Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)

View fullsize

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter is a popular entry among fans of the franchise. This is mainly due to the return of makeup artist, Tom Savini, who creates several notable death scenes and a bravura ending for Jason Voorhees. There is also an attempt by writer Barney Cohen to have a more involving story compared to previous entries in the series. Director Joseph Zito, who previously directed the above average slasher movie The Prowler AKA Rosemary’s Killer (1981), brings a harder edge to the proceedings, making Jason more menacing than in the previous instalment. As ever, the film was dismissed by the critics but performed well at the box office. Producer Frank Mancuso Jr fully intended for this film to be a definitive end to the series, as he was becoming increasingly concerned that his association with the franchise was having a negative impact upon his career.

Opening immediately after the events of Part III, police arrive at the scene of Jason’s latest killing spree and are shocked to find him among the bodies. He is taken to the morgue but he soon revives, escaping from cold storage and killing two members of staff before returning to Crystal Lake. Meanwhile a group of teenagers arrive at a cabin they’ve rented for the weekend. This comprises two couples, Paul (Alan Hayes) and Sam (Judy Aronson), Sara (Barbara Howard) and Doug (Peter Barton), along with the awkward Jimmy (Crispin Glover) and joker Ted (Lawrence Monoson). The cabin is opposite the home of the Jarvis family, where the recently divorced Mrs Garvis (Joan Freeman) lives with her teenage daughter Trish (Kimberly Beck) and young son Tommy (Corey Feldman). It is not long before Jason makes his presence known and the bodycount begins.

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter has a strong start with the police units descending on Jason’s previous crime scene at night. Illuminated by the searchlight of a helicopter, the paramedics take away the victims and the police remove the axe used on Jason Voorhees as evidence. There is a semi chaotic element to this scene which adds to its credibility as various law enforcement officials struggle to make sense of what has happened. Sadly, once Jaon’s body is taken to the morgue, we immediately encounter the first in a litany of obnoxious characters who will sorely try our patience for the next hour and a half. The first murder featuring a surgical saw is very inventive but once again, has been reduced to a bare minimum by the MPAA at the time. Once the story moves to the teenagers at the cabin, the film falls into its usual formula. 

View fullsize

Two specific plot elements make things a little different this time round. The introduction of a camper, Rob Dier (E. Erich Anderson ), who is tracking Jason to seek revenge for his murdered sister. Then there is Tommy Jarvis, an intelligent yet somewhat isolated child who is destined to defeat Jason Voorhees. These storylines add a little more depth to the formulaic structure of the film. They also help alleviate from the grating improvised dialogue between Ted and Jimmy which is extremely wearing. Director Joseph Zito manages to make Jason a far more sinister threat than the previous film, where he simply was a lumbering death machine. Jason, played by veteran stuntman Ted White, appears to taunt his victims, often stopping and staring while stalking them. He also nails several corpses up to further terrorise the living.

Despite its title, the ending of Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter sends a clear signal that the story hasn’t quite ended. Subsequent box office returns of over $33 million meant that a sequel was inevitable. Although loved by fans, I find Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter to be a somewhat inconsistent film. It starts strong but quickly lapses into its own established cliches and excesses. Despite some interesting ideas, the film is hampered by possibly the most egregious group of teenagers thus far depicted in the franchise. It is also the most humourless entry. The original “shock” ending of the final girl Trish finding her dead mother in a bathtub was replaced for a more obvious scene implying all isn’t well with Tommy. Overall, despite many positive aspects Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter doesn’t quite meet its full potential. However, the franchise would face a major shake up with the next entry.

The First Past the Post Electoral System

View fullsize

The First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system used in the United Kingdom, as well as in several other countries such as the US and India, has both advantages and disadvantages. However, despite being a simple and straightforward system it has been abandoned by many democracies in favour of more proportional and equitable methods. The primary criticism against FPTP is that it allows a minority of the electorate to return a majority government. Since 1935, there have been majority governments 90% of the time, but not one of them had the support of a majority of voters. At present, the current UK government has a majority of seats with just 43.6% of the votes. In the 2019 election they gained an extra 48 seats despite an increase of only 1.2% of the vote share. 

Under First Past the Post, the UK Parliament does not accurately reflect the way the electorate votes. Hence, millions of people do not get the representation they choose. In the 2024 general election, the combined vote share for Labour and the Conservatives reached a record low, with smaller parties doing well. Yet the election was highly disproportionate, as Labour won 63% of seats (411) with only 34% of the vote, while Reform won under 0.8% of seats (5) with 14.3% of the vote. The Liberal Democrats recorded their best ever seat result (72), despite receiving only around half the votes they did in 2010. A Parliament that fails to reflect how people vote can lack popular support and have its legitimacy questioned. However, such complaints have always been countered with arguments that FPTP delivers strong governments with the ability to implement their respective manifestos. 

Here are some of the key pros and cons of the First Past the Post system :

Pros:

1. Simplicity: FPTP is a straightforward system where voters mark an "X" next to their preferred candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins. The simplicity makes the electoral process easy to understand and administer.

2. Strong Government: FPTP often leads to a single-party majority in the House of Commons, which can result in a more stable and decisive government. This majority typically allows the winning party to implement its agenda without needing to form coalitions and compromise on key policies.

3. Local Representation: Each regional constituency is represented by a single elected member, which helps establish a direct link between constituents and their representative. This can enhance local representation and also provides the electorate with clear accountability.

4. Prevents Extreme Parties: FPTP tends to favour larger, more established parties, making it difficult for smaller or more extreme parties to gain representation. This can be seen as an advantage if stability and moderation are priorities.

Cons:

1. Disproportionate Representation: FPTP can lead to a significant mismatch between the proportion of votes a party receives nationally and the number of seats it wins. This can result in a parliament that does not accurately reflect the diverse political views of the population.

2. Wasted Votes: In FPTP, votes cast for losing candidates and those beyond the necessary majority for the winning candidate are considered “wasted”. This results in “safe seats” with an incumbent candidate who has an established majority. This can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement among voters whose preferred candidate or party does not win as their vote effectively doesn’t count.

3. Regional Biases: The system can reinforce regional biases, as parties may focus on winning in specific geographic areas rather than seeking support across the entire country. This can lead to neglect of certain regions and communities.

4. Limited Choice: FPTP tends to limit voters' choices to candidates from the major parties, as smaller parties may struggle to gain a foothold. This can result in a lack of diversity and stifled political competition. It also fosters a sense of dissatisfaction among the electorate if a substantial percentage vote for a particular party yet it gains no seats.

5. Tactical Voting: Voters may feel compelled to vote strategically rather than for their preferred candidate or party, especially if they believe that their preferred choice has little chance of winning. This can distort the true preferences of the electorate.

Ultimately, the choice of an electoral system involves a trade-off between various principles, such as simplicity, proportionality, and stability. Different systems prioritise different aspects, and no system is perfect. The debate over electoral systems often revolves around finding a balance that aligns with the values and goals of a particular society. At present, neither of the two main political parties have made any kind of electoral pledge to alter the UK voting system. Both benefit from FPTP as it currently stands, so it is only the smaller parties that advocate for change.

Friday the 13th Part III (1982)

View fullsize

Set directly after the events of the previous film, Friday the 13th Part III is again about a group of friends staying near Crystal Lake who encounter Jason Voorhees as he embarks upon another killing spree. Shot in 3D the film has a less sleazy tone than its predecessors although the formula remains the same. The set pieces and death scenes are more elaborate and less clinical, taking advantage of the 3D picture format. The film marks the first appearance of Jason's signature hockey mask, which subsequently became a trademark of both the character and the franchise. Originally conceived to be an end to the series of films, Friday the 13th Part III performed extremely well at the box office, earning $36.7 million on a budget of $2.2 million. As a result, the franchise was given a stay of execution and a further sequel was commissioned.

