Ridiculous News Round-Up

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?

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!)

Angry Heroes Rant - SPOILERS!!

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...

S

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...

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

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...

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

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

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 :)

SPOILERS! - Waters of Mars

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!

Television - A Poor Man's Gold

In case you didn't know, I like to watch quite a lot of TV, both home-grown (Dr Who, Torchwood and many many comedy programs) and imported (Lost, Chuck and a lot of other US episodic drama), and I watch some of them on actual TV, many more via DVD, iPlayer and some .... other internet methods.

And recently, with the start of the new US TV Season, I've been going back to old favourites, and I also thought I'd try a new series, Flash Forward, which is currently airing here on the cultural wilderness known as Five. (On reflection, I'm being too hard on the poor channel, it does occasionally show good things - the current exception to it's "if it's not a procedural or a film, it has to be a rubbish documentary" rule is Ross Noble's Australian Trip, which IS a documentary, but not one of their usual ones with titles such as "The Giraffe that taught English as a Second Language in an obscure Antarctican Village", or "My Mother, the Top Hat". Whoops, I appear to have digressed a little, back to the point)



So, having sat through a few Flash Forward episodes, I'm sure you are all wondering what I thought of it. Is it, as some say, the new Lost?

Well no. Because there's no island, polar bear, obscure scientific research organisation or (so far anyway) Jim from Neighbours. (But it probably won't be long, he does turn up in just about every U.S. Drama Series at some point). But it's also not that because, unlike Lost, which started with an event that was unexplained, and has at every turn thrown up new events to be explained, Flash Forward's event was documented. And that is (for now, anyway) the ballgame. The event happened, this is the aftermath.

Except.... it just doesn't grip me. I tried my best, I sat through all the standard character types, assuming that at least one of them would develop, or that the plot might take an interesting turn, but I ended up actively switching off mid-way through episode 3 (I think), because I had completely stopped paying attention. I have no desire to watch it, and unless anyone that I know tells me that it gets better (as many people did with Heroes when I originally gave up a similar number of episodes in), then I probably won't give it a second shot. Although I will want to know the explanation behind the event and, more importantly, if it gets re-comissioned for a second season, I will want to know how they're going to continue as they will have passed the flash forward date by that point...

So for the moment, that's off my schedule. Which leaves me down to just two US shows that I am regularly watching as soon as I can after they air (being as Lost and Chuck don't re-start till after Christmas), one of which is the aforementioned Heroes.



Heroes and I have a intricately weaved past. Every time I try to give up on it, something happens to pull me back in. In the first season I watched a few episodes, and gave up until, towards the end of the season, a friend advised me to watch, and I did, watching the vast majority of season one in one sitting. At which point I grew excited for the finale, and then disappointed when I actually saw it. Still, a show that good must get better in Season Two, right?

Wrong. Season Two was just messy, lazy, and to be honest, only had enough plot (yes, I said plot, people travelling to see someone else for 8 episodes is NOT plot!) for about 4 or 5 episodes, and introduced some of the most annoying characters. Ever.

So Season Three? Tim Kring, creator, stated they'd learnt from the mess of Season Two, and had a new plan...and it sort of worked. In bits. But we got ANOTHER dystopian future (the third in three seasons) that needed to be stopped, we got characters completely changing their minds on things just for the sake of the plot, we got convulted Time Travel plots, Ali Larter playing a different crazy blond woman, Peter and Sylar both becoming way too powerful.... And Nathan being an ass. As always.

And I'm now a few episodes into Season Four, and I still don't know whether I want to stick with it. Of course, I will, because I'm hooked. And I have to know what happens. And its almost as if the writers know that, and are just twisting us along. For every good moment (Peter/HRG team-ups and Matt/Sylar mind battles), we get multiple bad ones (Sylar with Amnesia, A random selection of carnival villains, ANOTHER potential love interest for Peter (who has a frankly useless power), HRG moping, Claire entering a bisexual relationship (and that wasn't done for ratings at all was it??) and Angela Petrelli - just generally being as useless as she has been for three years). But this is where Heroes has got me, and Flash Forward hasn't. I cared about them at the start. And I'll therefore take all the crap, just to see how it ends. But Flash Forward? I'll just read about what happened.

"But Brawny, what's the other show you are regularly watching?" I hear you all yell. (Well I don't. But I can imagine that might be what you're yelling. Or at least that you might be gently mumbling under your breath as you peruse this blog. Or maybe you don't care. Well stuff it. It's my blog, and I'll tell you). It is, of course, the wonder that is House M.D.


