Wednesday 11 December 2013

Christmas 2013: Songs and the Like....

Welcome back to the Randomizer.

It's December! It's Christmas time!



The time of snow (HA!), presents, good food and drink, spending time with family, and Doctor Who (obviously). There's no denying that Christmas can be a great time for many people, when good old Santa Claus (Father Christmas or Saint Nick or your parents etc) comes down the chimney, eats the mince pie, drinks the milk/sherry/Koppaberg, leaves the presents in your pillow case and buggers off to the next house. It has also become a time for commercialism, with Coca-Cola taking centre stage, Amazon being clogged up with orders, and most definitely, the subsequent war of the UK Christmas No. 1. I know it. You know it. Everybody in the United Kingdom knows it. This article is about that particular subject, as well as Christmas songs in general.

If I was to ask you: name a Christmas song? What would you say? Maybe it's the ever popular rock track with lots and lots of Andrex puppies, 'Merry Xmas Everybody' by Slade? Perhaps it's the haunting angelic voice of Peter Auty (Not Aled Jones :O) in the Snowman's theme song 'Walking in the Air? Or the gratoriously swearing bastards known as the Pogues and Kirsty MaColl talking about bums, punks and sluts in 'Fairytale in New York' (Imagine that, a fairytale with swearing, punks and sluts in it? That would be like the Game of Thrones of Christmas!). Or finally it's talking about the racism in America, screaming "Mother Fucker", and not doing what you tell me from that ever family-friendly band Rage Against the Machine and their surprising Xmas No. 1, "Killing in the Name".

We are part-time elves to Santa!

These are the songs that could be considered to be truly timeless. They are played every year in December, we sing them every year when we're in the mood, and they can just fill us up with joy and dancing around the Christmas tree (granted Rage against the Machine doesn't probably do that, but hey what can you do?). I don't personally, I just sit like a child eagerly waiting for the next present to unwrap. Duh!

So why do an article like this? Well recently I was listening to one of my favourite new digital radio stations Team Rock Radio (full of Christmas joy, involving I believe a Yorkshire Yeti called Dewsbury), that there is a campaign underway to get AC/DC's 'Highway to Hell' to the most covert Number One spot, because they never had a Top 10 single ever in the UK.  I myself have joined said campaign because I like the song and think it will be better than anything else this year. Then I thought: What is it about Christmas Number One that is so popular? And are there are bad songs? To go even further, why are these songs so timeless to be played every year without fail?

As you can tell, this has been something that has bugged me for a little while. Perhaps you would like to join me in being bugged and a glass of mulled cider to find some answers to some of the questions I have posed for tonight. Are you ready? Let's get down to it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question Present No 1: What is it about the Christmas No. 1 that's so popular nowadays?

Like the Coca-Cola ads that have been around for eternity, The Christmas No 1 in the UK has become part of our lives for over half a century. It has been reached by the most unlikely of people, the most likely of people, and even Mr Blobby. Remember him? Noel Edmunds's big huggable pink teddy bear? Don't worry if you forgot he existed. Maybe a lot of people did the same thing I think. But I digress.
Perhaps part of the reason why it's popular is the competitive nature surrounding it every year now.

And this show hasn't really helped with that has it? Power Rangers song producer Simon Cowell created the show in 2004 and since then it has divided people into LOVE/HATE groups. But more obviously ever since 2005, those X-Factor winners have found themselves in the running of the top spot for the Christmas Number One ever since. Names like Leona Lewis, Leon Jackson, Shayne Ward have reached the top spot in the space of a few weeks after they had won said competition. How many of those do you really remember, and do you really care? This is something I will come later. In a weird way to call it such a competition, it probably wasn't. Those singers dominated for four years straight, leaving other songs in their wake.

All thanks to me


Like many others, I was getting a little fed up about the X-Factor dominating the scene at the time. So the true competition came when Joe McElderry......................nope me neither, came up against the social media campaign cohorts of Jon and Tracey Morter, as they made their intentions clear of placing Rage Against the Machine's "Killing In the Name" onto the top spot. It was one of many times that I was on tenterhooks for the actual winner, and being overjoyed that Rage had won! A heavy metal band had come on top over manufactured unmemorable garbage. I remember going round to my grandparents house with excitement of who had won, and even introduced my granddad to a piece of heavy metal history. I don't think he really cared much, but he was in the room. That counts enough!

Move on forward to four years later to now, and look at the number of people who are in the running. X-Factor winner in waiting and AC/DC are seemingly on the up against each other. But in addition to those two we have: The Big Reunion doing a cover of Wizzard's popular "I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday", consisting of pop's biggest stars from the 90s and 00s , Susan Boyle and Elvis (yes, Elvis) duetting together for a cover of "O Come all Ye Faithful", and a nice rendition by Fynnjan Leach-Verhoeven called 'The Spirit of Christmas'.