First drafts of the screenplay for Friday the 13th Part III, focused upon the previous “final girl” Ginny Field (Amy Steel), who was trying to re-adjust to normal life after her traumatic experience at Crystal lake. However, Amy Steel declined the part and so writers Martin Kitrosser and Carol Watson opted to follow the established formula. Hence the story is about eight friends staying for a weekend at a holiday cabin near Crystal Lake. The property belongs to Chris Higgins (Dana Kimmel). Chris reveals to her boyfriend Rick (Paul Katka) that she was attacked by a deformed man two years earlier and has come home to face her fears. The other guests are Debbie (Tracie Savage), her boyfriend Andy (Jeffrey Rogers), prankster Shelly (Larry Zerner), his blind date Vera (Catherine Parks) and stoners Chuck (David Katims) and Chili (Rachel Howard). 

View fullsize

As Friday the 13th Part III was filmed in 3D it had a higher budget than the two previous films. Director Steve Miner manages the pace well, providing two deaths early on to wet the audience’s appetite, then spending the next twenty five minutes on introducing the characters and building tension. The “teenagers” are not as grating as usual and there is minor comic relief from both Shelly and Chuck. The death scenes make good use of the 3D photography, with all manner of objects being hurled at the camera. The two kills that get the biggest audience reaction are Jason crushing a head with his bare hands, resulting in an eye popping out. Another character is bisected with a machete from his crotch to his navel, while walking on his hands. Harry Manfedini once again provides an appropriate score, with an especially funky theme during the opening credits.

Friday the 13th Part III is one of two instalments in the franchise that manages to rise above its exploitation roots. The other is the sixth, Jason Lives. The third instalment gained a veneer of quasi-respectability by being in 3D. It made the movie an “event” at the time of its release, as the revival of this format had not yet outstayed its welcome. From a continuity perspective the third film is all over the place. The events depicted are 24 hours after those of Part 2, technically making the film Saturday the 14th. Jason seems to have gained height and shaken off having a machete cleave his left shoulder. But none of it really matters. The film once again delivers what viewers want and this time in glorious 3D. It can even be argued that there is a degree of charm to it all or at least some sense of novelty. The film certainly suits the medium of 3D and it can be argued that it is the best in the series.

Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)

View fullsize

Originally, Friday the 13th Part 2 was intended to be an anthology film based on the superstition associated with the date. However, after the popularity of the original film's surprise ending, the producers opted to continue the story and mythology surrounding Camp Crystal Lake. This eventually became the parameters which all future films would broadly work within. Friday the 13th Part 2 is a more polished production than the first movie, benefitting from twice the budget of the original. The quick turnaround meant that Paramount Pictures could continue to capitalise on the popularity of the slasher genre. However, there was growing social pushback against these types of films, from Christian lobby groups and other “concerned parties”. Hence, Friday the 13th Part 2 ran into problems with the MPAA ratings board and cuts were imposed. Something that would continuously plague the franchise over the years.

Second time round the film boasts a nominally stronger script by Ron Kurz with better defined characters. Amy Steel stars as camp counsellor Ginny Field and continues the tradition of a robust and dynamic “final girl”. Betsy Palmer makes a cameo appearance as the late Pamela Voorhees and prophet of doom, Crazy Ralph (Walt Gorney), returns briefly before an unpleasant demise. The boldest step in the screenplay is a major retcon of Jason Voorhees, who has now survived the drowning incident of his youth, having lived as a hermit in the woods for twenty five years. Like so many genre films, it’s best not to dwell too much on the plot details as they’re seldom logical. The larger budget meant better production values. The cinematography by Peter Stein is more atmospheric this time round. But the main focus of attention are the set pieces and death scenes.

View fullsize

Tom Savini passed on the opportunity to return and undertake the film’s makeup effects. Stan Winston was briefly involved in the production but then left due to scheduling conflicts. Finally Carl Fullerton, apprentice to the legendary Dick Smith, took on the project. He has crafted some excellent death scenes, two of which bear an uncanny similarity to those seen in Mario Bava’s A Bay of Blood. However, rather than this being a homage it would appear that they occurred purely by luck. Sadly most of these effects sequences were shortened by the MPAA to the point where it’s difficult to discern what is happening on screen. Thankfully the excellent new HD transfers by Shout Factory help with these details. I noticed for the first time that the throat cutting and the machete to the face scenes both use the wrong side of the weapon for safety reasons.

The final 25 minutes of Friday the 13th Part 2 are well conceived and executed. The chase between Jason and Ginny is well paced and tense. At one point Ginny hides from Jason under a bed and a rat scurries past her. It is discreetly implied that Ginny wets herself out of sheer fear, which is a curious but credible minor detail. The denouement in a dilapidated shack where Jason has a shrine to his dead mother Pamela Voorhees is suitably creepy. Due to the clarity of the Blu-ray transfer, details such as Alice’s body, the “final girl” from the previous movie, are far more apparent. Harry Manfredini’s score continues to be very effective, especially in the chase sequence. Overall this is a solid sequel, offering more of the same but with a little more attention to detail. Friday the 13th Part 2 lays the foundations for future instalments of the franchise. The only thing missing is Jason’s iconic hockey mask which doesn’t appear until the next film.

Friday the 13th (1980)

Writing any kind of review for the original Friday the 13th movie seems somewhat redundant, as it has been analysed and written about numerous times before. If you’re interested in the film’s production as well as its subsequent impact on US cinema at the time, then there is an excellent summary on Wikipedia. Having recently rewatched the entire franchise, courtesy of the Shout Factory’s Friday The 13th Collection Deluxe Edition, I have a few thoughts I’d like to share. The picture quality of all the films is very good, offering a lot more visual information compared to previous releases. The amount of “extras” included in the box set is prodigious. I suspect that these are the best versions that we’re ever likely to see. Fans hoping that one day all the cut footage will be found and re-integrated into each film are likely to remain disappointed. Some material has surfaced but sadly a lot of deleted and extended scenes have been destroyed.

Made to capitalise on the success of John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th is a far more contrived and cynical piece of filmmaking. Director Sean S. Cunningham aimed to provide audiences with a cinematic “rollercoaster ride”. A horror experience which included all the things the target audience wanted. Specifically sex and violence. The screenplay by Victor Miller offers nothing more than the functional. The scene is set, the characters introduced and then the killing begins. There are a few red herrings along the way but there is little in the way of character development or thematic exploration. Instead we get a litany of stereotypes, although they are used effectively. The cinematography by Barry Abrams is simple, bordering on stark. The production was shot on a real Boy Scout Camp and it is suitably dilapidated giving the proceedings an authentic feel.

View fullsize

The film’s main innovation was the quality of the makeup effects and set pieces. These are jarringly clinical at times, courtesy of Tom Savini. The final revelation that the killer is in fact the mother of a boy who died at the summer camp is also a highpoint. Betsy Palmer’s performance is suitably unhinged. Several other members of the cast are of interest. Kevin Bacon appears as one of the camp counsellors and has possibly the best death scene. Bing Crosby’s son, Harry Crosby, also makes an appearance. Within a few years, he quit acting altogether and became an investment banker. Underpinning all of this is an atmospheric score by Harry Manfredini. Manfredini’s major innovation is a vocal motif, “ki ki ki ma ma ma”, which is played whenever the killer’s POV was used. Along with its use of strident strings during chase sequences, the score for Friday the 13th has become iconic.

Although made independently, Friday the 13th was distributed by Paramount Pictures. The studio was interested in the “youth market” during the late seventies and saw the film as a low risk investment. Paramount were not pleased by the negative reviews the film garnered and some senior executives did not like the studio being associated with such exploitation material. However, Friday the 13th grossed over $59 million at the box office worldwide. A significant achievement for a film that was made for half a million. Not only did it prove a sound investment for Paramount, it effectively started an entire sub-genre within horror movies. Film critics can sometimes find themselves at odds with audiences and Friday the 13th is a prime example of this. They failed to see that the film was a straightforward quid pro quo. Despite its rough edges, it gave audiences exactly what they wanted and they were happy to pay. It didn’t need to be any more than the sum of its parts.

Theatrical Version or Director's Cut?

View fullsize

Not all film director’s have the luxury of “final cut”. The right to ensure that the completed version of a film corresponds with their creative vision. Films are commercial undertakings and sometimes the producers, film studio or other interested parties get to assert their wishes over that of the director. Often this can be due to practical considerations such as running time or budget. On occasions, this can be down to major creative and artistic differences. Hence the theatrical release of a film may be considered flawed, unfinished or just plain wrong by the director, if changes have been imposed, regardless of the reasons. Therefore, a director’s cut of a film can offer a significantly different cinematic vision over the original theatrical release. They can present an opportunity to fix perceived problems or just put more narrative meat on the bones. This may lead to a film being critically reappraised.

