A Toy Story Too Far?

Absolutely, definitely not! 10 years I waited for that moment; that moment when I could walk in a cinema and go and see the third Toy Story film. There is still even a part of me which cannot believe that I have actually, finally seen it. It still baffles me. I've spent most of my memorable life with only these two Toy Story movies on Video that I can watch, and watched regularly, and then there is a third story. That was hard to get my head around. The rest of the evening after seeing Toy Story 3 I was buzzing, and most of the following day; the greatest two hours of my life possibly. It was also in 3D.

Now, I have never seen anything in 3D on a screen before, so this added to my excitement; even if Odeon did charge an extra pound for the privilege of wearing glasses. I'm not going to ruin the movie for anyone who is yet to see it and might actually stumble upon this blog, but if you are going to see it in 3D, don't expect to be wowed by objects coming towards you. Apart from the odd moment in the film where objects came at you, the three dimensional part wasn't that noticeable. However, the adverts were something else. Some of them were in 3D, and some of them were rather good. I even screamed in a childish way when a giant football came out the screen at me.

As you always get with Disney Pixar films, there was the trade mark 5 minute mini-movie at the start, and this was more clever than humorous. Previous ones have been incredibly funny, and on odd occasion, funnier than the actual film. This was different. It still had the humour element, but it was more about showing how impressive 3D animation can be, and exhibiting its potential. It was amazing, and I was in awe of it. This made up for the lack of 3D activities in the actual film.

As usual, the adverts did actually go on for much longer than I felt necessary. The fact I had just spent £10.40 on my ticket and glasses, along with everyone else in the cinema, made me think that there were no need for sponsors. Anyway, 20 minutes and an entire tub of popcorn later, the film actually started. I may have spent a majority of the film giggling like a little, impish child who has drunk far too much Coke, but that was only because I was very excited. The film itself was brilliant. Excellent. Fantastic. Awesome. Unbelievable. Superb. Exceptional. Tremendous. Stupendous. Phenomenal. Marvellous. Extraordinary. Hilarious. Overwhelming. Sad, and Good.

Like every other person who has seen and loved the previous two films, I was incredibly worried that I would not like it, and that it would just murder the Toy Story title. The sequels are never as good as the original. Toy Story 2 was lucky to overcome this stereotype. Toy Story 3 just proves how great the writers are and how strong the characters are. I like that each movie covers stages in toy's life. The first movie being about a new toy. The second showing a toy being broken. The third being when the child's grown up and no longer wants toys. I think they are amazing story lines, and I am incredibly pleased that the third was not a flop.

I, and I'm confident to say I am not the only one, cried twice during the film; in the scenes of the final 10 minutes. It was so very moving; very apt for their original audience as well. The people, like me, who where children when the first Toy Story film came out are now at the age when some of them are moving away to University and college, and face the torment of deciding what to do with their toys. I don't for another year at least due to circumstances of the Chicken Pox kind, but enough of how unlucky I am.

The day I saw Toy Story 3, 22nd July 2010, was possibly the most anticipated day of my life so far, and is was the best day for quite some time. Even though it was nothing more than wearing glasses in a dark room, watching a screen with lots of people I've never before met, it was a poignant moment in my life. I'm not really sure how to explain it without you branding me as 'daft', but the fact Toy Story 1 & 2 were the movies of my childhood which were my favourites, most watched and which shaped me to who I am today, is brilliant. For a movie to have so much power and influence upon one’s life is amazing. There being a third movie boggles my mind. I still cannot quite believe it. I have seen Toy Story 3!

Even though I do very much love the Toy Story films, I do hope they don't do a fourth. Lots of movies have numerous sequels. Shrek is a prime example. There are now four movies, half of which I have not/will not see. Just because it worked once or twice, doesn't mean it will continue to work. There is the opportunity for a fourth Toy Story, but I hope they don't take it up, and just leave it on the emotional ending of the third.

The fact Disney Pixar is releasing a ‘Monsters Inc 2’ and a ‘Cars 2’ worries me a lot. They were good movies (Monsters Inc more so) but I just think maybe they should come up with more, different ideas, like UP and Wall-E; both brilliant and different from their other movies. They need to do more like them. However, whatever they create now will not be as brilliant as Toy Story in my opinion, but they are more than welcome to keep trying and prove me wrong. Maybe they will be doing something as equally brilliant for any future, small people who are 50% like me (A.K.A: My children) who I might have. If not, I'll resort to buying the Toy Story movies on whatever media format we are using in the future. Maybe it will be known as 'HD,3D,36DD,DVD'. Who knows?

P.S. Incidentally, 'HD,3D,36DD,DVD' will stand for: High definition, Three Dimensional, Nice-Sized breasts on a Digitally Versatile Disc.

Fed Up Of That Annoying Monotone Sound? Yeah, I Don't Like Adrian Chiles Either...

I expect even the Amish are aware that there has recently been a small competition called 'The World Cup'. This year it was in South Africa in which the main talk of the World Cup wasn't in anyway football related. It was the new word the whole world learnt: 'Vuvuzela'. Surprisingly, no spell check recognises it as a word... Anyway, most people spent the four weeks complaining about the incredibly irritating sound caused by them and how it meant we could no longer hear the chanting (or booing) from the crowds. For the first few matches there should have been a sign at the bottom of the screen saying 'Do not adjust your sets'. The Vuvuzela, to me, made it sound as if an apocalyptic-sized swarm of angry bees had been set upon South Africa.

I will now join in the millions of English people in criticising the England Football Team. Well, what a ridiculous display that was; a whole nation setting their hopes upon a bunch of over-paid men. Every four years we chant that we will win the World Cup, just like the squad did in 1966. I'm not sure how we developed this naivety towards how rubbish we are. Everyone expected fantastic things from the foot of Wayne Rooney (apparently, he has now just been house trained). Everyone expected great things from the Italian who looked like Postman Pat, Fabio Capello. Everyone even expected us to sail through the group stage with relative ease. How wrong we were.

