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?
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
REVIEW - Love Never Dies
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.
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.
Monday, 12 April 2010
REVIEW - Dr Who - The Beast Below (1.2)
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...
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!
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Laying down the Digital Law
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?
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.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
REVIEW - Dr Who: The Eleventh Hour (1.1)
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
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
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Debate vs. Dictation
"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
"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
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
A Play by any other name... is less important than Shakespeare apparently.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