By all rights I shouldn't particularly like this show. I'm a big fan of high-concept TV, which it isn't. I'm a big fan of sci-fi, which it isn't. And I usually can't stand procedural shows. Which it is. But it's just so damn good. Hugh Laurie is outstanding, and flanked by a superb support cast. And the writing is good, and funny. And it breaks with procedure JUST enough that it feels different, and you do often feel that an episode could not follow the schedule of
Mysterious illness - Ideas - Patient gets worse - More Ideas - Patient nearly dies - House has random thought that he connects to Patient - Patient saved - Interspersed with a subplot either involving Cuddy or Wilson, depending on who is less involved in the actual medical case.
And this season particularly (Season 6) has been outstanding, causing genuine changes in the Status Quo, (and yes, I'm aware I've capitalised that as if it was the band, but I like it. And as I pointed out in an earlier set of brackets, it's my blog. So if you don't like it, tough!) and I have no knowledge whether they are permanent changes, but it's a show that's never been afraid to do that before, so who knows?

To conclude : Watch House - Avoid Flash Forward - Put up with Heroes.

Logos, Sequels and New Dwarf - Oh my!

OK, this is an advance warning. For those of you not enamoured of certain geeky things, I advise you to give up on this blog right now, as this is me geeking out about Dr Who, Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Red Dwarf and more....

Those of you who are still left? OK, I guess you're interested (or really bored, or reading simply because you cannot be bothered to click the back button in the top left corner of the screen).

So, there's been a great influx of news and events regarding some of my favourite programs and books recently, and every time I see it, I think about blogging about it. So I thought I'd go for a complete, all-encompassing post...

First things first. Dr Who. Whilst we are all waiting excitedly for the broadcast of David Tennant / Russell T. Davies' last three specials (the first of which is expected sometime in the next month, but nothing has been confirmed as yet), news has started to trickle out about the 2010 series. Including the release of the new logo, as seen here. (Image 'borrowed' from Official Dr Who site)

This has, unsurprisingly, caused a massive amount of discussion amongst fans, particularly on forums such as Gallifrey Base (where yes, I admit, I am a member, mostly a lurker it has to be said, but I do post occasionally). But this is my blog, so I'll say what I think about it.

After looking at it for a few days, I've come to the conclusion that I like it. Mostly. The DW tardis shape (or DWardis as someone on Gallifrey Base named it, which I love) is apparently an "insignia" so the assumption is that it won't appear in the title sequence, instead being used on merchandise etc., which I think will work well. The Logo I like because it FEELS right.. as opposed to the current one, which, lets be honest, does look like it belongs on the front of a London Taxi! Yes, there is too much lens flare on it, and yes the R looks a bit strange, but other than that, I think it's good, (plus, the lens flare will vary when it is animated, so my issues there might go away.. they could get worse I suppose, but I'm thinking positive) and I especially like the little serifs bend away to add a slight air of difference to it...

Also, there's been various set reports, photos and other spoilery type information slowly leaking, just enough to get me excited, not enough to annoy me.. which is good. If you want to find any of this info I recommend signing up for the Gallifrey Base forum and having a good nose around. :)

So, on from Dr Who, to Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I went to HitchCon '09 on Sunday (with Neety, Gav and Helen) and it was GREAT! :) Saw the "Douglas Adams Chat Show" hosted by Clive Anderson, where a selection of people from the world of Douglas/Hitch-hiker's sat around and talked about him, and answered questions from the audience. Also saw Eoin Colfer who gave us a reading of small bits of his new Hitch-Hiker's book "And Another Thing..." and again answered questions, before we got to witness the radio cast coming back together to read a specially adapted radio show which zoomed through elements of all of the novels, telling the same old story in a slightly different way. And then I got a copy of "And Another Thing.." signed by the author himself.

Then I took it home and read it. Do you want to know what I thought?

*Waits for answer*

You do? Well OK then. Here I shall attempt to write a mostly non-spoilerific review...

"And Another Thing..." is the sixth book in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy. And the first to be written by someone other than Douglas Adams. The previous book "Mostly Harmless" had ended on something of a downbeat note (if you can classify the destruction of the Earth (again) and the apparent deaths of pretty much all the major characters as "downbeat") and, for many years, fans such as I thought that this would be where it ended, especially as Adams died in 2001. However, such trivialities have not stopped the franchise, being as we have seen three radio series' and a film since Adams' death. However, these were all adaptations of existing works, and Adams himself had contributed however much or little to all of these. This is the first attempt to further the story without the man himself.

So, is it succesful? Let me start by saying that yes, it is a good read. It takes the characters and, mostly, stays true to their characteristics whilst going off on a whole new plot. The writing, whilst pretty quirky and verbose, is not the wonderfully surreal prose of Douglas's, but Eoin Colfer does a fine job of creating at least the overall feel of a Hitch-Hiker's book, and in many ways makes the book feel much more like the first two than Adams' subsequent, slightly more depressing (but still brilliant) volumes. We have all our main characters;

Arthur Dent-Not in a dressing gown anymore, but still craving Tea

Ford Prefect-Still researching for the Guide and generally relaxing as much as possible

Zaphod Beeblebrox-Still Mad as a box of Frogs and still in posession of three arms and two heads (kind of...)