Every fat man sitting in a pub drinking his third glass of bitter, will claim that they could do a better than the England Team, even though he barely manages to co-ordinate his right hand holding the glass to his open mouth. Well, I feel I should join in on this national pass time. “I reckon me and my ageing family would have done a better job than the England team did against Germany. My blind Nan would obviously be in goal, with the defensive line being covered by all the old female relatives with their handbags and moaning. Midfield would consist of selected Aunts and Uncles and upfront would be my Dad and Grandad, grumbling about their aches and pains. This team, in my idiotic, uncared for, naive, and arrogant opinion, would have done better..."

However, in all honesty, competing in the World Cup was just a waste of money for us Brit's really. We drew 1-1 against the USA, a country who have no interest in our football, but only when it comes to trying to win something. Also, what a ridiculous display by Rob Green in goal; I mean, I know girls who would never let go of a ball that easily... We then drew 0-0 against Algeria and then finally, won 1-0 against Slovenia. This was just about enough for us to get through the Group Stages. However, up until this point, we had done awfully, so I vowed to not watch the game against Germany, and how right I was (even if I was the only person in England to get sunburnt during that game). It was awful as far as I can tell. We lost that 1-4, and yet, everyone made a huge fuss over Lampard's goal being disallowed. What difference would that have made? We still would have lost badly, but not by quite as many goals... How stupid can English people be when it comes to football?

I actually watched a majority of the football games, either the entire way through or at least one half. Nothing exciting really happened, apart from quite a few goals being scored (145) and even more yellow cards given (260). That's only in a space of 64 games. To bring maths into this blog for just a few seconds, that is an average of about 2 goals and 4 yellow cards in each match. Anyway, as I said, I watched a majority of the games but, and this may just only be me that thinks this, a majority of the games were not that entertaining.

The second to last match (the battle for third place between Uruguay and Germany) was possibly my favourite game of the lot. Many goals were scored and it was rather close. I don't see the point of games were teams just pass the ball around to each other. Surely the main purpose of a football match is to score as many goals as possible and stop the other team from scoring more.... This nicely brings me onto the subject of the final match between the Netherlands and Spain. That was possibly one of the most boring matches of the World Cup. Spain eventually scored just before the end of extra time, but by then everyone had stopped caring who won and just wanted the football to finish. I personally think Germany deserved the World Cup more than Spain. Oh well.

I do have one thought: Does the fact that Switzerland was the only country to beat Spain during the World Cup, mean that they are infact the better team?

The World Cup was shown on both the BBC or on ITV. Both had different ways of handling the coverage. The BBC opted for Gary Lineker (a majority of the time), with a row of various pundits such as Alan Shearer and 'Motty', professionally reviewing the match. ITV opted with Adrian Chiles being almost as ignorant as me towards Football, with a team of pundits not as well known as the BBC's. Also, both sides had a South African sat in the middle, occasionally giving their opinions which no-one understood at all. Both Lineker and Chiles would sit their nodding quietly until they thought he'd finished and turned to one of the other pundits and said 'Do you agree?' It was a pointless accessory to the coverage.

ITV also had James Cordon as a key part of their coverage. After every evening football match that ITV showed, he would do a half-hour show, in which he would talk to random celebrities who foolishly put forth their uncared for opinions, in front of a studio audience and the British public. I didn't care much for the show. He then even recorded a World Cup single with Dizzee Rascal, which was a football adaptation of Tears For Fears song - Shout. I didn't care much for the song either. Essentially, I was going to write a concluding joke about James Cordon for this paragraph of the blog, but all I came up with was a big fat nothing...

The worst thing about the World Cup was the adverts. Thanks to them, I was sick of the World Cup before it even started frankly. The nation full of false patriotism became even worse when American brands, such as Mars, began supporting England team on their packaging. Some companies will do absolutely anything to sell their products. Pringles even had Peter Crouch on the front while they imaginatively changed their name to 'Pringooooals'.

Almost every advert included some form of mention of the World Cup. The Nike advert was possibly one of the worse, with them paying numerous footballers lots of money for them to appear in their television advert. Wayne Rooney in a caravan with a beard (however, an attractive prospect) and Ronaldo in The Simpson's were just two examples of the pointless 3 minute advert wasting my time and their money.

The television companies were the best at using the World Cup for fraud. Sony spent a lot of their advertising campaign for their new 3D televisions, saying how YOU, the British public should buy THEIR 3D television in order to watch the World Cup in spectacular 3 dimensions. Carefully forgetting to point out that no coverage of the World Cup in the UK would actually be broadcast in 3D; but that is only a minor problem in their plan - right?

Anyway, feel free to correct me on any information I may have got wrong. I do actually only have limited knowledge of football. I have enough to get through life, but not enough to have a substantial conversation on the topic.

P.S. What is with Football and awarding cutlery as a prize? The World Cup... The Super Bowl...

The Regenerated Doctor: Twelve Episodes On. Part II

I feel I should say, just to clear up the confusion from the past blog; I have completely enjoyed this series of Doctor Who. It seems to have grown up a bit; with it being that slight bit darker (despite the odd cheesy bits) and I have enjoyed this series the most so far. I never really got into Ecclestone and Piper's series. Tennant and Piper seemed all a bit fake. Tennant and Agyeman never really worked. Tennant and Tate worked well, but not for a Sci-fi series; maybe a comedy drama. Smith and Gillan seem to have worked the best since it's revival in 2005. The idea of the stories have been fantastic too, and of course a lot of them ideas have come from the head of Moffat, but what my point was in the last blog, was that I did prefer the episodes that were not written by Moffat, but not in any way saying Moffat was 'shit'. I hope that is now clear.

