. Surely a degree should be awarded for students who are able to demonstrate that they know what’s going on, in a way that they choose? This is why I don’t feel that my failing of those courses I did last year, perversely, were failings, because I learnt from them. Not just in the “oh god, that’s what I don’t want to be doing” manner, but in the “oh, that’s interesting” way. Because though I literally failed Australian Pop Culture and History, War and Film, I can talk about both of those subjects quite confidently, and both opened my eyes to things I hadn’t considered before (my whole pro-Australian anti-cringe opinion-mongering came purely from learning in that class, and I used to excitedly blab on about issues raised in both subjects to Mum, Liam and assorted other people). But if we’re talking technically, I failed, and that’s because I didn’t do the assignments. Now fair enough, I can understand that being a criteria for school, but Uni is a self-chosen thing, something that you pick and go to learn from, to get degrees from; not something that you should have to hand in assignments for. I don’t know, it just seems pointless to me.


168. Fun and Fauna
Incidentally, I’ve been reading more NSAs and have come to the conclusion that I really like the way they’re going now. Dare I say it, but the books I’ve been more willing to praise – ‘The Stealers of Dreams’, ‘Wooden Heart’ – are not the ones that are indicative of where it’s going, and I’m pleased with that. To have crackingly fun stories like ‘The Pirate Loop’, ‘Wetworld’ and anything-written-by-Jac-Rayner, that’s the way forward, the way that the NSAs should continue. The word “fun” comes to mind; the novels aren’t pretending they’re really worth your time anymore, but they’re damned sure that, if you do invest your time in them, they’ll make that time really fun. Time flies = pages fly by, and the most fun of the books have flown through their chapters with reckless abandon.

But – and this is me jumping the gun before I go on to actually review them (I haven’t finished this one yet, though) – ‘Wetworld’ is an odd one, because it’s both very normal and very slightly odd at the same time. Which is fun. But it strikes me that I was all set to praise the book for using otters rather than anything boringly obvious for its enemies (though there is – spoiler! – something driving the otters, though even that’s more impressive than what we usually get), because I’m sick to death of aliens being the nasties for the hell of it... but ironically, I then thought of them in the grounds of the New Series itself and suddenly realised it’s not that unique. After all, cat-nuns, rhinos... the New Series, it has been commented, banks largely on using animals as enemies when it doesn’t go for simple aliens, and whilst I don’t think it’s as prominent or as irritating as some do (for instance, part of the appeal of Animorphs was the animals, of course, not just the mind-controlling slugs they were fighting), it does, when thinking about it, sort of take away a bit of the uniqueness of ‘Wetworld’. On the other hand, these are actual otters, and it’s much more fun and quirky because of this. So, thumbs up, still, I guess.


169. A Silly Amusement
At Beacon Lighting, I discovered there’s a brand called Megaman. Tee hee.


170. Things I’ve Said on the Internet that I Wish I Hadn’t #1:
(Because they’re still on the net... things I’ve said in real life, I don’t care so much about)

So all up, the greatest book has the greatest movie conversion, and the series has reached a new epitomy. Let's hope they manage to convert the admittedly dire next outing into an equally fantastic movie...

(In regards to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)

This one still makes me shake my head in disbelief. I know why I said it, but it’s still irritating. The third film is – mainly due to Cuaron – still far and away the best of them. But I would have thought it wasn’t, for two reasons:

a) Dan Radcliffe still wasn’t all that great, and threatened to ruin (but, I’ll qualify, didn’t) it.
b) Fans. Because they were still squeeing like mad, they were still rating the movies based on the attractiveness of the leads, and basically, I was finding it utterly irritating. They ruined the film for me, basically.

Thankfully though, I’m not just “over it” now, but I’m easily able to distance the fans from the experience now, in the same way that I can distance Christians from Jesus, or MTV from Napoleon Dynamite.

Not that I’m suggesting Napoleon and Jesus are linked, mind you...


171. Pacing Potter
Here’s a further comment I made about it:

But yeah, it is without a doubt the best of the films so far, and I don't understand anyone who doesn't agree. I mean, people complain about the pacing - for god's sake! The reason the first two movies were well paced was because they had sh*t all info and they moved at sluggish speed! PoA was like a drug, injected so hard and fast that the ride is exhilarating, but unfortunately you feel hollow at the end. But GoF... the Yule Ball distraction in the middle was the perfect way to balance out the movie.

