Brawny; Life, Thoughts and Drunken Rambling

Nothing to read? Why not buy my book! (And other plugs)

2011-11-10T10:48:00.004Z

Good morning blog-readers (if anyone still reads this anymore!) I just wanted to plug my book which is now (finally) available to order online!

This link will lead you straight to my Lulu store where you will be able to order it - it will be available on Amazon too at a future date, but it does take them a while to get that sorted out...

Sorry for the lack of blog lately - I've been a very busy man. I hope to change that soon

Oh, and one last plug - The ever-wonderful Neety is adding middle names for charity, and there's only a couple of weeks to go until the deadline (Nov 30th) so please dig deep and suggest ideas! Only £1 per name!

Nintendo at E3

2011-06-07T18:34:00.004+01:00

Now I'm an avid gamer. I always have been, and Nintendo has long been my console manufacturer of choice. (That is not to say that I dislike others, Neety and I own 15 in total, ranging from an XBOX 360 right back to an original Game Boy and the SNES. I even own a Sega Saturn, oh yes I do.) Therefore, instead of just catching up on the write up of their E3 conference, as I did with Microsoft and Sony, I thought that I'd watch Nintendo's live.

And before you ask, hell yes it was worth it.

Starting a few minutes late, we were taken on a ride through Nintendo's plans for the next year and beyond by the head honchos, most notably Miyamoto, Iwata-San and Reggie.

They began by addressing the fact that it is the 25th anniversary of the Zelda series. Which doesn't excite me massively. I own a few of them, and I appreciate they are good games, but they've never really been my cup of tea. Still, the announcement of releases for Skyward Sword on Wii and Links Awakening and 4 Swords on the eShop is good news.

And then.... we are teased with a little discussion of the new console, before we are left hanging on with that information, and Reggie comes to discuss the 3DS with us.

Just before we go any further, I would like to throw my hat into the endless mobius strip of discussion that the internet has been providing with regards to the 3DS. There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether it has had "healthy" launch sales, or if it is a disaster. Some people are defending it saying that in the launch window it has sold more than the original DS has - which sounds about right, but I can't be bothered to go and check those facts. My reaction to it is as follows: I love the 3DS and can't wait to get one, even if the games out so far are not must-have's just yet.

And speaking of the must-have's, Reggie ran us through five games in that category which will be released this year:

STARFOX 64 3D - There's not much I can say about this. I owned Starwing on SNES (sadly I don't own it any more, due to an incident with a bottle of Coke and my bedroom floor when I was 13 years old. No I'm not bitter about it, I just DON'T WISH TO DISCUSS IT ANY FURTHER!) which I loved, and have never played the N64 version, of which this is a port. Looks fun though.

KID ICARUS: UPRISING - This has been shown around since E3 last year, and consequentially, while it does look like a lot of fun (even if it seems to suffer from massively over-acting voice actors), I've seen a lot of screenshots and videos, and this didn't offer much new.

MARIOKART 3DS - After watching this trailer? My response was "HELL YEAH." It's Mariokart. In 3D. With underwater courses and customisable Karts. Oh, and hang gliders. I'm in!

SUPER MARIO 3D - A seeming cross between Super Mario 64, Mario Galaxy and New Super Mario Bros? I'm all over that shit. Plus, the raccoon suit returns! (Sorry, the Tanooki suit). Very, very hyped about this.

And the big surprise? Luigi's Mansion 2. On 3DS. At the point this was mentioned, my ever wonderful Neety (who, as I type this, is writing her own E3 blog for femme gamer) squealed in excitement as she is a huge fan of the original. I enjoyed the original a lot too, so this is good news for all concerned.

And then a trailer montage of forthcoming 3DS games - Resident Evil: Mercenaries 3D (YAYY!), Mario & Sonic at the 2012 Olympics (No interest for me whatsoever. Seriously, why have they not made the Mario V Sonic platformer we all want to see?), Ace Combat 3D (Planes. Flying. Looks pretty dull), Tetris (Brilliant but predictable), Cave Story 3D (Ah, Cave Story, allegedly an absolutely brilliant platformer. I found it incredibly dull) Resident Evil: Revelations (More Resi-action!), Driver: Renegade (Who keeps buying these games?), Pac-Man and Galaga (Looks colourful - no other insights on that one), Tekken 3D (Looks fun, but isn't the 3DS getting over-run with beat-em-ups? Street Fighter IV, DOA, Blazblue and now this?) and Metal Gear Solid 3. (No excitement here. Move along)

And then the moment we've been waiting for. The NEW CONSOLE!!! And it's called.....

WiiU.

Er... OK. I get why they wanted to keep the Wii branding, it is the most successful console in years... but still? That's the best they've got? I'd have preferred Wii2 to that! Never mind... I guess it means Sony's Playstation Vita will now not be the stupidest named console at this years E3!

Besides, it's not the name that matters is it? It's what it does. And apparently, the WiiU does... well... everything. It has a controller that looks like an iPad with buttons. Go ahead, click here and find out. I'll wait. (I would have embedded the picture in this blog, but Blogger made it too big and wouldn't let me amend the size and I can't be bothered to fight it right now.)

And then we were shown a video of how this allows a huge number of possibilities. Using it as an inventory screen for a game (as the pic above demonstrates), playing the game on the controllers screen while the TV is in use for something else, using the touchscreen as a controller in itself, utilising motion controls also, video chat, surf the net ... it seems to do everything.

And then, we get some talk from developers saying how much they love it and how great it'll be (of course they say that, it's a Nintendo video at the Nintendo conference!) and then a montage of games to show that WiiU is for everyone. And by everyone, what Nintendo means is "It's for everyone, but all the games we're showing are designed to win over the hardcore gamer, as they're the ones who have abandoned us and they're the only people who watch E3 things anyway."

So in short, it seems great, and I'm sure I shall buy one, and I think it has the smell of success around it. Why do I think that? Well I was texting my friend MiniNomi and I pointed out - "E3. New Nintendo Console. Wierd controller. Rubbish Name. It's like it's 2005 all over again...."

Who knows, if it worked for the Wii, then I'm sure it'll work for the WiiU. (Although the name is still rubbish.)

One, Two, Trilogy....

2011-05-22T10:31:00.003+01:00

I begin this blog as I have so many others by apologising for the distinct lack of action this page has seen recently. Other things have been going on this year, and my mind has been elsewhere.

That said, I've decided to dip my toe into the world of blogging again, and upon glancing through my blogger account I found a half-written article that I felt I should revive, as it has been on my computer for ages. (Although this article will probably bear remarkably little resemblance to that post as I am writing this one on my notepad on a particularly quiet day at work (Except obviously the version you are reading now has been typed up, so this is the version I have written in the future from my current point of view, but when I type this up the current will be the past, and the typing will be the present, but from your point of view it's in the past@$%Q($£!$$£-----------------------------------TEMPORAL ERROR--------------TIME=-1<45-----------------------------------------------------

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes. Trilogies.

(And yes, I know I hadn't mentioned trilogies at any point in the previous paragraph, but trust me, that's where I was heading before I got sidetracked with all the temporal confusion)

Something that annoys me a great deal in life, is the misuse of the word trilogy. Just because there are three films/books/games in a series, does not automatically make it a trilogy. In fact, dictionary.com describes a trilogy as:

"a series or group of three plays, novels, operas, etc., that,although individually complete, are

closely related in theme,sequence, or the like."

To me, the most important word in that sentence is related. So it's not just a case of them showcasing the same characters (in my opinion). To me, a trilogy should be a trio of stories that come together to tell one over-arching story (And no, this doesn't mean that are not watchable within their own right, simply that the total trilogy is greater than the sum of its parts.)

A quick search of amazon for the word trilogy (narrowed to the Film and TV section for the sake of this blog, as otherwise I start to get lots of make-up in the search...) returns 1,061 results. And an awful lot of these are not really trilogies. The Robocop trilogy, for example, is not a trio of linked films, it is a trio of films that have Robocop in them.

I would like to point out, at this time I am not here to argue the artistic merits of third films in series' (as we know most of them are rubbish) and I will only pick examples of films I have seen to support my argument.

The number one result is Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, which is no surprise since I am writing this the weekend the fourth film opens at the cinema, and that, to me is a proper trilogy. You can watch all three films individually, but for the most satisfying experience, you watch all three of them, and by the end the characters have reached a suitable conclusion. (Plus, Kiera Knightly ends up on an island with a sprog, far away from any future sequels!)

While scrolling down the list, a lot of those that I would consider not real trilogies are older films, from back in the day when you simply sequalised a film by putting the same character(s) in a new situation (Naked Gun, Die Hard, Beverly Hills Cop, Mad Max) or two older films and then a more modern addition to the canon, which simply takes one element of the previous films (Obvious example here is the Predators Trilogy box-set. Which contains Predator (the original), Predator 2 (The shitty sequel, only really noticeable for having an alien skull on board the Predators ship, which began the years of cross-pollination between the franchises) and then Predators (The most recent entry from a couple of years ago, which apart from the titular alien has bugger all to do with the other two))

Am I arguing that artistically, real trilogies are better than fake ones? Not at all - I just wish that there would be some differentiation between the two. And don't get me started on trilogy sets that only exist because they can, even though there are more films in the series.... (There's a box set called the Omen trilogy on here, and I'm pretty sure there's four films in that series (not including the remake)). But it could be worse, at least they don't use the word quadrilogy....

Gavin.

2011-04-07T19:34:00.002+01:00

This week I lost one of my best friends, who was taken from us too soon. Below are the words I wrote for his funeral:

About 12 years ago, Gavin took me to one side and told me that he was going to leave the youth service. This depressed me momentarily until his next sentence, which was “Instead, I’m just going to do shows on my own. Want to help?”

And that’s how Maverick started. Gavin had the vision, and I was the helper. And I quickly learnt that no matter how crazy his ideas, we’d achieve them. Staging Macbeth on a chessboard? Done. Casting, rehearsing and performing a show in a week? Done. Persuading a school that he, I, James, Matt and Brendan were a respectable theatre in education group? Done.

Over the next few years we repeatedly pushed people off Rockley pier in the name of art, painted 219 A3 playing cards to decorate a set with, acquired a surfboard from the tip and wrote, directed and produced more shows than I can possibly remember.

But while he was a man brimming over with artistic ideas, he never lost sight of the real reason behind Maverick. It was somewhere to go for the kids. Didn’t matter who you were, where you came from, what your circumstances, if you came along and were enthusiastic, you were instantly accepted.

And that just highlights who he was. A wonderful, caring and artistic person, who had the best track record I’ve ever known at trying to please everyone at once, and understood children’s theatre better than anyone I’ve ever met,. You can see that just by looking at the scripts, plays and stories that he wrote. Incidentally, people always thought that Gavin wrote scripts slowly. Not true. He wrote very quickly, it’s just he always avoided starting to write until the last possible moment.

I could talk about Gavin and Maverick forever. Without him, I wouldn’t be the person I am today, and I’m sure that many of you wouldn’t either. He was one of my closest friends, and I shall miss him beyond belief.

To conclude, I thought I’d quote some of his own lyrics, with a small adjustment made to fit the situation (as he was prone to do himself.)

This is the Story
How one man changed our lives
Never looking for Glory
One man, One fedora
A legend that thrives.

Just remember, the teller may be gone, but the stories that he tells will forever live on.

Thanks Gav. We'll miss you.

DVDs make me angry...

2011-01-02T22:05:00.002Z

We've made it to 2011. That's right, a year that I always assumed would only ever exist as a Best Before Date on tinned goods is now here.And do you know what? I even thought about doing a blog about New Years Resolutions, in line with just about everyone on the internet. But then, this evening, I saw something that made me much angrier than stupid New Years resolutions.

Tonight, I watched Sex and the City 2 on DVD. No, that's not the thing that made me angry, as while it's not necessarily my sort of film, I managed to sit through it making a few silly and somewhat rude comments (to see the best of these, look for the hashtag #manvssatc on Twitter). No, what made me angry was after we'd watched the film, my lovely Neety wanted to put the special features on.

I feel I need to clarify this. The action of putting the special features on isn't what made me angry. What made me mildly annoyed firstly, was that the 'Special Features' Disc only has five featurettes on, which made me wonder why they couldn't just put it on the first disc (the answer, of course, being that then they can advertise it as a Two-Disc Special Edition), but again, I ignored this.

And then, the killer moment. When Neety clicked on the second featurette she wanted to watch, an advert for all the other Sex and the City DVDs played before the feature started. Yes, that's right, an advert was glued onto the front of the feature.

That's a step too far for me. I accept that we get trailers and adverts on DVDs when we first put them in (which you can always traditionally skip by pressing the menu button) and I know that these often don't seem to match up very well with the main feature. (Case in point is the SATC2 DVD which has a trailer for Cats and Dogs: The revenge of Kitty Galore on it. Because that will obviously appeal to the same people who'd watch Sex and the City....) And I expect special features for a film to contain clips from other films/shows in the franchise just to remind you of the bits you've forgotten. I even expect to see that incredibly annoying un-skippable anti-piracy advert on the front of the DVD that you have bought legally. (Interestingly, that advert is very rarely on pirated DVDs so I'm told, so doesn't that make the thing pointless in itself?) But to force you to sit through an advert when trying to watch a special feature on a DVD you've paid for? That's just rude.

Take TV for example. Yes, we now have the 'credit squeeze', where the end credits for the program you have just enjoyed are squashed to one side so that the irritating continuity announcer can remind you what is coming up next. But at least that's at the end, so you can ignore it or turn it off. But I take exception to being forced to watch adverts on a DVD I've paid for.

Can you imagine what it'd be like in real life if that was the situation. If whenever you wanted to see, speak to or engage with anyone, they would stop and advertise other things that they thought you might want, based on the opening line of conversation you had fed to them? No-one would stand for it. So why do we stand for it on DVDs?

I don't think we should. I think we should make a stand. I'm going to rise up and speak to producers of DVDs and tell them that this type of direct marketing just isn't cricket. And if that this all continues then I shall not be buying any more DVDs....

.... Oh who am I kidding. I'm not going to boycott anyone. This isn't going to stop me buying DVDs. (It's lack of money and storage space that does that!). In fact the entire result of this rant will simply be that you all read it and judge me for over-recating to the whole situation.

Ah well, ranting is what the internet is for, right?

Accelerating towards Adulthood

2010-09-19T15:24:00.006+01:00

So I'm nearly 30.

Yes, that's right dear reader, I know that this information is shocking to you, but I am nearly 30 - the age when I'm supposed to be grown up, and sensible, and stuff.

*laughs*

But seriously, whilst having a conversation with the lady in my life the other day, after I'd made several self deprecating age-related jokes, she asked me the following:

"Are you really worried about turning thirty?"

My answer? "No."

Which is true. I mean, the fact that I am heading into the strange world of middle-age (although according to Wikipedia, I'm either five or ten years away from that yet, but I digress) does make me think about my life, what I've achieved, where I am, where I'm going. But do you know what? I'm happy with it.

But since it is a time for self-reflection and consideration, I'm going to try (the important word here being "try") to write a few blogs about this oncoming milestone.

I've never been one of those people who made a list of "things to do before I'm 30", and, although I certainly had ideas for what I wanted to achieve in the next ten years when I turned 20, these things change. However, people who publish these lists seem to assume that everyone wants to do, or should have done, the things they suggest. As such, they're all pretty vague. So, in the nature of well-balanced journalism and not, you know, just picking something to randomly ridicule (honest), I've discovered that Hallmark is not just a company who produces crap cards and a crap TV channel, but also this crap list as well. Shall we see what I've accomplished, and what I need to do in the next month and a bit?

Attempt to Moonwalk across the dancefloor in a crowded nightclub

I'm not a big fan of nightclubs. Or crowds. So no. I've tried to do it drunkenly in a kitchen if that counts... (it did not go well..)

Dance all night and get home when it's light!

Replace 'Dance' with 'Drink' and I've done it. Many times.

Realise that you still don't know what you want to do when you grow up

Yeah. This is true. I don't know what I want to do when I grow up. But I don't care much about rushing the discovery of it either.

Audition for a reality show, regardless of your ability or reputation

Sadly, I have done this. I sent in an audition tape for Big Brother 2. Sad times. In my defence, I was drunk at the time...

Purchase a ridiculously expensive and totally 'unpractical' pair of shoes - Just because!

Is this list for women? I don't tend to purchase shoes that are either expensive or unpractical. I just have three pairs of shoes. Boots, posh shoes, trainers.

Go to work in your 'night before' clothes at least once

Done it. Many times.

Realise finally that you'll always feel like a 5 year old inside - no-one ever grows up!

I'm not a 5 year old inside. I'm at least 13....

Blag your way into the VIP area!

Define blag.... I've been in many, but traditionally whilst working....

Spend a night in a haunted house, with friends and torches

OK, this is impossible, because ghosts don't exist. So I can't go to a haunted house in the first place. Damn you Hallmark, making up even more crap.

Recreate a scene from a famous film!

I've done this. More than once I'm sure.

Do something your Mum says you'll regret - then not regret it

I've lost count of the number of times I've done this...

Make a spontaneous purchase, something indulgent, expensive and gorgeous for yourself no worries.

Yup. But that could be to do with the fact I'm not great with money.

Invent a 7 day weekend! With continuous Friday Feeling

I'm sorry, this I don't understand. How can I invent a 7 day weekend? Does it mean just spend a week living like every day is a weekend? Well I've done that, it's called a holiday... dumbasses.

Drink a Manhattan cocktail in Manhattan!

Not happened. Not likely to either.

Take part in a midnight marathon

Yes, because if I'm going to run 26 miles at my current fitness level, the best time to do it is in the dark so I can't see where I'm going....

Have the guts to start my own business

I've had the guts many times. The money? That's a different story...

Sing your heart out in a different language. Very liberating!

Done it many times. Prefer singing in English though.

Learn to Salsa!

Have you SEEN me dance?

Zorbing down a steep hill! So much fun...if you’re not sick!

Love to do it. It's expensive though...

Find the perfect little black dress!

OK, nowhere in this list does it say it's for women. Does that mean men are looking for the perfect little black dress as well? Was there a memo no-one gave me?

Sleep under the stars

Why? It's cramped... oh that says STARS. My bad. Yeah, I agree with this, do it. It's peaceful. And fun.

See in the New Year in a foreign city

Why? I like to see in the New Year with people I know and like. I can't afford to take all of them to a foreign city too! I saw the New Year in in Southampton this year, does that count?

Resist everything except temptation

What the FUCK does this even mean??

Wave your Union Jack at the last night of the Proms!

Done it. Well, waved it at the TV anyway

Set a Guinness World Record

I tried to do this once, and set the world record for eating bananas. I failed.

Learning to sing just one karaoke song...well!

I can sing many karaoke songs :) Whether I do them well, that's a question for the audience surely?

Get your kicks on Route 66!

Why would a road give me kicks?

Do the Conga!

Yes, I have been drunk at a party before. Ergo this has been done.

Find something you are really good at and make your mark on the world!

Yeah OK, way to ramp up the expectations here. All the other things have been fairly easy to do, but this? Define 'really good'? Define 'make your mark'? Are you telling me that if by thirty I haven't written a famous symphony, or had a hit single, or cured cancer, or been awarded a nobel prize, then I should give up? Fuck you Hallmark.

Do one thing that actually terrifies you!

Done that. A lot. I don't recommend it. Don't believe the psychiatrists. 90% of the time, if you do something you're terrified of, it'll just make you more terrified!

So to be clear, I've done about half of those. So am I about to rush out and buy a little black dress, some impractical shoes, discover a 7 day weekend, set a World Record and then Moonwalk across a crowded dancefloor?

Surprisingly, no, I'm not.

Alright then Mr Sarcastic Bastard, I hear you all shout, so what advice do you give? What would you say that people should do before they're thirty?

My answer? Whatever makes you happy. Simple. I mean if you look at my list of things I'm proud that I've done in the last nearly-thirty years, there's a wide variety of stuff. Yes there's my creative side, I've written plays, pantomimes, musicals, stories, songs, films and even a novel, and performed on stage as everything from a plant to a woman, but there's the other things too. I've seen my big sister get married, gained some of the best friends a guy could have, and, most notably (and recently), I've moved in with the most gorgeous girl I've ever known.

Middle age? Pah. I'm not even half-way through (hopefully - barring accidents). Bring it on.

POSTSCRIPT - If you want to support Brawny's creative side, then go and see Maverick's production of "The Cursed Treasure of Barbarous Bill" - his latest play, performed with two other one-act plays in St Clement's Hall, Parkstone on 28th-30th October 2010.

Driving me Crazy...

2010-08-13T19:57:00.005+01:00

So, after my points I made in my previous blog as far as reasons why I wouldn't be writing blogs more often, I find myself procrastinating with a blog entry. Oh well, such is life.

So, the other day at work, I was browsing the Daily Echo (as it's sold in the canteen, and therefore it's the closest thing to read) and I noticed another in a long line of stories regarding speed cameras and how good/bad they were. There's been a few of them recently, whether it be the announcement that the Wessex Way 40mph limit is continuing, the justification for said announcement after outcry from the common man, the discovery of how much money the Holes Bay camera made in a year, and the question over whether they'll all be shut down.

But I'm not commenting on these as specific stories. Yes, I drive down the Wessex Way to work every day, and yes I wish the speed limit was back to 50 along there (and those of you who read this who are not from Poole/Bournemouth, I'm sorry, you won't have a clue what I'm on about!) but the biggest issue is that it's extremely hard to argue for a raised speed limit.

Because if you argue for a raised speed limit, then you are effectively arguing that it doesn't matter if more people die. Because it can be proved that speed kills. So therefore it's an impossible situation to be in, as shown with the following mathematical equation.

Desire for Higher Speed Limits = CHILD MURDERER!

But do you know what? I don't think that's always true. Let's take the Wessex Way as an example for a moment (and for those of you who don't know it, it's a long, mostly straight dual carriageway, which used to be 50mph all the way along, and now one section of it is 40mph). It's got some short slip roads leading onto it, and therefore I don't think it should be over 50, but other than that there's no pedestrians and therefore I don't see the reasoning for the 40mph limit.

Currently the justification (as listed in one of the articles I linked earlier) states that "between 2004 and 2008, there were an average of 2.4 accidents and 3.3 casualties a month. But between February and May this year, this reduced to an average of 1.5 accidents and 2 casualties – a drop of 37.5 per cent and 39.4 per cent respectively. "

Yes, that looks like an awful lot in the percentage statistics, but in real life that's a drop of 0.9 accidents per month. That's less than one. And that's ignoring the most important issue here, which is that you cannot compare an average gained over four years (which includes time before the alterations were made to the laning etc near the Frizzel end) to an average gained over 3 months. One wonders why they didn't compare a specific February to May section of their statistics to the ones they have gathered. And I suspect that it's because they would have shown bugger all difference.

But enough of that, I know what you're all after. So here it is. Brawny's sarcastic-yet-vaguely-sensible suggestions for how to overhaul our roads.

1) Increase the national speed limit.

Increase it to 100mph. The national limit of 70mph was established in 1965. There weren't many road cars that could drive faster than that in 1965! Everyone speeds on Motorways anyway - and while I don't know the statistics for them (mainly because I can't find them) I wouldn't imagine the fatality rates for driving at 100mph in modern vehicles are much worse than driving at 70.

2) Motorcycle lanes.

I would say this, because I'm a motorcyclist. But it'd be really handy.

3) Strict limits in built up/urban areas.

As much as it pains me to say it (and I hate driving at 20mph as much as the next motorist) but built up and urban areas are higher risk when it comes to driving, due to those irritating-but-not-going-anywhere-soon pedestrians. So keep strict limits. Cameras by schools etc is fine, and indeed I can see as a very good idea.

4) Have a long look at all roads to evaluate speed limits.

This is where all the Wessex Way moaning from earlier fits in. Just look at roads with a sensible eye to gauge the speed it should be. And don't let panicking over-reactionaries make you slow it down.

5) Stop assuming all drivers want to speed.

I hate this assumption. It happens even more with me, since I'm a motorcyclist, have long hair and am still (relatively) young. (Yes, I know I'm turning 30 this year, but I'm still young. Dammit.) People therefore assume I want to ride everywhere at 120mph. Not true. I just want to feel like I'm getting somewhere in the manner that combines the quickest with the safest. And most of the time that works. If we raised the national speed limit and re-evaluated speeds on all the roads, then maybe we'd all get where we are going as quickly and safely as possible.

Oh and I almost forgot...

6) Ban BMW drivers. You know it makes sense.

So what do you think? How would you improve our roads? Send an e-mail to whothehellcares@pointlessdiscussion.com.

Time has passed....

2010-08-10T17:31:00.003+01:00

I know, I know, what you're all waiting for is for me to supply you with my now month-overdue Dr Who Finale reviews, right?

Well tough. Too much time has passed now, and I'm not going back to do them now, so suffice it to say that I enjoyed the finale a great deal, and I would have rated both parts as 9/10. So there.

Moving on, I know what you're all thinking, you're thinking "I haven't heard much from Brawny in a while, is he dead?" Well no, I'm not dead (but thanks for your concern!) I've just been busy. As most of you are probably aware, I finally made the big move back to Poole, and since then I've started a new job, moved into a new flat with the ever gorgeous Neety, two turtles, ten games consoles (not including handhelds) and have been generally rather busy. So sorry for that.

Now I am aware that this ought to be the point where I promise to write more, but I'm not going to say that, as now that I don't have access to this at work every day, so I can't write when I'm bored at work, then my posts are probably going to decrease in relation to the number I used to write. I'd like to pretend that less quantity will mean more quality, but this probably isn't the case either. I'm not going to drastically change what I write about or the style of my writing, so the best promise I can make is that you will get less of the same.

But that's still better than no bread, right?

Also, my writing is being taken up with a one act play that's been commissioned and I need to have written by the end of the month, a novel that I'm determined to finish the rewrite on so that I can sell it to you, the ~~idiotic~~ enthusiastic members of my fanbase through the wonders of Createspace and Amazon (So I may sell, what, three copies?), I have several half finished scripts on my computer I need to finish and I also intend to write and record an album that'll be avaliable on iTunes and Spotify by the end of the year.

Do I expect to make any money from this? No. But as I am turning 30 I've decided that its better to make my stuff avaliable, rather than keep it hidden on my hard drive, so there we go.

Anyway, I have to go now, because I do have a dinner to make (mmm, Steak and Mash), some Kingdom Hearts walkthrough to read to Neety when she gets stuck (Throw Fire at the Pillar!) and later on, some DVDs to watch (movie night with the Neet, YAY!).