On the outset, it does look as if it will be so ridiculously competitive this year. But I don't know, we'll have to wait until the actual time comes to do so. If I was to make a prediction, AC/DC might not come out on top. Yes, it's a good song and I like it, but on the Facebook group page it has over 150,000 people liking it at the minute. That might not be enough to come out on top, especially against the X-Factor. It might be better hearing what other songs will be played before passing Judgement.

In a way, we should thank Jon and Tracey Morter for how competitive the Christmas Number One fight has become. If it wasn't for them with their choice of Rage against the Machine, we probably wouldn't have had the Military Wives Choir in 2011 or The Justice Collective in 2012 as Christmas Number Ones. That's not to say that they might not have won because of the issues raised in their respective times, but because perhaps the X-Factor has become so ingrained in our heads and released at a time where people will buy up, it might have been inevitable for the show to continue being dominating.

I should take back one sentence though. It should be how the Christmas Number One fight has become AGAIN. Apparently over 40 years ago, Slade had decided to take an opportunity and re-write an abandoned song into the classic 'Merry Xmas Everybody" in time for the Christmas Holidays, bringing a break-out of bands to attempt a shot at getting to Christmas Number One. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find some information about some of the other songs that have attempted to come out on top.

Perhaps that is what makes the Christmas Number One so popular. Everyone that wants to do it besides those that can have the opportunity on a plate (looking at you, Cowell), has a chance to make a little bit of history. Having a song that is considered THAT great by fans of whoever helps a lot to push it up, but with the Internet helping to spread the word, it is only a matter of time before everyone starts beating the hell out of each other to clinch the spot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question Present Number 2: Are there any bad Christmas songs?

Let's come back quickly to a question I asked earlier on: Do you really remember what those X-Factor Christmas songs sounded like? No? Good, move on!

Now in addition to Slade being quite the timeless Christmas classic, there are a few more songs that everybody vividly remembers. As I mentioned, there's the sweary antics of The Pogues and Kirsty MaColl, Flying snowmen in the sky, Wizzard wanting it to be Christmas every year etc (which might make some people happy (Hi Mibs), but not everybody (Hi Tasha)). Some of you may know this already, but these songs NEVER reached Number One in their respective years. Wizzard might have made the spot if it wasn't for Slade coming in and stealing the thunder. Whoops.

Other timeless songs include the first "Do They Know It's Christmas Time At Home?" by Sir Bob Geldof (JUST the first one. I saw the 2004 version, but that was a little bit more depressing then it needed to be), Shakin Steven's shaking song "Merry Christmas Everyone", Paul McCartney's festive fun "Wonderful Christmas Time", Mike Oldfield's assortment of instrumentalist treats turned into "In Dulci Jublio", and Wham!'s own little holiday delight or little holiday depression, "Last Christmas". I'm not going through all of them, there's so many to pick out, one after the other.

However that is the word: timeless. I say that because most of the songs I've listed above are generally well-liked. There are some songs that are not that fondly remembered as we would like to think. Some of which have never even come over to the UK because they're so bad.

Let's do a quick comparison, an easy one so to speak. Band Aid vs Band Aid 20 (Band Aid II is not included because I hardly ever listened to it).

 


When my brother Huw brought the single, I did what any loving brother would do: Nick it and listen to myself. To be honest at the time of hearing Band Aid 20 over nine years ago, I didn't like it very much. Thought it paled in comparison to the original and sounded more depressing. I know that was probably meant to be the intention of the song so my brother said to me. But I had the feeling that it was depressing just for the sake of depressing its audience.

Hearing both now just recently, I really still feel the same, but different. Hearing Band Aid 20, it's not as bad as I remember it. It has some nice bits to it like the piano at the beginning, and some good singing to start with. But then it just went slowly, very slowly, downhill. That rap from Dizzie Rascal wasn't bad as I used to think, but I don't know if it's necessarily needed at all, making the song feel disjointed, along with that instrumental bit at the end.

The original just trumps it through and through. Despite the depressing subject matter, it's still has a sense of happiness about it, giving some hope for a world that is pretty much still suffering. Unlike its successor that gets worse, this song just gets better as you hear it. It has a level of consistency that builds and builds until it gets to the crescendo of euphoria with "Feed the World, Let them know it's Christmas Time again". That's pretty much what it is, a euphoric song. Something that was completely lacking in the new version.