I can understand where I’m coming from here, but I still think I’m dead wrong. And the assertion that the first two films had “shit all info” is insane; if anything, they had far too much info (whereas HP3 neglected to explain the Messrs Moody, Padfoot and Prongs stuff because it’s irrelevant – in a way that neglecting the end of The Golden Compass isn’t irrelevant!).

But my reasoning here is based on being a fan of the books, and therefore someone who found the movie fans irritatingly stupid. Mind you, the book fans were actually just as capable of being idiotic and shallow, but were less prone to showing it, probably because whilst a book fan has time to theorise about what’s coming in the book, the most a movie fan can theorise is, “I wonder what they’ll cut?”

So, getting around to it, the reason why I liked Goblet of Fire so much was that it was, it seemed, the first successful transition of the “school year” thing, the thing that for me makes HP so special in the first place (because it can create a world and detail it with the expanse of time, in a way that straight magic-adventure books can’t). Of course, this is a lie; the school year was captured by HP3, it’s just that it was captured through metaphor, and I didn’t pick up on that when I was younger – which is irritating, because it’s not-very-subtle metaphor anyway. But that’s the reason why I cited the Yule Ball “distraction” (which was the wrong word to use) as the integral reason to my enjoyment of it. Which is fair enough, and I could understand something thinking that, but I don’t agree now. HP5, like HP3, also used time in an effective way, through the use of montage – so arguably those two are the best of them because they’re filmic experiences, and therefore they’re the best films. Goblet of Fire is a good film, but arguably it’s more a straight adaptation of the book than those two. And that’s why they’re my favourite now.

Mind you, I do still think that Goblet of Fire is the best of the books.

Anyway, that’s probably about all. Goooooood night! Well, afternoon.

120. KASUNEWS
In a rather hefty bit of coincidence, considering the number of times we’ve referenced it on Ugmoinc and stuff, it turns out that... well... there may very possibly, perhaps, minutely, be a chance, a teensy-weensy chance, that we have the Animorphs books morphing into a film!

On some Animorphs forum, you see, K.A. Applegate herself thought-speaked a little something like this:

There is a reasonably serious move under way to do a big budget Animorphs movie. By that we mean that a producer has contacted us and let us know that he would be pitching the idea to the studios -- as soon as the WGA strike is over. The producers are serious guys. The studios they are going after are people who could actually pull it off. But right now it's still probably a 20 to 1 shot. Keep your fingers crossed. I'll say this: the producer is a serious Anifan.

Mind you, she said it in her human guise, and humans can’t thoughtspeak. APPARENTLY. Methinks I smell a KASU somewhere.

(Haha, I’m not even involved in Animorphs fandom at all, and I know the term “KASU”. I wish it was the more amusing “KAFU”, because as well as being ruder, it sounds like a demented sneeze. But, I guess not)

So. That’s fairly exciting. And I wrote “fairly” only because it’s nowhere near a definite. Otherwise, in the words of Big Kev, I really would be “exciiited!”

121. Aliens
More excellently brilliant pump-your-fist-in-the-air-in-delight news? Well, yes, sir! Thank you for asking!

(Or ma’am. Don’t want to be sexist, do we)

Liam found a torrent (ooh, naughty) with ‘Alien Bodies’, ‘Interference’ and ‘The Adventuress of Henrietta Street’. Finally, finally, finally I’ll get to read them. Arghggh the suspense of killing me.

Pity I have to go to work, then, but hey, they might be done when I get back. Oh-ho, that would be so brilliant.

[I forgot to do a no 122. Just pretend it was naughty and controversial and I edited it out. Thanks, much appreciated.]

123. Note to Bluetongue:
Making a product of ginger beer that actually is a beer is not only awful for the taste buds, it’s also incredibly stupid and a stupidly lame attempt at ironic creativity, like calling a movie Scream or deciding that French fries really need more French people in them.

124. Note to Self (preferably the “id” part):
Never drink Bluetongue ginger beer again, because you will develop a big headache and you’ll feel mightily sick. Don’t tell the “ego” side of you, because it’ll do it for dares in an attempt to look brilliant. Stupid egotistical side of me.