But fear not! Brawny ramblings will return, in fact, there are a couple already half-written. So keep an eye on this, I'll write soon, I promise. But for now, just go about your daily business.

For now....

REVIEW: Doctor Who - The Lodger (5.11)

2010-06-15T16:25:00.005+01:00

DOCTOR WHO: THE LODGER

In Which: The Doctor attempts to pass himself off as a normal human being, while Amy is stuck in the TARDIS...

What did I think?: Strangely (being as I have an irrational hatred of James Corden) I really enjoyed this episode. To me it felt like it was something different, while still being Doctor Who. I think, on the whole, I enjoyed it more than last weeks episode, but I wouldn't say it was better necessarily.

It's strange that this series has effectively delivered a companion-lite episode, for the first time in three full seasons that one hasn't been needed! (For those of you who don't understand this statement, allow me to explain. Due to the fact that the filming periods for Series' 2, 3 and 4 contained 14 episodes (including the Christmas Special each year) and they were the same amount of time as for 13 episodes, then each year had a "Doctor and Companion-Lite" episode, so that the actors were able to shoot a different episode at the same time. Series 2's was the infamous "Love and Monsters", Series 3 had "Blink" and Series 4 gave us a Doctor-Lite episode in "Turn Left" and a Companion-Lite episode in "Midnight"). However, Amy's sidelining here was good, allowing the Doctor to shine in what almost felt like a buddy-comedy episode, with him and James Cordon's Craig.

Just to be clear - even though I am filled with irrational Corden-hatred, I thought he was quite good in this, and the relationship between Craig and Sophie was well-played, understated yet believable. Plus, the fat man got the girl, which always gets a cheer from me, as I am a fat man!

The more I think back on it, the more I loved this episode. So much stuff was pitch perfect and with this and Vincent and the Doctor, I'm finally starting to feel that the Eleventh Doctor (incidentally, how cool was it that he finally confirmed, on screen and in dialogue that he was the eleventh? That's never happened in NuWho) is settling in and that scripts are tailored to him, the last of the Tennant-isms having finally departed.

And the time machine at the end was brilliant. "Someone's attempt to build a TARDIS" - I know we'll probably never refer to the mysterious person/race's attempt to build it again - but one wonders what civilisation has enough knowledge about TARDISes (Yes I know that plural looks weird, but that's because TARDIS is an acronym and you shouldn't pluralise acronyms. If it was a word would the plural be Tardii? Don't know...) to try and build their own equivalent time machine. Or maybe he just meant it in a general "complicated time/space travel ship" generalisation, rather than a specific TARDIS.

And the ending, with Amy finding the ring? What a perfect moment. (I did worry she'd find it and do the sitcom-plotline of thinking he was going to propose to her - but I'm glad that hasn't happened!)

Is it just me, however, or does it feel a little weird having these two character-based single episodes next to each other? I understand why - they need to distance themselves from the cracks/Rory events of Cold Blood by a couple of episodes before the finale (Where the cracks will re-appear, and I'm thinking maybe Rory will too...) but it seems like they could have swapped one of these with something earlier in the season maybe... but I don't know.

The Good: Performances. The believable romance. CG was nice and minimal. The new Time Machine set was lovely.

The Bad: Cordon did a few times resort to his "I'm a large laddish bloke" acting as a default. Slightly strange scheduling of these two episodes next to each other...

Conclusion: 9/10

Next Week: The Pandorica Opens... (I don't know what it is, or what happens when it opens, but it sure sounds exciting!)

REVIEW: Doctor Who - Vincent and the Doctor (5.10)

2010-06-11T09:00:00.004+01:00

I know, I know, I'm posting this review the day before the next episode. Sue me, I've been busy!

DOCTOR WHO: VINCENT AND THE DOCTOR

In Which: The Doctor and Amy spy a monster in a Van Gogh painting, and go and visit the man himself to find out what's going on

What did I think?: This was a strange episode. Not so much a normal Dr Who episode as a character study of Vincent Van Gogh. It had heart, and pathos, and felt like it belonged in an entirely different series. This is not a complaint, as I thought it was a good episode, but it did feel slightly out of place.

Tony Curran was a magnificent Van Gogh, and the whole atmosphere of the episode was superb. Van Gogh's depression was mentioned (in as much as something like that can be in a family show like Dr Who), and all of the character interaction was wonderful.

But what of the plot? Sadly, I didn't find it that interesting. In a way, I would have preferred the whole episode to be about the Doctor, Amy and Vincent, without the invisible monster at all.

Yes that's right, I said invisible monster. The budget cuts raise their head again - although it did work quite well. The problem was, the monster felt like it was from a completely different episode. I understand that they needed a plot for Van Gogh to work against, and to triumph (even if, as it was discovered at the end of the episode, the triumph was temporary), allowing him a little moment of happiness.

But this is a minor niggle. It was a good episode. Bill Nighy was seven shades of awesome (as one would expect from Bill Nighy) and Matt Smith shined in this episode, once again as the Doctor who doesn't know the answer to everything - most notably in this case, how to help Vincent.

The ending was, as has become traditional this series, superb. And the moment where Van Gogh is standing in an exhibition of his own work and is overwhelmed was brilliantly shot. The Doctor is obviously still struggling to keep the Rory information from Amy, although Vincent can see she's lost someone - which confuses Amy.

The Good: Performances and character work - all excellent.

The Bad: The Monster story felt sort of tacked-on, and I do wonder if the whole script could have been done without it.

Conclusion: 8/10

REVIEW: Doctor Who - Cold Blood (5.9)

2010-06-03T13:00:00.005+01:00

Again, I'm aware that this review is really late - and I have no defence beyond the fact that I'm moving this weekend and I haven't had any time to just sit down and write a review!! So it's going to be quite a short one again, sorry about that (or, if you prefer my short reviews, you're welcome!)

DR WHO: COLD BLOOD

In Which: The Silurians get mad, the Doctor attempts to broker a peace deal, and particularly harrowing and dramatic stuff happens at the end.

What did I think?: Hooray! This lived up to the promise of last weeks part one, and continued to be a good old-fashioned Whovian runaround. However, the bit everyone is going to want to talk about is the last ten minutes, which I will get to, so be patient!

The majority of the episode was, I felt, a suitably good ending to the previous weeks episode. We got some negotiations over the future of planet Earth, Amy actually doing stuff again (although how did she manage to pickpocket that Silurian doctor? Her hands were nowhere near his pocket!) and, in a nice touch, the Doctor going back to one of his traits on classic Who, which was taking a character from the story, and leaving them somewhere else to where they had started. In this case, leaving Nasreen and Tony to hibernate with the Silurians. (Which reminds me, aren't the rest of the Silurians gonna be pissed off when they discover a pair of "apes" in their city?)

The Silurians actually had a plan, which makes a change, and also, they weren't all of the same mind. They were a proper functioning society (that granted, we only ever saw small pieces of) and therefore they argued, disagreed and had different opinions to each other. Which was nice, and again a feature of Classic Who.

And then we get to the end. Oh Rory. After doing sterling work this episode (not quite as much as last episode, but still, the moments where they are deciding what to do with the dead Silurian was a masterclass from Arthur Darvill), then Rory takes an energy blast for the Doctor. And dies.

Yes, again. He died in Amy's Choice (in the dream) and now he dies here. And the heartbreaking thing? A crack eats him, and Amy consequently (in some fantastically acted moments) forgets him. Leaving the Doctor carrying one more burden. But, we're not done yet. Because what did the Doctor pull out of the crack? A piece of Shrapnel.

TARDIS-Shrapnel.

Does the TARDIS cause the cracks? Is that what explodes? I don't know, but I can't wait to find out.

And if, as I suspect, we're going to see the things that have entered the crack in the last two episodes, then how is Rory going to play into that? Since he was dead before the Crack even ate him?

The Good: It's become a cliche to say this, but the performances. The Old-School feel of the episode. Aliens with opinions. The last ten minutes.

The Bad: Just the little inconsistencies like Amy's pickpocketing skills. Oh and the annoying military Silurian who was the sister of the other Silurian so that they could use the same makeup...

Conclusion: 9/10 - Next week - Van Gogh!

REVIEW: Doctor Who - The Hungry Earth (5.8)

2010-05-26T11:15:00.003+01:00

Sorry this review's both late and short... my bad :P Too busy packing!

DR WHO: THE HUNGRY EARTH

In Which: The Doctor, Amy and Rory turn up at a mining facility in 2020 who are drilling down further than man has ever drilled before... But something's drilling back up towards them!

What did I think?: Could this episode have been anymore old-school-Who if it had tried? And I mean that in a good way. A small cast, a returning enemy (who, granted, look completely different to how they used to look, but enemies on Dr Who do that on a remarkably regular basis), a companion separated and imprisoned... the list goes on.

Firstly, can I say that the team of Doctor, Rory and Amy seems to be working incredibly well, at least in my eyes, but then I've always preferred three-man TARDIS-teams.

Guest stars this week did a wonderful job, and special credit goes out to the child actor for not being annoying like, well, most other child actors. (For an example see the kids who played young Jacob and MIB in LOST).

So the earth is eating people having been bio-programmed by the Silurians? I buy that, and it leads to creepy images of people being "eaten" by the earth, including, (shock, horror) Amy! But it turns out they haven't been killed, merely captured for some, as yet undetermined purpose.

Loved the "dome" over the village when the Silurians attacked, and loved Rory and The Doctor bundling their captive into the meals on wheels van. Oh, and the Silurian makeup was superb!

Obviously, a lot of this episode was setup for next weeks resolution, so it was the little elements that stood out for me. The Silurian predicting her death at the hands of one of the three characters facing her (Rory, Tony and Ambrose) , Nasreen entering the TARDIS and being overawed and excited, and, of course, the Silurian City reveal at the end of the episode...

It all looks like it's leading up to excitement, which is good.

Obviously, it wasn't all perfect, the "10 years hence Rory and Amy" I'm starting to wonder whether it's a plot point or just a joke, and the silly reason for Rory to split up from the other two at the beginning (putting the ring in the TARDIS) could have been better thought through. Also, I'm sad that the scene that was shown (mostly) in Dr Who Confidential was cut, as it looked to be some nice character banter between The Doctor and Amy.

The Good: Most of it. Felt very old-Who, which I liked as a change, performances suitably brilliant as always, loved the Silurian make-up.

The Bad: A bit slow (But I can forgive that as it's a Part One), Rory getting split off from the others early on was very contrived, and I almost felt that we shouldn't have seen any shots of Amy after she was captured, because we didn't learn much, and it would have sustained the question of if she was OK...

Conclusion: 8/10

REVIEW: Dr Who - Amy's Choice (5.7)

2010-05-18T14:36:00.002+01:00

Firstly, let me apologise for not having posted anything here for a week or so, I have been significantly lacking in free time!

And now, on with the meat and substance of this post.

DOCTOR WHO: AMY'S CHOICE

In Which: The Doctor visits Rory and Amy five years after they've left the TARDIS, and Amy's pregnant. But then all three of them wake up on the TARDIS...

What did I think: Well, this was new. An episode of Dr Who that managed to take the standard Dr Who formula and feel significantly different. And to me, it highlighted the biggest (and I would say best) difference between this era and the David Tennant era. It took the Doctor most of the episode to figure out what was going on. So rather than feel we were along for a ride with a man who knew what to do, we were all on a sort of creepy wander through a strange and curious adventure.

And, more to the point, it managed to give us a resolution on the Amy/Rory/Doctor triangle much quicker than I thought we would get one (I thought it'd go on for the whole series), which I wholeheartedly embrace.

Speaking of Rory, he continues to grow and slowly become the companion that he is capable of being, much like Mickey did in Series 1/2, and I like that - one of the many reasons I like multi-companion teams is that there is room for growth and banter and all that good stuff...

The Dream Lord was fantastic, his flickering in and out, his jumping around, and his extremely creepy edge he gave to the dialogue. And, while we're on that subject, the dialogue was pretty damn impressive too. Full marks to Simon Nye, who managed to write a self-contained, well thought out, witty, banter-fuelled and scary episode.

My biggest complaint, in a way, was the two stories - because as fun and a shock it was to see Amy pregnant and Rory with a ponytail, the fact that the earth-based half of the story was set five years hence did kind of tell me that one wouldn't be real. (Although the reveal that both were dreams was fun, but at the same time, perfectly logical). However, I LOVED the nasty old people, as well as the idea of the TARDIS drifting into a 'cold star'.

But the best thing about this episode was the fact we finally got some development of Amy. This is an area a lot of people (and yes, I'm talking about those weird online forum-goers like me again) have been moaning about for ages - that she's one-dimensional. Which has, to my mind, made sense. She's rushed from adventure to adventure trying (as Rory said in the last episode) to impress the Doctor. This is the first time an adventure has had a major impact on her, and to see her have such a human reaction to that was heartwarming.

And the ending, where we have a "it was a dream" explanation. I should hate it, but I really didn't. :)

So now we have a happy, excitable, three person TARDIS team! It's great, but I have a feeling it'll be like an Eastenders marriage, it won't last long and will end in either death, drugs, jail or someone getting an a taxi and leaving forever....

I hope I'm wrong...

(But I bet I'm not!)

The Good: Performances across the board. The balancing of the Rory/Amy/Doctor story with the life-threatening stories. Toby Jones was brilliant as the Dream Lord.

The Bad: I never believed that the Leadworth-world was real, which kind of diminished the threat slightly...

Conclusion: 9/10 - Still very high quality!

Doctor Who - The Vampires of Venice (5.6)

2010-05-11T09:17:00.005+01:00

DOCTOR WHO: THE VAMPIRES OF VENICE

In Which: The Doctor decides to take Amy and Rory on a trip together as a wedding gift in order to help solidify their relationship. So they end up in Venice and promptly run into some pointy-teethed minions of evil. Or are they what they seem?

What did I think?: I loved this episode. From start to finish. And I think the opening of it (and therefore the motivation for the characters to be there (i.e. The Doctor and Amy's kiss in the bedroom)) beautifully paid off the end of the previous episode.

And I loved that the thread ran all the way through it, rather than have Amy completely forget about the Doctor's fanciableness (is that a word?), we got lots of jokes and awkward conversational snippets about it, so that by the end of the episode, you believe that she really wants Rory again, hence the invitation to travel.

Meanwhile, this felt like a nice romp through 16th century Venice (well realised by using a small Croatian village) with everything you'd (or at least I'd) want from a Doctor Who episode.

Compelling villains? Check - OK, Francesco was a bit of a pantomime villain, but Rosanna had a reason for doing what she was doing, rather than just being after power or money, or just being inherently evil, which is always nice.

Companions stepping up? Check - Rory was the big surprise of the episode for me, as I actually found myself warming to him, and am glad he's joining the TARDIS crew, mostly because we now seem to have (mostly) dealt with Amy's fancying of the Doctor, which will surely lessen now that Rory is around

A myth explained in an all new and bizarre Dr-Who-Esque fashion? Check - Vampires that are actually alien fish-type-beings who, being fish, don't like sunlight, but who hide using a Perception filter, which therefore explains why they don't appear in mirrors? Genius.

An alien device powered by a small metal flip-switch? Check - I laughed so hard when that happened. They build the secondary device on top of the tower and it's turned on and off with a tiny switch. And people complained about this fact online - what do you use that you DON'T turn on and off with a switch??

A comedy sword fight? Check - Who didn't love it when Rory attempt to show off with the broom before the fight started, and then later on when he tried to stab Francesco with the bristly end... brilliant.

Reference to the season-long arc? Check - The 'Vampires' came through a crack, to escape the silence... the silence itself occurring again at the end of the episode...

And of course - the funny moments? Check - Including some brilliant ones such as: "It'd never work, I'm a Time Lord, you're a big fish. Think of the Children", Rory and the Doctor's discussion about him kissing Amy while they are breaking in;
"What's there between you and Amy? You said she kissed you!"
"Now? You want to know now?!"
"I have a right to know. We're getting married in 430 years!"
And of course, the brilliant moment where the Doctor reaches for his psychic paper, and instead reveals his library card. With a photo of the first Doctor on it.

In fact, my only minor gripe with the episode was the editing once they had reached the climax, with Rory and Amy ripping out the insides of the chair and the Doctor chasing the cables - the editing following the Doctor felt a bit choppy to me, almost as if they were cutting down to the second to stop the episode over-running, and it just felt incongruous. But this is a minor complaint.

So where do we go from here? The trailer for next weeks - Amy's Choice - seems very intriguing and new, and I can't wait.

The Good: Pretty much everything. Rory was the standout in this, but both The Doctor and Amy continue to impress. The Sword Fight. The gentle build up of the crack/silence tension...

The Bad: Some slightly strange editing choices. Also, a little dodgy CGI (the Doctor climbing the tower)

Conclusion: 9/10. More like this please!

The News on Friday

2010-05-07T12:34:00.003+01:00

In a bit of light Friday banter (and get me, I'm writing a blog on a Friday, that almost never happens!) I saw a couple of news stories earlier that I felt were just dying to be written about....

First up - Russian abducted by Aliens? MP demands investigation....

Is it just me, or does this feel like the beginning of a science fiction blockbuster? Eccentric man (who happens to be a local Russian president, the leader of the southern region of Kalmykia) claims in TV interview to have been abducted by aliens. MP demands investigation...

If it was a blockbuster film then the story would progress as follows. The local president would be questioned, just as the aliens invade, and the MP would lead the people in fighting them off. (Also, if it was a blockbuster film, it wouldn't be set in Russia...)

But what's great about this is that it's real, and the MP has some very real concerns.

"MP Andre Lebedev is not just asking whether Mr Ilyumzhinov is fit to govern. He is also concerned that, if he was abducted, he may have revealed details about his job and state secrets...(he) asks if there are official guidelines for what government officials should do if contacted by aliens, especially if those officials have access to state secrets."

Yeah, because aliens are interested in Russia's state secrets, obviously. You'd understand his point if it was a very sensible person claiming to have been abducted, but let's look at Mr Ilyumzhinov's credentials...

"He has been president of Kalmykia, a small Buddhist region of Russia which lies on the shores of the Caspian Sea, for 17 years. The millionaire former businessman has a reputation as an eccentric character. As president of the World Chess Federation, he has spent tens of millions of dollars turning the impoverished republic into a mecca for chess players - building an entire village to host international tournaments. "

So basically, he's the president of Chessville, Russia??? I'm fairly sure that, what with him being a weirdo to start with, the aliens probably didn't exist...

Or they have some mechanism to only target people that the rest of the world won't believe, and they are right now monitoring the internet, reading this blog, and smiling because they know their secret remains safe....

OK. I'm not gonna believe it, unless the aliens invade, in which case I'm heading for Chessvile, anyone else coming? You're all invited. Except this guy.

Yes, this is Brawny's second crazy news story of the day (did you like my exceedingly unsubtle link between the two? It's the best I could do, I'm tired...) and I can't possibly describe it in a funnier way than the opening two paragraphs of the Sun article, so I'm just going to paste that here :

"Greying Peter Trigger, 60, was given a five year ASBO in December 2008 after loitering outside a primary school wearing a Britney Spears-style outfit of grey skirt, white blouse, burgundy tie, grey ankle socks and a blue cap.

He is banned from wearing a skirt or showing bare legs on a school day between 8.30am and 10am and 2.45pm and 4pm. "

That's right. A 60 year old man is banned from wearing a skirt or showing his bare legs on a schoolday. I'm not sure what else I need to write here to make it funny. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't need a lot of comments from me...although, what with it being the Sun, and the article being about him breaching the ASBO, shouldn't the headline have been "Oops, he did it again!"?

Except he didn't do it again. The article itself says "He paraded in front of Mary and Philip Copping, who live opposite, while wearing a mini-skirt before repeatedly bending over in front them with his back turned. "

*Shudders* Ignore that mental image and read the next sentence...

"The couple were getting into Mr Copping's van to go to work at 7.25am when he approached, the court was told. "

7.25am. That's before 8.30am. Therefore surely he's not in breach of his ASBO? Especially since it was initially put into place due to him freaking out schoolchildren, hence the timings and schoolday specifications. When it was initially imposed "Northampton Borough Council said he was entitled to wear whatever he wanted, but not if it caused "alarm or distress" to the public."

So we're allowed to express ourselves freely, as long as we don't alarm or distress people? Is it just me, or are our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression slowly being whittled away, made so that we can do whatever we want as long as it is determined to be "normal"?

Serious thoughts there, from a ridiculous story, but they lead to this third and much more serious story that genuinely splits my opinion, as it's a case of my personal principles and dislikes clashing.

This is the story of Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher, who was arrested for saying that homosexuality was a sin in a public place. (I realise that sentence is unclear, I mean he said it in a public place, not that he was saying homosexuality is only a sin in public...) And this is where my conflicting opinions come into play.

On the one hand, I think it's disgraceful in this day and age that people should believe that any form of sexuality is wrong.

However, I also don't agree with the arresting of someone for expressing an opinion.

I believe in free speech and tolerance for all religious and personal beliefs, no matter how stupid or idiotic I personally think they are. And as the article itself says "The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God. "

That to me sounds like a private conversation between two people. Did the passing shopper feel harassed? Did Mr McAlpine yell the information? Well.. not really.

"Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.(..) Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith. During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.

After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.

He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van. "

My biggest problem with this is that, if he said it loudly enough to be charged under the Public Order act then why on earth didn't the PCSO attempt to arrest him before his sermon, or prevent him from giving the sermon whilst waiting for backup? It does seem that the PCSO may have pushed harder for the man to be arrested, due to his own sexuality.

Which I can understand. If I was a policeman and someone told me that it was a sin to be fat (That's not anyone's religious belief as far as I know, but just an example that could apply to me) then I'd be annoyed and I'd take it personally. But I'd like to think I wouldn't abuse my powers to then arrest the offending man.

Now if, in his sermon, he'd started preaching about how we should kill all the gays, then they'd have a point. But he didn't.

In conclusion, I think I'd much rather that we had complete freedom of speech, and we have to occasionally listen to religious nutjobs, than allowing the Police to arrest us over quietly discussing our opinions.

That's all for now. Brawny signing off.

Election Fever and how to cure it.

2010-05-06T13:39:00.003+01:00

So, the day is upon us. It's election day. Everyone rejoice!

*Listens to the complete lack of rejoicing*

That's right people, it's election day. And, for the first time in, oh maybe ten years or so, I am actually voting. But this blog isn't about me, it's about two other types of people.

Type 1: The self-righteous Voter

This is the person who goes to vote before badgering you, asking who you're voting for, why, when you're going to do it, and using that immortal phrase (which belongs in the pantheon of "Phrases Brawny hates") "If you don't vote, then you can't complain about the state of the country". Bollocks. Yes you can. You can complain as much as you like.

Now the obvious enemy of the Self-Righteous voter is this man (or woman - I'm not sexist)

Type 2: The Apathetic Non-Voter

This is the person who won't go and vote, usually for one of the following reasons:
I don't know enough about it
I've read the manifesto's and it doesn't make a difference
It's just going to be as bad whoever gets in.

Now most of you, I expect, are waiting for me to start complaining about this person. But I won't. Because I was one of them (and still am partially, I'm voting this time because there are specific things I would like to happen, but if there weren't I'd still be this guy). And let me tell you why. It's not because I'm lazy (although I can be), it's because I genuinely don't believe most things would be solved in a change of government. I use the following as my reasoning:

1) Every party lies during campaigns - they therefore won't enact at least 50% of their policies even if they get elected
2) There are things outside the control of politicians and the government - the financial situation we are currently in would, for example, have happened under any government, because until it happened we wouldn't have prevented it!

The next most common thing I used to hear was "Well why not go and spoil your ballot in protest?". Because it's not really a protest. I admire the gesture but the problem is (and I'm going to simplify slightly here) the results we see of voting ballots reported in the news will be as follows:

Labour - a%
Conservative - b%
Liberal Democrats - c%
Others - d%
Spoilt papers - e%

The problem is that no-one knows how many of those papers were spoilt out of protest, as opposed to the ones that are spoilt because stupid people don't understand how to draw an X.

If there was an option for "None of the above" on the ballot paper, then I would have voted every time I had the chance in the eleven years I've been eligible. But there isn't.

So this blog is a message of solidarity to those people who are not voting today (Unless you're a voter who's too lazy to get out of bed. Then you're just lazy.) Vote if you want to. Vote if there's a reason to. But if you genuinely don't believe you know enough or don't want any of the parties to get in, then why bother going down and scribbling on your paper? Is it worth it? Find a different way to make your statement...

And don't let those pushy voting bastards tell you "You're not allowed to complain." Complain all you damn well want.

P.S. At work there is a mock election going on today, and students have been representing the parties. They were all supposed to come to me to record announcements for each individual party, and I found the results kind of mirrored certain stereotypes of the parties:

The Lib Dems - The delegated representative turned up on time, was very polite, and recorded a nice little message directly relating to their policies. Unfortunately it was delivered in a dull, monotonic fashion, and no-one would have listened to it.

Labour - Four of them turned up half an hour late, argued over what the recording should sound like and then recorded something that was all style and no substance.

Conservative - Just didn't bother to turn up.

I'm not passing judgement, but I did find it funny - especially when the eventual decision was made that the announcements would not be going out on the tannoy, therefore allowing the Conservatives to have gone home early the day we recorded and still not lost any ground....

P.P.S. If anyone can figure out what my title is a reference to, they get a brownie point. (Which isn't a sharpened 8 year old girl...)

REVIEW - Doctor Who: Flesh and Stone (5.5)

2010-05-01T22:03:00.008+01:00

It's Monday, (or at least it was when I started this review, now it's Tuesday (In fact, according to the top of this blog post it's last Saturday! My Time Travel research must be going better than I thought (Or I made notes on Saturday and forgot to update the date of the blog. Never mind. ))) and it's time for....

DOCTOR WHO: FLESH AND STONE

In Which: The Doctor, Amy and River (along with cannon fodder and "Important Guest Star who will die dramatically mid-episode") continue to flee from the Angels, before getting rudely interrupted by the return of a different plot device...

What did I think?: I liked it. (Oh what a shocker, I hear you all say, well tough. If you wanted a negative review of Dr Who, look around the net, there's plenty you can find.) I thought it was much better than last weeks, and in fact it would bring up last weeks score if I re-reviewed it now, since a lot of last weeks episode was direct setup for things in this one.

The realisation that Amy had been infected by an angel was brilliant, and the effect of the angel in here eye was superb, although one thing is that the Doctor does seem to be quite happy to leave Amy alone in every episode... but nevertheless, it was good.