The way I'm going to do this is a ‘short’ paragraph about each of the episodes, giving my opinion. Feel free to disagree with me - they are only my OPINIONS.

Health Warning: Make sure you rest your eyes regularly as this is a long blog. Sorry.

Episode One: The Eleventh Hour.

As opening episodes go, it was actually rather good. Infact, I may go as far as to say 'fantastic'. As an episode on its own, it worked very well, and Moffat done a very good job at writing it and introducing the new Doctor and new characters. In terms of setting up for the rest of the series and the series finale, it was great; without us even knowing, we are told of all this information which helps us as the audience piece together throughout the episodes. Great skill in my opinion. Also, casting Karen Gillan's cousin to play the young Amy Pond was actually quite a good idea, and we are introduced to her, so we recognise her character in later episodes. It is a real introduction into what we can expect.

Episode Two: The Beast Below.

In terms of it being the first episode with Matt Smith and Karen Gillan being away from Earth and fighting something unknown, it wasn't great and a bit disappointing. This episode too was written by Moffat. Again, I cannot quite fathom what it is about it I do not like. I personally think the idea was not big enough to be Amy Pond's first adventure. It was a great idea and quite thought-provoking about how us as human's think we're superior. It was good for us learning about Amy's character, but the idea just was not big enough.

Episode Three: Victory Of The Daleks.

Well, it was a waste of an episode really in terms of storyline. It was the first episode of the series not written by Moffat, and instead by Mark Gatiss. I absolutely LOVED the idea of Winston Churchill wanting to use the Daleks to win the war, it was just a shame it didn't play a bigger part in the episode. I did enjoy it though, I am just being negative and cynical, but there is more of that to come. Fighter Jets being able to fly into space and attack the Dalek spaceship? I did think that was a slightly silly idea. Inventive, but silly. Also, new Doctor means new Daleks (apparently). These Daleks seem to resemble the new sleek and colourful cars we see, and if you put a Dalek and Ford KA together, they would be hard to distinguish. They may be bigger and fierce, but they have essentially been made plastic and colourful to make them more commercial, so they can be made into little toys like Thomas the Tank Engine. I did enjoy the episode however - although you wouldn't believe it by this paragraph.

Episodes Four & Five: The Time Of The Angels & Flesh And Stone.

The first two parter, and it was written by Moffat. With the return of the Weeping Angels and River Song, it was an amalgamation of four of his previous best episodes into one story. Just to prove I am not negative towards Moffat, I did nearly like these two episodes. However, the Weeping Angels are considered to be the scariest aliens of the new era of Doctor Who, with them being everyday objects which attack when people blink or cannot be seen. 'Blink' was one of the scariest episodes for children, and yet in this episode, it was not used to its full potential. However, as episodes go, it still was actually quite good, despite the first episode being ruined by a cartoon Graham Norton. Those little banners are incredibly annoying in any television show, so doing it in the final, dramatic scene of the episode is 'a travesty' and ‘Why don’t the BBC just wipe shit all over the screen during the final scene of Dr.Who next week?’ to quote Charlie Brooker.

Episode Six: The Vampires Of Venice.

Okay, I liked this episode greatly because of Rory. His introduction and development during this episode I actually really liked. However, remember this episode was not typed from the fingers of Moffat, but instead by Toby Whithouse. The introduction to the episode was pure brilliance, with The Doctor jumping out of a cake during Rory's stag do, and just fumbling around the place. It was a shame that Doctor Who has joined in with the recent hype of Vampire's, but as usual, they put a different twist on the whole idea; fish creatures from another planet coming to Earth to find women to help reproduce their species. It was a fine example of Doctor Who explaining something that was unexplained in human history.

Episode Seven: Amy's Choice.

My second favourite episode of the series, and guess what - it wasn't written by Moffat, but instead by Simon Nye, a comedian who has history in Doctor Who. 'The Dream Lord' was a great idea, and also the thought of coming from the dark impulses of The Doctor, which it was suggested as being, was pretty clever. Swapping between two life-threatening scenarios, in which they had to decide which was real. One included the TARDIS crashing into a freezing star, the other with a pregnant Amy and being chased by Old People. I actually LOVED the idea. Also, for you fact-fans reading this blog, if you recognised the voice of the Dream Lord, it was because the actor Toby Jones, does the voice for Dobby the House Elf in Harry Potter. Cool aye?

Episodes Eight & Nine: The Hungry Earth & Cold Blood.

The second of the two parters, and this one was not written by Moffat, but instead by Chris Chibnall, who is the head writer of Torchwood. I enjoyed these - actually a lot, and I was truly gripped. The Silurians returned from the original series, and these were creatures that live in the centre of Earth, that once ruled planet Earth. They are great 'aliens' and I love the idea. This too was a good example of Doctor Who reflecting a mirror to the attitudes of the Human Race and us hating any form of change. Two clever episodes, and I think they were absolutely great. Also, I rather like the idea of us sharing the Earth with creatures of similar intelligence in 1000 years... Was a shame about Rory dying, but because it had no build up, it was predictable that he was going to return.

Episode Ten: Vincent And The Doctor.

It was my favourite episode of Doctor Who - possibly ever! Helped by the fact it was written by Richard Curtis, God of the cheesy comedy writing and one of my writing 'inspirations'. Anyway, there are not many things on Television that can bring me to tears, but, and I am not ashamed to admit it, I had a tear in my eye during the final scenes with Vincent in the art gallery. I have a prejudice towards Doctor Who episodes meeting famous historical characters like Agatha Christie, Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, so I was expecting to hate this episode, so the surprise of me loving it, was brilliant. They could have taken it further with the monster, with this episode being mainly about Gough and his torment, but it really did work. The scenes with Matt Smith fighting an invisible alien were also quite good.