However, it is erroneous to assume that a director’s cut is a superior version of a film by default. Sometimes, a filmmakers desire to return to a previous project and make alterations yields no significant results. Some director’s even develop a reputation as “serial tinkerers” who never seem to be satisfied, whatever the results. Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now exists formerly in three distinct versions. Oliver Stone has released four versions of his film Alexander (2004). As for George Lucas, he stated in an interview that “films are never completed, they’re only abandoned”. He has famously revisited his body of work several times and not necessarily to their overall benefit. With all this in mind, here are three films, where popular opinion and critical acclaim favours the original theatrical version over the later released director’s cut.

View fullsize

Alien (1979). Ridley Scott is another well known director who always seems to revisit his work and make alterations. His reasons for re-editing vary and sometimes they do yield better movies. However, the original theatrical release of Alien is described by Scott himself as “the best he could possibly have made at the time”. Yet in 2003, he released a “director’s cut” despite stating that this was not his definitive version. The new version restored roughly four minutes of deleted footage, while cutting about five minutes of other material, leaving it approximately a minute shorter than the theatrical cut. The standout changes were to Brett’s death scene which shows more of the xenomorph and the infamous scene where Ripley finds Dallas “cocooned”  and puts him out of his misery. Being no more than a fan service, this version has no additional value. In fact it can be argued that it only serves to contradict the xenomorph’s established biology.

View fullsize

Donnie Darko (2001). Richard Kelly had to compromise when making his off kilter science fiction movie. The main one being keeping the running time below two hours. In 2004, director Kelly, re-cut the film, added twenty minutes of previously deleted footage as well as new music and sound effects. This director's cut provides a clearer insight into many of the film's more ambiguous plot elements and makes the previously vague temporal mechanics less esoteric. However, critics and fans alike have stated that the charm of the theatrical release lies in its mysterious and ill defined nature. It is a deliberately enigmatic cinematic journey. Kelly’s second edit may well add clarity but in doing so neuters what so many viewers found endearing. Sometimes, less is indeed more.

View fullsize

The Warriors (1979). Walter Hill’s underrated, stylised gang drama has its roots in the writings of ancient Greek professional soldier Xenophon. The theme of a group of warriors trapped in hostile territory and trying to get home is cleverly transposed to seventies New York City. Made on a tight schedule by a studio that wasn’t especially enamoured with the material, Hill didn’t get to draw the exact parallels he originally wanted. Hence in 2005, he added a new opening scene with a voiceover describing how Xenophon’s army attempted to fight its way out of Persia and return home. He also inserted comic-book splash panel shots as a means to bridge various key scenes in the film. Sadly, this was a little too on the nose and too expository. Recent releases of The Warriors on Blu-ray and UHD have included both versions and the consensus remains that the theatrical release is more efficient, requiring no further embellishment.

Has LOTRO Lost its Way?

View fullsize

After the initial shock of Update 41 and the radical revisions it made to the Lore-master class, I recently returned to The Lord of the Rings Online to experiment with new Master of Nature’s Fury (red line) and Keeper of Animals (blue line) builds. It is odd to find that skills I’ve been using for years are now gated behind specific trait lines. Furthermore, the consolidation of skills has left the entire class somewhat overpowered. Some players may argue that this is a good thing. However, for me it has rendered what was a subtle class requiring skill and intelligence to use effectively, into what is just a blunt instrument. Since playing tactically is now redundant, instances and skirmishes no longer poses any significant challenge. PVE content has been easy in LOTRO for a long time. Post update 41 it is now trivial and nothing more than a minor diversion.

For all the good aspects of LOTRO, of which there are many, developer’s Standing Stone Games have a habit of making wrong calls when it comes to adding new systems to the game. Consider mounted combat, fellowship manoeuvres, destiny points and pipe weed. Some of these are interesting ideas that were just poorly implemented. Others are things no one ever asked for. All of which took time and resources to develop. The latest addition to this list is the woefully implemented “Birding” hobby which arrived with Update 41. This bird spotting activity seems somewhat ill conceived and is certainly underwhelming. The fact you don’t actually see any birds during the process is odd, to say the least. Again I return to this notion that those making decisions at SSG seem very removed from what players want.

View fullsize

LOTRO is a 17 year old game. The MMORPG genre and gaming per se have changed a lot during that time. LOTRO looks “old”. Some may argue that is part of the game’s inherent charm and in some respects I would agree. However, the ageing technology that LOTRO runs on is a reality. Although the game has an impressive scope of vision when it comes to its world design, the implementation is looking dated. The low resolution textures, the incessant pop-in and the constant recycling of assets is very noticeable. If you take time to set up a screenshot in LOTRO, especially one that involves an interesting vista, you’ll often find that the game struggles to load appropriately scaled trees, shrubs and buildings. The game engine also cannot cope with the waves and breakers along the coast of Umbar. The game’s UI is also from a different era and struggles to be readable at modern resolutions. Yet plans to address these issues appear to have been abandoned.

LOTRO players will often focus on the game’s strongest asset; the lore and the way that SSG draws upon it so effectively. This is not something I would dispute. If you are a Tolkien fan, you’ll find SSG’s vision of Middle-earth to be very authentic. If you’re a new player starting LOTRO today, you’ll find a wealth of content to get lost in. However, at level cap it is a different issue. You can either embark upon group play and tackle all the respective raids that are available. Or you can simply play new story content and slowly upgrade your gear. I have stated in the past that LOTRO has reached a point in its lifespan where “what you see is what you get”. However, I now feel that the game has begun to run out of steam. Narratively, the game has entered Umbar, which is an interesting region from a lore perspective. But aesthetically it is a visually uninspired zone and it sits uncomfortably with the rest of SSG’s vision of Middle-earth.

View fullsize

Looking at the bigger picture, in recent years there have been a lot of changes with regard to who owns SSG. Initially EG7 appeared to be keen in investing and invigorating the game. However, changes to the internal company hierarchy appear to have reversed this policy. I get the impression that the bean counters are at present happy for LOTRO to continue in the same vein as it always has. It generates revenue consistently and has a robust core playerbase. But I think no one wants to invest any further resources into the game, beyond those allocated. This issue, when combined with SSG’s “mother knows best” outlook, says to me that the game is just marking time. Rather than operating within modest parameters it now feels like lacklustre meandering. Has LOTRO lost its way? Can it be saved and given a new lease of life. Or is it simply entering the final stage of its life cycles.

Watching TV Part 2

View fullsize

A modern Smart TV menu

Watching TV was a far more communal activity in my youth. Families sat and watched specific shows or sports together. “Appointment TV” had its benefits not only for TV ratings but for advertising revenue. Although audiences may have grown over the years, they have also become more fragmented and compartmentalised. Smaller market shares have therefore made advertising far more pervasive. Even big streaming platforms are feeling the squeeze with declining subscribers and therefore introducing advertising on lower tier tariffs. Many catch up services also rely on advertising. However, viewers can always pay a fee if they wish to dispense with it. Another foible of modern digital television is poor picture quality Many smaller digital channels broadcast in standard definition. The source material has often been converted between different picture formats and has been cropped to suit a 16:9 screen. This results in low definition picture quality, with weak colours and a lot of digital artefacts.

Yet despite these commercial pressures, TV is still a major form of entertainment, although the manner in which we view it has changed substantially. We don’t necessarily watch the  same shows together and at the same time. However, the social aspect that surrounds popular shows still exists. Rather than talking about last night’s episode at work in the break room, we now discuss it online. Or we recommend a particular show to a friend and wait for them to binge watch enough, before enjoying a lengthy analysis of what has happened so far. Dramas have become more complex and in many ways, more like cinema. It  can be argued we live in a golden age of TV. However, some aspects have declined. I find that historical and science based documentaries lack the intellectual rigour of those produced in the seventies and nineties. News coverage has also become simpler, risk averse and reticent to show the realities of modern life. 