And then, in the biggest shock of Nu-Who in a long time, we got direct interaction with the series arc plot in episode 5! Rather than the RTD method of hints building up until episode 12/13, where it'd be revealed, Moffat's gone for allowing us to find out slightly more about the crack in this episode, and this reveal seems to have a significant effect on the Doctor's motivations, and also will now (I expect, although I don't know) form the basis for the rest of the series.

My biggest disappointment with this episode was, in many ways, the Angels. Because the rules for them seemed to bend depending on what was happening. Previously we've been told that if you stop looking at you they can move fast... so when Amy was in the forest and unable to look at them why were they still or moving slowly? And the whole "walk as if you can see" thing? Surely if they have a quantum-locked physiology, then it's nothing to do with whether they think they are being observed, but it's do with the actual act of observation? And if that's the case how come they didn't just kill her straightaway?

And also, why did they kill people anyway? Why didn't they just send them through time the way they used to?

AND, why, when Amy can't open her eyes for a second, does she open them for significantly longer than that? (And no, it wasn't for dramatic tension, it wasn't an 'extended second' where only a second passed for her and more for us - because she SPOKE while her eyes were open!) This annoyed me, because it could have so easily been dealt with - either by giving her 2 or 3 seconds left, or by literally having her open her eyes and then shut them again, before speaking!

But these are nit-picks. The killing of Father Octavian was brilliant, leaving the Doctor facing someone he already knew had died, and knowing there was nothing he could do. Which lead us to AngryDoctor! Who was quite scarily angry... Matt Smith has a dramatic range, and he likes to show it. Which suits me fine - the Doctor is not human, and that's showing now, much more than it did with David Tennant. (Don't get me wrong, I loved David Tennant's Doctor, but he was nowhere near the alien that Matt Smith is becoming). Also, when Amy was first counting down, and he was telling her to stop whining so he could think? Brilliant.

And then, after a few hints from River Song, we get to the ending. The one that caused certain areas of the internet (yes, I'm talking about you Gallifrey Base). The ending where Amy tried to bed the Doctor.

You know what? I liked it. There are arguments that it was out of character for Amy, to which I have one resounding defence.

BOLLOCKS!

(I apologise for my French. (And where does that saying come from anyway? Swear words aren't French...))

She's lusted after him since he arrived (the second time, when she was of a suitable age) and of course he's disturbed - for several reasons! Number One - He met her as a 7 year old girl, about a week ago (in his timeline), Number Two - He's an alien, she's a Human, Number Three - the age difference thing, Number Four - She's engaged!

There's currently a rumour doing the rounds that she is mind-controlled, or possessed, and that's why the Doctor was so jittery. I hope that's not true. We've finally got a different type of Dr/Companion relationship, and people are moaning???

Besides, the reason he is so jittery is because he's discovered that something that happens that day, probably involving Amy, is causing the cracks in time and space... that'd freak any man out.

If Dr Who was an American series, this episode would have been what they term the mid-season break, where they stop showing new episodes for weeks. It moved everything on, and added a sense of urgency to the series, which I loved.

And for a bonus point, who noticed the moment which is either a massive continuity flaw or a subtle hint for the future? Were there TWO Doctors in the forest? Because he lost his jacket (very obviously), then after he left Amy with River... when he came back at the end of that scene, telling Amy to remember? He was wearing his jacket... and had come from a slightly different direction.

Next time we saw him? No jacket. Makes you wonder.... maybe we're going to get a point where the Doctor is travelling back through his adventures in the finale?

The Good: Nearly everything. Even River Song didn't annoy me much at all.

The Bad: Apart from the Amy-eyes-open for way longer than a second? Probably just the fact the rules about the Angels seemed to shift and change slightly...

Conclusion - 9/10. One of the Best so far...

NaNoWriMo - THE RESULT!

2010-04-30T10:32:00.009+01:00

So, after months of avoiding re-writing, followed by a few weeks of actually doing it, I finally sent off for a proof copy of my novel "Tempus Fugit (Or, 'How many time travellers does it take to break the continuum?')"

Well, it's here. Want to see? Here's some photos...

It's great having a copy of it as a REAL book! (Granted, it's not real in the sense that I haven't put it up for sale, and I'm not making any money, and I keep finding mistakes in it... but still, it's great!)

Also, for those of you who haven't heard, I'm moving back to Poole! Sadly, this may mean my blog suffers a little as I won't have time to kill at work anymore... but I promise to try and keep you involved in my life, and to continue my strange and bizarre posts.

But for now, let's all just smile and be happy.

REVIEW - Doctor Who: The Time of Angels (5.4)

2010-04-29T13:36:00.002+01:00

OK, I apologise in advance for this review, as it's late, and it won't be as long or in-depth as my others, as I watched the episode days ago....

(Oh, and you may also have noticed that I've reverted back to the series numbering being Series 5, as the artwork for the first DVD has been released which says Series 5, so the BBC is obviously ignoring it's own previous statement)

So here, for your delectation, is my review

DOCTOR WHO: THE TIME OF ANGELS

In Which: River Song turns up again, and brings the Doctor and Amy to a planet in pursuit of a Weeping Angel...

What did I think: I'm not sure. I liked it - I found it entertaining, and the opening segment with River Song leaving a message in Old High Galifreyan across 12,000 years so that the Doctor would be there in time to pick her up was very well done.

But, a lot of the rest of the episode felt more pedestrian to me. And interestingly, looking around at other internet-based reviews, that seems to be a good thing for most people, but I like my Doctor Who with a degree of stupid insanity in it... Multi-Coloured Daleks? Love them. A giant Star-Whale? Fantastic. Spitfires in Space? Well, you all know how much I loved that (and if you don't know, check out my previous review.) But with this episode, it suffered a little from being Part One of a two-parter, all setup and no action.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, and there were some fabulously brilliant sections, including Amy vs. The VHS Angel (I don't care how River Song described it - that footage looked as if it had been recorded on VHS, right down to the jump as it looped) which was brilliantly suspenseful, the realisation that all the statues were angels, the creepy thing that is happening to Amy with the dust and her 'stone' hand, and the cliffhanger - which was brilliant in the way that usually the cliffhanger shows everyone not knowing what to do, whereas this was the Doctor enacting his plan....

But I just kept seeing niggles and plot holes in this, which I can usually look past, but for some reason I couldn't. The Sonic Screwdriver couldn't get into the shuttle because it was, all of a sudden, deadlocked? By who, the angel? How did the angel modify the locks WHILE coming out of the TV?

The statues are all Angels? That's creepy, sure.. and the reveal was great (the conversation about the inhabitants of the planet having two heads), and I know they were all dying Angels... but given ALL those statues, no-one was keeping an eye on them all, so why hadn't they started moving BEFORE our heroes realised what was going on?

I loved the way the angels used the dead soldier to communicate, although it remains to be seen why they bothered, if all they wanted to do was kill everyone...

And River Song. Where do I start? I've never known a character that is both brilliant and hideously irritating at the same time before... She's smug, and annoying, and that's OK. It's when she tries to be nice (either to Amy or the Doctor) that I don't really buy it... that may be the acting, or the writing, or the direction, but I just don't know....

Still, I'm looking forward to next week, notably because we seem to get some forward movement regarding the cracks we've been seeing, and I want to see how the rest of the Angels story plays out.

The Good: I know I've said it every review, but Matt and Karen are owning their parts every week, and this week I shall also put in a shout-out for the guy who played Scared Bob, who I thought was brilliant... The Weeping Angels are still creepy, the one on video was downright scary, and the banter between River, Amy and the Doctor was fabulous.

The Bad: Something about this just felt... pedestrian. Normal. Boring. There was no crazy reveal, no outrageous plan... I dunno, maybe watching the second part will resolve this for me. Plus I STILL don't know if I like River Song...

Conclusion: 7.5/10 - Weakest one of the series for me... but still better than 99% of TV!

Brawny (almost) gets political!

2010-04-23T09:46:00.004+01:00

I'm not the most political person in the world. I'm not the least political either, but I'm certainly much closer to that end of the scale. I have a general sense of apathy about politics, which I have noticed has been spreading across the country these last few years.

Until now.

Because now, shock horror, we got to see the leaders of the three main parties talking. About their policies. On TV. And suddenly, everyone cares.

Which is probably good, since whoever we pick is going to run the country....

But anyway - the upshot of the leader debates (certainly the first one) appears to be that all of a sudden people have remembered that the Liberal Democrats exist - which is all good, as personally I agree with more of what they say than the other two (plus they are unsullied by the "They promise a lot now, but look at what happens when they get into power" mentality as they've never got into power...). This has, however led to confusion in the tabloid press (all of whom had backed either Conservative or Labour to the hilt) and in their confusion, the majority of them are thrashing out against Nick Clegg... but this is the best one.

Yes, once again, we're going to talk about a ridiculous Daily Mail article! Let me hear you say yeah! (Listens expectantly. Surprisingly hears a yeah. Decides I'm going insane. Debates calling a doctor. Decides against it. Carries on.)

Yes, it's the article that reckons Nick Clegg is a Nazi (although on reading it today, they've updated it to add a quote from him at the top basically ridiculing their story.) and that he has been involved in lots of unsavoury goings on and is generally the wrong man for the job.

Shall we have a look at the specifics of the article? (Hears that voice again, this time saying "Yes Brawny, let's!" Books a doctors appointment while typing.)

"The passionately pro-Europe Mr Clegg revealed his views on World War II in an article for the Guardian newspaper in 2002. ‘Watching Germany rise from its knees after the war and become a vastly more prosperous nation has not been easy on the febrile British psyche,’ Mr Clegg wrote, before attacking Britain’s approach to the war. ‘All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still...A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off. We need to be put back in our place.’"

Now, this seems a little strange as a quote, until you read the entire guardian article which is well-written, well-argued and showcases a lot of very good points (in my opinion). However, if you're offended by reading the complete article, then fine. Surely the Mail would get someone like that to respond to it? Well they went one better, didn't they, they got the grandson of Winston Churchill! Minor detail is? Well, I'll let you read the excerpt and realise what might colour his opinion slightly...

"Tory MP Nicholas Soames, grandson of wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, said: ‘These views will disgust people the length and breadth of the country. They show that Nick Clegg is unfit to lead his party, let alone the country."

Yes he's a Tory MP. So basically the Tories are against Nick Clegg? What a shocker! What's more disturbing though, is what appears to be a throwaway line in the article that says "Ironically, his mother was interned by the Japanese during the war."

Is it just me, or does that line basically say "Mr Clegg, how dare you be all Nazi-like and stuff when your mum was held prisoner by people who weren't the Nazis but were sort of like them during the same war we fought the Nazis in?"

Balanced journalism my arse.

As well as the Nazi accusation, the other accusations made in the article include that he is facing "damaging questions" over money being paid directly to him (which, if you look at the information, was properly declared and used to pay for a member of staff), that he will face tough questions over his pro-Europe stance (but doesn't specify anything more) and that he performed a U-turn, "suggesting he would not ask for him (Gordon Brown) to quit as the price for Lib Dem support in a coalition. Only yesterday he called Mr Brown a 'desperate man' who should not be allowed to stay as a 'squatter' in Downing Street but today he indicated voting reform was more important. 'His record shows he is very much part of the problem, not the solution. But it is not my job to decide who every party has as their leader,' he told the Independent."

I'm fairly sure it can't be considered a U-turn if he didn't say that he wouldn't consider a coalition with Brown. Which he didn't. He apparently "indicated" it. Which intrigues me. Does he have little flashing indicator lights that, instead of showing when he's turning left or right actually tell you what he's thinking?

No. He doesn't. For he is not Nick Clegg; half-man half-bizarre machine, he is Nick Clegg; The man who seems sane in comparison with the other two.

Can the Lib Dems win? I don't know. As I said at the start of this, I don't know much about politics. If they do win will they abandon the majority of their promises? Probably, they're politicians. But you have to wonder - surely they'd be better than the other two idiots?

The Genre Struggle

2010-04-20T09:17:00.003+01:00

I have some good news for you, oh blog readers... I have finished my novel!

Yes - Tempus Fugit (Or, 'How many Time-Travellers does it take to break the Continuum?) is finished and I am waiting for my free Createspace proof copy (yet another advantage of doing NaNoWriMo). And before anyone asks, no I haven't decided if I'll make it available to the public to buy yet...

And so, my brain is naturally moving on to what my next project is going to be. (Because, while I like to think that I can multi-task, once I start properly working on a project everything tends to relate to that...)

And I'm not sure what to do. I've got a one-act play I'd quite like to write, which I may do next as I don't think it'll take me too long (certainly not for a first draft anyway), but I think what I'd really like to do next is go back to my roots a bit, and write an album - especially now I've discovered Routenote, with whom I'd be able to put the album on iTunes / Spotify / Other digital download services, so that everyone could enjoy it. (And just to be clear, I don't expect to make any money out of it at all, but imagine being able to say "My album is on iTunes". That's the sort of thing I've dreamed of since I was a kid (although iTunes didn't exist then, but you know what I mean)). However, while thinking about this, I've started to worry about genre.

This worry never occurs with anything else. Partly because scripts and novels don't have such rigid genres as music, but also because a novel or a script is a single entity, whereas an album is a selection of individual songs. And I like to write a wide selection of songs. Therefore, for my first full solo album, should I concentrate on one genre, or purposefully make a genre-transcending album ranging from Metal to piano instrumentals? Or should I just stop worrying about it and just write what I feel I want to write?

The other thing that puts me off about this is that I'm not a particularly good lyricist. Firstly, a lot of my lyrics are just jokes (which is fine, I'm not complaining about that), but also I have a paranoid fear that people assume whatever I'm writing is true. I never feel like that with script or stories, but with music people make the assumption that the singer/songwriter is talking about themselves and their own life, and that idea tends to crowd my brain and make me worry about what I'm writing.

So what do you, my adoring public (and I use the word adoring in the loosest possible sense) think? Should I just write whatever I feel like? Or should I consider the album as a whole and tailor the songs to one specific feel?

I'm genuinely interested in your answers, so please don't stay quiet! By all means if you want to be anonymous, then do, but post your answers if you have any. :)

Thanks.

REVIEW - Doctor Who - Victory of the Daleks (1.3)

2010-04-19T13:32:00.004+01:00

So it's a Monday, and without further ado....

DOCTOR WHO - VICTORY OF THE DALEKS

In which: The Doctor and Amy travel back to WWII and discover that Churchill has a brand new weapon that could win him the war. They are the Ironsides, as invented by Professor Bracewell, metal machines with powerful weaponry. Except they are a kind of pepperpot shape, glide along the floor and have a sucker sticking out the front of them... yes, it's the Daleks.

What did I think?: I know this is a common theme for these reviews, but I liked it. Although it would appear that I am much more alone on this than on previous episodes as a lot of people, both in real life and on Gallifrey Base (Not that I'm saying that people on there aren't real, but you know what I mean) appear to have significant complaints about this episode.

But not me.

Come on, how can you not love an episode that contains *deep breath* Daleks, Churchill, Spitfires in space, The Doctor uppercuting a professor, NEW Daleks, an android and so much more...

Let's start at the beginning. The first ten or fifteen minutes are brilliant, atmospheric and just plain confusing as you get the Daleks moving around, being nice, obeying orders... and bringing cups of tea.

You see? That's brilliance, right there. But more than that, once the Daleks deception is exposed, then their plan seems, to quote the Middleman "Sheer Elegance in its simplicity". OK, so it's not quite THAT simple, but it's as follows:

After the events of Journey's End (in which all the Daleks in the universe were destroyed for at least the third time in four years), one ship escaped (as usual) and that's the ship that ends up there in WWII. The Daleks on board found a progenitor (Spelling? Anyone?) which makes more Daleks, but since it only makes true Daleks, and the Daleks from Journey's End are rush jobs made by Davros, it won't recognise them. So it won't work unless someone proves they are the Daleks. So they built Bracewell as a robot, so he could pretend to have invented the Daleks, so that Churchill would ring the Doctor, so when the Doctor announces loudly "You are the Daleks and I am the Doctor" this testimony allows the progenitor to work and start spitting out new Daleks...

(Wow, I didn't realise how many times I used the word Dalek in the above paragraph until I spellchecked it... incidentally, why doesn't Blogger's spellchecker recognise Dalek? It must surely be a real word by now...)

Wow, that's complicated. At least it's complicated when you try and boil it down to one paragraph. But it is a nice change for the Daleks initial plan when they realise they're down to just a few left is NOT to try and invade/destroy a planet/the universe, but instead to make more Daleks. And the best thing about this?

*MAJOR SPOILER ALERT

(I MEAN IT, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE EPISODE THEN LOOK AWAY NOW)

DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!

The Daleks win.

Well, mostly.

They survive, which in NuWho is a HUGE leap forward. At last we no longer have to spend the beginning of every Dalek episode going "But you were all dead? How did you survive??". They survive because they make the Doctor choose between saving Earth or destroying their ship. And the Doctor, of course, chooses Earth.

In this brief outline I am, of course, not doing justice to some of the other fine areas of the episode, such as Spitfires dogfighting with a Dalek ship in outer space!! Which was great.

Now, I'm going to address some of the criticisms I have heard about this episode...

The New Multi-Coloured Daleks are rubbish and plasticky - Yeah, they look different. But the more I look at them, the more I've decided I like them. They lend an air of variety to the Dalek race, and the fact that they have different job titles means that we can see an expansion and evolution of the Dalek race. Plus, hopefully, they'll never be stupid enough to all end up in the same place so they can be wiped out again...

The WWAF who's boyfriend/husband was killed was pointless - Yes, she was, if you expected her to be a subplot. But to symbolise the carnage that was going on as the war continued, to show that the Daleks weren't the only enemy? In that instance it worked. (I grant you, it was a little underwritten/heavy handed, but there you go). Plus she was only onscreen for about 3 minutes, so why focus so much on her?

How did they talk Bracewell out of exploding? This is the thing that's annoyed me the most. People complaining how the way the Doctor and Amy talked Bracewell out of going bang was 'unrealistic.' Unrealistic? Excuse me? By that point we've gone through Spitfires in space, Daleks, and god knows how much other unrealistic stuff, not forgetting the fact the whole show is based around the 'unrealistic' premise of a time-travelling alien who's spaceship looks like a 60's London police box! Gain a little perspective! Since we don't understand the bionics/electronics of creating the perfectly functioning human robot, it's hard to judge. I thought that since he had human memories and human instincts that he was able to calm himself down, and by doing that and embracing his humanity (and therefore his lust for life), he was able to control his robotic/electronic safeguards and they stopped the bomb.

How did they get the gravity shields on the Spitfires in time?
Dramatic Necessity.

The characterisation of the Doctor and Amy seems dull and uninteresting
Hi, here's a crazy pill, but no more for you, you've already had enough. Dull and uninteresting? We've got a Doctor who has such violent mood swings that he's almost as bad as the sixth Doctor, and a companion who has a complete love for him because she's dreamed about him for 14 years!

I could go on complaining about people who complain, but I won't because I'm better than that.

Also - Amy doesn't remember the Daleks? Has this got anything to do with the mysterious cracks? (I know what my money's on...)

The Good: Have I mentioned Spitfires in space?? :P The acting continues to be stellar, with Matt, Karen, Ian McNeice as Churchill and Bill Patterson as Bracewell all being superb. The new Daleks winning, which means that we can have new Dalek stories in future - and their new ranks allowing for a Dalek society to grow again.

The Bad: Yes, the new Daleks are slightly plastic-looking, and the Eleventh Doctor does seem to be developing a preference for leaving his companion behind (can you develop a preference over only two shows? Not sure...)

Conclusion?: 9/10. THERE WERE SPITFIRES IN SPACE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Next Week: The return of the character I've had the most ambivalence about in the whole of NuWho - River Song...

Death is not the end...

2010-04-14T10:04:00.003+01:00

OK, after writing about Michael Jackson's ridiculous posthumous record deal a few weeks ago, I've seen two more stories about posthumously adding to peoples legacies, and they are both as dumb as each other.

First is this, a sequel to Treasure Island. Now, I don't see a point in writing such a sequel, but I'm not going to complain about that - each to their own. However, I'm astonished to see that a sequel written by "the former Poet Laureate Sir Andrew Motion" has apparently resorted to a plotline that sounds like it would have been used in a Disney direct-to-DVD sequel for a classic film (and we can all agree that they're rubbish can't we? I mean, obviously, except the Aladdin ones... :P )

"In Return to Treasure Island, Jim Hawkins lives with his son, Jim Junior, in a pub on the Thames outside London. Jim Junior is visited by a woman who turns out to be Long John Silver's daughter. She convinces Jim Junior to steal the original map of Treasure Island from his father and go on a trip organised by Silver so they can find the rest of the treasure."

OK. Firstly, Return to Treasure Island? I know it's hard thinking of titles for things, but really? Not only is that an amazingly obvious title, but that title has already been used by several sequels (as proved by this search page on Amazon). Why wouldn't a man with such a prestigious background come up with a title that hasn't been used before in that franchise?

Secondly - not only is he going with the whole "children of the old main characters decide to almost exactly replay the plot of the original novel" trope, but he hasn't even bothered to come up with a decent name for Jim Hawkins' son, instead calling him Jim Junior! Seriously, this is majorly lazy. Anyone would think he was dashing this novel off quickly to earn a bit of money... except it's not even likely he'll make a great deal, judging from the lack of success of most posthumous sequels (the exception being, of course, the Bond books).

Did he really think that this was a story worth writing? A story he was invested in? Or was he just offered a big advance cheque?

"Dan Franklin, publisher at Jonathan Cape, said Motion's sequel was a work of "literary ventriloquism"."

Well if he's managing to write it as R.L. Stevenson would have done, and he's basically re-hashing the original's plot (except, I am sure, for adding a romance subplot where love blossoms between those two main characters (and no, I don't have inside information, I'm just guessing)) then surely it'd be a more rewarding experience for all concerned to just READ THE ORIGINAL AGAIN!

And then, yesterday, I saw this. Now, I do believe Kubrick was a master film-maker, and having only seen a couple of his films, there are many of them on my mental "list of films I really ought to watch sometime." However, to claim that this is Kubrick's lost film is, frankly, MENTAL.

Look at the story - "It was a few years' back now that Stanley Kubrick's son-in-law, Philip Hobbs, discovered the work for a film called Lunatic At Large in amongst the masses of paperwork the director left behind after his death. Hobbs told the New York Times in 2006 that his father-in-law was "always saying he wished he knew where it was, because it was such a great idea". It wasn't so much a screenplay, to be fair, that Hobbs put his hands on, rather a treatment that was written by Jim Thompson. Kubrick had commissioned that treatment in the late 1950s."

OK. So Kubrick commissioned the treatment. So he didn't write it. (He may have had the original idea for the film, it's hard to tell from the limited information in the news story). And he obviously won't direct it, seeing as he's dead! And since Kubrick was a writer/director/editor/producer then he will have done NONE of these jobs on the film - so how is it his film??

I mean, don't get me wrong - even A.I. (which incidentally is a much better film if you stop it as the robot boy (who's name I forget) drowns, and you ignore all the alien stuff at the end) was at least assembled from "the various drafts and notes left by Kubrick and his writers " (And yes, I did just quote the Wikipedia Stanley Kubrick page - I know Wikipedia is often not a reliable source, but I remember seeing this elsewhere at the time), so I can see why it was thought of as an unmade Kubrick film - but surely just commissioning this treatment for Lunatic at Large doesn't make it his lost film??

Look, if I were ever to be famous and to die leaving lots of half-written things on my computer (which would be likely, as my computer is ALWAYS full of half-written things), then any of those being developed could be credited as a lost Michael Braunton film - but if it was based on me asking someone to write a plot for an idea I'd had - then it wouldn't belong to me - it belongs to the writer...

What's worse is I have a horrible suspicion this "lost Kubrick film" will end up with a generic director and be average - thus tarnishing Kubrick's record (which both A.I. and Eyes Wide Shut have already done to an extent...), whereas at least with this Treasure Island sequel, the only name to be tarnished will be that of the author, because no-ones claiming it's based on an idea R.L. Stevenson had.. thankfully.

What do you think? Are there any posthumous films/books/albums that you think add to the artist's legacy rather than tarnish it?

REVIEW - Love Never Dies

2010-04-13T09:31:00.001+01:00

Last weekend (or at least, it was last weekend when I started writing this blog, but due to other things getting in the way, it's now a week and a half ago. Such is life), I took the ever-beautiful Neety to go and see Phantom: Love Never Dies - the new show from Andrew Lloyd Webber. This show, a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera, had appeal to us both for different reasons. Neety is an avid fan of the original, and has read the book that the sequel is mostly based on, and I, well, I enjoy most Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals (Useless Fact: Did you know that although his name, Andrew Lloyd Webber, is not hyphenated, his title, Lord Lloyd-Webber, is? That's .... strange) and although there are some that leave me cold, every one I've seen has been a good night out.

However, I've only ever seen the film of Phantom of the Opera, never having gone to see it live, (And yes, that is partially because of the fact there are very rarely cheap tickets for it, as it is still insanely popular) and that meant that I could go into this with a basic knowledge of the original, but not slavishly devoted to it.

So here we go (Warning, there may be spoilers throughout this review)

PHANTOM: LOVE NEVER DIES

In Which: Ten Years on from the original Phantom of the Opera, the Phantom brings Christine and Raoul back into his life...

What did I think?: I have to say that I really enjoyed it. And my lack of knowledge about the plot (or the music for that matter) really helped that. I can't remember the last time I went to see a big budget musical where I didn't know the songs or the outcome beforehand, and it really helped. For that reason, I'm going to do my best not to spoil the ending for those of you reading this who will want to see it, but there may be mild spoilers concerning the rest of the show.

As I said, the plot was strong, if slightly contrived (in the way that all sequels are when attempting to re-integrate previous characters,) but it worked, simply due to the Phantom's obsession with Christine. In fact, the Phantom, Christine and Raoul all appeared to be obvious extensions of their characters from the original (in as far as I noticed). The other two returning characters are Mme Giry and Meg Giry, and I felt that both of them suffered from a significant lack of development. They were much more one-dimensional than the other three, and (according to Neety at least) Mme Giry appeared to have had a significant character change from the original.

For a Lloyd Webber show, there was remarkably little for the chorus to do, instead the show focuses on the six characters. ("Six?" I hear you say "But you've only listed five!"). The sixth is a new character - Gustave, the son of Christine and Raoul. But of course, the centre of the show is Christine and the Phantom, which does mean the other characters get slightly sidelined (particularly Raoul in Act One, although this is fixed within Act Two, primarily in the opening scene, where the plot finally manages to involve him more directly.)