Episode Eleven: The Lodger.

I liked and it wasn't written by Moffat, but instead by Gareth Roberts. I did love the idea of The Doctor becoming stuck on Earth and having to interact with normal everyday day-to-day life on Earth, by moving into a flat and playing football. It was a humorous episode, but lacked the sci-fi edge; that was thrown in for the last 10 minutes of the episode. The episode bumps off the recent popularity around James Cordon, and has the classic storyline of two best friends being in love, which always makes me laugh. However, like I said, it didn't really focus on the alien and Sci-Fi element of the show until the final 10 minutes, so as a storyline for Doctor Who, was kind of weak.

The Finale: Episodes Twelve & Thirteen: The Pandorica Opens & The Big Bang.

We return to Moffat's writing, and as Moffat's writing goes, this wasn't 'alf bad. My liking of this episode can be explained by the fact he didn't write it entirely on his own however. With the first episode being set in Roman times and around Stonehenge, I really liked it. Obviously, because Moffat wrote it, River Song returned yet again, and as I predicted, so did Rory. As I said earlier, I love the episodes of Doctor Who when they give an explanation for an unexplained phenomenon, and Stonehenge is a prime example. Loved it, and I never expected the Pandorica being for him. It was a fantastic build up with lots of alien action - including the Cybermen, which happen to be my favourite Doctor Who aliens.

The second episode was also fantastic, but if I am brutally honest, and I am going to be disliked for this, but I was disappointed. I loved The Doctor flitting between two different times in the episode, and it was great recognising him later in the episode. Rory was great, as were the two Amy's and Matt Smith was really good. The faults for me were them not making a bigger thing out of 'Nile Penguins' and 'Himalayan Pharaohs', in which you probably won't be aware of unless you watched Confidential. The idea was that the stars changed reality, so penguins lived in Egypt for example. That was a great piece of the story. Also, I was disappointed with the INCREDIBLY cheesy ending of the Doctor being brought back by a memory. There are probably poor children desperately trying to remember their grandparents to bring them back thanks to that. Anyway, I disliked the cheesiness of it. Forgetting that, I thought the episode itself was brilliant, and Matt Smith's dancing made it worthwhile.

I am also, slightly disappointed by the lack of any new aliens or brand new planets. The Weeping Angels episode, which was easily filmed in a quarry and a British Spaceship in the second episode, were the only episodes not based on Earth. There were no big, impressive CGI planets and sceneries. Also, there were no new, big aliens which required imagination. Apart from changing the design of the Daleks and Silurians, there were no new, impressive aliens. An alien that is invisible for a huge majority of an episode? Well, that's imaginative.

However, I love it when Doctor Who makes everyday objects scary for children. Essentially, that has made up for the lack of big aliens and planets, by imaginatively making everyday objects scary. Kids have had Statues, Cracks in walls, Old People and even the ground to be scared of after this series. Small ideas which are great. I feel sorry for any children that go on a day trip to an old castle with their parents this summer. Old castles generally have cracks in walls, statues, Old people walking around and are surrounded by lots of ground.

Something else I haven't quite liked is the return of River Song. I find her character just too complex. Why can she not just have a normal timeline like every other character? I spend episodes trying to work out at what point in her timeline with the Doctor we are at. I just find her far too complex. What race is she? We don’t know, and in my head, the fact that she is a time traveller, makes me wonder if she too is a Time Lord... I just don't know, and I don't like not knowing. I do not doubt her returning in the next series, because there are many questions still unanswered, for example: Does she marry the Doctor? Does she kill the Doctor?

My problem is that I don't just sit down and enjoy TV, but I am constantly ready to negatively criticise, which does annoy me, but despite all this negativity I seem to have against this series of Doctor Who and Moffat's writing, I honestly have loved this series! Matt Smith WILL shape up to be the best since Tom Baker.

As for the Christmas Special, not much has been released so far. All we know is that it includes Amy and Rory’s honeymoon, Michael Gambon and Katherine Jenkins. I assume that’s good. Anyway...

Long live Matt Smith!

P.S. If you have just read this entire blog, the next website you visit should be Vision Express to book an appointment to get your eyes checked. I am so very sorry! http://www.visionexpress.com/book-eye-test/

The Regenerated Doctor: Twelve Episodes On. Part I

The out first series with Matt Smith and Karen Gillan is now but over, and it is fair to that I have been both amazed and disappointed. I am very surprised with how good Matt Smith has been as the Doctor and I certainly think he will be remembered as one of the big iconic Doctor's in the future. Karen Gillan's Amy Pond also works brilliantly next to Matt Smith's Doctor, with their social interaction being top notch. However, I have been very disappointed with the writing, in particular with one writer, Steven Moffat.

If you cast your minds back to my blog at the beginning of the series, you will remember that I wasted an entire paragraph saying how good Steven Moffat's writing should be and how it will be brilliant and humorous. Don't get me wrong, the episodes have been brilliant and humorous, it is just as shame those episodes were the ones not written by Moffat. I have failed to put my finger on what it is I have not liked about his writing in this series. Maybe it is because he fails to take the storylines far enough. Maybe it is because he has spent too long developing on the characters persona. Maybe my expectations were just too high.

Before I completely write him off (Budom Tshh) as the lead writer of Doctor Who, I must compliment him on the series storyline. The continuous storyline of Amy Pond and the cracks in the Universe must be one of the biggest storylines seen in Doctor Who. Throughout the series there have been continuous hints and links in each episode to the finale. It has been a pretty mind-boggling storyline for people to piece together, with everyone having a guess to what is happening and only occasionally getting odd bits right. I think that is brilliant. Keeping the audience guessing, gripped and thinking by not giving answers away easily is an idea which I have loved.