Trillian-Still conflicted between her career as a journalist and her responsibilities as a mother

Random Dent-Still a moody teenager (mostly)

We also have a new selection of characters, some returnees from the previous books, and some brand new, which is all well and good.

So, the book itself then. Well, it starts very well, picking up from the end of Mostly Harmless and moving us on towards the new plot. However, it becomes apparent that once we are into the new plot, Eoin Colfer is much more comfortable writing for his own characters (including Hilman Hunter, an Irish Property Developer and Constant Mown, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's son) as well as Adams' much less internally complex or barely-defined characters (such as Zaphod, Trillian and Wowbagger, who is developed from a one-note joke in the previous books to a full character here) at the expense of Arthur and Ford. This means that we end up with some good subplots (Hilman trying to find a God) and some that I found a little dull (most noticeably the Vogon sequences with Constant Mown)

The issue with this, for me, is that Arthur Dent is, and has always been, the heart and soul of Hitch-Hikers, it's his story. And in "And Another Thing.." Arthur is sidelined for a good proportion of the plot. It is a good book, it just seems a bit, you know, sensible, for a Hitch-Hiker's book. Adams always complained that because he had created feckless characters, that it was always hard to involve them in a plot (the first time he had this problem was Life, The Universe and Everything, where he was trying to integrate the characters into an already exisiting plotline), whereas "And Another Thing..." ends up treating everyone a bit more like normal characters, who will actually do things to advance the plot.

But that's a minor complaint, because it's not like you can expect it to read like it's by Douglas Adams, because it's not by Douglas Adams.

The other minor issue for me is the ending. I like the very end (which is Arthur's story), but, not giving anything away for those of you who haven't read it, everyone's story is wrapped up pretty neatly, and it feels a bit too happy and optimistic for the end of a Hitch-Hiker's book.

As a novel on its own, I'd rate it 8 out of 10.

As a Hitch-hiker's book - 7 out of 10.

I've just realised how long this post is, so just as a wrap up for more geeky news

Red Dwarf is returning with a new series!! Those of you who know me, will be aware of how much of a big deal this is, and how excited I am

Chuck may be returning in October (in the US) instead of March! For those of you who have never watched Chuck (and I know it's only on Virgin1 in this country) you really should do it. It's horrendously well-written and entertaining. You can buy Season 1 on DVD now, and I suggest you do!

That's all for now, my next post will probably be another rant or discussion...

Fried Gold!

I can't believe this is true - but Spaced is 10 years old.

Interview with the main players here

For those of you who have never seen it - shame on you, it is Geek Heaven!

I must confess, I didn't see it when it first aired, missing it completely for a couple of years... But then I got the DVD of Series 1 on someone's recommendation...

And now it belongs to that rare group of things where if I had a little disposable income, I'd replace my beaten-up DVD copies with a copy of the shiny Region 1 DVD release - simply because it has new commentaries, yes I'm that sad!

So yeah - Celebrate the wonder of the show that gave us Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright. Not to mention Jessica Stevenson :)

Derren "Smug Git" Brown

OK, I just wasted an hour of my life sitting through Derren Brown's latest "event", and it had absolutly zero effect on me.

Now, before I start to rant about him, I would like to point out that he has done tricks and shows that have entertained me. The small scale stuff, card tricks, getting people to choose the word he already settled on, that sort of thing. Because it's believable. And yes, we all know it's trickery, hence the term "magic trick". But it entertains. And it's annoying, because there were a couple of bits of that in tonights show - such as Frank the Giraffe.

But the whole "sticking to your seat" thing? I'm not saying it didn't work on everyone (although it certainly didn't work on me), but even if it did work, what exactly was the point? For me, it's not a worthwhile trick if you spend an hour talking it up. Especially if you point out all the techniques that you are going to use.

It was - and I never thought I'd say this about Mr Smug Git - dull!

Although, at least it's better than his lottery predicting (which, I admit, I watched on Youtube, because when it was on I was doing other things), where it was easily identifiable how it was done, if you have ANY knowledge of camerawork or editing tricks.

So yeah, I shan't be wasting my time with any more Derren Brown "Events", because frankly, they aren't great. Don't get me wrong, if the opportunity to go and see him live occured, I would, because that's more impressive. The small scale stuff. No-one believes he predicted the lottery. Most people didn't believe that he could stick them to their seats. So why bother trying?