Musically, I found it all entertaining (nothing of the annoyance level of "Castle on a Cloud" from Les Miserables or as narratively redundant as "Those Canaan Days" from Joseph) and, this being Lloyd Webber, there was good use of themes and thematic transformation (and yes, there are a couple of obvious callbacks to the original score, but they're not the songs you'd expect, and none of them are longer than a few bars). There were four or five songs that stuck in my mind as being outstanding which were:
'Til I hear you sing - The Phantom's first solo
Dear Old Friend - The sarcasm-riddled quartet when Christine, Raoul, Meg and Mme Giry all encounter each other for the first time
The Beauty Underneath - AKA "How to mentally scar a ten-year-old"
Why does she Love Me - Raoul's opening of Act Two, and a song sure to be used by many tenors for auditions in the future
Devil Take The Hindmost - Both versions of this, the duet with Raoul and the Phantom, and the Quartet version later in the act

What did I think of Love Never Dies - the title song of the show? It was OK, but to my ears it was certainly not the best of the score. Also, Mme Giry's first song did seem like it should have titled "Exposition City - the last ten years" as it just ticks off what happened between the original show and the start of this one...

From a technical perspective (and speaking of perspective, when the show starts, admire the creation of the on-stage pier. Seriously, it's impressive) it was a big, bold, brash and brilliant show, utilising nearly every trick I can think of including projection, trapdoors, a revolve and many more.

For me, the only disappointing parts of the show were that it stopped once due to a technical fault (which was OK, because it did at least stop at the end of a scene, and we just had to wait a few minutes for the next scene) and... well... the ending.

Don't get me wrong, the end as written is good. There is tension, uncertainty, no knowledge of what is going to happen... but two things spoilt it for me really. (This is tough to talk about, as I REALLY don't want to give away the ending to those of you who want to see it). The first was there was a moment of overacting from the child playing Gustave (who, incidentally, looked an awful lot like Greg) although if you give a child the line "Nooo!" then what do you expect... and the second is that I didn't quite buy into Meg doing what she does. (I hope that's vague enough)

The most disappointing part of the whole experience though? The fact that it cost £11.80 for two drinks in the interval! Oh, and the seats aren't the most comfortable in the world...

The Good: On the whole, performances were excellent. (We saw the first cover Phantom, and he was amazing). The score is memorable (to the point where writing this has me now wanting to listen to it) and the whole performance is a feast for the senses.

The Bad: Minor bits of overacting aside, the chorus are underused (although I understand why, from a dramatic purpose) and the drinks are overpriced.

Conclusion: 9/10. I loved it. Go see it.

REVIEW - Dr Who - The Beast Below (1.2)

2010-04-12T09:31:00.003+01:00

Yes, I'm back, with my weekly Dr Who review! I hear you all cheering over there in the background.... :) (And yes, I have other blogs on the way too, so sorry for being lax recently. I shall attempt to fix this soon)

But now, and without further ado...

DR WHO - THE BEAST BELOW

In Which: The Doctor and Amy visit the future, find the entire UK on a Starship (well, except for Scotland) and then face some tough decisions...

What did I think?: This episode was very interesting, and I think this is where we really began to get differentiations between the current Moffat era and the RTD one. Yes, elements of the basic shape of this story can be traced to RTD episodes (and, in fact, way further back in Who-story (That's the word I just invented for Dr Who History. You like?) than that), but it's both the atmosphere and the character work that just lends a small twist to the proceedings.

It just seemed, to me, to work on every level. There were children, who work as the audience identification figure for the kids in the audience, there was political allegory, there was still a huge dollop of sci-fi, and there was a giant space whale! What's not to love?

The evolution of Amy and the Doctor so far is huge. We get to see the Eleventh Doctor here firstly deal with his history in a completely different way to the tenth (where he tells Amy he's the last of his kind very quickly, and chooses not to elaborate) which I think is a good move, because the Time War became the focus for the end of the Tennant years, and it's nice to move away from that for now. We also see him being more alien, which I like. When he gets angry, bellowing "Nobody human has anything to say to me today!" you really get to see the other side of him, which I think is important. He's not human, that's why he needs a companion.

And that's where Amy comes in. She makes the connection between the Doctor and the whale. She puts the pieces together. And she solves the problem with an irrationality that only a human could show. It's nice to see the companion being reckless rather than the Doctor (the tenth could be horrendously reckless sometimes) and the Doctor being torn between being grateful and horrified.

Their relationship too appears to be growing in interesting, multi-dimensional ways. Yes, she obviously still has some form of attraction towards him, but it's also tempered against the fact she's discovering, on some level, that he isn't the imaginary figure she dreamt up in the twelve years between first meeting him and then meeting him again, which gives us the unique advantage of having a companion who in some ways knows the Doctor better than he does himself, and in some ways just thinks she does..

As for the supporting cast? Liz 10 was pretty cool - a gun-toting future monarch is a fabulous idea, as is the abbreviation of her name, and the kids were actually not that annoying. My one sort-of problem with the episode is the Smilers. I can see what they were going for, but it just didn't seem to follow through. It was as if they thought of the visual and then didn't really do anything with it. And the half human smilers seemed pointless to me.

I loved how the ending of this episode leads straight into the next one (and incidentally, I'm horrendously excited about the next one. Churchill? Daleks? WWII? Bring it on...) although it does lead us to the interesting point that the Doctor has been going non-stop since the End of Time Part One, because he hasn't stopped to sleep or eat (apart from some fish custard) since then...

Oh, and another crack in space and time appeared on the hull of the Starship? Now the question is, are they everywhere - so the Doctor will always run into them? Or are they somehow caused by the Doctor or Amy? Or, is the Doctor investigating them and chasing the cracks around without saying anything? I'm sure we'll discover...

The Good: Matt Smith and Karen Gillan. Both continued to grasp my attention completely, and I found myself warming to both characters. Liz 10 was also brilliant, and there was some lovely humour throughout the episode. Also, after last weeks I did worry that this series might feel a little more childish, but luckily here it didn't.

The Bad: The SmilerHumans seemed pointless. And I don't really understand why the kids who got zero ended up down below, especially since they already knew the whale wouldn't eat the children... There was the occasional bit of bad CG, but to me it felt better than last weeks.

Conclusion: 8.5/10. It worked better than last weeks, and felt like a nice slice of classic Who, injected with the pace of NuWho. Keep it up Moffat!

Laying down the Digital Law

2010-04-08T13:00:00.004+01:00

Remember how a couple of months ago I posted a helpful blog for how the entertainment industry should fix itself? Well it turns out that instead of listening to the helpful advice of an anonymous Internet blogger, the government went the other way.

Today, the digital economy bill passed the house of commons. This is, in my opinion, very much a double-edged sword. Yes, I'm all for legislation to ensure that copyright is kept and rights holders are paid a fair wage. But this isn't it.

This bill is (and let's be clear about this, I haven't read the thing, just several concise summaries) frankly badly-thought out and behind the times. And full of vague language.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised it passed, and I'm not surprised it's opponents are saying it was rushed through before the election. Of course it was, because it's a politically poisoned chalice. No-one knows how properly to fix the situation, and no-one really wants to appear for or against it in an election campaign.

The trouble is, that assuming this thing passes the house of Lords and comes into law (and I expect it will) then it's very open to interpretation.

"Under the terms of the bill, Internet service providers will be obliged to send letters to any of their subscribers linked to alleged infringements." Well firstly, I'm unsure as to the technical definition of "linked", but more than that, it means that you will be notified even if someone else has been using your connection - be it family, friend, flatmate, or person outside who's hacked into your wi-fi.

"Restrictions on the activities of persistent copyright offenders will not come into force for a year and only on the basis of clear evidence of their activities." What, exactly, constitutes clear evidence?

There is some good news - "A clause on "orphan works" - material where the author was impossible to identify - was also dropped after opposition from photographers."- this clause was horrendous, basically meaning that people could claim they'd found pictures etc, and couldn't find the owner, so they'd be allowed to use it for free.

"Another proposal allowing politicians to block pirate websites without primary legislation was replaced with an amendment which lets ministers "make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction"."

OK, I'm a pretty well-educated guy, and to me that sentence is a) full of jargon and b) basically means the same thing, but they do have to speak to a court first.

Look, I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about this stuff, but on reading this, I think I may have to be. Don't get me wrong, I know I break the law by downloading certain things, but I would like to think that I only do it when I don't have much of an option left. I can't watch Lost legally because my landlord won't let me install Sky. If I could, I would do. I can watch Chuck legally, but as far as I know, the UK's about a year behind, and without downloading facilities, I would never have discovered The Middleman, which is so good I imported the DVD set, and want to import the graphic novel.

I just... this feels wrong. It feels like all the rules set out in the bill are so horrendously unspecific that it could be moulded into whatever people want it to be. And I'm guessing that there are more Internet-phobic members of parliament than Internet-friendly ones. So it may end up becoming a horrific piece of legislation.

It may work. And I hope it does. But I am, for now, very sceptical.

REVIEW - Dr Who: The Eleventh Hour (1.1)

2010-04-07T10:19:00.004+01:00

So, we've all been waiting for it (when I say all, I mean everyone who likes Dr Who - and if you don't, why not? It's great) . The new era of Dr Who is here. New Doctor, new companion, new head writer, new production team, new series numbering (yes, as you can see from my title for this blog, I have acquiesced to the BBC's official stance that this series is numbered as series 1. So there.) but the same old Brawny review :)

So here we go... Needless to say, there will be Spoilers in this, so do not read if you haven't seen the episode. Unless you don't care about spoilers, in which case go right ahead!

DR WHO - THE ELEVENTH HOUR

In which - The newly-regenerated Doctor crashes to earth, demolishes a shed, eats some of the most disgusting foods known to man and then saves the world in twenty minutes.

What did I think? - Well, there's so much about this episode that it's tough to know where to start! So we'll start with the new Doctor.

I was wary, as I always am when a new Doctor is introduced (I was convinced David Tennant would be rubbish until approximately 45 minutes into the Christmas Invasion (For those of you who are wondering, yes I mean the Lion King speech) ) but Matt Smith did a damn fine job in his opening minutes, and while there were glimmers of the tenth doctor in him (which, to be fair, may have been deliberate to show the regeneration process was still occurring) he made it his own, being kind yet cold, pompous yet caring, and seeming to genuinely enjoy his adventure, which made it a far-removed cry from the tortured Doctor at the finale of the End of Time. He was also great with the funny lines, including "Fish-Custard man", "Delete your Internet history Jeff" and "Twenty minutes to save the world, and I've got a Post Office. And it's Shut!"

New Companion? Well, I found her OK, she's much less annoying than Rose (which, to be fair, isn't saying much) and I liked the fact that she's in her early twenties (I would guess, I don't think her actual age is specified in the episode). Plus, due to the timey-wimey events of the story, she's got a backstory, a history with the Doctor, and you feel like she's a genuinely different person from all the RTD-era companions.

Also, the Doctor-Companion relationship does look to be different this time, which is a definite positive. She looks at him with a mixture of lust and confusion, and he looks at her with, well, much the same. But she's due to be married to Rory? Interesting... And speaking of whom, while I would say that he was the weakest link in the episode itself (obviously being set up for the future) but at least his introduction was good, because he was an essential part of the story rather than just being introduced as Amy's boyfriend.

The story? The story appears to have come in for some stick from various reviewers, which I think is unfair. I found it a perfectly serviceable story to use as an introduction. If you hold it up against other first episodes which introduce people, I would say it's better than Rose (Which I found dull and not massively gripping), slightly better than Smith and Jones (which does, in truth, share various elements with this episode) and on a par with Partners in Crime (But with a completely different feel, as that was an out-and-out comedy episode). The essential things I took away from it, were that some of the comedy will continue to aim for the youngest child (spitting food out is a basic comic staple, although it was admittedly hilarious), but also, Steven Moffat doesn't seem to be one to shy away from using much more sci-fi elements than RTD would do.

(And yes, I know it's impossible to judge what the entire series is going to be like based on one episode, but that won't stop me trying. It's a free country damnit!)

The new title sequence is visually impressive, and I like the idea the vortex has lightning in it :) What I'm really unsure about is the new theme. I admire them for trying to do something different, but I've listened to it a few times (and you can too, right here) but it just doesn't quite give the excitement the old one did.

New TARDIS however? Love it! It's got levels, and rooms, and it's just cool.

And the general look of the episode as well. Apparently they've allowed the individual directors to have a more obvious hand in the look of the episodes rather than demanding a series-wide standard as was previously (allegedly) required in the RTD era. I loved it, it allowed for the directorial tweaks like the strange, almost bullet time Doctor's thought process, and the whole episode looked great.

The Good: New Doctor, New Companion, Sci-Fi Timey-Wimey story, Early hints of arc-stories, New TARDIS, Flashback to old monsters and Doctors

The Bad: Some of the CG was slightly cheap-looking, Rory seems particularly useless at this point (but I'm sure that may change) The new aliens were a little underused, but you get away with that in an opening story.

Conclusion: 8/10. A great start, hopefully it goes onward and upward from here

Debate vs. Dictation

2010-03-24T13:24:00.004Z

"Do you know something?"
"What's that?"
"Smoking's bad for you"
"Really? I never knew that! Thank you for telling me, I'll stop right now..."

The above is a conversation that it is incredibly unlikely you will ever hear (certainly spoken seriously. You may hear it with massive sarcastic overtones, but not seriously) and that is because it is well known that smoking is bad for you and those around you.

Despite this, some people choose to smoke. There is obviously a reason for this. (And yes, I know that they are addicted, but something must have made them start initially). So smoking can't be all bad, at least not to those who do it.

DISCLAIMER - Before I go any further with this, please be aware that I am a non-smoker, and that I do think that enforced passive smoking is bad (particularly for children).

There's a report out that says that smoking should be banned in all places where young people congregate, as well as in cars. Now the "places where young people congregate" bit I can understand, although one does wonder practically how much passive smoking occurs if you, as a child (and yes, I know you're probably not a child, I'm asking you to imagine you are for the sake of this analogy) are playing in the park and there's a man on the bench opposite you smoking a cigarette. My suspicion is "Not a lot."

However, the cars thing is disturbing. Cars are private areas. By suggesting this, we end up within the eternal argument of what should be regulated. Should what we do in our own homes be regulated? Even the report seems to realise that's a step too far. "The doctors acknowledge that a ban on smoking in the home, however desirable it believes this to be, would be neither politically or practically possible, but sees the car as an intervention in the private sphere which the public would tolerate."

Well obviously they're just talking about cars with kids in right? I mean, that's OK, they could sell that....

"...it argues that the only way to make it practically enforceable would be to introduce it as a blanket ban on all private vehicles - regardless of their passengers, as exemptions would prove too complex. "

So hold on, a law that says "It is illegal to smoke in a car which contains an under-18 year old" is a complex exemption??

To me, even as a non-smoker, this is a step too far. I was all in favour of the smoking ban in public interior places, pubs etc. are now much nicer for me to spend time in. But this is more than that, this is now just punishing people for smoking. And that's not going to work.

The problem is that at no time does any official position even acknowledge that cigarettes have any good points at all. For example, the other day a group of 11-12 year old students at the school where I work produced little video interviews about smoking, and they all without fail said "Smoking's bad." Given the number of kids they interviewed, my guess would be at least two or three of them are lying. They've tried it. They've probably liked it. But they know they can't say that.

I'm not saying I like smokers, I don't. (Well, individually I like quite a lot of people who smoke, but I mean I don't like being surrounded by them) but I'm not going to tell them how to live their lives when they are old enough to make decisions for themselves.

I firmly believe that to make a decision you need to know both sides of the argument. If the government, or the NHS, or anyone else launched a campaign that said "Smoking can relax you after a hard day, but it can also give you cancer" and went on to discuss both good and bad points of it, then people would be much more well informed. However, as any parent knows, if you tell a rebellious teenager not to do something, they'll do it. If you discuss it with them, they'll make their own decision.

But we, as a country, don't seem to like discussion. We like to be told what's right and wrong. What happens once smoking is effectively outlawed? Is drinking next? Chewing Gum? We're rapidly progressing into a police state, and I've seen enough sci-fi films to know that's not a good thing.

I would suggest we protest in the normal, civilised way, by voting for people who won't support it. But because we all know "Smoking is Bad", no-one's going to oppose it....

Maybe I should start my own political party..... what could possibly go wrong? :P

A Play by any other name... is less important than Shakespeare apparently.

2010-03-16T11:37:00.005Z

Why are there some people, be they writers, musicians or filmmakers, who automatically have to be held up in high regard? People like the Beatles, Martin Scorsese, Charles Dickens... why are they considered better than their peers? (I'm not picking on any of them in particular, I'm just showing examples. Although I do think that at least two are overrated to some degree) Shouldn't it be judged on the work alone? And why, Brawny, are you bringing this up now? (That last question was the one you're all asking. I know you are. Go on, admit it. ADMITTT ITTT!!!)

Well, it turns out that there's a new Shakespeare play. Except it's not new. It's been around for 300 years. But it wasn't credited to him. Now, however, according to Shakespeare expert Professor Brean Hammond (And yes, that is his name, not a typo) "I think Shakespeare's hand can be discerned in Act One, Act Two and probably the first two scenes in Act Three of the play"

Let's ignore the multiple jokes I could make at this point involving Shakespeare's disembodied hand, working alone, and just focus on the ridiculousness. It had been assumed it was written solely by John Fletcher, whom it has been established also co-wrote Henry VIII and the Two Noble Kinsmen with Shakespeare (although, how it can be established is beyond me. Presumably they do some clever comparison of the writing and figure out the likelihood of it. Or maybe they hired a medium to speak to them and clear the situation up. Who knows?) even though "Theatre impresario Lewis Theobald presented the play in the 18th century as an adaptation of a Shakespeare play but it was dismissed as a forgery." So it looks as if Lewis Theobald was ahead of his time. By about 200+ years....

My point is, who cares? The play's existed for 300 years, and it's no different today than it was yesterday. The text is still the same, the plot is still the same, the dialogue is still the same. It's just today it's been published in a collection of Shakespeare, so people will now instantly love it.

Another artist who suffers from this is the late Michael Jackson. Regardless of his personal issues or problems, it can't be denied he was an important force in popular music, and therefore his musical reputation is, by and large, deserved. However, today news comes that his estate has signed a massive record deal . I'm not necessarily saying I'm against posthumous albums in general (although they're rarely the artists best work) and I'm not particularly surprised that there was interest in his unreleased material. However, it's this sentence that is disturbing. "The deal reportedly involves 10 album projects over seven years - including one of previously unreleased material. "

Hang on a minute, TEN albums?? And only ONE is previously unreleased material?? What are the other nine going to be? Well apparently they're likely to be "revamped packages of old hits." Forgive me, but didn't we get that at the point he died?? This seems like overkill to me. Even The Beatles, who are several light years above Michael Jackson in contribution to music terms, only released three double posthumous albums, and they all had stuff on that die-hard fans wanted to hear (mostly demos and out-takes). So one wonders how they're going to fill ten albums. And how many of them will have versions of Thriller on them.

Seriously. I imagine that the unreleased material comes from late in his life, and who can honestly say he was at his best then? Keeping with the Beatles example for a second, who rates Free as a Bird as one of their all time best Beatles songs? Answer, not many.... (At least as far as I know!)

It's just depressing. In an age where it's harder than ever to be a new artist, Sony will give $200 million for albums of rehashed stuff they've already released before.

Not much to say really. Just disappointed in them.

Pimp My Mate.com!

2010-03-03T17:37:00.005Z

While listening to Spotify, I keep hearing an advert for mysinglefriend.com, which is as insufferably annoying as you would imagine it to be, but after having heard it several hundred times, I started to wonder what sort of dating site it is.... Because it sounds very dodgy doesn't it? Either you're going to be encouraged to date people who are already friends of yours (and if that's the case, you really don't need a website for that, alcohol and meddling friends is a much easier route), or you're going to pimp out a friend of yours that is single.

Well it turns out that it is option B.

Yes, Pimping your friends on the human equivalent of eBay is now the done thing on the internet, apparently. According to the FAQ on the site, the way to use the site is as follows:

"a friend describes their single pal, an email goes to the single who then has to look over, approve and add comments to the description before it goes live. or a single can nominate themselves, ask a friend to describe them, again approving the description and adding comments before it goes live."

OK. So basically, it's just like every other dating site out there, except you can get your friend to do all the dull data entry for you? Wonderful..

"We wanted to invent a dating site that was more fun, more interactive and less scary than the traditional way - so we could get people talking and meeting who probably wouldn't dream of joining a conventional dating agency and have the chance to get to hear about each other. How are we going to get all these wonderful cool people to meet? A little help from our friends!"

Um... the flaw with this logic is as follows. If people wouldn't dream of joining a conventional dating site, then why would they allow themselves to be put on this one? As you said in the first paragraph, oh slightly patronising website, the person is asked if they approve, so you'll still end up with the same people you get on every dating website.

NOTE - Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that I am not criticising people who use dating sites, I am just ridiculing this one for failing to be different. That is all. Back to the body of the post now.

"Single and a secret?"

Who keeps themselves a secret? Really? What do these people do? Hide under tarpaulins and then sneak out in the dead of night to gain sustenance from 24-hour Tescos (Where they may get seen by the employees, but night employees at Tescos are definitely NOT human...)

"If you are the single person, or you know a single, whose own social circle is now desiccated of decent dating potential then this site could be for you."

Or you could, you know, meet some more people in the real world...

"Wondering where all the good ones are?"

I'll give you a clue, they're not on "Please Take My Friend I'm Fed Up With Him/Her Being A Third Wheel.com"

"You can imagine that it's really not easy to describe yourself and throw yourself 'out there' all on your own. So we think the idea of having a friend persuade, endorse and depict someone is far less intimidating, and it certainly makes for a more fascinating and enlightening read!"

OK, so basically you're implying that it's easier for a friend to do it. This may be true. It may also be much more embarrassing...

"You don't have to be 'looking for love' – let's just get a wider dating pool of super-singles, resulting in some good, old-fashioned, decent dates!"

Rough Translation: Even if you're not looking for a relationship, sign up for a super-duper-fuck-fest! (Excuse my language)

"It's different too because YOU AND YOUR FRIEND are both involved; the friend who describes the single has login details too – gaining the ability to search through the latest potentials online, and recommend them to their single friend to take a look at (just like the meddling we all do offline!)."

Yeah, cos that's what you want if genuinely trying to broaden your friend circle / possible relationships, a friend sticking their nose in!

"Having a friend involved means that checking out a potential can be done together- and friends seeking out suitable types for each other generates a little matchmaking amusement – and not by a computer, but by someone who actually knows you."

This paragraph is the one that makes me laugh the most, because it basically sums up the point of the site. It's so that your friends can sign you up and then laugh at you, you poor pathetic single person, while simultaneously mocking all the other poor pathetic single people who are trying to talk to you via the website, all the while feeling superior because they have someone special in their life and you don't.

This website appears to be the start of a worrying trend, where anything can be done online. Ideas for more sites include:
Hire My Mother.com; Where you can hire peoples mothers to do your cooking and cleaning for you. The mother in question gets no option, they have to turn up and do it
Improve My Friend.com; Where you upload photographs of your ugly friends, theoretically for people to make comments about how they can become more attractive. However, the whole site will end up being taken over by trolls making comments like "U iz well butterz, stik ur hed in a bag bitch"
eBaby.com; Where you can buy babies....

Any more ideas? That's what the comments box is for folks!

Kicking the Daily Mail's Ass

2010-03-02T17:51:00.003Z

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for not writing sooner, I know you feel neglected, and I'm sorry about that... I'm just really busy at the moment (at work, which is full of irritants.... you know what? Don't even get me started on it...)

So yesterday I saw a link to this story, and I felt that I had to let rip. OK, I grant you, it's the Daily Mail YET AGAIN, and I did wonder whether I've done too many blogs about their news stories of late (quick check of my blog shows that I haven't written any for a while though, so I feel vindicated) but I wanted to have a laugh at this.

This is the Daily Mail picking up on the information that the film "Kick-Ass" is going to be released in April, and, shock horror, it has a swearing 11 year old assassin in it. Now, from my perspective, the film looks fabulous (and if you don't believe me, just watch the trailer - I was going to embed it here, but Youtube appears to be broken... will attempt to link/embed it later) but I can see that it might be unsuitable for young kids. You know, in the same way Watchmen was... but it's not marketed at them. It's expected to get a 15 certificate, and you don't hear the Mail moaning about other films that are rated 15, so what's the difference?

The difference is, they can attach a name to it that will shock the average Mail Reader. They have managed to attach Jonathon Ross' name to the film, trying to build on his "shocking" behaviour from 'Sachsgate' (Seriously? Is everything a -gate now? How about when I left my keys in rehearsal the other night and had to walk back in to get them? Is that keygate? Stupid media..). How have they connected him? Well, I'll print their headline in it's entirety for you here:

"Jonathan Ross's wife Jane Goldman causes outrage with film featuring a foul-mouthed 11-year-old assassin"

Ignoring the appalling way that headline is crafted (I mean, come on, that's not a headline, it's the first line of the article surely! I'm sure they could have thought more about it - maybe "Ross's wife writes twisted tale" or "Child Killers: Ross approves" or my personal favourite "Quick, we're the Daily Mail, let's over-react to a film because we can vaguely link it to a celebrity we dislike!" Yes that's right, his wife Jane Goldman wrote it. Except actually, she co-wrote the script, which is adapted from Mark Millar's comic book....

Needless to say, the article goes on to tell us how films and TV influence impressionable children and that ‘This promotes the idea that infantilising adulthood is okay and that we are no longer expected to draw lines between us and kids". What a load of rubbish. The point is that kids are not SUPPOSED TO SEE IT. It's going to be rated 15.

It goes on, saying that the "film has already provoked complaints in the U.S. after children were allowed to access violent trailers of the film online." Um, as far as I know they weren't ALLOWED to access it, they will have clicked through a screen that says "I certify that I am over 18". And kids click on those all the time...

A media analyst (is that a real job? Really?) from L.A. (Oh OK, he doesn't count as a real person then, he's from L.A.) tried to invoke even more celebrities into the article by saying "One of the joint production companies involved is Plan B, which is owned by Brad Pitt. I wonder if he and Angelina Jolie would want their own young children to hear kids cussing in Kick-Ass." No, they probably wouldn't, which is why it's coming out with a certificate to PREVENT KIDS SEEING IT!!

But my favourite bit of argument is this: "Protests about the film have also erupted in Australia where John Morrisey of the Family Association said: ‘The language is offensive and the values inappropriate – without the saving grace of the bloodless victory of traditional superheroes." OK, so it's OK for kids to want to be a superhero, like, for example, Robin the Boy Wonder, who works outside the law and regularly beats people up and all sorts of other things, but because it's bloodless it's OK and he's a good role model? Dumbass Aussies!