Returning to the matter of the old CRT television I saw in the charity shop window (from the previous part of this post), seeing that old set did make me nostalgic for a time when I felt that TV was more special. I can remember when the BBC first broadcast Life on Earth. This major wildlife show had taken years to collate and felt like a significant milestone. This was the very definition of event television. A decade later, popular shows such as The X-Files became a highlight of the week. Something to look forward to. We now live in an age where high quality shows abound. Yet does their abundance diminish their value? I’m not sure. I still look forward to certain shows starting a new season. But not quite in the same way as I did 20 years ago. Perhaps that’s because there were real stakes back then. You could miss a show or your VCR could fail to record it. These are no longer factors. Shows may go from streaming platforms due to licensing changes but they never truly vanish. They can be “found”.

View fullsize

Is YouTube the same as regular TV?

Finally, how does YouTube fit into all of this? Many younger people do not watch traditional TV. Yet they spend comparable amounts of time watching various YouTube channels. Technically, you can argue that YouTube content isn’t the same as regular TV because it is not made to the same technical standard, does not have any kind of editorial oversight and is not subject to independent regulation standards. But not every YouTube channel is made on the fly. Many professional establishments have channels that they run along traditional lines. I think the distinction between YouTube and TV is not so clear. I also think that the ability to watch YouTube on your lounge TV makes a difference as well. It garners a sense of legitimacy. Furthermore, YouTube channels can gain substantial audiences and become very influential. These numbers make them relevant. So does their clout.

TV has proven a resilient medium over its seventy year lifespan. It adapts to the latest trends and embraces new technology. There was a time when the TV industry thought the advent of the VCR would kill commercial televsion. It didn’t. Similarly, the growth of Netflix a decade ago, caused panic among traditional television networks. Then multiple streaming platforms emerged and split the market. Due to a need to create more and more content, many of these companies have over extended themselves and are now finding that there are consequences to growing too fast. However, the traditional outlets, weather the storm and continue on, as they always have. So all things considered, let’s not write off television just yet. I have no idea what the next trend or innovation may be but I’m confident that most people still want to be able to enjoy quality entertainment from the comfort of their own home. Until that changes, TV is safe.

Watching TV Part 1

View fullsize

A Widescreen Panasonic CRT TV

I recently visited my local branch of the British Heart Foundation. This is a chain of UK charity shops that sell previously owned furniture and electrical goods, all of which are certified to be in good working order. It’s one of the few places where you’ll still find old school CRT televisions. These mainly come from house clearances. On this occasion, a particularly bulky model from the early 2000s was on display and despite its age, it still had a good, clear picture. I spoke to a member of staff and apparently these TVs are still popular with gamers who buy them for use with retro video games consoles. I felt especially nostalgic for this particular ageing Sony TV, because Mrs P and I had once owned a similar model. We bought it from a local department store (which no longer exists) and I remember it took two robust gentlemen to deliver it and install it.

For much of my life, televisions have been expensive, bulky devices that no matter where you put them, always became the focal point of the room. During the seventies TVs were the primary source of household entertainment and most families did not have any additional devices connected to them. It was not until the eighties that VCRs and games consoles grew in popularity and became more commonplace peripheral devices. Today in contrast, a TV is usually part of a wider home entertainment system, potentially consisting of some sort of DVR, a games console, a DVD/Blu-ray player and a surround sound system. The TV and some of these other devices will all be connected to the internet and provide access to streaming services. It is no longer even considered essential to have access to a cable, satellite or digital terrestrial source. Some households are happy to rely purely on the internet.

View fullsize

Anyone remember Tivo?

Returning to the title of this post, I think we are all fully aware that we watch TV in a much different manner to how we did thirty years ago. So this is not the central point of this article, although I may come back to it. On this occasion I am curious not so much about peoples specific viewing habits but rather the medium they use to watch. For example, I remember working with someone who due to their constant travelling, watched primarily via their tablet. My granddaughters used to do the same, until they got TVs in their bedrooms. For them, family viewing is a rarity. Furthermore, they tend to watch specific shows via streaming or YouTube Kids. If memory serves, I don’t think their home has a roof aerial, satellite dish or cable service. Conversely, my neighbours have gone all in on digital satellite services, mainly due to the sports coverage on offer. They also watch as a family on large TV in their lounge. You may do the same or something completely different. The fact is there is no standard way of watching TV anymore.

In our home, we have a wall mounted 4K TV in our lounge. Despite it being equipped with various apps for streaming as well as a terrestrial digital tuner, it ultimately serves as nothing more than a high end monitor. There are various other devices attached including a new DVR (a BT TV Box Pro) supplied by our ISP. This provides digital terrestrial channels as well as subscription based IPTV services. It can record three different channels while watching a fourth and can output streaming content in 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos. It currently has eight on demand and “catch up” services that we are actively logged into. Despite all its functionality, Mrs P uses it mainly for recording from a handful of mainstream UK TV channels. If there is ever a viewing conflict between Mrs P and I, then I will watch streaming services via my PC. It also has a TV tuner installed in case there’s an issue with internet services.

View fullsize

BT TV Box Pro

One of the benefits of TV today is that there’s no shortage of choice as to what to watch. Mrs P and I will frequently watch TV shows together as we broadly have similar tastes. If we want to watch a specific show, we determine what platform it is available on and whether we have existing access to it. We continuously make use of free trials to various streaming services. We seldom buy physical media anymore, although I will buy a Blu-ray copy of a film if it is difficult to source anywhere else. Overall we can usually access what we wish to watch. Some shows we’re happy to watch weekly but others we prefer to binge watch. By default we always have the subtitles on, which is no reflection upon our hearing but is mainly due to the way sound mixing is conducted these days. As I have stated before, I prefer to watch in either HD or UHD, without adverts as well as on screen graphics and logos.

Despite the technological changes that have happened over the years, not everything associated with watching televisions is an improvement. For example, I recently installed a new DVR. The process required me to choose the power management settings, connect the box to the internet, tune the various TV stations and hide any I didn’t want. I then had to set a PIN for content control, log into multiple streaming services using multiple log on credentials and set the remote control to operate our existing TV as well. Furthermore the new remote doesn’t have appropriate buttons to shut down the TV, only the DVR. Fortunately, the remote for the old DVR is still compatible, so we’re using that one instead. And speaking of remote controls, it would appear I now have six lying around the lounge to operate four devices? How is this easier?

Too Much Star Wars

View fullsize

We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.

In recent years, the Star Wars franchise has evolved an increasingly complex lore, as it attempts to codify into canon all things alluded to in the original films. This matter is further complicated as Disney picks and chooses what material from the expanded universe it wishes to use. Hence a reciprocal need has grown, requiring viewers to be au fait with this continuously growing mythology. Someone watching The Rise of Skywalker or season 2 of The Mandolorian with no prior knowledge of the franchise would struggle with much of the plot beyond the obvious. This growing interdependence may well be appealing to hardcore fans, but it can equally be off putting those just dipping their toes into the franchise. It’s a stark contrast to the first Star Wars movie which dealt in archetypes and addressed the themes of good and evil with broad brushstrokes.

View fullsize

From a business perspective, Disney’s decision is a sensible move. Star Wars remains the goose that lays the golden egg but it needs to be handled with care and consideration. Over the last 47 years, fans have gone from a lengthy period without new content, to an abundance of it in the last decade. I am reminded of the old aphorism regarding buses. You wait ages for one and then several turn up simultaneously. Furthermore, Star Wars is an intellectual property in transition at present. It was conceived during the seventies when the world was a very different place to how it is today. Its narrative simplicity was an antidote to the prevailing political and cultural cynicism of the time. However, Star Wars today has to appeal to a more diverse and sophisticated audience. Andor has shown that the source material can be updated to encompass more complex and adult themes. But this process is still a work in progress.

Which brings us to what is paradoxically the franchise’s greatest strength and sadly its most obvious Achilles’ heel; its fans. Star Wars fans are steadfast, engaged and passionate about that which they love. However, some are also possessive to the point of mania. They fail to see that fandom is not the same as ownership and that they are not the exclusive audience for this franchise. As to what happens next, now that Disney has made this decision, remains to be seen. Fans of all shades seem to agree that this is the right thing to do. Many think that Disney needs to reconsider what they do next with the franchise. I even saw one comment on a subreddit  that simply said “make Star Wars great again”. The only flaw with this plea is that there is no clear consensus as to how you exactly achieve that. On mature reflection, perhaps owning the biggest pop culture franchise ever, isn’t as great as it sounds.