125. Note to Self (all):
Stop bashing Bluetongue.

126. Throwaway Comment That Could Be Called “Random”:
I just killed a cockroach. And used my jumper to get rid of it.

127. Pointless Observation:
That was very much like Nina’s eternally brilliant, “Wow, I ate a rhombus!”

128. Vague Post-Rant Realisation of the Day:
I’ve harped on about Bjork vs Shirley Manson, but the irony is that my two favourite Bjork songs at the moment are her most loud and insanely scream-like (no, not like the film) – is it too much to ask for her next album to be full of off-key, insanely brilliant vocal butchering (much like an album spinoff of ‘Kim Gordon and the Arthur Doyl Hand Cream’)? And no, that’s not the ironic bit. The ironic bit is that one of the songs is ‘Declare Independence’, a song with such ingenious lyrics as “declare independence, don’t let them do that to you”, “darn colonists” and “raise your flag’. I’d venture to suggest that Volta is a concept album (which it blatantly is, really) and that Bjork is deliberately being obvious to get that rallying feel, but it’s still a far cry from the big difference between ‘Hyperballad’ and Manson’s ‘Bleed Like Me’. Really, there’s not a huge difference between, say, ‘Declare Independence’ and ‘Shut Your Mouth’, but – for reasons I really can’t qualify at the moment – the former sounds brilliant and the latter sounds childish. Maybe it’s because Bjork isn’t trying to be cool, and often ends up being quite cool because of that. Maybe it’s the whole concept album thing. I dunno.

129. Other Post-Rant Realisation that’s Linked:
Selmasongs is so badly a kids’ story in album form that it hurts. And no, I don’t mean that it hurts in a bad way. Not in a, “show me where it hurts!” Shirley Manson sort of way.

130. Disclaimer to All of That:
I wouldn’t have realised any of that had I not been comparing Manson and Bjork in ‘These Storeys Never End’ (which I wrote the plot outline for, you see. I’m getting there, honest. The stars tell me that after my bout of laziness and lack of enthusiasm, I will rekindle it over the next few days. That was cool, apt and mystical, until they stupidly decided to tell me through the newspaper’s predictions page, thereby immediately lowering their own credibility. God, what are they, the Shift or something?*). The irony is - and I’ll get to the irony straight away this time, I swear. Uh, disregarding this little interruption – that the conclusion of ‘These Storeys’ is “Hey, both have their merits and flaws, and you can’t really spit on either. It’s arrogant to do so.” Which is, it seems, my brain telling itself that it’s an arrogant fucking dipshit prick, because of course I’ve done just that myself. So...

131. Here’s the “Irony”:
I’m preaching tolerance, and then the next second slagging off Shirley Manson. Never mind. I sort of make up for it with Sensiship, where I appropriate a Garbage song without actually meaning anything negative towards them.

132. Proud Moment:
I am glad that I’ve managed to slag off Garbage this many times and not actually used the crap “they’re, well... garbage!” sort of joke. The I-know-I’m-making-a-bad-joke joke, the one that thinks it excuses itself by being deliberately crap. Nuh-uh. It’s a form of lazy journalism that I dislike, though it’s probably a symptom of being forced to write reviews in such small spaces. Things demand more analysis than what they usually get - even the worst and most obviously crap and pointless things do.

133. Other Disclaimer:
At least, I’m assuming I haven’t made the “they’re Garbage!” joke. If I have, dangnabbit. Just shoot me... and that’s my second David Spade joke recently! My humour just sparx, doesn’t it?

134. Did You Know:
That that was the third David Spade joke! This is a level of strangely-out-of-left-field (as opposed to, uh, strangely-out-of-right-field, Dom?) repetitious gag that I haven’t done since, ooh, Eeyore. There’s no obvious links between the two, but I can think of at least, well, two; one, they’re both things I really don’t think about that often, making my gags about them really quite strange; two, they both revolve around an ass.

135. Also:
David Spade’s American, so I can get away with saying “ass” without incurring my inner Australian Spelling Police.

136. Although:
My inner Australian Spelling Police are obviously corrupt, seeing as they turn a blind eye to my admittedly obscure spelling of “barstard”. I must just subconsciously bribe them with mad max moolah to keep them tight-lipped.

137. *Explanation and Admission:
Oh yes, I’ve read ‘Alien Bodies’. Ooooh yes. I started 'Interference’ too, but it’s so long that I was finding it dull – and then realised that a) it’s because it’s a pdf and b) more importantly, it’s because I was reading it very quickly. Slowness is key.

138. Things to Get Vaguely Excited About! of the Day:
Doctor Who Series Four tomorrow.

139. Things to “I really should be more excited about this, but actually I’m not” of the Day:
I’m going to a christening tomorrow, to meet up with family.

140. Something to Admit about Both Statements:
I should explain the context behind my usage of the word “excited”; it’s more a dull sort of “woohoo...” excited, and, in the case of Doctor Who, a “hmm, I might get the chance to trash this!” sort of excited. It certainly ain’t a Big Kev.