Despite that, I do still stick my point of being disappointed by his episodes. He wrote some of the classics of the previous series, such as 'The Empty Children' (from the first series, set in World War II with the classic line 'Are you my mummy?'), 'Blink' (the original episode with the Weeping Angels) and 'Silence In The Library' (the original episodes with River Song). Moffat wrote 6 episodes for this series: the opening two episodes, the two episodes with the Weeping Angels and River Song (he was obviously proud of them two ideas) and then the concluding two episodes, but that was with help. The reason why his original episodes worked may be because they were very small ideas, but now he is using similar ideas on a bigger scale.

Let's not dwell on the negatives though.

Matt Smith has been a brilliant Doctor in my opinion, and I am glad I did not write him off like all the David Tennant fans did. Even the people who were positive that he wouldn't be good and it would no longer work without Tennant seem to like him. Obviously, there are the people who are totally against him and don't think him impressive, but those people are stubborn and don't realise the concept of Doctor Who. The idea of regeneration is a brilliant plot idea, which allows the program to continue successfully, long after an actor has left to pursue pastures new.

This reincarnation of The Doctor, I feel will go down in Doctor Who history as one of the greatest, just like Tom Baker, who does seem to be iconic Doctor from the old series. With Matt Smith not having the classic sex appeal that Tennant seemed to have, which is good because people watch him for the personality of the character, and not just get lost in his deep, blue eyes... Anyway, the persona of this Doctor seems somewhat mad, which is just fantastic. Eccleston had a touch of the madness, but let's not talk about him. Smith seems very 'retro' and 'vintage', to use some of my favourite buzzwords, and these mixed with the madness,  a splash of quirkiness and a sprinkling of one-liners, create the perfect mixture for what I think would make a great Doctor.

One-liners such as:

"Oh yeah, it's an inter-dimensional, multi-form from outer space. They're all terrified of wood."

"Oh. Ok? I escaped then? Brilliant. Love it when I do that!"

"You can do loads in 12 minutes. Suck a mint, buy a sledge, have a fast bath..."

"I like the bit when someone says "It's bigger on the inside!" I always look forward to that."

"Oh that's good, fantastic that is. Twenty minutes to save the world and I have a post office... And it's shut!"

"Why does no one ever listen to me, do I just have a face that nobody listens to? Again?"

"I'm The Doctor. Well, they call me The Doctor. I don't know why. I call me The Doctor too. Still don't know why..."

If I have to compliment Steven Moffat and Matt Smith on one thing; it is the creation of this brilliant persona. He is a genuine benevolent, brainy Timelord, just like Tom Baker and Patrick Troughton.

Karen Gillan playing Amy Pond; the attractive and feisty companion for the Doctor, has been met with pretty positive criticisms. Young enough for the child viewers to be able to relate with her and find her a fun character, independent enough for the feminists among the viewing public to like her and old enough for men to drool over her short (infact, very very short) skirts. Again, there are the few people who don't quite grasp the concept of Doctor Who and think she should be setting an example by wearing layers of clothing. However, for her to appeal to the audience of the time and fit a certain 'stereotype', she matches the fashion of today.

Amy Pond has a partner called Rory, who is played by a man called Arthur Darvill, and he is another great comic character, who compliments the Doctor and Amy perfectly. Now, Rory was at risk of becoming another Mickey, Rose's Boyfriend, in that he could have been a useless and whining character. He may slightly tick them boxes, but he much more. He has infact become a main and panicle character, who is rather humorous. I like him. His character wasn't developed in the first episode and I wasn't that keen on him, but as the series went on, his character begins to unravel and became rather liked by all. In the next series, I hope we see a lot more of him and that he continues to be great.

Fashion is an odd thing. With whatever Karen Gillan wears (on or off television) being criticised by the media, and making the redhead popular, she doesn't seem to have done much wrong in their eyes. Even Matt Smith has not done bad. He has made the tweed jacket somewhat of a fashion 'must-have' this year and I'm waiting to see whether the Fez hat is going to follow suit (a very slight bad pun - geddit?). Not sure the Bowtie has made it popular, despite his persistence that "Bowties are cool!"

Right, so part 1 is done: A general synopsis of the writing, actors and their characters from this series. Like a proper blogger, I have waffled on about things I don't particularly know about, but instead what I have observed and forced my opinions onto you; the innocent reader.

In part 2 of my Doctor Who blog, I plan to delve into the plotlines and episodes of series 5 of the new, revamped Doctor Who episodes.

Oh, and anything else I think of.

Britton's Got Tarrent

Yes, it is the ITV show in which the former day-time television host kidnaps the primetime quiz-show favourite, and for his return wants her career back. Hang on, I think I may have got slightly confused. Britain's Got Talent, the ITV show in which a couple of Geordie presenters lark about behind a curtain while three television 'personalities' judge the 'talent' that the general public of 'Britain' have, in order to provide an 'entertaining' show. Actually, I think the former sounds much better now...

Okay, so I am three weeks late with this blog about Britain's Got Talent, but it goes to prove how dedicated I have been to my studies; which have now finally finished - for now. Anyway, due to it being a while ago, my memory slightly fails me, so I shall my best.

Let us start with the winners. A acrobatics group called Spelbound who consisted of numerous young boys and girls to numerous young men and women. They were okay, but I was not keen on them. Everyone else thought they were brilliantly talented and were more than worthy of winning the big spot at the Royal Albert Hall. I feel there is too much consistency with the whole show itself. First year - Paul Potts (not the evil dictator - that's a different spelling) the bad-toothed opera singer won. The second year, Diversity, a group of dancers won and now Spelbound, a group of people performing a routine won. That is two slightly similar acts in the past two years. We don't have a great deal of talent really do we?