"Adequate" But "Disposable" Gaming

One of the defining qualities of a truly great game is how long it can hold your interest and keep you engaged. For example I bought the Game of the Year version of Skyrim about 14 months after its initial release. Hence I had access to all the games content that I dutifully played through. However, I also fully explored the world map, completed all side quests, crafted, furnished several houses and continued to travel the in-game world and killing foes long after I had completed all the traditional content. I did the same with Red Dead Redemption 2 as this also offered a compelling and immersive world. Games such as these have a quality beyond just the functional. I would happily traverse the mountains in Skyrim and watch the sunset, revelling in the ambient music. Similarly, I would often just ride the train in RDR2 and watch the world go by. When I finally stopped playing both games for newer titles, I felt a sense of sadness when I bid them goodbye.

However, great games are few and far between. All video game releases exist on a spectrum of quality and artistic merit. Not all are bad, far from it. But many are purely functional. They entertain sufficiently to hold the players interests but once some semblance of completion is reached or the player simply feels that they are “done”, the game is effectively abandoned. Three such titles that I have played over the last 18 months fit this criteria. Hogwarts Legacy, Starfield and more recently Dragon’s Dogma 2. I enjoyed all of these games while I was playing them and completed each one’s respective stories. But rather than pursue all the minor achievements or simply stick around to enjoy the in-game worlds, I left once I felt I had finished. Furthermore, I ceased to be interested in those games the moment I stopped playing them.

View fullsize

I am sure this pattern of behaviour is not unique to me. It offers food for thought regarding how we perceive video games. To use a music analogy, few games achieve a status comparable to a classic LP. Something you wish to revisit on a regular basis. Instead, an average video game is a short term diversion. A bauble or trinket, designed to amuse and entertain. The virtue it provides primarily stems from the act of playing, rather than the compelling nature of the gameworld, its mechanics and narrative. Dragon’s Dogma 2 provided me with sufficient means to stay engaged. It did this long enough for me to complete the tasks it set before me. But it lacked a sense of “je ne sais quoi”. That quality or set of qualities that make a game more than the sum of its parts. As for Starfield, it has an expansion launching soon. Yet I have no desire to return to the game.

Looking through my game collection, there are a lot of titles that fall into an “adequate but can provide short term fun” category. There are also a lot that will never get installed as they don’t seem to have any immediate appeal. Just like books, TV, film and music, not every video game is a classic. Not everything needs to be a classic. Sometimes undemanding entertainment is perfectly acceptable. You agree to the terms on which it is offered. As video games have become more popular, a business need has grown to replicate that which has already proven commercially successful. Hence the market becomes saturated with similar products. Not all are bad but many are simply okay. In the face of increased mediocrity will titles seeking to be the next Skyrim or Red Dead Redemption 2  become rarer? Is there a paradox in adequate but disposable gaming? Is it doing more harm than good?

Star Trek Online: Events and New Content

View fullsize

If you are a new player, then Star Trek Online has 14 years of content to play through. It is all story driven and is frequently couched in existing lore from the various Star Trek TV shows. It also benefits from many of the original actors reprising their respective roles within the game. This provides an additional air of authenticity to the proceedings as well as being a spectacular fan service. Furthermore, much of that content is faction specific, hence there is a great deal of replay value to be had from this MMO. Apart from The Lord of the Rings Online, I cannot think of another game that manages to successfully tap into the style and idiom of its source intellectual property. Simply put, Star Trek Online looks and feels “very “Star Trek”. Which is why it has a robust and loyal player base and still proves to be a viable financial asset to its owners, DECA Games.

Where STO differs from many other MMOs is that there is no raid culture at endgame. There are some Task Force Operations (group content) that can be done on a harder setting but these do not count as traditional raids. Once a player has completed all story content and levelled their character, the focus of the game tends to be on min-maxing one’s ship and seeking to fine tune its DPS output. However, that is not to every player’s liking, which then presents an issue. Because the addition of new content has definitely slowed over the last six years. Although new missions are released episodically over the course of a year or two, Cryptic no longer releases traditional expansions as other MMOs do. Instead new content is bolstered by the regular addition of short term, themed events that often provide a reward if specific criteria are met. 

So far in 2024, STO has had a First Contact Day event, various Red Alerts and the annual Summer Festival as well as others. All of which yield a reward such as gear, a ship or upgrade materials. Many of the events contribute to a wider yearly event campaign, which if completed will allow the player to choose a premium ship from the C-Store. The obvious benefit for such an approach is that there’s always something to do in-game. It provides players with a short amount of play time to log into the game and work towards a goal. However, in the long term it becomes somewhat tedious and unengaging. Due to FOMO some players feel they are stuck on a treadmill. What this endless litany of events isn’t is complex, lore driven story content. When we do get a new story arc, it is doled out over a longer time period and frankly, due to changes in writing staff, is not as good as it used to be.

View fullsize

Victory is Life, the last proper expansion for STO, was released in June 2018. It was a well written, engaging story arc which featured a reunion with many of the most beloved characters from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It provided a hefty chunk of story to work through, as well as access to the Gamma Quadrant, an increase to level cap and a new reputation faction. Since then, no further expansions have been released. New story arcs are launched episodically and lack the impact and bonus content of expansions. Perhaps the problem is that Cryptic has always chosen to make previous expansions free of charge. Was this an unsustainable business model? Did it not occur to anyone that players would be happy to pay because that’s how expansions usually work. And let us not forget the content that was taken from the game to be remastered. This remains outstanding and in all honesty seems unlikely to return.

Star Trek Online remains a good MMO which uses the intellectual property upon which it is based, well. But it most definitely has a content problem at present. There is too much focus upon creating sellable digital items rather than creating new missions. What new missions we do get are somewhat generic. The most recent arcs, The Terran Gambit and Kings and Queens have certainly been weak, compared to older content. Quark’s Lucky Seven remains a highwater mark in game content coming close to the feel on a TV episode. It remains to be seen as to whether Cryptic are going to raise their game and provide anything on a par with expansions such as The Legacy of Romulus. If they don’t then then the game is effectively slipping into a lower gear. There may well be players who are happy to tinker with their builds indefinitely but I suspect that most want the same sort of story driven content that underpins all the television shows. Its sustained absence from the game is to its detriment.

Political Language and Rhetoric

View fullsize

Politicians have a distinct way of talking when being interviewed or giving a press conference. It is often characterised by a strategic use of language, centred around rhetorical devices, persuasion techniques and a careful framing of messages. Direct answers to questions are usually avoided, with tangential responses being preferred. Opinions and specific perspectives are frequently presented as facts. There is also a propensity to focus on “problems” and apportioning blame, rather than “solutions”. It’s important to note that the use of language in politics is a complex and dynamic process influenced by various factors, including cultural context, media dynamics, and the evolving political landscape. Different politicians may employ different communication strategies based on their individual styles and objectives. Here are some key aspects of how politicians use language:

Persuasion and Rhetoric:

Emotional Appeals: Politicians often use emotionally charged language to connect with the audience. Appeals to fear, hope, anger, or empathy can be powerful tools for swaying public opinion.

Repetition: Politicians frequently repeat key phrases or slogans to reinforce their message and make it more memorable. This repetition can help shape public perception.

Framing:

Positive Framing: Politicians strive to present their policies, actions, or ideas in a positive light. They carefully choose words and phrases that cast their initiatives in the best possible way.

Negative Framing: Similarly, politicians may use negative framing to criticise opponents, policies, or situations. This can influence public perception and create a sense of urgency or concern.

Ambiguity and Vagueness:

Strategic Ambiguity: Politicians may use vague language to avoid committing to specific positions, especially on contentious issues. This allows them flexibility and can help them appeal to a broader audience. 

Plausible Deniability: Vague language can also provide politicians with a degree of plausible deniability, making it harder for opponents to pin them down on particular statements.