141. Strange Confession to Make #1:
I realised the other day that I’m missing my dog far more than I’m missing my family, Liam, or Dave.

142. Possible Explanation:
I’ve had my dog for less time, and therefore feel the loss more, whereas the others I’ve built bridges with for ages and therefore don’t really need to cross that often to know the geography of the place*. Also, I am able to contact them, whereas I am not able to contact my dog. Also, my aunt suggested that it’s because animals incur emotional responses in humans that other humans can’t. I personally don’t like to think of this theory because it sounds twee and makes me “just another dog owner”, although of course she’s bound to be right.

143. *Metaphors that Got Away from Me and Made No Sense:
Just look where that asterisk originally led to, right?

144. Something Insane:
That time when I accidentally used Joen’s internet and went over his limit by a fair bit? The bill came in, and it’s about $3000. No, seriously.

145. Something Awful:
A photoshop site. They’re pretty amusing.

146. Strange Confession to Make #2:
I miss having Jack Bz to talk to on MSN (he hasn’t been on when I’ve been on, probably because I tend to sleep in until about noon, or later). Chiefly, I think, this is because he’s sort of a motivator now, particularly for me to write blogs. Michael is a great motivator too, but he’s great for things that I’m not actually doing at the moment. Which isn’t his fault, because I haven’t shown him anything, but it does sort of mean that he can’t cheer me up as much anymore. Meanwhile, Liam is sort of being quite cold at the moment; sort of disinterested in whatever I’m doing, and only in what he’s doing. I think it’s probably due to MSN and the fact that we can’t talk through the ideas over the phone, but it still gets to me. And that’s because...

147. Strange Confession to Make #3:
I need someone to tell me that I’m good at what I’m doing (and thus my “Liam’s bigheaded” implication suddenly falls into irritatingly self-obsessed perspective!). Not to say it’s brilliant, or anything, just to be excited. Because heaven knows (though God refuses to get excited either), I’m not really all that excited myself (goddamn, another opportunity for a Big Kev joke. So he makes the third irrelevant character to have a triple running gag in this Journal). This is because ‘These Storeys’ is a pig ear’s* to write, and doesn’t interest me nearly as much as writing, well, any of the other Free Quay st novellas I’m supposed to be writing. Maybe that’ll change and I’ll hate those when I get to them, but still, I haven’t hated something I’m writing as much as ‘These Storeys’ before. And so the reason I need someone to be excited – and the lack of this is probably a reason why I hate it – is so that I have someone to show that I can be good to. At the moment, I have only myself, and I don’t have to prove it to myself because, well, it’s all in my head already. Not prose-wise, not plot-wise, but emotion-wise, character-wise, drama-wise, setpiece-wise. And therefore I don’t need to explain it to myself to like it. Only to write it (which is where that very-hard-to-write plot outline came into it).

148. When I Say “Hate”:
I of course refer to “hate” in the extreme form, as “love” can be in its own extreme form; in other words, it’s a “hate” that is both at the opposite end of “love” and yet, because of their extremity, is riding so close to it that it irritates me. Because, you see, I think ‘These Storeys’ is a great story. But then again, I think ‘This Town Will Never Let Us Go’ is a fucking brilliant story, and yet I wouldn’t care to write that, either!

149. *In the Interests of Not Causing Animal-Related Disputes:
I wasn’t being mean to pigs, honestly. They have great ears. It’s just that pig ears are hard to write with, and therefore so is ‘These Storeys’. Or something. Hey, next time, the pigs can call the process of their writing “a Dom’s ears to write”.

150. Except I’m Cheating, because According to Ugmo:
I... HAVE... NO... EARS! *dramatic rejection music*

151. Strange Confession to Make #4:
I thought it was wrong to find the girls in Fucking Amal attractive, but I stumbled across an old Ugmo MSN conversation where Liam said they were 20 year old actresses playing younger characters (no WAY. They look much younger than 20). I’m now rather sexually confused, in a manner which I haven’t been since... well... now, with the whole SW thing.

152. Keep in Mind:
“SW” does not, in this instance, stand for Star Wars. Though, if I did have a sudden love of Star Wars, I probably would be more worried than I am about the SW thing.

153. Parting Message:
Rose, I’d just like to say... you were fantastic. In your first season. And you know – *ffzzzzzzzz STATIC ffzffzfzzz* - sorry about that. Yes, since it is now 12:16, I feel I should go to bed. In fact, I technically should have stopped this entry and labelled it “Saturday” after 12:00, but...

154. Guess What?: I’m fucking lazy! GOODBYE!