My two favourites to win the competition this year were either Twist And Pulse, two male dancers who combined street dance and comedy, or Paul Burling who was an impressionist. They both got into the final, which is a first for the two acts I liked to make it to the final. It was a more diverse final though, with the obvious few dancers, the few singers, an impressionist, a dancing dog and a drummer.

Something (well, one of many factors) which I found very annoying about the live shows of Britain's Got Talent is all the camera angles. Now, imagine you are trying to watch people dance and every 5 seconds they change the camera angel so you miss bits of the dance. They do wide shots so you can see the audience, but you can barely see the act performing if you squint. The flying camera angles which go from one side of the studio to another are just as irritating. You are trying to watch something and you can't because the director believes it would be idiotic to have the same camera angel throughout the performance. You would not go and watch a school performance and spend the whole time running around the hall to get a variety of angels, so why do it when we're trying to watch a dog dance? I just found that utterly ridiculous.

I have also concluded that the show is just inefficient. The show is mainly just dancers and singers, with the occasional novelty act which will never win. Well, considering ITV already have a singing show called 'The X-Factor' which you may have heard of, it seems pointless putting singers on Britain's Got Talent. So, the first change would be moving all singers to the X-Factor auditions. The second change would be changing the name of the show to 'Britain's Got Dancers' because that is the main brunt of the good performances to be honest. Of course, now that you've turned this into a dancing show, ITV's 'Dancing On Ice' can be scrapped because you don't want to show too much dancing on one channel. Also, now that it has been turned into a dancing show, the novelty, useless acts can no longer be apart of the show. However, the solution for this is just sending all other applicants to either Brighton Pier or The Circus, and then ITV can replace 'You've Been Framed' with occasional footage from Brighton Pier and The Circus. Sorted!

What is next for Spelbound now that they won Britain's Got Talent? Not a lot I don't suppose once they have done their performance at The Royal Albert Hall. Paul Potts performed there, got his teeth sorted, released an album and now we have not heard of him since. Diversity done their performance infront of the Queen, one of them became a judge on a Sky talent show and the others are occasionally seen in adverts on the Telly. My suggestion to Spelbound is once they've done their royal performance; they should try and audition as the Hitler Youth in a stage show, because they would be perfect. If Hitler were alive today and he saw them performing on Britain's Got Talent, he would have been so happy.

A nice short(ish) blog to ease you back into my regular blogging. Next blog, unless I have a change of heart, will be about Doctor Who and whether I did enjoy it in the end.

P.S. I'm aware Keith Chegwin Tweeted 'Britton's Got Tarrent' a few weeks ago, but I thought it up before him, however, I am not claiming I was first person to ever think it up, I'm just saying I'm better than Keith Chegwin.

They Cancelled Corrie!

Unless you are a hermit who has absolutely no contact with anyone and your TV, Radio, Computer and Phone all broke this week, you will be aware that in Cumbria on Wednesday 2nd June 2010 a man shot many innocent people in Cumbria, killing 12 people, including his twin brother and injuring many more before turning the gun on himself. It is very sad when things like this happen, but unfortunately these are crimes no-one can predict and therefore cannot be stopped.

This event also coincided with ITV's ‘gripping week of television’, in which crazed mad-mad Tony, escapes from prison to seek revenge. By Tuesday he had taken 2 people hostage and shown them a gun, but the episodes on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday all got postponed because the gun gets used. Yes, how unlucky were ITV. This was going to be the week when they unveiled how brilliant their programs are in High Definition with Britain's Got Talent concluding and an exciting week on Corrie, but because the storyline in Corrie very slightly reflected an awful event that happened in real life, got ruined.

Never fear Coronation Street fans though, instead next week is going to be the ‘gripping week of television’ instead, in which they are somehow going to try and show two weeks’ worth of episodes in the one week. I am going to be fed up of Coronation Street by the end of next week I think. Anyway, this blog is not supposed to be me moaning about Coronation Street not being on this week, it is instead supposed to be a giant moan at the media - yet again.

You can ask ANY leading psychologist and they will tell you this kind of coverage on tragic events like this actually fuels many similar attacks. We live in a society where the media love to sensationalise every piece of news they come across, whether it is the BP oil spill and Barrack Obama having a moan at them or if it is Adrian Chiles leaving the BBC for ITV, they have to make it attention grabbing. News like a mass shooting is matched with dramatic music, big swoosh’s as text runs across the screen and journalists looking sternly down the camera while stood in front of the crime scene with same police tape showing behind them. This makes mass murdering appealing to any possible serial killers.

Every news report about the 'rampage', as they like to call it, starts with a dramatic shot of police officers walking around the crime scene. It looks exciting and thrilling. Then they try sequence the events which happened, in this case they separated the attacks into three different phases. I honestly do not see why they need to do this. What good is coming from the news telling us where he was at certain times and how many people he had shot at each scene? This is only because we now have 24 hour news, meaning they have too much time fill up with useless information.

Then they have to talk to eye witnesses to get a perspective from an inbred idiot of what happened. Of course, we learn nothing we did not already know from these eye-witness accounts because the media has gotten to them first. They have watched the news already, so instead just start repeating what the newsreader had previously said, just with a bit more slurring and less coherent. With any eye-witness account of an event like this, there has to be mobile phone footage of the murderer holding a gun, or indeed driving through country roads. These are shaky and of bad quality, and these, along with the idiot talking with fear in his voice, trigger something in a unstable mind who is watching the news as if it were a religion, and beginning to froth at the mouth at the thought of the blood.