Slogans and Catchphrases:

Memorable Messaging: Politicians often rely on catchy slogans and memorable catch phrases to encapsulate their key messages. These can serve as rallying cries and make complex issues more digestible for the public.

Euphemisms and Loaded Language:

Euphemisms: Politicians may use euphemisms to soften the impact of certain policies or decisions. This can make potentially unpopular actions more palatable to the public.

Loaded Language: The choice of words matters. Politicians might use loaded language to evoke strong emotions or to frame an issue in a particular way that aligns with their agenda.

Adaptation to Audience:

Tailoring Messages: Politicians often tailor their language to different audiences. The way they speak to a group of business leaders may differ from how they address a community gathering. This adaptability helps them connect with diverse constituencies.

Sound Bites and Media Interaction:

Media-Friendly Phrases: Politicians understand the importance of concise and media-friendly sound bites. They craft messages that can easily be quoted and shared in news coverage, ensuring that their perspectives are highlighted.

Understanding the way politicians use language can empower individuals to critically evaluate political discourse and understand the underlying messages being conveyed. It’s essential for the electorate of any country to be aware of how language is used to shape political narratives and to engage in informed and thoughtful analysis. Whether politicians should be expressing themselves in such a fashion is another matter altogether. It can be argued that the public has been tolerant for too long of what is essentially an oblique means of communication. In the UK, in recent years there has been a robust campaign to ensure that all government literature and websites are written in clear, plain English. It has proven very effective. Perhaps it is time for a similar lobby to be made regarding the manner in which politicians express themselves, seeking for a more clear and precise style.

Sniper Elite 5: The Trap

View fullsize

“Invasion” is a unique gameplay mode featured in the Sniper Elite 5 single player campaign. It allows another player to enter your game as a German Sniper Jäger. While you are busy playing through the campaign mission, dealing with the various objectives and enemy NPCs, the Sniper Jäger tries to hunt you down. Once another player “invades” your game, you can no longer load a previously saved game. You either turn the tables on the enemy Sniper Jäger and kill them, complete your mission which ends the game, or they kill you. Both teams can use invasion phones to learn about the other players’ locations. The phones are located at various key points on the map. However, using them to find the enemy will also tip them off to your whereabouts. The invading Sniper Jäger has a different set of skills to the main player. They do not have the focus ability which shows hidden enemies as silhouettes. However, the Sniper Jäger can tag other German NPCs and use them as an alarm system.

Invasion mode is a purely optional game mechanic that can be toggled on or off. However, leaving it offers a completely new dynamic to Sniper Elite 5 and this asymmetrical form of PVP can be extremely tense and enjoyable. An onscreen message clearly alerts a player to an enemy invasion and it is then up to them as to how they address the situation. I always make a conscious decision to cease progress with the mission and to find a defensive location. The enemy Sniper Jäger can often determine where you are on the map without using the invasion phones. This can be done by checking what objectives have been completed (e.g. has a specific target been killed or destroyed) as well as whether any NPCs are dead or on alert. Often simply using the binoculars or listening for gun fire will prove useful. Too many players make the mistake of not addressing an invasion threat and just continuing with their mission. Situational awareness is paramount.

View fullsize

There are many YouTube videos about invasion mode. All too often, the invaders are successful mainly because the player they’re hunting is too focused upon proceeding through their campaign and not using their full range of skills. As mentioned previously, the Allied player has a skill called focus which quietens ambient noise and allows them to perceive enemies close by. These appear as silhouettes if there is an object blocking them from direct line of sight. This skill, if used properly, means that it is very difficult for an enemy Sniper Jäger to sneak up on you. Hence an Allied player in a strong defensive position can see any approaching Sniper Jäger and shoot them through a door or the floor. The Sniper Jäger does not have a comparable skill. There are also restrictions on their loadouts which limits how much explosives they can carry and prohibits them from armour piercing ammunition. However, they can place German NPCs on alert and they will aid the Sniper Jäger if a firefight begins.

After watching numerous videos where the invading Sniper Jäger was victorious, I decided to devise a strategy that would potentially wrongfoot anyone invading my game. The idea was to create an environment which favoured my defensive gameplay and to booby trap all the locations that an invading Sniper Jäger would go to for intelligence. So I chose mission 6, Libération, which has three French villages located at the South, West and North of the map. I systematically cleared out all NPCs but purposely left three objectives incomplete, inferring that I’m moving towards the North of the map to complete the mission. I placed decoys at several vantage points, to draw enemy fire and thus give away their position. I also booby trapped key invasion phones and buildings, as well as setting numerous non-lethal schu mines along key routes. These will not kill an enemy but will tag them, making them visible on the game map.

View fullsize

Having set my trap I have saved the game multiple times at different locations. I then load a save of my choice, turn on invasion mode and wait for an enemy player to arrive. The results have been most interesting. Less experienced players will often spawn and immediately go to specific locations expecting me there. The radio room in the Southern village, the Grande Maison to the South West or to the army camp at the Eastern bridge. More often than not, these players walk right into a booby trap. A single mine is insufficient for a kill but if you leave a block of TNT in the vicinity, the chain reaction is lethal. The experienced player is more cautious and will either hunt using cover continuously, or instead sit tight and wait for me to come to them. Sometimes it’s a waiting game to see who gets bored first. It is here that focus and armour piercing rounds certainly give the Allied player an advantage.

View fullsize

Some popular YouTubers don’t like players adopting a more defensive approach to invasion mode. Some will make spurious moral judgements about it not being in the “spirit of the game”. Others object because it makes them look bad when the tables are turned against them. Hence, you seldom see a video in which the content creator dies. I take the attitude that if you have the hubris to invade another player’s game then you don’t get to choose the rules of engagement. So far I have over sixty kills against invading Sniper Jägers. Half of those have been by using my “trap” method. I may in the next few days, pick a different mission and devise a new means to funnel invading Sniper Jägers into a suitable bottleneck. All of which keeps Sniper Elite 5 interesting while we await the sixth instalment of the game in spring 2025.

Day of the Dead (2008)

View fullsize

George A. Romero's Day Of The Dead (1985) is a bleak and remorseless masterpiece. The final entry in his “Dead Trilogy”, its central theme is that in a world on the brink of destruction, man is still the biggest threat to his own existence. It is well scripted, clinically accurate in its observations on human nature and thought provoking, despite having its budget cut just weeks before production commenced. 40 years later it is revered as a genre milestone and is considered one of Romero’s finest works. Sadly, the 2008 “remake” directed by Steve Miner, who has a background in slasher and exploitation movies, takes a contrasting approach, to say the least. It certainly has very little to do with Romero’s film and one can’t help but assume that it is nothing more than a cynical cash in. Setting aside comparisons with the original, this is not in any way a standout zombie film in its own right.

A group of soldiers led by Captain Rhodes (Ving Rhames) seal off a remote town in Colorado, due to an alleged viral outbreak. Corporal Sarah Cross-Bowman (Mena Suvari) soon suspects that matters are much worse when the infected’s symptoms change from coughing and nosebleeds, to necrosis and a penchant for cannibalism. Has Doctor Logan (Matt Rippy) from the CDC, been sent to help or is he part of a covert project that has gone awry? Cue mayhem, death, bad acting and teenagers in peril. Absolutely no cliche is left unturned from “let's split up” to the ubiquitous wisecracking, African American comic relief. There are ludicrous levels of pseudoscience even by this genre’s standards and the curious addition of zombies climbing around walls and ceilings like Spider-Man, which just doesn’t work. 

View fullsize

Filmed mainly in Sofia, Bulgaria Day Of The Dead has a somewhat low budget feel. Cinematographer Patrick Cady does his best to create an atmosphere and cover the modest nature of the production. Yet rather than innovate, the film takes an “everything bar the kitchen sink” approach. Every possible trope from the genre is included and then poorly executed. The make up effects and prosthetics are adequate but the film lacks any standout set pieces. The digital fiery denouement is over far too quickly due to budgetary restrictions, making the ending lacklustre. Perhaps the biggest mistake that Day Of The Dead makes is when Private Bud Crain (Stark Sands) is bitten and becomes a zombie. He eschews his undead nature because he was a vegetarian when alive. Perhaps writer Jeffrey Reddick thought he was making a clever point but regardless of the intent it simply comes off as risible.