The article spends it's last two paragraphs reminding us how Jonathon Ross is involved in this story, presumably to satiate those people who looked at the headline because it had his name on...

Can we have some better journalism than this? Please?

When Progress Goes Bad...

2010-02-24T14:49:00.002Z

I know there's a saying somewhere on the internet which, according to my memory, says "Any technology invented before you are 30 is new and exciting, and anything after that is scary and unneccasry". I'm not quite 30, but I've just discovered a worrying trend...

It's really hard to buy a MiniDV Camcorder anymore.

And I mean REALLY hard... They're all miniDVD or Hard Disc Cameras now...

I need to find a couple of MiniDV ones for work, and my reasoning for this is as follows - The advantage of having a MiniDV camera is you can change the tape when it's full and keep working, and also you can take that tape and, if it's important, you can put it somewhere safe so that whatever else happens to that footage when you edit it or transfer it, you will always have the original.

I don't understand this desire for Hard Disc Cameras. They're OK for short term stuff I suppose, and they have the advantage that you don't have to spend the time digitising the tape before you can edit it... but eventually you'll have to delete the raw footage from both the camera and the editing machine, leaving you with just, say, a DVD copy of the edit.

So what happens if that gets scratched? I know in regular consumer-ville where camcorders are used to film your kids playing, or christmas, or a particularly good night with your other half then it wouldn't be the end of the world - but at work I need to keep backups of everything from the last 3 years... If I didn't have it all on tape it'd be impossible!

Oh and don't even get me started on the unreliability of mini-DVDs.... they're utterly rubbish.

This isn't the first time I've noticed technology progressing in a bad way (last year I attempted to find some decent size "Boom-Box" type stereos for use at work, I was unsuccessful as no-one makes them anymore, you can either get tiny little portable ones which are tinny, or seperate stereo systems...) but this is starting a worrying trend.

Is it just me? Does no-one else see this problem?

Ridiculous News Round-Up

2010-02-24T09:20:00.004Z

This is going to be another decent length blog post, as I catch up on several small stories that I felt all deserved to be looked at through the eyes of Brawny, beginning with an idiot, moving through some more idiots, and ending with... well, you'll have to read all the way to the end to find out won't you! (But I wouldn't rule out it being more idiots...)

So apparently there's an American Professor called Sidney Perkowitz has been making suggestions to Hollywood. He says that he is "... not offended if they make one big scientific blunder in a given film... But after that I would like things developed in a coherent way."

Yeah. Because that's the problem with most Hollywood films today. The science is wrong. Never mind all the re-makes, re-imaginings, returns and re-boots populating the release schedules (and yes, I know a better word for return would have been sequel, but then I'd have lost the rhythm of the writing using the prefix 're' in each word in the list. So there.) if we get the science right then that's the way forward.

What an idiot.

Whats worse is when you keep reading through the article, the films he cites are Starship Troopers, The Core, and Angels and Demons. His issue with the Core is fairly reasonable from a scientific point of view (although I still don't think it should stop people from making such films), as it's about the geology of the earth. With Angels and Demons he bemoans the use of a small battery powered forcefield to keep safe an anti-matter bomb. Would he have been happier, one wonders, if they had just made up a new name for the bomb, so that it didn't relate to any scientific reality?

But the one that bugs me the most is "Perkowitz said he liked Starship Troopers, but criticised its giant insects, saying if you scaled up a real bug to that size it would collapse under its own weight." Yes, this is probably true. But bear in mind that the insects in Starship Troopers are not earth bugs, they are ALIENS! With a physiology that no-one knows about! SO IT DOESN'T MATTER!! Talk about picking on a pointless reason for films being bad nowadays.

Oh and the other thing that made me laugh hysterically. This man who is suggesting films and TV should be more scientifically realistic has apparently had an impact as the article states "the exchange has advised on the Watchmen movie and the TV series, Heroes."

Let's for a moment ignore the bad grammar, wondering how an exchange can have advised on something, and just laugh outright at the concept that Heroes obeys any form of scientific law. Other than the law of diminishing returns....

In other recent news, the Tories got in trouble for misplacing a decimal point, and therefore proudly announcing that 54% of teenagers in deprived areas are pregnant. 54%. That's more than half. I live in a deprived area, and work in an all-girls school, and if half of them are pregnant, then they're hiding it very well! What makes me laugh more is that this error wasn't someone reading it in a speech, it was published. Which means whoever proof read the report thought that it was an accurate representation of the truth... Out of touch much?

Talking of idiotic teenagers (well we weren't, we were talking about idiotic Tories believing that all teenagers are idiots, but it seemed like a good link at the time) there's a scandal going on in Germany at the moment around the teenage author Helene Hegemann. Apparently, her cult teen bestseller Axolotl Roadkill contains passages "that are plainly lifted wholesale from another novel, Strobo". However, the writer of the Guardian news article (Robert McCrum) seems to think that she "a child of the internet age, simply does not understand, or recognise, the charge of plagiarism. To her, coming from the cut-and-paste world of blogs and Facebook, what she's done is no more than "mixing"

Um, OK... except I come from the cut and paste world of blogs and Facebook, and I understand right from wrong... I'm not passing judgement because I haven't read either book (as I don't read German. I can say the word for Pedestrian Zone and claim to be a doughnut, but that's as far as my German education in year 9 went) but if the plagiarism is as obvious as Mr McCrum states, then she deserves to be brought up on whatever charges are suitable. And don't say she didn't know it was wrong, I bet she did. (Oh look at that, I said I wasn't going to judge, and now I'm being judgemental. Oh well, that's my right as an internet blogger, I can criticise anything I want, and who will stop me? No-one!! Hahahahahahahahah..... (Continues evil laugh for a while, realises I am alone, and stops, sheepishly) )

And on a final, slightly lighter hearted note, I watched the first episode of The Bubble on BBC iPlayer the other day, and while it was a perfectly respectable time-wasting show (made all the funnier this week by having the brilliant Reginald D Hunter on it), there was a point in it that made me laugh.

The Bubble (for those of you who don't know) is basically a comedy show where they lock three guests away for the week so they don't see the news, and then they show them various news reports and newspaper headlines and the guests have to guess which are real and which are made up. So far, so humorous (I particularly liked the news article about introducing a gay character into Thomas the Tank Engine. That's right, a gay engine. That was made up, but still amusing) . However, this BBC-produced, BBC-aired show has been told that they cannot use any BBC reporters to create the fake news reports, because the BBC don't want to undermine them.

So the news reports on this BBC show are being provided by their direct competition, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News.

Seriously, could the BBC be any stupider?

How do we fix the Entertainment Industry?

2010-02-21T15:37:00.010Z

First and foremost, I apologise for not having written for a couple of weeks. It's not that I've fallen out of love with you, oh wonderful blog readers, it's simply that I haven't had the time. The problem with this is of course that I now I have a large backlog of things I want to blog about, so you may well get lots of blogs over the next few days.... so there's a bright side :) (That is, if you enjoy reading my blog. If you don't then I'm sure that the news there are more on the way will fill you with dread, but if you don't like them why are you reading this? Anyway...)

There's been a lot of talk recently (and by recently I mean over the last few years) about how the Entertainment industry can adapt and survive due to the advent of the internet. The other day, the wonderful Graham Linehan tweeted about this article in the New York times written by Damian Goulash Jnr, the lead singer of the band OK Go. What makes it interesting is that it is a discussion about the current state of the music industry from the perspective of a moderately successful band rather than a giant star.

In this piece (which I think you should read) he starts by lamenting their record company for not being flexible with regards to the use of the internet and viral videos to promote the band. It's a well thought-out argument, pointing out that when they had put a music video online in 2006, which they had made and paid for themselves, and, in his own words the video"... brought big crowds to our concerts on five continents, and by the time we returned to the studio, 700 shows, one Grammy and nearly three years later, EMI’s ledger had a black number in our column. To the band, “Here It Goes Again” was a successful creative project. To the record company, it was a successful, completely free advertisement."

However, now that the band has released a new album and a couple of videos, they are unable to get the same help in spreading the viral video due to the record companies agreement with YouTube.

As it stood - when they released their first video, it made them no money, but worked as an advert. However, YouTube and the record companies have now reached an agreement for an amount (however small) to be paid whenever the video is watched, but only when it's watched on YouTube's own site, so embedding has been disabled.

And this is the problem. Without embedding the video, large amounts of blogs and sites are unable to promote the music they enjoy.

Damian Goulash (which incidentally is a FABULOUS name) does then go on to say that "It’s decisions like these that have earned record companies a reputation for being greedy and short-sighted. And by and large they deserve it. But before we cheer for the demise of the big bad machine, it’s important to remember that record companies provide the music industry with a vital service: they’re risk aggregators."

And he's right. Who else would pay a bunch of people with instruments to go and make a record that has a 98% chance of being a complete commercial failure? (That figure is completely made up by the way, it's just a guess). But as record companies tighten their belts and only finance the acts that they are certain of, the entire industry is at risk of implosion, with very few new, interesting acts coming to the fore...

Why are record companies tightening their belts? They tell you it's because of piracy. This is a common statement amongst record, TV and film producers, and to an extent, I am sure it's true. I know that I have, in the past, pirated music, TV and films, because I want to hear/see them and don't have any money.

Disney are at the moment having a large spat with Odeon over Alice in Wonderland. This has been going on for a couple of weeks, and is basically due to Disney saying "Because of Piracy, we want to shrink the theatrical-DVD window from 17 weeks to 12 weeks." So 12 weeks after Alice comes out in the cinema, it'll be out on DVD. Odeon feels that this is unacceptable, as it will cause them to lose business if they have to pull the film after 12 weeks.

Now first of all, I can't remember the last time I went to see a film at the cinema more than 2 weeks after it came out, and (apart from possibly Avatar, which I have STILL not seen, which I am aware makes me part of an increasingly tiny minority) I can't think of a film that's stayed in a cinema for 12 weeks! So how, realistically are they going to lose business?

And the second, and more important point, Alice is being strongly marketed on it's 3D. You can't watch proper 3D on a DVD yet... so even if it came out early, surely Odeon could continue to show it anyway?

But on the subject of 3D, I would guess that the very nature of 3D will limit the piracy of Alice anyway, so Disney needn't be in such a rush to release the DVD surely? I mean, I know there'll be a 2D version, and this I am sure will appear online very quickly, but if you want to see it in all it's glory, the pirated version will be nothing like watching the proper, full screen, 3D version. (Of course, this assumes that the 3D will be good, as with Avatar (allegedly), rather than pointless, as with every 3D horror movie ever made)

This spat is just more proof that the industry is in chaos and no-one knows how to deal with it. The only people who have it remotely right are the TV channels. I don't remember the last time I watched a BBC show from an illegal copy, since I can just catch up with it on iPlayer, and now 4oD exists (and works, to an extent) as well as ITV Player (which doesn't work very well at all...) and I'm sure Five have one too which I would try to use except nothing of any interest is ever on Five...

So, the question I am sure you're all wondering, is how would you fix it Brawny? How would you make the Entertainment industry great again?

Well, before I continue, may I point out that I am no expert, and certainly don't think that I should be in charge. But if I was, then I'd do the following...

1) Embrace the Internet
This is, in many ways, the most important thing. The industry is slowly beginning to do this, but it's taken way too long. The internet isn't just a more modern poster where you can put trailers or clips from your film/show/album, it's a genuine two-way communications device between you and the people who are going to part with money for your creation. Work with them. Find out what sort of thing they want to hear/see and work out how to fill that gap. If 1000 people on the net want to hear a jazz/techno trio, then work out a rough estimate of how many people that'd translate to in the real world, set aside a percentage of budget that covers that many sales and then get the album made (Yes, I am aware it's impossible to create accurate projections from what people on the internet say they'd like, but you could try...)

2) Use Common Sense
If you come across someone using your music/video in order for them to make money, then arrest them, sue them, do whatever you want with them. A fan has put a home made video up on Youtube soundtracked by your song? Leave it alone... I know that finding the dividing line is hard, but surely the interest generated by the non-commercial use of your song/video pays more in goodwill than demanding the video be removed...

3) Don't expect to wipe out the Pirates.
Piracy exists. It will always exist, no matter how hard you try. You can't erase it, so instead try and learn from it's distribution methods etc...

4) Control your overheads
You know that there is a niche for a film about a fish who wears a top hat and speaks only in rhyme? Then make the film on a low budget - don't risk all your money on it. On the other hand, don't spend $209 million on Superman Returns because A) it was a rubbish film anyway (although Kevin Spacey was a delightfully scene-stealing Lex) and B) it means that the studio consider it a disappointment when it brings in a box-office return of $391 million...

Seriously. Name me another business to whom a profit of $182 million is a disappointing return??

5) Buy from the internet
If you're a film distributor/music publisher, look around online for low-budget home-made films / albums and embrace them. Quite often these types of projects could easily be tidied up and released with very little extra money spent on them, so why not do so? The artist will be grateful for the exposure and you might make some money out of it

6) Don't give up.
At the moment the music industry seems to be financing more and more manufactured artists and mega-stars, because it thinks that they will definitely sell. There's much less innovative, new, and interesting music being released, certainly by major labels.

7) No more staggered releases
Films that come out in the UK three months after the US? Why? That's more than giving the pirates a window, that's leaving a window open, turning the alarm system off and providing them with a map of the house that clearly shows the value of every item within it...

8) Make legal downloading easier
Now don't get me wrong, whilst I prefer to buy a real, physical product (I love CDs, and Vinyl, and DVDs) it's pretty easy to download things legally right now (and much as I hate it, iTunes is a big part of that) but I still notice that we, as members of the UK audience, pay more for things than our US cousins. The way around this from my perspective is - create a new currency.

Now before you think I've gone insane, let me clarify. This thought came to me the other day, when I recieved a paypal payment for a CD i sold. This payment was for £12, which is a small amount, so Paypal would charge me a percentage for withdrawing it to my bank account. I am therefore left with money that I may as well spend on something on eBay, or CDWOW, or CEX, or anywhere else that takes Paypal.

If you had an equivalent of this for music or film, then people would buy it rather than be penalised for returning their money to their account, and also you could side-step all currency issues, meaning that everyone gets a fair deal.

9) Everything has an audience.
And as a studio / record label, your job is to find it, not to tell the artist that it doesn't exist.

And before you think I'm blaming it all on the companies, I have a word for the artists too..

Make it because you want to make it.

I write scripts and stories, record music, make films and short videos because I want to. Do I want to be paid for it? Sure, that's the dream, but just because I don't doesn't mean I'll stop doing it... I may even self-publish my novel if I feel like it and I can establish whether more than 5 people would buy it (once I've finished the endless re-write process)

So that's it. Brawny's suggestions. And it's not like not saying that I should be taken as a "Voice of the People" because I'm a voice of one person. Me. But something needs to be done, because just blaming the internet as the source of all evil hasn't worked so far...

So as a bonus to you all - some bands who are on minor labels / self-published that I think you should check out:

The Wildhearts - Fabulous Rockers - Used to be on a major label, now kicking ass on their own. Also, their frontman Ginger has several wonderful solo albums and side-projects.
Jackdaw4 - Lighter Rock, but still wonderful musicians
Reel Big Fish - The SkaPunk kings. Again, used to be on a major label, now doing fine on their own
Brawny - Because I may as well plug myself :P (Also, check out my Youtube for my videos and film)

If you have any further suggestions please post in the comments, and I'll update this list.

Apologies for the length of this post, I promise I'll be back with something short and irreverent soon. (Well, maybe just irreverent.. I've always been bad at short posts!)

A Funny Valentine

2010-02-11T15:30:00.004Z

We're well into February now, and this weekend sees the onset of the most divisive "special day" ever.

Yes, I'm talking about Valentines day.

When I was single, I maintained that Valentine's day was a pointless, man-made holiday designed to sell cards, chocolates and roses, and to generally make single people feel rubbish. I even thought that we should have a single peoples day.... although I wasn't ever very clear on what you would do to celebrate it. Stay at home and drink whiskey alone maybe? But anyway, I digress (You Brawny? You're digressing? On your own blog? How dare you! (Yes, and now I'm digressing within brackets and referring to myself (in the previous set of brackets I mean, not this one. Oh wait, they're the previous but one set of brackets now, because I'm inside the third set of brackets. OK, I meant in the original brackets, clear?) in the third person. Because I can. ) )

However, now that I'm a taken man, the idea of having a day where I get to focus on my wonderful girlfriend and generally just have a nice time spoiling her is very appealing. So I am aware that I'm a hypocrite, but I'm OK with it. :)

However, this made me laugh today. A primary school has banned valentines cards.

Really?

Apparently it's because "children should wait until they are mature enough emotionally and socially to understand the commitment in having a boyfriend or girlfriend" and if they were to get dumped it "interrupts their learning."

OK. This is a school for children under the age of 11. Surely they wouldn't take it seriously? Well, no more seriously than anything else at that age, where something going wrong is the end of the world - for about ten minutes, until something shiny goes past and your mind is distracted again.

But apparently I'm wrong, and allowing valentines cards to be exchanged amongst young children will cause heartbreak, social breakdown and a complete loss of enthusiasm or interest. So basically the headteacher is worried they'll become moody teenagers early. Which would have a downside I admit, but then the upside is that by the age of 15/16 they'd have got over it... so then they'd be much nicer to deal with.

Besides, Valentines cards are an important part of a child's growth. They're one of the first lessons that not everyone likes you, which sounds harsh, but is something that everyone needs to learn at some point. Otherwise they grow up to become self-centred individuals who believe that everyone is in awe of them. (And this isn't just me being bitter because I never got Valentines Cards at school... honest. I mean, look at me now, I'm well adjusted, it's not like I'm angry and bitter and sarcastic by writing nasty things about people on a faux-anonymous internet blog.... Oops!)

So yeah, I think they're wrong. If you agree, then I think you should protest at that school on Valentines Day. I'd love to join you, but sadly I'll be busy....

P.S. On a Valentines Day related note, I notice there's a film coming out tomorrow called... Valentines Day. Now I'm sorry, but that's just lazy titling. They've named it after the real life event that they're exploiting to make money. Honestly next we'll see horror films called Halloween.... *listens to advisor whispering in my ear*.. There already is? What? ... *More whispering*... Oh bugger it. Ignore this postscript, because apparently this isn't news at all.

PETA - Stop it. Now.

2010-02-03T14:44:00.004Z

OK, so PETA are an organisation known for their "shocking" tactics and publicity attempts (and for more information, some good humour and a much better written blog than this one, go and read the lovely Neety's entry about them from April last year) but this time they've successfully shocked me.

They created a poster that ends with the tag line "People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there." OK, that makes sense. That's quite a good tag line, as it implies that if you're cruel to animals, you'll end up being cruel to people.

But what was the rest of the poster made of?

It was a picture of Steven Barker (the man who killed Baby P in 2007), and the complete caption read "Steven Barker: Animal Abuser, Baby Abuser, Rapist. People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there."

Is it just me, or have they listed Animal Abuser first to make it seem the most important?? They're trying to make a point, I get that, but who do they think they are going to convince? Do they think that by making it people will suddenly go "Oh shit, I should stop being mean to animals before I murder a baby?" Of course they won't. That as a poster has no advantage to anything. It tells us cruelty is bad, which we know. If you are a person who then continues to be cruel to animals, you'll do so regardless of what that poster says.

Now personally, I wouldn't be cruel to an animal, but I would imagine those who are would look at that poster and go "Well I'm nothing like him."

But the most horrendous thing was where they chose to display the poster. Where would be the least tasteful place to put it?

Why, Haringey of course.

Assholes.

Luckily, the news story I got this from says that the poster has been banned, which is good news. But I can't even imagine how horrendous it was for the residents of Haringey when it was on display.

I'd never be cruel to animals... but can I be cruel to PETA? Please?

CAUTION - Life gives you Cancer!

2010-02-02T10:18:00.003Z

I found a wonderful facebook group today which is entitled "The Daily Mail list of "Things that give you cancer"". Someone (namely a gentleman called Hugh Davies who started this wonderful group) has bothered to create a detailed list of everything that the Daily Mail has claimed gives you cancer, complete with links to each story.

Now, I'm not going to go through all of them in this blog, seeing as there are approximately ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY items listed... but I did think I'd regale you with the eight of the most ridiculous ones... (why eight? Because I felt like it. So there!) so here goes...

Brawny's Top Eight Cancer-Causing Things (as dictated by the Daily Mail)

8 - Being a Woman/Being a Man

The hilarious thing about this, is that these are two different studies, one of which says women are more at risk from cancer, the other says men is. So does this mean we're all screwed? Well apparently "Researchers claim the female sex hormone oestrogen could make women more vulnerable." so this would imply that women are much more at risk than men. But wait, the other report says "men were almost twice as likely as women to develop one of the 10 most common cancers that affect both sexes." So which is true? Can both be true? Surely if that's the case then we're both as vulnerable as each other?

This, to me, highlights the sheer randmoness of cancer in general. If we can have two (presumably) well funded and well organised studies and they give us conflicting information, surely it just proves that it's random and these studies are pointless? But no, the Daily Mail loves to give us headlines with the word CANCER emblazoned across it.

7 - Blowjobs

Don't lie. This one made you laugh as soon as you read the title didn't it. God you're so immature... Anyway, this is apparently the news that oral sex can cause throat cancer. Which is strange, because that seems completely impossible to the average brain. However, according to Dr Gypsyamber D'Souza (and I'm sorry, that's a stupid name, and wouldn't surprise me if it was made up) ".. the sex act can pass on the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can trigger a specific type of throat cancer in both men and women." Oh really? And apparently "they claim oral sex is an even bigger killer than smoking or drinking."

Now that's an interesting phrase, and typical of the Daily Mail. Firstly, there's no specificity as to who "they" are, even if you read that quote within the context of the article. So we don't know if that's part of the same study, but lets think the best of the Mail and assume that it is. The rest of that sentence is scary and threatening, and what it should say (from what little information I can glean from the article) is "Oral sex is more likely to pass on the rare HPV virus than smoking or drinking", which is significantly less scary.

The final thing, that makes it even less threatening, is that buried at the bottom of the article is a quote from the co-author, Dr Maura Gillson, who says "People should be reassured that oropharyngeal cancer is relatively uncommon, and the overwhelming majority of people with an oral HPV infection probably will not get throat cancer."

So it's not really that threatening after all, is it... Could it be that the Daily Mail have been exaggerating?? (Sarcasm)

6 - Being Left Handed

I'm sure this just counts as discrimination. The scientific reasoning? "The study...found left-handed women were more than twice as likely to develop pre-menopausal breast cancer as non-left handed women...The researchers said that the origins of the link may lie in exposure to high levels of sex hormones in the womb. This can induce left-handedness as well as cause changes in breast tissue. The researchers concluded: "Although the underlying mechanisms remain elusive, our results support the hypothesis that left-handedness is related to increased risk of breast cancer.""

Hang on, high levels of sex hormones cause left-handedness? Does that mean only the manliest men and the girliest girls are left handed? The key word in this sentence is "can". It CAN induce left-handedness as well as cause changes in breast tissue. And then the concluding statement from the researcher basically says "We may well be wrong. But we chose left-handedness out of a hat and then had to prove it caused cancer." Honestly, next they'll be telling us that the size of our head can cause cancer...

5 - Large Heads

See. Told you. (Granted, I knew this because I compiled this list). Apparently big-headed babies are more at risk of childhood brain cancer. The scientific reasoning for this is as follows "They said head circumference was unlikely to be a direct cause of cancer, but was probably associated with underlying causes. One possible explanation was that hormones which affect body size also influence the development of cancer. Another theory was that large children are more prone to cancer simply because they have more cells."

The first of these is a pointless theoretical hypothesis as there's no proof stated in this article that this is a possibility. So I'm forced to go with the second. The bigger they are, the more cells there are to infect. Logical really, but not so much a scientific study as BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!

4 - Candle-lit Dinners

This is getting ridiculous now. How do Candle-lit dinners give us cancer I hear you ask. Well, apparently, it's the candles themselves. Yes, according to the ever-popular "scientists" (who aren't named in the article by the way) "...scented candles can be bad for your health, say scientists. The smoke produced by many of them is laced with toxins linked to cancer, asthma and eczema." That's a pretty ambiguous claim. You'd think it'd get more specific later in the article. But it doesn't. The best it does is say "Some of the pollutants have been linked to cancer, while others could trigger asthma attacks or skin complaints" which seems like pretty flimsy evidence for writing a national article that could panic a country....

3 - Working

Yes, it's the news everyone wants to hear. Work (that tedious activity that you go to day in, day out, that you don't like anyway) is actually killing you! Well, according to this study anyway, which says that "Men who worked as civil servants, teachers or in office jobs were much more likely to get cancer than those who spend much of their day on their feet, such as labourers, bakers and barbers."

So, if you work by sitting down a lot, you're more likely to get prostate cancer? Don't worry, soon some company will have invented some kind of device you sit on that moves your arse around all the time so that you can keep working and hopefully not die.

2 - Sex

Sex gives you cancer? This is hilarious, surely....

Well, it's not hilarious. Because it's an article written by the actual woman who had cancer, which kind of makes it hard for me to take the mickey out of. However, in this case, the thing that annoys me is "I asked why I had developed cancer and he told me I'd caught the human papillomavirus infection (HPV), which is passed on through sexual contact and is thought to be the main risk factor for cervical cancer."

THOUGHT to be the main risk factor. Not is PROVED to be. If you were a sensible person writing/commissioning/publishing an article like this, wouldn't you possibly ask some scientists for some information? Unless, of course, the information they give you is "We don't know. We think it's to do with it, but we have no proof", in which case, you just run the article under the headline "Did sex give me cancer?" and allow your impressionable readers to panic...

Well played, Daily Mail, well played...

AND NOW... THE MOST HILARIOUS ONE....

1 - Facebook

This one made me laugh a lot. And then laugh some more. And then laugh... It's hilarious. How does Facebook give me cancer? I hear you all ask... Well let me clear up, it doesn't just say Facebook, but all social networking sites and e-mails, and the reasoning is as follows:
"Interacting 'in person' had effects on the body not seen when writing emails, Dr Sigman claimed. Levels of hormones such as the 'cuddle chemical' oxytocin, which promotes bonding, altered according to whether people were in close contact or not....Some genes, including ones involved with the immune system and responses to stress, acted differently according to how much social interaction a person had with others."