Then in an attempt to make everyone become full of empathy and sadness, they name and show pictures of the victims looking happy. This is done with such dignity which should be applauded as they are announced as bland as possible. However, they read the names out slowly, and it makes the name become slightly imprinted on the listener’s memory, and with each name you can hear the beat of gun. However, in the unstable mind of the one or two viewers, this begins to sound like a triumph, and each name being read out slowly sounds like a triumph.

Also, the media are strangely keen to uncover the reasoning for this outburst of bullets in the direction of unsuspecting and innocent people. Rarely have I read or listened to any report on the subject of these killings without the question of 'Why?' being shouted like a vicar giving an emotional sermon in church about the devil and his sins. 'Why did the 52-year-old taxi driver shoot 12 people dead in Cumbria before shooting himself on Wednesday?' 'What were the triggers for Derrick Bird's murderous outburst?' Time after time these questions are being shouted at us, while the media slowly uncover facts like him being probed over tax issues. Continuously, there is this question of 'Why?' and again, in some mind in the country this is all triggering something which could end in more attacks.

I do not want to sound as if I am trying to preach to you blog readers that the media are the cause of these kinds of attacks, because they are not. Certainly, they are not helping the issue, but it is to do with the individual who has some kind of mental problem. I can offer you numerous case studies of this being the case. We all remember the shootings in a German High School, where a teenage shot his own peers and teachers, before turning the gun on himself a few years ago. This was covered in pretty much the same way by our media as these Cumbria shootings are.

The attack at the German High School came soon after all those High School shootings in America, which seemed to happen quite a few times at different school in a small amount of time. Their media, yet again, covered each story in pretty much the same attitude as our media did then and now - in fact, probably worse. We all know how emotional American's can get about this kind of thing and they have a history of sensationalising every negative event in their country and with religion always being the key. These are prime examples of the media trying to cover a big news story for the public, but sensationalising it make it sound like an extraordinary and history making event.

Obviously, the media should cover these stories as the public do have a right to know about these events. Sure, the media should be sure to constantly emphasis how terrible and life changing this event is. I just think they need to cover these kinds of stories with a bit more care, and shouldn't fill an entire half hour news show on this one event. I personally think dramatising and sensationalising everything is just going to make events like this a more common occurrence, and do we want a world with spontaneous killings like in Grand Theft Auto?

These kinds of killings are almost impossible to predict and in reality, are rather uncommon in the UK. The fact that this killing spree was not planned and was purely spontaneous after something triggered in his mind to do such an awful thing. Now the new ConDem Government want to enforce tougher rules against guns. I can't see this helping in the slightest bit. The more you restrict people from having guns; chances are the amount of gun crimes will increase. Restricting what kind of guns everyone is allowed to own just because one man lost the plot and killed a few people, is not necessary. Maybe the police should just be more prepared for attacks of this nature. We've already heard on the news how it took police three hours to find him - and by then he had shot himself. That is what needs changing - not the rules against guns.

I also think that cancelling Coronation Street was a step too far as well. This is a prime example of ITV trying to be as politically correct as possible and trying not to offend anyone, because they know we live in a very PC Country and people are easily offended. Sure, in the episodes which have been moved to next week will include a gun and two people being killed, but this is in a soap where everything that happens is almost completely taken away from the real world. I really do think it is a shame that we live in a PC World (shut up, I do not mean the computer shop, I do mean 'a Politically Correct World) where we must tip toe around every subject in society, just in case we make some person cry. I blame the media and the 27,000 people who phoned up to complain about the Ross/Brand fiasco nearly 2 years ago. I hope they are happy with what they have done to our lives.

Everyone's first reactions to this story are of being distraught and completely upset by it. Mine? It didn't affect me at all; in fact I am not even sure I cared in the slightest bit. You see, I had been drinking; two bottles of Champagne at a friend’s house, and the news was announced to a drunken me by some woman on the CBBC channel reading the news. Whether it didn't affect me because I was drunk or because CBBC carefully white-washed over how awful this event was, I will never know.

Anyway, that brings an end to my rant about the media. Hopefully, I am completely wrong about it all and there will be no repeat killings this time. Also, just because I can and it makes me sound brilliantly kind, my respects go to those families who were affected by the loss of someone special at the hands of Derrick Bird, even though I know none of you will ever read this...

It's ConDem May

I return, and I am writing fit. A pun in my very first sentence in my first blog for almost a month -  I have returned. Personally, I would say May 2010 was possibly the worst month of my life thus far; what with getting Chicken Pox, missing an important exam, cancelling my University application and of course turning 18. However, May 2010 has been quite a poignant month in the history of our country, with elections being held and the voters sticking two fingers up at politics – metaphorically or course.

'The country is going to the polls' was the popular phrase used by journalists for the days leading up to 6th May. I could make a joke about Poland, but I feel it is too easy. The public essentially had three main candidates to choose from. For Labour, they had the increasing unpopular Gordon Brown, who seemed to be stretching his neck skin. The Conservatives had David 'Dave' Cameron who shouted for change so many times, I was starting to think he wore nappies and always needed them changing, or there were increasingly popular Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg who 6 weeks ago had an unrecognisable face.

In the lead up to the election, three televised leader debates were held. Something quite popular in America, and in an attempt to make the UK a bit more of a democracy, they were tried over here. They became quite popular and indeed helped Nick Clegg to becoming popular. The first debate was shown on ITV and concentrated on the domestic affairs of our country, in which polls suggested Clegg won. The second debate, shown on Sky News, was about the international affairs of our country and mainly focused on the wars we are participating in – Clegg also won this one. The third was shown on the BBC the week before the election and concentrated on our economy, with each suggesting ways to help our country to get out of debt. Clegg, indeed, won the third debate as well according to polls.