View fullsize

Steve Miner has been involved with some interesting films over the years. I enjoyed his homage to creature features, Lake Placid and the gothic Warlock. Two Friday 13th sequels loom large in his body of work. But this is far from his finest hour. Zack Snyder's 2004 remake of Dawn Of The Dead may not be to everyone’s tastes but it cannot be accused of being a shallow, teen oriented exploitation piece. This film most definitely can be. It would appear that the distributors got wind of its shortcomings and so it bypassed cinemas and was released direct to video. If you’re looking for a clever reimagining of a seminal film, offering new perspectives on the zombie genre, then you won’t find it here. If you wish to waste 90 minutes of your time watching an uninspired, generic horror vehicle that seeks to capitalise on the kudos associated with the original, then this remake will meet those requirements.

Restaurants

View fullsize

I really like dining out. I always have. As a child it was considered an adventure, mainly due to its rarity. As an adult I enjoy dining out as an excellent social activity and way to get to know people. It is also a means to discover new types of cuisine and experience meals that you haven’t tried before. I am happy to dine indoors in an atmospheric restaurant or outside if the weather and surroundings justify it. I prefer to sit away from larger tables as they tend to be noisier, and have a leisurely conversation with those I’m dining with. You can catch up with news and gossip or set the world’s wrongs to right. Music can add to the ambience, especially if it is culturally appropriate. Occasionally it can be intrusive but again, if you choose your table wisely, it can be avoided in such circumstances. For me, dining out is more than a practical necessity but a desirable social activity. However, I have friends who take exactly the opposite view. 

In the UK, there was a growth in restaurants during the early 1930s to accommodate a growing need by the middle classes. Dining out became more popular after WWII during the 1950s. A greater variety of cuisines became available over time, both from Europe and the UK Commonwealth. As mentioned earlier, dining out at either a humble cafe or restaurant was a rarity in my youth during the seventies. This was mainly due to the prevailing economic climate at the time and the fact that inflation was high. By the time I started my working life during the early nineties, it had become far more commonplace. Many pubs began modernising for a more “family friendly” clientele and providing food. Also by this time, there was a greater variety of restaurants and fast food outlets available, catering for all tastes and budgets. Hence today, dining out is an everyday event. My grandchildren consider it a normal activity and something that happens about once a week.

View fullsize

I like a broad spectrum of restaurants. I’ll happily go to McDonalds or a Wetherspoons pub for breakfast or a quick, convenient and cheap meal. Similarly, I have no prejudice when it comes to local cafes or other fast food outlets. They all serve a useful purpose. I also like to visit restaurants at the other end of the spectrum. Especially when entertaining friends. About twenty years ago, I was working for a financial and economic research company in central London and they would often wine and dine their respective clients. I was often invited along to answer any technology based questions (which never came up). As a result I went to two of the city’s most upmarket restaurants. The Coq d'Argent at Poultry and the OXO Tower at Blackfriars. Both were memorable experiences as these were very formal establishments with outstanding cuisine. 

Over the years Mrs P and I have had several favourite restaurants. Places where we have enjoyed not only the food but the ambience. We used to visit a modest, family run Italian restaurant in Cranbourne Street, London and would often book a table after we had seen a show or some such outing. Sadly, the pandemic put pay to this friendly and pleasant establishment. Fortunately, a new Italian restaurant opened locally quite recently. It has proved to be exceptional and is a fine example of a multigenerational family business. The food is simple but exceedingly well made and the atmosphere is cheery and welcoming. Similarly we have discovered a nearby Indian restaurant that does an outstanding Sunday buffet. It is part of a small local chain with three branches in the area. The food is by far the best of its kind I’ve ever had. 

View fullsize

The hospitality industry is a competitive one and sadly many businesses don’t survive. Chain outlets often dominate, squeezing out independent vendors. There is also a great deal of snobbery associated with dining out. I was in South Kensington recently and passed what was effectively a cafe. It offered a standard breakfast but due to its location in fashionable West London, saw fit to charge triple the price. It is also worth noting that not everyone enjoys dining out. Some people are not comfortable dining in public or with social meals. I know someone who “doesn’t see the point of restaurants” and just prefers to dine at home. For some the expense is still an issue. It all comes down to what you’re used to and what you prefer to do. For me, dining out is a major part of my social activities and a source of great pleasure.

Brompton Cemetery

View fullsize

Today I went on an impromptu visit to Brompton Cemetery in West London. Established in 1837, the West of London and Westminster Cemetery (as it was originally known) is a private cemetery initially created as a business venture to capitalise upon the shortage of cemeteries within London. It also sought to cater to the prevailing culture of opulent Victorian funeral rites. However, after proving non profitable, the cemetery was bought by the UK government. It was subsequently incorporated into Crown Property and managed by The Royal Parks. It is one of Britain’s oldest and most distinguished garden cemeteries. There are currently 35,000 monuments, ranging from simple headstones to impressive mausolea. It is home to more than 205,000 resting places. The cemetery is also a haven for flora and fauna, providing a substantial semi rural environment amid urban central London.

There are regular open day events and tours around Brompton Cemetery. These are often themed around such things as famous military personnel, noble interments and historical figures. We had hoped to visit the catacombs which are substantial but all the day’s tours were sold out. Fortunately, we were able to get tickets for a general, hour-long tour around the cemetery which features a selection of the most notable graves. These included the following:

• Emmeline Pankhurst: Leading suffragette.

• Joseph Bonomi the Younger: Sculptor, artist, Egyptologist and museum curator.

• John Snow: Anaesthetist and epidemiologist.

• Chief Long Wolf:  Oglala Sioux and veteran of the Battle of Little Bighorn.

• Hannah Courtoy: An enigmatic figure whose opulent Egyptian style tomb is surrounded in mystery.

View fullsize

At first glance, it is somewhat incongruous to find such a decadent and substantive Victorian garden cemetery in the middle of central London, right next to Chelsea FC’s home grounds, Stamford Bridge. However, the cemetery is a relic from an age when death and funeral rites were far more complex and a significant aspect of the prevailing culture. Furthermore, expensive tombs were a form of conspicuous consumption and visiting cemeteries and admiring the architecture was considered morally uplifting and a broadening of one’s intellectual and cultural horizons. Nearly two hundred years later, Brompton cemetery now serves not only as a place of historical interest but also as a notable home for urban wildlife. As well as squirrels and crows, there are Kestrels and ring-necked parakeets. Throughout the year, there are such flowers as snow-drops, bluebells, wild lupin, foxgloves, broad-leaf pea, ferns and horsetail. This is a perfect environment for butterflies and other insects. 

We started our tour at 3:00 PM on what was an unusually hot Sunday afternoon. It was 30 °C but fortunately there are quite a lot of trees to provide shade. The cemetery is laid out like a church with 4 central avenues forming a cross. Our guide took us round at a measured pace, spoke confidently and was happy to address any questions that arose. Sadly some of the graves are in a state of disrepair as the cemetery is not as well funded as it could be. The UK National Lottery has provided grants in the past for the upkeep of the grounds, particularly the chapel at the centre of the four avenues. Brompton Cemetery is a dog friendly environment with numerous taps and drinking bowls available. Overall, it was a most enjoyable afternoon out and I thoroughly recommend it, whether you’re just looking for a stroll or wish to immerse yourself in history and architecture.

Panoramic picture curtesy of Paul King.

Thoughts on Blaugust 2024

View fullsize

Binky thinks you should blog about fish

Approximately 110 bloggers signed up to the Blaugust: Festival of Blogging this year. 60 of those were new to the event. They were either just starting out on their blogging adventures or trying to revitalise their existing activities. I fell into the latter group as I decided to use this yearly activity as a means to return to writing regularly, after a nine month absence. 31 days later I think the event has been a learning process and a voyage of self discovery for a lot of people, myself included. No matter how well you extol the virtues and merits of writing online, you cannot get away from the fundamental facts that it requires a commitment to write and that it will eat into your leisure time. Many people have a genuine urge to write but just get hamstrung by the finite nature of their free time. That is not a personal failure. It is just the nature of modern life. Therefore, if you just managed to get one post published over the last month, then well done. It’s 100% better than none.