OK. So apparently our genes know if we're alone or with people. OK.... I'll buy that, it's possible. But the thing that made me laugh the most about the whole of this article is that nowhere does it say "Facebook will give you cancer." It simply says that there may be genetic/physical reactions to spending large amounts of time isolated. This research was done by a psychologist by the way, not a real doctor.... But even the psychologist isn't to blame here, because he just says that isolation could have an effect. The article summarises him as having said "This could increase the risk of problems as serious as cancer, strokes, heart disease and dementia".

COULD increase. No research has been done yet. So what does the Mail lead with as a headline? "How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer" Because that's not a panic-inducing headline at all is it...

And before anyone (yes, I'm looking at you Azzy) says "Oh, but it's the Mail, they always say pointless stuff", I refer you to the fact that, for better or worse, lots of people read it, so surely they should pay slightly more attention to the things they are saying? Or is that just me that's that logical?

Apple: Using the News for Advertising

2010-01-27T11:16:00.006Z

So, the story on many news sites today is the alleged excitement building over the new Apple product that will be announced today. The BBC article does its best to summarise all of the rumours and suggestions that have been zooming around the internet, while the Guardian goes one better, encouraging you (the reader of the Guardian, not the reader of this blog necessarily. Unless you are a Guardian reader as well, in which case it's ideal for you, isn't it) to "crowdsource" the details of this new product, allowing you to choose what you think the name, weight, price, etc. of this new product will be.

Personally I hope it'll be called the iHype (which is a good joke, but I stole it from somewhere, and I don't remember where, so I can't credit the person who thought of it. So consider it mine. :P) and that it'll consist of a single white box with a screen that just randomly displays the words "Thanks for paying for my new house. Steve Jobs."

As you may be able to tell, I'm not the biggest fan of Apple products. Don't get me wrong, they're well designed, and do the job required of them, but I don't see them as the big renaissance that people treat them as. The only item of Apple I would actually like is the iPhone, simply because it is well designed and helpful, but then you reach the other problem.

The cost.

Apple products are just so DAMN expensive!

So I have no plans to migrate to an Apple for a computer, or an Mp3 player, or a phone any time soon, and the launch of this "iTablet/iSlate/iPad/iWhatever they're going to call it" isn't going to have any effect on me whatsoever.

But what annoys me is that if any other major technology company was having a press conference to announce something, it might be considered worth one small article hidden away on a technology page, but when Apple does it, it's front page news... They don't need to advertise now, the news and hype is doing it for them. And that just seems wrong to me...

But anyway. I am now going to declare my hatred for this new product before it's even been launched.

*Deep Breath*

It's an over-hyped, pointless, over-expensive, overly-shiny piece of crappy technology with at least one major flaw in it.

I wonder if I'll be proved right? ...

The Most Dangerous, Corrupting, Mind-Warping Book of ALL TIME!

2010-01-26T12:51:00.004Z

OK, I don't want to sound like Noel Edmonds on "Noel's HQ" (A suitably demented TV program that I only became aware of thanks to Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe, where Noel Edmonds basically tells everyone that we should be happy and that if councils or other authority figures do anything to stop us we should RISE UP AND KILL THEM (He doesn't actually say that, although it would be funnier if he did, instead he just complains about things like a council making a decision to not allow an ex-soldier to build a bungalow, without knowing any of the reasons why, implying that since he fought for us he should be able to build whatever he wants wherever he wants) ) but I just read a news story that is both hysterical and ridiculous.

This is a story about a high school in the U.S. who have banned a certain book from classrooms. Now stop for a second and try and think of a book that couldn't possibly be banned...

The Bible? No, that's not banned

The U.S. Constitution? Nope. They can still read that.

The book that has caused most offence is.. *drum roll*.... THE DICTIONARY!

If you are too lazy to click on the link I so conveniently provided (and if you didn't then how do you expect to get the maximum satisfaction and entertainment from this blog? I mean, if you're not going to take the time to do auxiliary reading, then maybe I just won't tell you what it says, so that you have to look. Except if I do that, then I can't carry on. Oh OK, this time I'll let you off. But next time, click on it!) then you won't have read the funniest bit of this story yet, which is as follows:

"This was because a child had found the definition of "oral sex" in the book (I'd guess it's there along with a lot of other "bad" words)."

Shock horror, there's a definition of Oral Sex in the dictionary?? (If I was a trend-setter, I'd use the new SarcMarc on this sentence, but I'm not. Plus you have to pay to download it, and frankly I was using sarcasm in the written word long before they invented it, so they can bugger off! :P ) Of course there is. I remember spending many happy English lessons looking up rude words in dictionaries, isn't that what they're there for?

This does make me laugh. Then there's the assumption written at the bottom of the article that says

"I'd guess they don't let children near the internet then"

I wonder if they do? I hope so, because you can find MUCH worse things than a definition of "Oral Sex" on the internet. (This blog for instance. Or BBC iPlayer, which is a brilliant way of wasting time. Or such simple things as a hamster in a wok (I dare you to watch that and not laugh)).

But my question is, what will they ban next? The story of King Arthur due to its incest, black magics and violence? Romeo and Juliet because "impressionable" students might attempt to copy the double suicide at the end? But of course we know what it is they'll ban next. It's the only logical step.

The Thesaurus. Because not only would they be able to look up the definition of "Oral Sex", they'd learn it can also be called going down, licking out, blow job, giving head, muff diving, sucking off, carpet munching and many many more....

On a scale of one to ridiculous, this banning of the dictionary is so far off the ridiculous end of the scale that it's entered a whole other dimension of ridiculousness. And that's a fact.

Angry Heroes Rant - SPOILERS!!

2010-01-20T17:32:00.006Z

OK, I warned you in the title... this is angry, ranty and very spoiler-heavy, so if you don't like this, I suggest you back away quietly...

P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I mean it. Don't read on if you don't want to know...

I just watched Heroes Episode 16 (It's called Episode 15 on screen, because they counted the two hour premiere as one episode.. so maybe it's episode 15. This doesn't really bother me.) It's the one that aired in the US yesterday. And I would just like to say that the last ten minutes of it have just completely RUINED all the good that the episode did.

Started watching it, it's a pretty average episode, but it picks up. Sylar and Claire actually have some form of interesting conversation, Mohinder (who has been missing for about 11 of the previous episodes) decides to fuck off back to India again (which is always a good thing), and Hiro becomes the defendant in a wierd, tumor-based hallucinatiory trial, where he is tried for using his powers for his own personal gain.

By far the best thing in this episode is the return of Adam Monroe (granted, as a figment of Hiro's imagination, but anyway...) who gets all the best lines, and reminds me of why he was the only thing worth watching in Season Two. His best being, while Hiro is defending his decisions "Objection your honour, he's reciting the opening to Quantum Leap"..."

Sadly, we also get a plot about Samuel and his lost love, Vanessa, which takes us exactly nowhere new, because she leaves him at the end of the episode, so there's been bugger all in the way of development between that and the end of the previous episode, where she wants to go home.

But what is this ending that's got you so angry? I hear you ask...

Well...

Hiro, after being found guilty of using his power for personal gain, walks down a corridor towards a white light. Then he gets challenged to sword fight Adam. Then he wins. (Bear in mind that this is all IN HIS OWN HEAD). Then his mother appears, he says he's ready to go, she says "There are some things more important than science, like destiny", and cures his INOPERABLE brain tumour with a kiss.

Yes, that's right. A kiss from a figment of his imagination has cured his inoperable brain tumor.

Even for Heroes, who I know are reluctant to actually kill anyone, that's a new low.

Oh, and now Samuel's really angry and has made a town collapse (because Vanessa doesn't want him) and Sylar has turned up at Matt Parkman's house for no reason other than they need to bring Matt Parkman back into the story.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. And I wish I could say I would have no part in any more of the season, but I know I'll watch it. Just to see if it can get better. Or alternatively, to see if it gets even worse .... I just hope there aren't many episodes left...

Silent Truths

2010-01-20T10:46:00.004Z

This is a blog detailing my opinion of Silent Truths, the facts that we all know are true, but no-one ever risks saying in real life, so we cover them with lies. But I'll take that risk (Please don't all lynch me at once). So listen, learn, and silently agree (Or disagree. Or agree but loudly. Or loudly disagree. You have lots of options really, and I apologise for appearing to limit your options in this, my opening paragraph).

The Lie (As perpetrated by anyone who sees a friend or relatives baby) : Your baby is so beautiful!

The Silent Truth: Babies are not (usually) Beautiful

Most babies look the same to most of us (And yes, by "us" I suppose I am generalising to men, as I am a man so I can't speak on behalf of women. I bet it's true to them as well though.) And if they all look the same, then it's very rare you'll see one that is "beautiful", as that would imply it looked better than the rest. (By that nature, you're also very unlikely to see one which is "ugly" either). Yes I understand that if it is your baby then you think he or she is beautiful and unique, that's great, that's what you are supposed to think. To many of us (and I'm not being sexist, but this particularly applies to men, and mostly men without any children of their own) your baby looks just like any other baby. Or occasionally, it looks like an alien. (Incidentally, this is not a good thing to say to someone who asks your opinion of their baby... ) When children grow, then they develop features and individuality, but as newborn babies, they are all very similar. (Or maybe I just don't understand because I haven't had a child. This is also possible)

The Lie (As perpetrated by parents) : Fast Food chips are all the same

The Silent Truth: There is something addictive in the coating on Burger King's chips

I swear this has to be true. The weird coating makes the chips taste good, even though they are greasy, and whenever I've finished a portion of them, I want more. Even if it's a Super Size Portion. (Or, alternatively, I'm just a pig who can't stop eating junk food)

The Lie (As perpetrated by your girlfriend/boyfriend/fiance/fiancee/husband/wife/partner (I could have just used partner as a description, I know, but I don't really like using that word, it sounds clinical and cold. However, it would have meant that this heading didn't take up masses of space. OK, you win, in future I'll use the term partner. Happy now??) : I don't get jealous

The Silent Truth: Everyone gets jealous.

Of course we get jealous. We all do. The only differences are to what extent it bothers you, and whether you admit it or not. If I see a guy I don't know chatting to my girlfriend (and if I consider him to be a better looking guy than me (which is pretty likely, although I know that my girlfriend probably wouldn't, unless it's Ewan McGregor, because for some reason she finds me attractive, for which I am eternally grateful) ) then I will get a little jealous. If I see him attempting to make contact with her, or he touches her arm, or he starts attempting to do any of those things that sleazy "How to get girls" articles tells you to do, then I'd go over and introduce myself (and probably give my girlfriend a long, lingering kiss) because that way any chance for flirting he has goes out the window. But this isn't a bad thing. The only reason it's a bad thing is if it's so out of control that you don't let your girlfriend go out with her friends without you in case she meets someone who flirts with her, or if you insist that you don't get jealous to her while simultaneously judging every man she comes into contact with.

Just relax, and be truthful. I freely admit I'm a jealous man, and I do my best to control it. I think it's a good thing, because I feel that the same pool of feelings that causes jealousy also causes other traits such as defending your girlfriend when someone is mean to her. It's all part of the same coin. I know it's different for different people, but my point is this.

Everyone gets jealous. Learn to deal with it.

The Lie (As perpetrated by schools and the government) : Science and Maths are cool

The Silent Truth: Maths and Science will never be "Cool"

This comes to be courtesy of an advert I just heard on the radio, in which a sound engineer for a big rock band is insisting that he got into acoustics in science and maths at school, and that led him to his career. Regardless of how true this is (99% of sound engineers I know got into the music first, and then learnt about acoustics from there) it is still not going to make science and maths cool. So stop trying government, it's a waste of the taxpayers money.

The Lie (As perpetrated by the government, lawyers and angry feminists) : Women are equal to men

The Silent Truth : Women are not equal to men... and they don't want to be.

As I said at the start of this blog process, please don't lynch me. Allow me to clarify my statement. I do believe that women should have equal RIGHTS to men, so I don't think they should get paid less, or not considered for jobs, or discriminated against in ANY WAY. However, I don't think women are equal to men, and I don't think they want to be. I can't imagine any women would want to live in a society where it is deemed as acceptable for a man to punch a woman as it is for a man to punch another man, for starters. I also believe that women like some of the perks of being a woman, such as men doing gentlemanly acts such as holding the door open for you, or opening hard-to-open jars or whatever...

Plus, we all know that women are better than men, they can multi-task, they can usually keep people under control much better, and they look FAR better naked than men do... (Or is it just me who thinks that?) Plus, and let's be honest here guys, they are much better at reasonable arguments than we are...

*Prepares self for barrage of criticisms and insults from both sexes regarding this Silent Truth. Once the barrage has finished, moves on*

The Lie (As perpetrated by the partner invoking the dissolution of a relationship): It's not you, it's me

The Silent Truth: It's Blatantly You

At the end of a relationship there are often lots of lies and Silent Truths floating around, but this is the biggie. From my limited experience and knowledge, anyone who says "It's not you, it's me" is basically just trying to say "I don't like you anymore. Now please, go away and leave me alone", and it should never be taken as truth by the partner it is being said to, as thinking about it and wondering what you could have done differently will end up eating at you for absolutely ages. So if there are any of my readers who were unaware of this Silent Truth, please, if you take nothing else from this blog, take this. This sentence is never true.

So that's my take on some Silent Truths that we all face. Anyone have any suggestions for any more? Feel free to leave them in the comments below...

Music Today...

2010-01-19T13:04:00.008Z

OK, I appear to be accumulating material for blogs faster than I have time to write them, so there may well be a glut of blogs appearing from me..

What do I want to talk about today? Music. Now, before I carry on, I should explain that I am probably not the best person to speak to regarding popular music, as I've never been a big fan, and I've got worse as I've got older, barely ever buying or listening to new music, preferring instead to listen to old bands I know and love (or new albums from the same bands). However, I saw this and it quite frankly depressed me.

The Brit awards shortlist. Which reveals to us that Lady Gaga, Pixie Lott, Florence and the Machine, Lily Allen and JLS have all been nominated for three awards.

Is this hell?

Seriously. Did the world go to hell and we didn't notice? It's not that I don't like these artists (although I don't), it's that they are all so generic, so dull, and so vapid. I know the Brit awards is all about Pop music, but seriously, if you look at the top 40 from this week alone, there's a significant number of more interesting artists than the aforementioned five. (And, on a side-note, you can see how well the TV series Glee has been received, due to the number of songs by it's cast that have made their way into the top 100. No I haven't watched it yet, but people tell me it's good).

Also, there's a rumour that after the shock of Iron Maiden winning Best Live Act last year, they've decided not to do that category anymore, so that there aren't any surprises. But this isn't the worst piece of Brit award news. The list of nominees for Best Single is the worst piece of news. Seriously, it's dire. Completely awful. And to prove this, in an unbiased way, I shall actually listen to each song right now on Spotify, and offer you my opinion on each...

Alesha Dixon - Breathe - Opens like it's a 90's dance tune (maybe by Sash), but when you expect the beat to kick in and drag it up to a good speed... the rest of the instruments (and by instruments, I mean samples) arrive and you realise that it's staying at this tedious pace for the whole song...and there's nothing that even pretends to be a hook or memorable chorus...

Time until I had to stop it - 1:48... but I'm guessing nothing else exciting happened through the rest of the song...

Rating - 2/10 - Very little to recommend it

Alexandra Burke Ft Flo Rida - Bad Boys - Well it has at least got some production on it... and it moves at a decent pace. I did find myself nodding along subconsciously, and the chorus sticks in the memory a little. It's no masterpiece, but I can see why "the youth of today" like it. Never thought I'd say something this positive about an X-Factor winner, but there you go...

Time until I had to stop it -2:26 - I actually wanted to check if it would do anything different in the middle, sadly it did, it had a generic rap interlude in the middle...

Rating - 5/10 - It was the pure definition of average/OK, but given the competition that surrounds it, it stands out so far...

Cheryl Cole - Fight For This Love - Feels like it's almost the same as the Alesha Dixon song, except a tiny bit faster and in a different key... And that's it. Seriously, can no-one write a memorable chorus anymore?

Time until I had to stop it -1:49

Rating - 2/10 - Seriously, who'd buy this.

Joe McElderry - The Climb - Slow, dull piano and strings to start. Annoying voice. Generic chord structure. I couldn't tell you what I think of the lyrics, because no matter how hard I try to listen to them, the song is so dull that my mind wanders off and my brain stops processing words...

Time until I had to stop it -1:02 - I couldn't bear anymore. I'm guessing that the arrangement has some guitar and drums that kick in at the start of the second verse, there's an uplifting middle eight and then it goes up a key for the final chorus. Am I close?

Rating - 1/10 - Shit. Pure shit.

JLS - Beat Again - Again, not my kind of music, but like the Alexandra Burke track, at least it has some form of production so it feels like effort has been put in. No memorable chorus though. Although it does sound like a LARGE majority of chart music I've been forced to listen to in the last five years (to the point where I could fit the lyrics of one onto the music of this. Not accusing anyone of plagiarism, I'm just saying..)

Time until I had to stop it -1:58

Rating - 4/10 - Generic. Bland. Background noise, but I wouldn't bother to turn it off if I was in mid-conversation and had to get out of a comfy chair to do so.

La Roux - In For The Kill -First thought - are we back in the 80s? Then, after a moment, I realise I have actually heard this before, which means that somewhen, somewhere on a radio, this has made an impression on my brain, which none of the previous songs have. Again, a memorable chorus, and for a change, a memorable voice, rather than one of the bland identikit ones we've had so far.

Time until I had to stop it -I listened to it all... and this was rewarded by the fact it has a middle 8 that does something mildly different!

Rating - 6/10 - I still wouldn't listen to it out of choice, but for pop music it's not bad.

Lily Allen - The Fear - I shall do my best to be fair, but I absolutely hate Lily Allen's voice. Production's nice, bit of a retro vibe with the synths, but the song itself feels like filler... the kind of track where if you were listening to an album you'd skip this particular one if you can be bothered but if not, you'd just sit there and entertain your brain for three minutes rather than listen to it. No chorus of any kind that I can hear, and I would say the bass guitarist must get bored, but they've just looped him. Oh and there's some generic swearing (although not on the version on Spotify I'm listening to, but it's easy to work out what she's saying).

Time until I had to stop it -2:02

Rating - 5/10 - Mildly better than Alexandra Burke or JLS, this is still generic background pap.

Pixie Lott - Mama Do - Does she want to be Christina Aguilera? I mean she does the voice wobbling thing, she's a blond girl, and she's trying to sound like she has a big voice, but only sounding big when backed up with a chorus of backing singers? (Or herself, multi-tracked to oblivion). Again, 80's synths all over the place, and generic song. Although the chorus does irritatingly stay in your mind.

Time until I had to stop it -1:41

Rating - 4/10 - Yet more background pap. I can't imagine why anyone would choose to release this song as a single...

Taio Cruz - Break Your Heart - Again, this starts off sounding like a 90's dance tune, complete with synthed finger clicks/hand claps... but it follows through, and the whole thing sounds like that. And it's once again, completely generic. It's OK though, probably one of the better I've had to listen to. And again, it has a singable/hummable chorus.

Time until I had to stop it -2:53 - I would have stopped earlier, but I wanted to see if it did the traditional 90's dance tune thing of dropping out all the bass and drums for the second to last chorus before dropping them back in for the finale... which it does.

Rating - 6/10 - If you'd tied me down in a chair and made me listen to all of these songs in a row, this'd be the one I remember as being "not awful."

Tinchy Stryder Ft N-Dubz - Number 1 - I was worried my opinion of this would be coloured because it's the last one I had to listen to, therefore I'd be sort of looking forward to it. Don't worry, it wasn't. This one lasted the least amount of time, and I can't comment on most of it. Why? Any song that feels the urge to state the names of the artists in the song itself deserves to get thrown in the bin and set fire to, and then pissed on by tramps to put it out, and then thrown in a landfill where it gets eaten by rats. Consequentially, I didn't get far into it.

Time until I had to stop it -0:16, for reasons detailed above.

Rating - 0/10 - If I'd listened to the actual song, it may not have been the worst on this list (because I'm sure it can't be worse than The fucking Climb), but since I only heard the intro and cut it off in anger, that is how it shall remain.

This is the best of British Pop? Oh dear god... seriously?? Ignoring the fact that four of those "artists" (A term I use in it's very loosest sense) are direct results of X-Factor (And yes I'm counting Cheryl Cole amongst those, because without X-Factor she wouldn't have a solo career, she'd simply be known as "That one from Girls Aloud who married the footballer") it's still appalling. They're all either ballads or R&B of some kind, and just... no. They're rubbish.

So in conclusion, which would I pick for Best Single?

Killing in the Name by Rage Against the Machine... :) Or is it too late to start a petition?

P.S. On a sad side-note, it was announced today that Boyzone are releasing a new single with Stephen Gately's vocals on it (Obviously recorded before he died, they didn't get a medium to contact him from beyond the grave....) While I think it's sad that he died, this really does seem like such an insensetive cash-in. I mean really, Boyzone didn't reform for artistic reasons, they re-formed for money and someone (be it the band themselves, or someone within their management/record company structure) has decided that they'll make a fortune by releasing something now. And the sad thing is? They're probably right...

An Overreaction to Twitdiculous Twaddle!

2010-01-18T11:40:00.003Z

OK, this wasn't the post I planned on writing today, but this news story made me jump up and down with both hilarity and anger, so I felt I should write about it.

For those of you who read the news story I linked to, you can ignore this quick summary of the story, but for those of you too lazy to do so, it is as follows: Man got angry with airport closure due to snow, man posted anger in form of a sarcastic threat on Twitter, man got arrested, interrogated, bailed and suspended from his job.

Hmm... Can you say overreaction??

The thing that bemuses me is the following paragraph:

"Mr Chambers said the police seemed unable to comprehend the intended humour in his online comment. "I had to explain Twitter to them in its entirety because they'd never heard of it," he said. "Then they asked all about my home life, and how work was going, and other personal things. The lead investigator kept asking, 'Do you understand why this is happening?' and saying, 'It is the world we live in'.""

Now, to me, the weird thing is not that the policemen involved had never heard of Twitter (As I am aware that there are people who do not keep up to date in the world of the internet and social networking, either through choice or ignorance) but it's the fact they seemed "Unable to comprehend the intended humour in his online comment". Had none of them ever had a bad day? Sworn at a driver? Sarcastically threatened someone in a vague way, without that person being anywhere near?

And as for the bit about "The lead investigator kept asking, 'Do you understand why this is happening?' and saying, 'It is the world we live in'."" Do you really think that terrorists, proper terrorists, would post a message on their own page on Twitter, threatening an airport that they'll blow it up in a WEEK AND A HALF'S time???

As far as I understand terrorists (and I am no expert mark you) they either want to blow stuff up and injure lots of people - so they give no warning, or they want to blow something up and not kill people, so they give like an hours warning. Not over a week.

And the most ridiculous thing about this story? "He has been bailed until 11 February, when he will be told whether or not he will be charged with conspiring to create a bomb hoax. In the interim, detectives have confiscated his iPhone, laptop and home computer. "

Firstly, Charged with Conspiring to create a bomb hoax?? Conspiring with who?? He offered the information on a two-way conversational medium, where anyone could have asked him whether he was serious... and secondly, they've confiscated all his stuff, presumably so he doesn't do it again, but why?? Who seriously thinks this is a good use of public funds to prosecute him??

It's a worrying state of affairs when you can't express yourself through sarcasm without being arrested... looks like I'm screwed!

Next time on Brawny's blog - A dramatically revealing article... (Well, sort of. It's not that dramatic. Or that revealing. But I'm hoping it's good...)

Raising Awareness of... something...

2010-01-12T10:31:00.004Z

OK, just before I start, I'd like to point out that I know this is the second Facebook-based rant that I have posted in two days, but it happens to be things that are bugging me....

So anyway, I was on Facebook a few days ago, when women started changing their status' to a colour. This intrigued me, especially as if you asked any of the women in particular then they'd send you a private message if you were another woman, but if you were a man (like I am) then they just wouldn't tell you. After a little investigation (one of the many situations where Google is your friend), I discovered that the colours being listed were bra colours.

OK, fine. True, this gave me information about some people I didn't really want, but fine.

Then I read this, and got thoroughly confused. So this was all part of a scheme to promote breast cancer awareness? Surely the fatal flaw with this plan is that it didn't post awareness, because unless you googled it (or alternatively until the press picked up on it) you had NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL WAS GOING ON!

Seriously, isn't the point of promoting awareness to, you know, promote AWARENESS, not confusion?

And now, there appear to be other status' bouncing around Facebook. In the last two days I've seen people putting up things like "Soft and Slow", "8", or "3 1/2 inches :(".

And in all these cases I have absolutely no idea what is going on.

I don't care that much, but the strangest thing is that I find it sexist. I don't like being excluded from things because I'm a guy. I don't mind being excluded because I don't know what's going on, or I don't understand, or I don't care, but this "Women only" attitude is irritating.

What, may I ask, is the point in not telling us men? Would it have had a knock-on effect where less people would have had awareness raised of your bra colour? No. It's just stupid.

Having just spent a few minutes on google I've uncovered this which tells me that the three things that have been posted so far are Bra Colour, Shoe Size (with inches written after it), and Hair style.

I'm not knocking the approach, I'm all for new methods of advertising / information (just look back at viral marketing campaigns for films such as the Dark Knight), but surely if I have to go and dig up the information, then it's not so much raising awareness as TYPING IN RANDOM CRAP.

I'm done now.

Oh and in case you're wondering... Red.

:)

Seriously - are people stupid???

2010-01-11T08:48:00.006Z

OK, today I'm going to have a bit of a rant about an old favourite with a new twist...

Chain Letters

Now I am aware that these are as old as the hills, being as I used to receive them regularly by e-mail (and still do very occasionally), and I'm told that they used to be sent on real paper back in the pre-internet days (which of course I don't remember, being too young... honest :P ) but this weekend, whilst browsing around Facebook, I've discovered them popping up in comments all over the place. And they're hilarious. And stupid. People would need to be really messed up in the head to believe in these things.

So I thought I'd look at one in detail, and see how stupid it could be...

"In 1997 a girl named Lauren was walking in a forest and suddenlydisappeared; she hadn't been discovered untill 2000 when a young girlnamed Mary found Lauren's body which had chest markings that said, "Iwasn't pretty enough.""

So this is the opening, the setup if you will, attempting to tell you a scary story to freak you out. Except it's not particularly scary. Forgive my jaded 21st Century mind, but while girls vanish while out walking more often than we would like, it's not a rare occurrence. And there have been much more disturbing things found carved into corpses than "I wasn't pretty enough." Also, the lack of specificity in this example is breathtaking. No place, surnames or any hint as to where this happened. Also, you will notice that the person typing this has a specific lack of skills as far as spelling, grammar and use of the space bar is concerned. Moving on...