David Cameron and Gordon Brown spent most of the debates arguing between themselves while Nick Clegg stood there watching with a slightly smug look upon his face. I didn't particularly listen to what they had to say much, and infact I just studied their body language to see how they were coping. Clegg seemed to cope fine with the pressure of the audience and the heat of the spot lights. Cameron too seemed to cope with it all reasonably fine, apart from the fact he became rather sweaty and his forehead not only became shinier, but also seemed to grow. I never noticed before the debates he was slowly turning bald. Gordon Brown seemed to cope the same way he normally does under pressure, by bumbling everything he said more than Gareth Gates on Pop Idol many moons ago. I noticed he has very large ears and a lot of excess skin around his neck. He also seems to suck his teeth and intake air half way through his sentences, much like you would expect an angry rabbit would who was blowing up a balloon. Gordon Brown also created a slogan unwillingly in the debates.

Obviously, Gordon Brown and his team of PR ‘experts’ realised how popular Nick Clegg was becoming and how the audience seemed to always be agreeing with him. From this I presume the phrase 'I agree with Nick' was created. Rarely did a sentence fall from Brown's lips that did not start with the words 'I agree with Nick'. I essentially ended up feeling very sorry for Gordon.

On the 6th of May, despite having Chicken Pox, I was not 18, so I could not vote. If I could've voted though, I think I would voted Lib Dem's. I've supported the Conservatives for many years, but on final reflection, it was pretty much certain that the Conservatives would get the most votes, and seeing as I had become fond of Nick Clegg like everyone else, I think I would have helped him in getting votes. Either way, when the votes finally came in, no-one had actually won. Britain was in the midst of a parliament being hung (unfortunately, not in the way one would hope for).

Then the week of arse-kissing began. Both Labour and the Conservatives spent the entire election campaign constantly demeaning Nick Clegg and his fellow Liberal Democrats, and then they ended up having control over both parties. Eventually, on the Tuesday evening following the election, during Eastenders, it was announced that Nick Clegg had chosen the Conservatives and gone into partnership with them, forcing Gordon Brown out of British Politics. We are now living in a country run be a coalition Government, made up of David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg and Deputy Prime Minister. What a marvellous day.

Over the coming weeks they announced the final line up of the Cabinet Team and it was a wonderful mixture or Blue's and Yellow's. Then the budget was announced. I am yet to read the 12 page document (however, I do actually plan to do so at some point), but somehow the new chancellor, George Osborne has begun cutting £6Billion from our countries budget. Then, for reasons of malice, the media has begun and I am sure will continue to, tear and pick apart the coalition Government so the next leaders debate will actually be held on an episode of Jeremy Kyle. You would think the media didn't want our country to have a stable Government and would rather our country be torn apart by constant rioting and fist fighting.

As in most partnerships, each side has had to give up some important things; for example I think as part of agreement Nick Clegg has had to bin his Elton John CD. The big thing that will come from the coalition, which I am rather sadly excited about, is a reform of the voting system. The Liberal Democrats this year received the most votes they have ever had, however, they ended up with less seats than previously had. To be honest, I am very excited about this coalition, and I do hope it works and I think it would be nice them to last the entire term together, but whether that will happen, we shall have to wait and see.

Another big thing about the month of May, like April, was the disruption to air travel. Only slightly caused by the ash cloud this time, but was mainly caused by BA Staff striking. Now, I am all for freedom of speech and all that lark, but this all seems pretty darn ridiculous to me. British Airway's staff have lost their travelling privileges. I don't want to come across as sarcastic and cynical here, but BOO-HOO! I wonder if anyone has actually pointed out to them yet that the longer they keep striking, the more money their employers lose. Then eventually, they'll start to lose so much money they will fall into debt, which would then lead to one of the biggest British companies closing down and having a major effect upon our economy and of course, all the people who are striking, won't have a job at all.

Sure, it seems quite unlikely that would happen, but I don't think losing a few travelling perks is enough of a reason to go on strike. From what I understand, pilots and airline staff are not exactly underpaid. I don't know what these perks are, but I doubt a bag of peanuts costs that much on a flight. I don't know because I have never been on a plane, but I think they should just stop throwing their toys out the pram and go back to doing their jobs!

I don't think anyone can write a blog about May, without mentioning the Eurovision Song Contest either. I didn't watch much of it really, infact, I only saw two songs (one of them ours) and the final results at a friend’s house after a night out. However, our country came last place, and I cannot understand why this has to be. Sure, the guy who was singing, who I affectionately have always called 'Whatshisface' because I do not want to waste brain cells learning his name, was rubbish. He hit very few notes properly and his backing singers were just as bad. It felt as if they had never previously all sung together as they had absolutely no ability to harmonise together at all. As for the song itself; why would we even give Pete Waterman the job of writing a song in the first place? It seemed like a suicide attempt!

Granted, there is not much British music about that I am particularly fond of, but we do have some pretty good singing talent. We should get one of our professional and successful singers to perform. Why not Leona Lewis? She's not great, but she is better than a lot of crap and is quite popular globally now. Cliff Richard done it twice, in 1968 and 1973 and he was a professional then. Other countries use professional and popular singers! The cynic in me knows the reason why we will not do it though. Money.

We spent so much effort on trying to get the Olympics and our country is also praying to host the World Cup, which is/will be, millions upon millions, if not billions, of pounds spent building stadiums and hosting the tournament. However, our country cannot afford to host the Eurovision Song Contest anymore as it is seen as dead wood now, so we continually put in rubbish acts. What makes it worse is that we complained for years that the reason we never won was because it was too political, and now that the points system has been changed, so that 50% of a countries results come from impartial judges, we still lose and have no excuse other than 'We're shit!'

Anyway, that is it for this blog, reviewing the month of May. You will not have to wait another month for the next blog though, as I plan to write two more in the next week - hopefully.