Blaugust is a good teacher. You will encounter technical skills such as time management, writing ahead of schedule and banking ideas. You can also discover what your blogging voice is and whether you will be writing short streams of consciousness, lengthy reviews, musing on specific subjects or long form reviews. You may decide to do none of these and find a different niche altogether. Blaugust has a knack of galvanising bloggers into action and experimenting with how, when and where they write. What platform you use to write and whether you want a domain are also decisions that may come up. Which of course is the point of the entire event. It’s not just about the technicalities of writing but wider issues as well. Sadly, not all of the lessons are happy ones. Some people discover that they cannot sustain the writing schedule they were hoping for, or realise that blogging isn’t actually for them. 

View fullsize

Barnaby is shit posting about sport

However you’ve personally fared with Blaugust the community based around its Discord server is still available throughout the year. Many people find it both supportive and filled with useful resources. I certainly think having people posting links to their content and sharing thoughts on each other’s work is a major factor in maintaining a sense of motivation and engagement. Ultimately, that is the key to blogging. Once you’ve determined what you want to write about, how you’re going to do it and when you can fit it into your routine then the final piece of the puzzle is to sit down and write. Many people who have successfully written throughout Blaugust will now be faced with two possible courses of action. To continue in a way that suits them or to slowly reduce their output until they stop. That is not a judgement but a simple statement of fact. The dropoff rate after any writing event is a reality. It’s up to you how you address it.

I hope that a lot of the people who have completed Blaugust choose to continue. Each year I discover new blogs to follow and 2024 has been no different. I find it reassuring that people are still thinking and expressing themselves online. Furthermore, I hope you have enjoyed this month’s event as much as I have. Setting aside the practical lessons that Blaugust has to offer, I hope you have had fun. Informal writing such as blogging should be fun. As for me, I shall endeavour to continue writing on a regular basis. I am happy to do so at present and judging by my drafts folder, I have a lot of ideas for future posts. However, if you feel that your blogging journey is at an end or needs to take an extended break, there’s always next year. You can always take part again. In the meantime, don’t be a stranger. You know where to find us and everyone is welcome. Even Colin.

More DIY

I fitted a new toilet seat today because the old one was broken. To be pedantic, it was the lid over the seat that was actually broken. It would appear they don’t support the weight of a 56 year old man who is reaching for a rubber ducky. However, the complexities of the circumstances leading to the lid breaking are ultimately irrelevant. The problem needed to be addressed as there were dangerous sharp edges. Therefore, to make things easier, I ordered the exact same make and model of toilet seat that I had previously bought in April 2021. Upon subsequent reflection, I do wonder how often the average person changes their toilet seat? Is three years considered a high turnover by the toilet seat statistical community? Who knows? But I digress. The new seat arrived today and in a fit of hubris I thought I’d quickly install it in the morning after showering. I reckoned it would only take half an hour or so. How foolish of me.

Now the reason I wanted the same model as before is because it has a quick release mechanism for taking off the seat. Therefore I was hoping I could simply swap out the broken seat with the new one and not have to mess about installing any fittings. The new seat could just click onto the existing posts. So I unpacked the replacement seat, lined up the holes on the hinge with the posts and lowered it down expecting it to conveniently click into place. Except that it didn’t. The existing posts were too thick. Hence I had to get on my hands and knees and reach under the toilet bowl and unscrew the current fittings. Now you may or may not know this but getting on the floor and into confined spaces is a bitch when you’re 56.  The problem was further compounded as the existing wingnuts were done up “finger tight” by my son, so they were disinclined to yield.

View fullsize

I find that most problems are easier to solve after lunch, so I took an extended break and had a midday meal along with a couple of pints of beer for medicinal reasons, at a local cafe. Feeling suitably fortified I returned to the job in hand and decided rather than try and unscrew the wingnuts, I’d rotate the posts using an adjustable spanner. This strategy worked and the fittings became loose. I was then able to unscrew the wingnuts and remove the posts. After another beer (I was thirsty by this point), I then installed the new fittings that came with the replacement toilet seat. The posts lined up with the holes in the hinge and this time round the seat clicked securely into place. I stepped back to admire my handy work and basked in the glory of my victory accordingly. I assume this is how Marcus Agrippa felt after the Battle of Actium or all those Amish people after they built that barn in the film Witness.

View fullsize

There was a time when working with your hands was part of most people’s daily life. Furthermore, being a skilled craftsman was venerated by one’s peers and the wider community. Sadly, the days of many of us having practical skills are long gone. We live in a world where we don’t fully understand how everything in our homes actually works and certainly don’t have the necessary skills to fix things. In fact our lifestyle has become so disposable that it often doesn’t even cross our minds whether something can be repaired. Too often we seek to replace by default. My clumsy struggle to fit a toilet seat is in some respects quite shameful. I may have technical skills but they can’t put up shelves or install a shower. My father, who was a practical man, would have rolled his eyes at my incompetence. But this is the world we live in and I am not alone in my lack of DIY skills.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season 2

View fullsize

Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.

As I have only watched the first three episodes of Season 2, this is not a review. It is simply some initial thoughts. My opinion may change when I have seen all eight episodes. So far, relocation of the production from New Zealand to the UK does not appear to have had a detrimental impact on the show’s aesthetics or high quality. Weta FX and Industrial Light and Magic still continue to produce the lionshare of visual effects. Long term Tolkien illustrator John Howe, remains the main conceptual artist and although there has been changes in staff relating to costume and production design, there still appears to be a sense of visual continuity between this show and Peter Jackson’s feature films. Bear McCreary has also been retained to provide the score and has again provided some outstanding new themes. I was pleasantly surprised to see cast member Benjamin Walker singing “Golden Leaves” in Sindarin. Song is such an integral part of Tolkien’s work.

View fullsize

Narratively, Season 2 quickly resumes where the previous ended. Here are a few of the ongoing plot points. In an extended flashback we see why the transition of power from Morgoth to Sauron did not go well. We also get to see Sauron in an earlier physical guise played by Jack Lowden. The “meteor man” has reached Rhûn with Nori the Harfoot and it would appear that they are being tracked by the minions of a “Dark Wizard”. The unnamed sorcerer refers to the “meteor man” as an Istar, a Quenya term for “wise”. The Wizards of the Third Age were known as the Istari; “wise ones”. In Khazad-dûm, seismic activity caused by the eruption of Mount Doom leads to the collapse of many of the city’s light wells, disrupting the Dwarves’ means of food production. In Eregion, Sauron takes the guise of Annatar, Lord of Gifts and tricks Celebrimbor into making further rings of power. 

So far it seems that show runners, J. D. Payne and Patrick McKay, are working more within the parameters of Tolkien’s legendarium than previously. This may be due to the story moving forward into more closely defined “history”. The addition of further canonical characters such as Narvi (Kevin Eldon) and Círdan (Ben Foster) certainly makes the proceedings feel more “Tolkienesque”. Adar, the Dark Elf chieftain of the Orcs, is played by a different actor to season one but due to the prosthetic makeup, it doesn’t make any significant difference. I am extremely curious to see Rory Kinnear as Tom Bombadil and I saw via the IMDb that Jim Broadbent is providing a voice for what may be an Ent. I find the presence of so many established UK actors reassuring. Also the fact that the show uses Hammer’s old studios at Bray, in Berkshire.

View fullsize

Season 2 of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power has gotten off to a good start. With five more episodes to go, it can still cover a lot of ground. At present it is the non canonical material that holds my interest the most. The introduction of a “Dark Wizard” in Rhûn is not an implausible plot element. The Blue Wizards travelled to that region and were ultimately lost. Saruman himself dwelt there at one point. And then there is the Dark Elf Adar, allegedly one of the first to be corrupted by Morgoth. In another bold choice, there is a brief appearance in episode three of a female Orc holding an Orc baby. Rather than being perturbed by the creative choices of the showrunners, I find them a source of fascination. If I want pure Tolkien, then there are the source texts and audio productions to enjoy. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is ultimately just one of many interpretations of Middle-earth. I suspect in the years to come there will be more. Not all will be to everyone’s tastes. However, if they introduce people to the original texts then that is no bad thing.