"Lauren's ghost will appear in your mirror,telling you that you're not pretty enough and ................................. See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See More... See MoreSee More"

OK, firstly (and I hate to ruin this for anyone) GHOSTS DON'T EXIST! Secondly, even if they did, I'm damn sure that the ghost of a murder victim would have better things to do than appear in mirrors to random girls (and I'm not being sexist here, this specific chain letter appears to be targeted towards girls as I can't think of many boys who would care that they were "not pretty enough". Except maybe Carl :P), and I like the fact that the first part of this threat is so lame. Oh, she's going to appear and say "You're not pretty enough?" I'd turn round and reply "At least I'm not dead!" And what's with the repetition of "See More"? It's to fill up the comment box because, on Facebook, if you write more than a certain number of lines, (I think it's four or five) then you have to click on a "See More" button to reveal the rest. It's basically the same dramatic effect as they used to achieve by putting loads of line spaces in an e-mail. Let us read on...

"she will kill you. She'll will repeatedly tell you, "See more,see more, see more.." The same happened to Mary, and she died shortlyafter."

This seems like an awfully stupid plan to me. She'll kill you and THEN tell you "See More?" or she'll tell you "See More" first? It seems awfully strange that she'd say it anyway, being as she was murdered in a time before Facebook, so the phrase would mean NOTHING to her!! This section ends the story, as Mary, our inquisitive non-specific young lady has been killed. So what can we do to avoid this terrible fate?

"To save yourself, copy and paste this into five other band'scomment boxes. THIS IS TRUE! Since you have started reading this, donot stop. Keep in mind that you need to send this to five other bandsin 143 minutes."

This is where what little reality was left is torn up, stuffed in a box and casually tossed out of the window of common sense and run over by the dustbin cart of fantasy. Firstly, the page I found this on was NOT a band's comment box, so that girl's dead anyway... Secondly, anyone who feels the urge to state "THIS IS TRUE!" in capital letters is overcompensating. It's not true, it's bollocks. And why 143 minutes? They could at least have used some number that corresponded to something in the original story... Also, on a purely logical note, how on earth did this story get out if Mary died without posting? (Which she can't have done, because Facebook didn't exist at that time) And does this ghost have a giant server permanently tracking every iteration of this message to check everyone's doing it correctly? Sounds like a lot of work to me...

"When you're finished, press "F6" and your crush's namewill appear on your computer screen in big letters as a "reward" forpreventing yourself from being killed."

Oh dear god. Where to start? Press "F6" and your crush's name will appear? What kind of programming whiz is this ghost? And why would she want to tell you something YOU ALREADY KNOW?? Are you seriously suggesting that she is floating around in her ghostly way, checking everyone who's posted it, reading their mind and then reprogramming the source code of Facebook with a specific name so that when you press F6 you can see it? And what kind of reward is that anyway?? I'd much rather she programmed next weeks winning lottery numbers into my computer so that when I pressed F6 i could see that instead! Why do I want to see something I already know?

"This is scary because itactually works"

No it isn't. Because no, it doesn't. You bunch of fucking retards.

End Rant.

Top Ten TV Shows of the Noughties - Brawnystyle! Part Two - May Contain Spoilers....

2010-01-10T19:13:00.003Z

So I'm back, and this time it's with the second half of my Top Ten TV shows of the Noughties. If you didn't enjoy the last one, then you probably won't enjoy this! In order to mess it about a bit, before I start on with the top five proper, I'm going to throw in two more extras who don't qualify because they started before the year 2000.

Angel
Vampires, Demons and Street Gangs, Oh My!

What it is: Spin-off from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, featuring good vampire Angel as he moves to L.A. and forms what is basically a crime-fighting team. But it's not as cheesy as it sounds.

Why I like it: Well crafted storylines, no fear of developing complex serial plot arcs, and it's ability to change the team / motivations / entire scenarios often enough to keep it fresh, but not so often it's confusing. It's funny, it's tragic, it's incredibly well-written, and most of all, it retains all the good elements of Buffy without having to put up with the bad bits (such as, well, the actress playing the titular character herself. Seriously. I know a lot of people find her hot, but I just find Sarah Michelle Gellar to be irritating, whiny and only capable of acting with three facial expressions (Angry, Sad and Smiling (And even when she smiles she looks dead behind the eyes))!! Dawn (aka Michelle Trachtenburg) was less annoying! Rant Over.) And also, Angel's final episode? Superb.

What I don't like: It's got a few filler episodes, and ones that just don't grip me (I am particularly reminded of Waiting in the Wings from Season Three, I don't know why). And some of the character hook-ups are strange to say the least (Angel and Cordelia? Really?).

Favourite Character: Angel. Or Spike (who doesn't stay with the show until Season Five I grant you, but his Season One guest spot is hilarious)

Family Guy
Shut up Meg.

What it is: You all know what Family Guy is, right? Surreal, stupid, animated show about a Rhode Island family including the maniac baby and the talking dog?

Why I like it: It is frankly hilarious. Not always, I grant you, but they follow the same comedic principle that drove films like Airplane! (Throw enough jokes at the screen and a good number of them will stick) and it works for them. They can do a wide range of stories, and, judging from creator Seth MacFarlane's ridiculously profitable deal with the FOX network, they will continue to make episodes for many years.

What I don't like: As I said, there are occasional jokes that do nothing for me, and references to (usually U.S. based) pop culture/entertainment that I don't understand, but none of that spoils my enjoyment.

Favourite Character?: Brian. Cos who doesn't love an alcoholic talking dog who likes to sing?

And now - back to the countdown... I can feel the tension as you read this...

05 - Torchwood

We fight aliens. In Cardiff.

What it is: Dr Who spin-off that follows the adventures of Captain Jack Harkness, Gwen Cooper and the rest of the Torchwood team as they defend the earth from aliens all the while being based in Cardiff.

Why I like it: Because it's one half Dr Who, one half cheesy 90's Sci-Fi, and one half crazy ideas and action sequences (and yes, I know that adds up to one and a half, but I think that's a very suitable description for Torchwood!) It doesn't feel that it has to sit in one place, and consequentially it can do whatever kind of stories it wants, from the crazy and stupid (such as Cyberwoman in Series One, where you get the wonderful visual of a half converted cyberwoman. In metal stilettos), through horror film (Series One's Countrycide) through to a serious thriller (most of Series 3 - the wonderful Children of Earth). Oh, and they have a cool base, and a pterodactyl. What's not to like?

What I don't like: Well, it's hard to say really. The first series was a little... variable in quality, but I enjoyed most of it nonetheless. And since then it's only gone up, until the frankly fantastic Children of Earth. It's one of the few TV shows that I have absolutely no idea where it'll go next... and that's exciting!

Favourite Character?: Captain Jack Harkness.

04 - Chuck

If he has a computer in his head, does it need virus checking?

What it is: Chuck, a college drop-out who works at the local supermarket's technical support section, gets an e-mail from his old college room-mate, which, when opened, fills his brain with NSA secrets and turns him into a walking supercomputer called "The Intersect"

Why I like it: Action, Comedy and Adam Baldwin all combine to make this an absolutely hilarious series. Again, it's a series with a formula, but that isn't afraid to throw in true game-changing twists to shake up the status quo. It has story arcs and ongoing threads, but not to the extent of you having to have seen every previous episode, and it just WORKS. It's great. Plus the central three performances from Zachary Levi (Chuck), Adam Baldwin (Casey) and Yvonne Strahovski (Sarah) are absolutely fabulous. And Scott Bakula plays Chuck's Dad!

What I don't like: There's not a lot really! It does, like most U.S. series' have a few filler episodes, but on the whole it's excellent.

Favourite Character: John Casey.

03 - Lost

Once upon a time, there was an island...

What is it: Seriously? You've never heard of Lost? OK, some people crash on a desert island, and weird stuff starts to happen...

Why I like it: It's an intricately plotted series, incorporating a large amount of science fiction and mythological elements, with (mostly) brilliant characters, and it's not afraid to pose question after question and to change the rules when required, but always sticking to it's own internal logic. Plus, it has BRILLIANT cliffhangers...

What don't I like: There were several filler / dull episodes in Seasons 2 and 3, but it's clawed it's way back from them and now it is essential viewing week in and week out. As I said above, most of the characters are brilliant, although Jack does spend far too much time moaning for my liking. Oh, and for some reason, no-one ever seems to tell anyone about things they've seen! And in some episodes, they do seem to be better at writing cliffhangers than the actual episode...

Favourite Character: Desmond Hume.

02 - House M.D.

The Doctor is in. But you might not want to see him.

What it is: Medical drama based around Dr Gregory House, a diagnostic specialist with a brilliant deductive mind and no interpersonal skills whatsoever.

Why I like it: What appears to be at first glance a bog-standard medical procedural show is actually a master-class in how to keep a long-running series interesting. The characters are fabulous, and sometimes the medical story takes precedent, and sometimes the character-driven stuff does instead. It's so well balanced, and not afraid of taking risks (for example, the end of Season Three / start of Season Four where Houses' fellows all quit/get fired, so he replaces them... and in a shocking moment for a television series, he KEEPS the new team, while the old team work in other parts of the hospital...) But all in all, I like it because of Hugh Laurie's performance. Very few actors could actively make you root for House while all the time doing things as mean as House does. I bow down to Mr Laurie.

What I don't like: It does occasionally segue into schmaltz, the way American dramas can do, and I'm a little worried that the current slight softening of House will end up making it just a standard show rather than the extra-special one it is at the moment. But that hasn't happened yet...

Favourite Character: Dr Gregory House. And Wilson obviously!

01 - Doctor Who

One Man, One Police Box, it's time to save the Universe!

What is it: It's Dr Who. The longest-running science fiction series ever. Watched by millions every episode (at the moment). What do you mean you still don't know what I'm talking about? It's the one with the police box and the guy with two hearts who can change his face... ringing any bells?

Why I like it: It's brilliant. And I am of the opinion that it has always been brilliant. Regardless of wobbly sets, unconvincing aliens and Colin Baker's costume, it has always had greatness within it. Sure it's been through phases, starting as a children's show, before graduating to Science Fiction, then going through periods of Horror and overt Comedy before returning to it's family show position it is in now. However, I suppose I ought to specify what bits of NuHu (i.e. Dr Who that re-launched in 2005) I like, being as that's the reason it's in this list. Well, I just think they nailed it. Both Doctors (Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant) played the part to perfection, and while they had some brilliant episodes and some average ones, some fabulous companions and some average, there's been nothing that I think has done any damage to the long existence of this character.

What I don't like: Again, it's had a couple of rubbish episodes (my own personal worst being Fear Her from Series 2) but other than that it's been brilliant. Except I don't really like Rose with the Tenth Doctor - just feels like there's no chemistry there and they tried to force it.

Favourite Character: The Doctor. Of course.

Well, good blog readers, that's it for my Top Ten TV shows of the Noughties. The Doctor won (of course he did, I would imagine that was a surprise to exactly NONE of you) but I just wanted to re-emphasise how much I've enjoyed it. Bring on Matt Smith as the Eleventh Doctor (Spring 2010).

Next time on my blog..... well I don't know what will be on here next time, because I'm not psychic. So wait and see...

Top Ten TV Shows of the Noughties - Brawnystyle! PART ONE: From Ten to Six...

2010-01-07T20:56:00.012Z

So, being as we've entered a brand new decade, and being as I've watched an AWFUL lot of television over the last ten years, I thought I'd make my list of the best TV shows of the naughties. (I hate that name for the decade, but sadly, it appears to have stuck.) My own personal rules for this state that the TV show has to have premièred within the decade, so any show that aired before 01 Jan 2000 is out. Even if it had only shown one episode before then.

So here we are, in traditional reverse order, my top 10:

10 - Scrubs

The hospitable hospital comedy

What it is: The odds of one of my blog readers having never seen Scrubs is ridiculous, unless you have purposely squirrelled yourself away from it, it is, after all, on E4 almost as much as Friends is. A half-hour sitcom shot on single camera about a group of young (and to start with at least, not very good) doctors, this series manages to get more laughs per minute than 90% of other U.S. comedies.

Why I like it: Plain and Simple. I like it because it is funny. The laughs range from the mild grin of amusement all the way up to the gut-busting roar of mirth. Not a weak link in the cast, and for the most part, the writing is smart and idiotic at the same time - which tends to be how I like my comedy! Also, especially in the earlier seasons, they had a nice balance of comic and tragic, which felt like the show gained some extra depth, and they allowed the characters to grow and evolve from their original creation.

What don't I like?: Well, the new (only aired in the U.S. so far) Season 9, in which most of the original regulars have left is patchy, but seems to be getting better, and Seasons 6 & 7 felt a little sterile, with too much left-field humour and too little serious (or medical) plot lines, but Season 8 went some way to re-dressing that balance.

Favourite Character?: Janitor. Or Dr Cox. It's a tough call between the two of them.

09 - Q.I.

The pub quiz connoisseur's program of choice

What it is: A panel show hosted by the "Nicest Man in the Universe"TM - Mr Stephen Fry, with the regular panellist being the "Curly Haired Man who knows he's going to be proven wrong"TM Mr Alan Davies, in which we learn that every important pub quiz fact we thought we knew, was wrong.

Why I like it: Because, once again, it's funny, and also it's genuinely interesting. Plus it provides you with useful information to impress your mates / family / girlfriend with. (This is less effective now that it's on BBC One and approximately 7 billion people watch it (this may be an over exaggeration, I'm sure that the exact figure is available somewhere, but since my idea of research is to pick a number from the sky and claim it to be true, that's the method I'm utilising here)).

What I don't like?: Being a panel show, there are some guests that are much more entertaining than others, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles...

Favourite Person: Mr Stephen Fry. For his dry wit. And occasional sodomy jokes.

08 - The Middleman

It's about a man, right, and he's in the middle of stuff...

What it is: Now this one is hard to describe, mostly because it's never aired in the U.K., so many of you will never have seen it. Based on the comic series, it's the story of Wendy Watson, an art school graduate, who ends up working as The Middleman-in-training for a shadowy organisation who fight super villains. Her boss is the Middleman, an ex-marine who swears like he's from the 50's. Oh and there's a cranky old woman who's actually a computer called Ida. Confused yet?

Why I like it: It's flat out brilliant. Hysterical, surreal and just plain strange. It only ran for twelve episodes (which is a crying shame) and these episodes contained things like tentacled monsters, terracotta warriors, trout-craving zombies, alien boy bands and cursed Tubas. And that was just the first seven episodes....

What don't I like?: It only ran for twelve episodes! And there wasn't enough Sensei Ping.

Favourite Character: The Middleman. Or Nozer.

Here's a trailer for the first episode. Watch as much Middleman as you can. Or better still buy the DVD set. It's great!

07 - Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

Behind the Scenes of a fictitious comedy program

What it is: A drama series documenting the behind the scenes running of a Saturday Night Live-type show, starring Chandler off Friends (aka Matthew Perry) and Josh off West Wing (aka BradleyWhitford) and written by Aaron Sorkin (who wrote West Wing)

Why I like it: It's so incredibly well-written, that I actively want to be Matthew Perry's character (writing a 90 minute sketch show every week? That's a challenge I'd take!) Beautifully shot and well acted, the whole thing just feels glossy and wonderful and deals with relationships, work and touches on broader subjects too.

What don't I like?: It only ran for one season, and the last four episodes are a four parter, which I think is good ideas extended too far - it could have been a two parter and two other episodes... Plus it occasionally wanders slightly into a didactic arena, telling you how bad the war in Afghanistan is, for example...

Favourite Character?: Matt Albie

Again, here's a short clip for you, feel free to search YouTube for more!

06 - Black Books

Makes you laugh black comedy tears of despair

What it is: A sitcom starring the wonderful trio of Dylan Moran, Bill Bailey and Tamsin Grieg, about a drunk Irishman who owns a second hand book shop.

Why I like it: It's amazingly funny, tightly plotted and the performances are out of this world. Episodes can veer from black sarcasm to slapstick in the blink of an eye, and the whole thing is so addictive that one episode is rarely enough!

What don't I like?: Well, there's only eighteen episodes of it. And I didn't find series three quite as good as the other two. But it's still immense.

Favourite Character: Manny. For reasons why, find a copy of the first episode of season two where he plays the piano, and enjoy.....

Well, that's the end of part one of this list, part two shall be up in the next few days...

But as a bonus feature for you (or VAM as they now refer to it in the DVD industry, which stands for Value Added Materials, which is kind of a poncy name for it I think!) here are two of my favourite TV shows that didn't make the cut, because they both started in 1999.

Spaced

Bizarreness of the highest order.

What it is: Sitcom which is both realistic of my generation, while at the same time being infamously surreal

Why I like it: Because, once again, it's hilariously funny. It stars Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Jessica Stevenson, and it's so much better than other sitcoms that try to be true to life, because it's true enough while still being amazingly bizarre!

What I don't like: Only two series' were ever made.

Favourite Character?: Probably Brian. *Throws paint at canvas*

West Wing

If only politics was really like this

What it is: Long-running drama about working in the White House. Sounds boring, but it isn't.

Why I like it: It's gripping, right from the start. The pilot has one of the best entrances for a cast member ever (as Martin Sheen's President Bartlett enters the room, having been referred to for most of the episode), and it just got better from there. The first four seasons particularly are gripping, beautifully written and well-acted all round.

What don't I like?: Well, seasons 5 and 6 lost their way a little, but Season 7 brought it back by completely changing the format of the show, and making it all the stronger for it.

Favourite Character?: Joshua Lyman.

So that's it for now... numbers 5 to 1 following soon! So stay tuned...

The most unlikely of substitutions

2010-01-06T12:45:00.003Z

OK, I just read about this, and I felt the urge to rant.

So ITV are looking to revive The Crystal Maze? I'm sure many of you, as I do, have a fond nostalgia for the original, and spent many hours creating your own Crystal Maze puzzles in your own room, then obviously being able to do it really easily, not realising that this was because you had created the puzzle and ergo the answer was already in your head. (Or was that just me? It was fun though...)

So do I want them to bring it back? Yes, I'd love them to bring it back. But not in the format that they are allegedly considering (Admittedly, I can't find any more reliable original source for the story than the Guardian Media Monkey Blog, who say it was in the Sun, so not massively reliable!) Apparently, they're considering offering the role of host to...

Amanda Holden. AKA The Charisma-Vacuum who somehow still manages to get regular acting and presenting work even though no-one I've ever met enjoys her performances.

To use her as the host of any bog-standard game show would beggar belief, but The Crystal Maze? Do they think that she could get anywhere close to the wonderful insanity of Richard O'Brien? Even Ed Tudor-Pole couldn't manage that (and he seems to have spent a career attempting to be Richard O'Brien as if unaware that the job was already taken)

But AMANDA HOLDEN??

Oh, but it gets worse. Remember all those days when you longed to be on the Crystal Maze? Knowing that they were all regular people like you (if often nerdier and with bigger glasses/hair than ever thought possible?) so you might have a chance?

Those days are over.

Apparently, and according to Digital Spy (who I know often just make stuff up, so I'm praying this isn't true) “It is also thought that celebrity contestants will tackle the difficult puzzles and physical challenges rather than members of the public.”

Is it just me, or are they running out of celebrities willing to be on shows to embarrass themselves anyway? What with the crop of shows such as I'm a Celebrity, Celebrity Big Brother, Celebrity Total Wipeout, Celebrity Face Slapping, Family Fortunes Celebrity and more, (yes I made up one of those) aren't we getting fed up of seeing celebrities doing things? Especially those who now appear to make a living by appearing in Celebrity reality shows, then in the tabloids, then in celebrity reality shows, then on some kind of documentary about their lives on ITV2?

What's wrong with using members of the public for this new Crystal Maze? (Not least because I'd blatantly apply!)

So I'm incredibly unhappy about this. Bring it back, sure, but use someone with a modicum of talent and weirdness to host it. Can you imagine Amanda Holden playing a Harmonica and talking about Mumsy while hanging around in a castle? No.

The End of Time or just the End of an Era? - DR WHO SPOILERS

2010-01-05T11:14:00.008Z

Pulls up in my Internet-based-vehicle (ideally some sort of Harley-style motorbike) singing

"'Tis the season to be jolly, fa-la-la....."

Tails off and looks around. Notices that there is complete silence from the collective blogging community, checks watch and sighs.

OK, so I'm a bit late to wish everyone Merry Christmas and the like, but consider it done anyway. If you feel I'm too late for Christmas '09, simply save my best wishes for Christmas '10, as I am sure I will iterate them to you once again then.

Sadly, due to the demands of Christmas / New Year as well as the onset of the dreaded Lurgi (Ah, my dear Dr Seagoon. Allow Me. My Card, My Card, SNAP!) , I haven't done any blogging for the last few weeks. But this shall change.

Expect more articles from me over the next few days and weeks, but for now, to welcome in my first blog of 2010 (seriously, it's 2010! That's a date I only ever used to see stamped under the words "Best Before" on cans of Beans!) it is one of our old favourites...

A Dr Who Review!

Listens for applause. Is surprised to hear some. Mental note - must go and see psychiatrist due to being able to hear applause in my head.

Well here we go...

DR WHO - THE END OF TIME (Yes, this covers both parts)

In Which - The Doctor gets told by the Ood that some bad stuff will happen. The Master is infecting everyone's dreams, before rudely getting resurrected, James Bond turns out to be a Time Lord and David Tennant finally passes the mantle to Matt Smith.

What did I think - Well, it was big. The reason I'm writing this review of both parts together, is that I really didn't feel that part one stood up well on it's own, simply because it felt very strange, structurally. But as a whole, I really enjoyed it.

The return of the Master, while not really a surprise for this program (Dr Who does love to resurrect dead / extinct life forms at every opportunity) felt strange and weird, being as it seemed to utilise magic rather than anything else, which is an area Dr Who normally steers away from, but it did the job and returned him. With Jedi powers. Which was strange.

Speaking of which, there was quite a lot of obvious Star Wars influences across the two parter (The Master's lightning, the high council of time lords (which looked just like the council from the Star Wars prequels) and the gun turrets on the Vivocci ship to name but three), but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Seriously, who didn't love watching Bernard Cribbins dogfighting with lasers? It was fab.

So yeah, the Master's powers were a bit strange, and barely explained (although there was a line about his botched regeneration, which, if you watch Confidential/Listen to the commentaries such as I do, you realise that he has that energy because his cells are ripping apart, but it should possibly have been clearer in the actual program), but on the whole John Simm worked wonders, starting properly manic, and then calming down to be the Master we all know and despise.

The trouble with Part One though, was that most of it seemed to be Doctor chases Master, Doctor talks to Wilf, Doctor finds and talks to Master, Doctor talks to Wilf... oh wait, we've got ten minutes left, we'd best build up to a (admittedly fantastic) cliffhanger.

But then, once it grabbed and didn't let go, it was superb. The Vivocci, while appearing to be pointless comedy aliens, actually served a purpose to the plot (for a change), and the explanation for the Time Lords return made sense.

Yes, it was a bit deus ex machina that the Doctor returns them to the Time War by shooting the diamond, but the Master having vanished with them leaves ample possibilities for a return from either or both of them, so I like that. Uncertainty is good.

And then, in a completely unexpected move, first the person who causes the Doctors death is Wilf (which I didn't see coming, and yes, I know he didn't really cause the death, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but still...), and then, the Doctor takes half an hour to regenerate, with just enough time to go and see his former companions....

This, for me, is the most divisive area of the episode. It felt, in many ways, as if it was done solely to say "This is the end of the RTD / Tennant era, so let's go back and see everyone we can." But it was done well. No speeches, no hugs, just little moments, and the prospect of Donna becoming a multi-millionaire. So yeah, I think I liked it. Also it seemed like a reflection of the real world, where the public has been aware Tennant is leaving for over a year, so it's felt all drawn out. Plus I can see how it's the only way they'd have got the Doctor alone in the TARDIS to regenerate, and he needed to be alone for the start of the new series.

But Martha married Mickey? REALLY?

The Good - Once again (as with Waters of Mars, and indeed most of the new Dr Who), I felt that the performances were exceptional across the board, the Time Lords were used sparingly and well, the plot made some sense, and we got a resolution (of the bad guys) where they're not utterly defeated, so bringing them back is easy. Oh, and how good was Bernard Cribbins? What a lovely man!

The Bad - I hate to say it, but Donna was underused and pointless. It's almost as if RTD came up with the episode assuming they wouldn't be able to get Catherine Tate, but then they did so he had to shoehorn her in. Her only purpose was to provide a third cliffhanger, which was then solved quickly, and then she lay unconscious in a street for the rest of part two. Also, the Naismiths were sorely underwritten and appeared to have no proper plan, but they worked as plot devices, so it wasn't too bad. Also, as I've previously mentioned, the pacing for Part One seemed very strange.

Conclusion - 9/10. It was a brilliant finale for David Tennant, and regardless of my Donna issues and the small pacing problems, it was a wonderful piece of televisual entertainment. Bravo RTD.

On a side note - who saw the trailer for the new series? Was the Dr really hitting an old-style Grey Dalek with it's own plunger?? - Bring it on :)

The trouble with being a Writer

2009-12-15T08:57:00.004Z

Today's blog entry doesn't really have a point, except to discuss my own personal dilemma, specifically the question of when do I let people read things I have written.

As you all know, I finished NaNoWriMo last month (and won - see the banner thing in the sidebar) and last night I re-opened the document to have a look at it and start to figure out where to start in the editing process. And there's so much. And I don't know whether any of the novel is any good.

So I thought about getting people to read it and give me feedback, which would be fine, except that I really want to re-organise it and get it sorted out before anyone reads it, but I don't know if it's worthwhile sorting out or whether it's just a big mess of ramblings. (Much like these blogs often are)

So my question today is directed to other writers - when do you decide it's time? Do you ask people who you know will say nice things just to encourage you? Do you insist on honesty all the time?

I just don't really know where to start - instead of editing anything last night, I simply organised and finished naming the chapters, with some wierd chapter titles, some of which are just strange.

Don't believe me? Here's the list (WARNING - Very long list)

Chapter One – Just Another Night at Work
Chapter Two – Alone…
Chapter Three – The Trouble with Jack
Chapter Four – The Misadventures of Erroneous Hinge
Chapter Five - Angels and Beanstalks
Chapter Six – The Time Travel Begins
Chapter Seven - Releasing a Mentally Deranged Man into the Surrounding Area
Chapter Eight – No Longer Alone…
Chapter Nine – A Normal Dave-Based Day
Chapter Ten – Taking Victor from Victory leaves Why?
Chapter Eleven – Back to the Present
Chapter Twelve - Lords and Playwrights and Short Skirts, Oh My!
Chapter Thirteen - Dave, a man in search of the plot, or at least some suitable exposition
Chapter Fourteen – Exposition 2: This Time it’s Personal
Chapter Fifteen – Up, up and… down again
Chapter Sixteen – Return to the Scene of the Crime
Chapter Seventeen – An Evening in the Pub
Chapter Eighteen – The Story so Far
Chapter Nineteen - A lab, two scientists and a shadowy figure
Chapter Twenty – The Investigation Continues
Chapter Twenty-One – In which two groups of protagonists finally meet
Chapter Twenty-Two – A Victor(ious) return
Chapter Twenty-Three – Follow the Yellow Brick Road? Really?
Chapter Twenty-Four - Rest and Recuperation (Or at least, not getting shot at for a change)
Chapter Twenty-Five – Turtles need Love too
Chapter Twenty-Six – Return to 1864
Chapter Twenty-Seven - The Loss of the Road
Chapter Twenty-Eight - Which is set in the present, but occurs before Chapter Twenty-Six in Sian’s personal Timeline
Chapter Twenty-Nine – The Wizard’s Abode
Chapter Thirty – Escape!
Chapter Thirty-One - Erroneous leaps into action (Slowly)
Chapter Thirty-Two - The arrival of Angel
Chapter Thirty-Three – Backstory
Chapter Thirty-Four – Extended Cliffhanger
Chapter Thirty-Five - The Present Past Andrew meets the Past Present Andrew
Chapter Thirty-Six – Cliffhanger Extension Part Two
Chapter Thirty-Seven – 19th Century Espionage
Chapter Thirty-Eight - The Resolution of the ever-more-irritating Cliffhanger
Chapter Thirty-Nine - The Tale that Sam just promised he’d tell you
Chapter Forty –The Continuation of Chapter Thirty-Eight
Chapter Forty-One – An Erroneous Climax
Chapter Forty-Two – Everywhere and Nowhere
Chapter Forty-Three – The End?
Epilogue – What Happened Next.

I invite comments / suggestions / answers for the questions I posed in this post (or anything else you want)

Theatre 2: The Rise of the Theatrical Sequels

2009-12-14T00:30:00.012Z

My dear reader, have you noticed the rising case of sequel-itis in the world today? (Yes, it is a word. I don't care what you say, my blog - my words, clear?) Everything seems to get inappropriate sequels at some point or another - films, books and now stage shows.

Yes, in a (not-really-very-at-all) veiled way, I'm talking about the new show from Andrew Lloyd-Webber "Phantom: Love Never Dies".

So it's a sequel to Phantom of the Opera, which, if he feels there is a good story to be told in it (And seeing as Frederick Forsythe managed to get an entire novel "The Phantom of Manhattan" out of the idea of a sequel to the show, and being as Lloyd-Webber has used some or all of that plotline in his new show, then one has to assume that he does) then it's fine by me, but the cynical part of my brain does wonder how much of it is a desire to revisit that world, and how much of his enthusiasm was simply to do with the fact that every show he has written since that point has been compared to Phantom.

Examples according to my extensive research (and by extensive research, I mean thinking about it hard, because I saw both of these adverts myself) are that Whistle Down the Wind had "Lloyd-Webber's best show since Phantom" as a quote outside the theatre when it ran, and The Woman in White had almost the exact same quote also. So is it just the case that he decided he should return to the scene of what is considered to be his greatest success?

And if that is the case, how much of it will carry over? Will it be an entirely new tale just told with the same characters and nothing else? Or will we be expecting a reprise of the title song from Phantom of the Opera when the Phantom first dramatically reveals himself? (And of course he'll do it dramatically, he's a deformed psychotic who wears a white half-mask. He'll have trouble doing it in any un-dramatic way). Will Lloyd-Webber go further than that and incorporate themes and reprises from the previous show? Will anything happen in the sequel that devalues the original (such as the entire of the original show, up to and including it's conclusion, turns out to be part of the Phantom's plan all along)?

Put broadly - how familiar will you have to be with the original in order to watch the sequel? Because if anything more than a passing familiarity is required, then I have a feeling that it will be a short-lived experiment. Looking back at the history of them, theatrical sequels have never done particularly well. Examples include:

Annie Warbucks - An attempt to continue the story of everyone's most irritating small ginger child, this ran for 200 performances in 1993... which is OK. I mean it's not an outright failure like the original Annie sequel was (apparently entitled Annie 2: Miss Hannigan's Revenge, and if you read the synopsis, it sounds hilarious - for all the wrong reasons!) but it's not going to trouble any "longest-running show on Broadway" records, or even make it's money back, is it?

Snoopy!!! - The Musical - A moderately successful sequel to "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown", I suspect that the secret to it's mild success is that it belongs to the camp of sequels where you take the characters (which had the advantage to being instantly recognisable to millions of people anyway) and just tell a brand new story around them.

The Best Little Whorehouse goes Public - A Sequel to "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" this ran for just 16 performances, making it the most obvious outright failure in this list.

So what's your opinion for the general failure of stage sequels Brawny? asks the average reader (Look at me, assuming I have more than one reader, how confident am I?)

It's simple. Sequels on film and in print can work, especially given the rise of Video/DVD (And for those youngsters out there, Video is those big black tapes...) so that now we can own the original and see it any time we want. But stage isn't like that. If you need to have significant knowledge of the original show, then you need to have seen it before you see the sequel. Snoopy!!! - The Musical (Yes, the three exclamation marks appear to actually be part of the title) probably worked best because it was a new, self-contained story, featuring characters that you could have been exposed to any other way.

Annie 2: Miss Hannigan's Revenge, however, appears to be the worst type of sequel, picking up straight where the original left off and effectively continuing the story. Films can get away with this (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers for example) but shows really can't. So I watch how the Phantom sequel progresses with interest. I'm sure I shall see it at some point, as I'm interested, and Neety is a big fan of the original, so I shall let you all know.

And now, for your comic amusement, potential sequels for current West End Shows, as considered by Money-Grabbing Producers, following the obvious trend of trying to tell a new story while bringing back as much of the audience-pleasing elements and characters as you can:

Oliver! 2 - Ignoring the fact that Dickens never wrote a sequel to the original novel that inspired the musical, the new story starts with Oliver getting left behind as his new family move out of the city, and he then has to wander through the city attempting to find his new home. Part Road-Trip, part Home Alone (or Home Alone 2: Lost in New York), it gives Oliver plenty of opportunity to run into previous characters such as Fagin or the Artful Dodger, or maybe even Bet (who, being as she is so pointlessly sidelined in the original, is the obvious choice for a female lead, continuing in her quest to be the next Nancy). Who would be the antagonist? Why the returning Mr Bumble of course, who has decided for whatever reason, that he wants Oliver returned...

Mamma Mia 2 - After the anti-climatic ending of the previous musical, where Sophie's father is not revealed, and she doesn't actually get married, this production picks up a couple of years later, with her preparing to wed again, and re-opening the question of who her father is, as Bill and Harry have disappeared from her life again, and Sam is too busy fighting with Donna to spend any time with her. What follows is basically a re-hash of the first plot, utilising the second tier of ABBA songs (i.e. the ones that weren't good enough to put in Mamma Mia) ending with everyone happily married, the parentage issue sorted and a curtain call identical to the one from the first show, just so the audience don't feel ripped off...

Les Miserables 2 - OK, so nearly everyone died in the first one but that's never been a big problem for sequels. Taking Marius and Cosette, the story follows them fighting their way through the early stages of a relationship against the backdrop of 19th century France. Returning characters Thernadier and his wife become overly comic, losing all of their threatening edge, and almost annoy the audience to the point of leaving, before attempting to bring back some goodwill by bursting into their original show-stopping number "Master of the House". Meanwhile a shadowy figure is attempting to destroy Marius and Cosette's lives, who is revealed at the end of the show to be none other than Javert, whose suicide failed, and he had spent all this time plotting his revenge... Will Marius and Cosette survive? Will Javert succeed? Does anyone care?

Wicked 2 - The novel on which this wonderful piece of theatre would be based already exists, and Son of the Witch utilises one of those most traditional traits in sequels, the children of the original protagonists. In this story the son of Elpheba and Fiyero basically goes on a quest, and stuff happens. I'm amazed this isn't in production right now.

We Will Rock You 2 - Take more Queen songs, and glue them together. Oh wait, this is in production and entitled "The Show Must Go On". Oh well, at least Queen had enough good songs to fill a second show, unlike ABBA...

Any further suggestions? As always, feel free to make them in the comments section...

Well - The Internet Finally Got Me

2009-12-13T19:29:00.003Z

You remember when Internet shopping was just a fad that only geeks did, and everyone said "Oh be careful, you never know what you're buying, someone will rip you off"? Well I never had an issue with it then...

Shame I do now.

I attempted to buy a DVD from a retailer I had never used before last week, and said DVD was for a Christmas Present. They were very efficient and sent me e-mails confirming my order, confirming every change in it's order status, and telling me when it was sent out.

However, when I received it (or rather, when I picked it up from the Post Office on Saturday because I'd had one of the stupid little red cards again) I was less than impressed. It was a bootleg.

Don't get me wrong, it was a pretty well made bootleg - but there are signs, and the picture quality wasn't as good as it should have been, and there's no way I'm giving it to someone as a Christmas present.

So this is just to warn you - the website www.dvd4utoo.com - sells bootlegs. (I'm not going to link them, because then they get the attention). The Paypal name utilised by the seller is Benaya. And my advice is as follows:

Don't go near it.

Thus ends Brawny's public announcement, go about your daily business.

(Next blog will be funnier / more informative, I promise)

A follow up...

2009-12-10T14:53:00.004Z

While my previous rant was about the uselessness of Facebook Groups, there are ones that set out to achieve things, which is good.

In particular this one, which is encouraging people to club together and buy "Killing in the Name" by Rage Against the Machine next week, so that it can defeat the pointless X-Factor winners single and become Christmas Number One!

It's all just a bit of fun - plus it's a good song!

I shall be buying it any time on Dec 13th or later, feel free to join me!

Simply clicking on a button is not (usually) a valid form of protest

2009-12-10T09:08:00.004Z

It's time for that infamous question - What's been annoying you today Brawny?

Well, apart from the usual (lack of money, annoyance with job, still no concrete plans to move back to Poole, still worrying about the Christmas presents I ordered online weeks ago that haven't yet arrived), there is one thing that's been irritating me in the last few days...

Facebook groups.

For those few of you who don't have Facebook, groups are exactly what they sound like, people united under a common banner or cause. When Facebook started (although I obviously mean when I started to use Facebook, as I have no previous knowledge of what it was like before I used it. For all I know it could have been a site which flashed up an image of Santa Claus knifing a small child while a loop of a distorted version of "Santa Claus is coming to town" played in the background. I think it unlikely, but one never knows for sure (Incidentally, can you tell that I'm having a strangely festive day, due to the large amount of Christmas influence in that metaphor? Thought so)) then groups seemed to primarily be for people to show appreciation of films, TV, music etc., or to group up with some of your friends (groups for organisations you belong to, etc.). Now, since they created pages for which you can become a "fan", most music/TV/Films have graduated to those, (Although there's still no Norwich and Saggers page, shamefully) and groups have become the subject of "comedy".

Now when I say "Comedy" I mean it in the lowest sense, the comedy usually coming from funny group titles or strange situations. (Yes I am aware that sentence makes me sound like a comedy snob, but tough (Do you get comedy snobs? I guess you do, being as I am one of them))

Now this is fine - it's annoying when people invite you to join groups that you don't want to join, and I don't understand why you'd join a group which just had a funny name but nothing else - and therefore no reason to have a group rather than simply writing the joke in your status or anything else, but it does occasionally throw up such amusing titles such as the one I joined yesterday, purely to honour the title "Girls, stop flicking your bean to Twilight, and go make me a Bacon Sandwich", which is, quite frankly, hilarious.

But the types of groups which annoy me the most are the "If [enter stupidly large number] of people join, then [enter task / achievement]"

(By the way, I attempted to make the post easy to understand for those who don't use facebook, but I don't care anymore, so apologies if I end up alienating any of you)

These types of groups can be easily divided into two sections: The personal, which are challenges made by people, and the ones I like to term the NFW groups (if you don't understand what I mean by NFW, then tough, I'm not explaining it here), in which the result of the challenge is something completely out of the control of the person who made the group.

Having just searched Facebook groups for the key words "If people join" (Which, incidentally has returned a horrendous number of results) then I can see that the vast majority of these groups are personal, which while they may be stupid, I have no problem with. If you want to turn your house into a pirate ship, or tattoo Facebook on your neck, or legally change your name to Edward Cullen, and you feel that getting a million people to say you should do it somehow justifies the idiotic decision (talk about peer pressure) then fine. The point is that these tasks are achievable because the only idiot who needs persuading is the person who put it up in the first place. As soon as you involve other people, however, you know that it won't happen. For example there's a group entitled "If 1,170,000 people join, My Girlfriend will Marry Me!". I have news for you my friend, no she won't. If she doesn't want to marry you now, getting a load of strangers to click on a button won't change that.

The other type of group, however, which is still in the minority, gives examples of such things as "If 10,000,000 people join this, they will make an all Family Guy channel!", "If 1,000,000 people join then the original Facebook will stay" or "If 10,000,000 people join, Emma Watson will date me"

These are the types I hate - because they are blatantly promising something that they have no control over (OK, I grant you that the Emma Watson one is probably a joke) but people seem to think that just by clicking a button they can create a TV channel, or change the minds of people who have redesigned something for a reason. WAKE UP! NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!

Having just spent my time scrawling through some of my search results to find examples, what has also disturbed me slightly is how many comedy groups there are that say "If [insert number here] join then NOTHING WILL HAPPEN [Or some other comic witticism]" Whilst I hold no issues with their viewpoint, being as it is similar to my own, the number of groups with slight variations on that name now seem to vastly exceed the number of groups created by people being serious - so the parodies and sarcasm is now enveloping the original subject, until eventually the sarcasm and parody will be all that is left. Also, if you hate such groups so much, then why spend the time creating a group moaning about it? That just seems silly to me..

Although I have now spent time blogging about it, so maybe I'm just as bad...

Anyways - I shall return with another blog at some point soon. Maybe the next one will be interesting, you never know...

Criminally Idiotic, and a caption competition!

2009-12-08T13:54:00.005Z

Is it just me, or is this the most pointless crime ever? Surely it's just one step from skip-raiding? (Which, incidentally, no-one cares about, because the stuff being stolen is rubbish) Yes, I understand that Oxfam are losing clothes, and that's a bad thing because charity shops need stuff to sell to make money. That I understand.

But what goes through the mind of the criminals who decide to do it? Apparently "Eight bags of charity clothing were stolen in the latest incident on Friday."

What are you going to do with eight bags worth of clothes that have been donated to Oxfam? Unless the thieves were very picky with what they stole, those clothes aren't going to fit them, so they're not stealing for themselves, and unless Skegness has a thriving underground second hand clothes market, then they can't be making much money off it.

I'm confused - it just seems like a lot of trouble to go to in order to procure bags full of clothes you can't do anything with... especially considering that apparently "They are putting a person into the hopper, usually a child, into a dark metal bank ..." Taking a child out with you in order to rip off some charity clothes seems overly organised to me. If it had happened once, then I'd think it was some idiotically drunk people who happened to have a midget with them (and who wouldn't like to have a midget with them when out on the town, they're party animals), who decided that it would be funny. But to do it repeatedly? They're wierd...

Unless...

I think they work at Butlins in Skegness and they need costumes for shows etc. So they're on the scrounge. That's my theory (Which is in no way affected by the fact that Butlins in Skegness turned me down for a job years ago). I don't have any proof of it, you understand, but that's just how it is.

Scavvy Butlins Bastards :)

On a mostly un-related note (I say mostly un-related, I saw this while I was reading the article, so it's kind of related in that sense) I do think that BBC News should be careful as to what their overtly long article titles get reduced to on the sidebar...

Growing up with an absent fat what? Consider this a caption competition - leave your responses in the comments.

Return of the Brawn!

2009-12-01T10:58:00.005Z

Hi Bloggees!

So I'm back, after my month-long silence (bar the two exceptions) having successfully completed my NaNoWriMo novel, which is something I'm pretty proud of. (Proud of having completed it I mean, not necessarily proud of some of the actual writing - but that's what editing is for)

And for my return, you'll be pleased to hear it's time for another Brawny rant!

Last week, I came across this news story which is so ridiculous it made me laugh and spit the coke I was drinking out of my nose. (Technically, that sentence used artistic licence as I hadn't been drinking coke at the time I saw the story, but if I had been then it would have come out of my nose, and I think that's important to get across).

In a week where discussions of Modern Warfare 2 were rife, it seems as if this study was conveniently released in order to play up the hype. Granted, it's not about Modern Warfare 2, but I suspect that's only because it wasn't released by the time the study was done. It is about other violent games of that nature however, and the things that made me astonished was when the news article makes this wonderful statement.

"Human rights groups played various games to see if any broke humanitarian laws that govern what is a war crime."

I'm sorry, what??? Since when did laws apply to un-real situations? You say that there are things you can do in any of the games they played that you would be arrested for in real life? I'm appalled...

And I know what you're thinking, you're thinking "Brawny, you're not appalled at all". I am, I'm appalled that anyone thinks this study is worthwhile! Seriously, the study that was done tells us that "... games were sending an "erroneous" message that conflicts were waged without limits or that anything was acceptable in counter-terrorism operations. "This is especially problematic in view of today's reality," said the study. "

Especially problematic in view of today's reality? What, because we all play video games and are all idiots who can't differentiate between reality and a game? But films and books are OK because they're passive and you don't interact with them?

Luckily, it doesn't appear that anyone of any legal or political power has taken any notice of this, and that's because it's ludicrous. However, in the spirit of the study I present a selection of re-designed games (all (C) Brawny 2009) in order to reflect real world laws within the game.

PAC-MAN

Instead of rushing around a maze eating dots from the floor (which do not belong to you) and then occasionally making a Ghost flash so that you can eat it (which I'm sure counts as murder, even if the Ghost returns after a while), my new version of the classic game has you moving Pac-Man around aimlessly until you find a Ghost, at which point you enter into a dialogue with him to find out why he keeps getting in your way and is trying to stop you at every step of the way. Maybe you would then go for counselling together as a way of getting over these hurdles. And if any cherries or other fruit stuff appear in front of you, you are penalised for eating them, instead you should pick them up and drop them off at the police station so that they can be returned to their owner.

SUPER MARIO BROS

The entire premise of this game is ridiculous, as you run through strange foreign lands, including repeatedly breaking into castles, in order to murder countless poor henchmen and then murder a large turtle simply because he has a spiky shell and therefore must be evil. Also, you maintain he did in fact kidnap the Princess, but do you have any evidence of this? Because if it's just that she told you, then you need some corroborative evidence or that'll never stand up in court. What you should do instead is simply call the police and hire a negotiator to persuade Bowser to release the princess.

HOUSE OF THE DEAD

You run around and kill Zombies. This is clearly murder. You can also destroy pieces of building, cars and anything else. This is clearly Vandalism. You also break into facilities in order to kill more Zombies. This is clearly breaking and entering. You may think you can cover this up by being a government agent, but you have never once proffered the correct paperwork to your victims before you blow their heads off. I can think of no way to make this game comply with laws at all - it should just be banned.

GRAND THEFT AUTO

I believe the clue is in the title. Oh, and you can murder people crossing the street. Instead, the game should be re-tooled so that it is entitled "Do you mind if I borrow your car?". The object being that firstly you have to negotiate a vehicle from its owner, and then you have to drive around, sticking to the speed limit and stopping at every red light, whilst performing day-to-day tasks such as the shopping and going to work.

GUITAR HERO

OK, I can't find any specific laws broken in this game, apart from possibly disturbing the peace. Unless my new law comes into practice which is the "If you're going to attempt to create music in any fashion, learn how to be in tune first" law.

Now I know I've been silly in this post (and aren't I always anyway?) but my point simply is that you cannot apply real world logic to un-real objects, be they game, film or book. So people shouldn't try.

SPOILERS! - Waters of Mars

2009-11-22T21:21:00.005Z

I've once again broken my month-long blog silence to bring you .... A Brawny Review! (That could be a Breview I suppose... but anyway...)

DR WHO - THE WATERS OF MARS

In Which - The Doctor lands on Mars, ends up in the first human base on Mars, and then realises that he really shouldn't be there....

What did I think? - A bit of a strange beast this episode, as the majority of it seemed to be made up of a standard Dr Who "Base Under Siege" story, combined with the Doctor repeatedly saying "I should go" and then, well, not going. The Flood was the sort of monster that I like, an unexplained, inhuman, completely alien idea, hidden in something so simple and essential. But the pacing of the first half hour just felt, well, a little off.

The turning point was him in the airlock though, discussing what he knows must happen with Adelaide. It finally gave us an insight into the changing history / not changing history rules in Dr Who. (Or at least, in the new Russell T Davies era of Dr Who) by re-iterating that history has fixed points, things that can't be changed.

And then, the Doctor questions himself. Why can't he change things? He's the last time lord, there's no-one else left, what's to stop him?

So he does. He turns back and joins in the fight for survival. And I've never been so ambivalent about the Doctor saving people in my life. On the one hand, Yay, he's the Doctor, he should save people, and the base people seem nice enough. On the other hand, you know that what he is doing is against the laws of time, and you can't help but feel that there will be consequences (I'm pretty sure that the fact the final 2-part special is called "The End of Time" indicates that).

The end of the Mars-set action shows the Doctor coming up with a plan which almost feels like cheating, with the utilisation of the TARDIS to save everyone, although this obviously allows the explosion to happen as history recorded, presumably defeating the Flood.

And then, the Earth-set epilogue. Easily the finest end to a Dr Who episode in many years. The Doctor turns from having been a slightly over-cocky nice guy, to a very cocky... well... asshole. We get someone actually being freaked out by the TARDIS (which I've always thought is missing, most people would get properly spooked), and we get the Doctor insisting he is the Time Lord Victorious.

And then we get the death of Adelaide. Marred only slightly for me by the fact its the second climactic suicide scripted by RTD in the last year (the previous one, of course, being Frobisher in Torchwood: Children of Earth), it is a superb moment, and the Doctors realisation that he has gone too far.

And what happens from this point? Who knows, but I'm guessing it will be catastrophic...

(Oh and for all you pedants, I know that there wouldn't be fire on the surface of Mars, but didn't it look good)

The Good - Performances excellent all across the board, gripping ending, we get to see the Doctor be fallible for a change

The Bad - The annoying robot was annoying, and no amount of self satisfying references to the fact that robots are annoying can make him less annoying, the pacing of the first half hour felt very strange

Conclusion - I think it would have worked better in 45 minutes than the full hour (which is a very rare statement for me to make) but on the whole I liked it. 8/10 (Can't wait for End of Time!)

Now that the review is over, I'm sure many of you are wondering why I'm not pressing on with my novel. I am, sort of, I'm just procrastinating, but I'm at 33,000 words already. So I might make it... fingers crossed!

Packages and Word Counts

2009-11-10T18:30:00.003Z

OK, so assume that this blog has started with apologies for not having written lately, although I did explain why I would be being less frequent with this blog in the post a couple of weeks ago.

But I got so annoyed with something today, that I had to write...

Royal Mail.

OK, so I don't really like to complain about them, because on the whole they provide a good service. It costs you a few pence and you can send something the length of the country. HOWEVER, if I ever get one of those little red "We tried to deliver something but you were out" cards, my heart sinks.

I'm ALWAYS out when they try and deliver something because, like most people, I work during the day. Therefore I have nothing against the cards per se, it's just that whenever I get one, the claiming of said package seems to be horrendously complicated.

It always says you should wait 48 hours between the time they tried to deliver it, and the time you go to collect it..

Why is this? I understand needing SOME time, because the package stays in the postmans bag since he's finished his round. But, working on the assumption that postmen go home at the end of a shift, and therefore leave their bags at work, I would assume that they get emptied every day. And therefore, you put everything that needs to be collected into a van, which takes it to the relevant sorting office. Surely. That'd make sense.

Well I don't know what they do, but it obviously isn't that.. as was proved by today when I went to pick up a recorded delivery package that they tried to deliver to me on Friday. I originally went on Monday, to be told it wasn't there yet, so I went today. And guess what? It's still not there... I guess this wouldn't be so bad, if not for the other major hassle with it...

The Sorting office is only open from 8am-12pm.

Four hours a day? Name me another public service that only opens for four hours a day, at the time when the majority of the population is at work!! Seriously, I can't fathom the logic behind this. Why do it?

So I'm still waiting for my package, (incidentally, I don't know what it is, and I really hope it's something for which going to this amount of hassle is worthwile (but I'm sure it will be (mostly))) which HOPEFULLY, I can pick up tomorrow, although that means I'll have to dive out of work during the day to go and try and get it. But I'm still vaguely hopeful it'll be there. Unlike something that was sent to me last year, which I never recieved because "It's gone missing..." That was the excuse. Seriously.

Like I said at the start, I know that they do provide a good service, but it's the little things like this that really just feel like a let down.

So, other than that, I'm still writing my novel for NaNoWriMo. As you may remember, my aim was to write 2000 words a day, so that I could have five days off. This has gone a little wrong...

I was on target until Thursday, which was my birthday, so I let myself have the day off. Then I did my 2000 on Friday, and since then... nothing. To be fair, I have got excuses (been visited by Neety, who bought me Guitar Hero: Metallica for my birthday!) but not a real, solid excuse. So now I'm staring at the document again, knowing that I have (ideally) 8000 words I need to catch up. Before tomorrow. And I'm in the middle of a chapter introducing a new character and I don't really know where I'm going with it.

And that's the thing thats hardest about this time/word limit. There's no time to go back, re-jig and cut bits. I could cut the half chapter I've got (which is about 1500 words) and just go to another character, but then I'd lose more word count.

So I'm procrastinating here and on the internet. And in a minute I shall cook some dinner. I'm trying to be good and not play Guitar Hero, but we'll see how the evening goes.

I could, of course, assume that Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Today were all days off, and recalculate accordingly. If I did that then I'd have 2000 words a day left to write, with NO days off... and since I'm heading to Poole this weekend, and again at the end of the month, I ought to try and salvage at least one.

Anyone else doing NaNoWriMo by the way? Or is it just me...

On the good news front, my nice bike is now on its way back to Poole, where my wonderful father will have a look at it, and see if it's fixable! Yay!

Anyway, I ought to go now....