(Quick tangent before we move in, You know the line Bono of U2 says "Well tonight, thank god it's them instead of you"?. Yeah it is a bit of an awkward line and understandable to see why, but it was probably meant that if we were in the same position as them, we would be suffering too, and perhaps it is a bit of sarcasm thrown in too. I don't think Bob Geldof meant to offend anyone with what he meant, but perhaps more careful procision needed when writing lyrics. That said, it's still a good song).

So that's an easy example. Let me tell you about a few Christmas songs that are considered to be the worse ever produced by mankind.

One of the more famous/infamous songs is 'The Christmas Shoes'. Nope, nothing like your thinking of at the minute.

Very sparkly indeed


The song is about a kid who wants to buy shoes for his mom, whose dying from some illness and he wants to her to look pretty for Jesus when she dies. Unfortunately he does not have enough money, but someone steps in to help him out, and he takes the shoes home with him. That someone actually gets a clue about what Christmas is all about, just from this one kid.

I wanted my ear-drums to go when making myself listen to this song. I know what it was trying to do with the message, but it is stupid and perhaps a little bit painful to get through. The lyrics are completely forgettable, even as I'm writing this. It just tries to raise feelings of sorrow and sadness, when it does confuse one really. Jesus isn't going to care about the shoes, he will care more about what kind of person she is.

Your shiny pumps do not matter my child. Heaven is free for anyone to enter........
......oh wait, you're name is Bieber......yeaaaaaa you should go to Hell. Plenty of stupid people
there to meet you.


The music itself is really shit, and might be seen as a bit manipulative as well because it's trying to make you connect and feel sad in conjunction with the lyrics. But it's so bad you just don't care. I don't really care for it much after hearing it one and a half times. No amount of instruments it has in its retinue is going to be of interest and......just urgh! I think it's fair to say it is an atrocious piece of work.

Another song that is considered to be bad is one of the songs I've mentioned: Paul McCartney's Wonderful Christmas Time.

Although it gets considerable airplay on music video channels, it is badly received by a number of critics, slighted for its repetitive rhythm, the keyboard and the vocals. I agree to a point. Hearing the keyboard bits in my head, they are quite bad and repetitive.

BUT personally, I like it. I never thought of it as a horrible song at all. In fact, I find it quite addictive after a few listens. It's repetitiveness doesn't bother me in the slightest, the vocals don't bother me, I just like the damn song. Maybe being a former Beatle helped in that part too to make it a good song. At least in my eyes.
Yeah, there can be some quite bad Christmas songs out there if not done right, or....just downright bad. 'The Christmas Shoes' is just the start to learning about how low the songs can go. If you want a few more examples, let it be on your own head foolish mortals.

'Please Daddy, Don't Get Drunk This Christmas' by John Denver. This song is a little bit weird when you read the lyrics. It's a hell of a lot more repetitive then Paul McCartney's song, and more simple. It doesn't add anything or better yet do anything, making it a little bit boring. The music itself is ok and a little bit catchy, but I got the feeling it was in like a Western saloon bar, with the acoustic guitar bits. Despite that, it's not that good in my eyes. Just silly and probably needs to be glossed over.

'Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer'.  Right now, your either thinking "......what the hell", or "Oh yeah, that song". It's basically like it says on the tin, Grandma gets drunk on eggnog, goes out and gets run over, dies, and everyone gets depressed, the narrator warning that "they should never give a licence, to a man who drives a sleigh and plays with elves". This is a bizarre song through and through. I find the word . Plus the music is....meh. It's not that special or anything, just....meh.



Those two songs pretty much add to how bad Christmas songs can be (though in the case of the latter, it might've been more for comedic purposes. Which I didn't laugh at). They do have the odd connection involving drinking as a bad consequence that lead to ruining Christmas for the whole family. We don't have that problem over here. We just have X-Factor.

So yes, what else can I say? There are bad Christmas songs that are thankfully not outweighing the good ones. Sometimes it's your own opinion on what your favourite song is.......actually this is a pretty bad conclusion. Sorry for that. You know where I'm going with this.

Perhaps with the good songs, we should at a final question......

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question Present Number 3: What makes some songs so timeless?

Boy is that a million pound question. It could be possible that because they can be Christmassy themed or released around the time in November/December, they need to be played at Christmas all around. That would make sense in the case of a good few of them. Perhaps we should take a look at how the content of Christmas songs have changed over the years.

Thinking about it in my opinion, has there really been many memorable Christmas songs nowadays as there have been in the past?

Let's....urgh, come back to X-Factor a minute. Again. God, we keep coming back to this. Why? : (. 

The Devil's Brood


Anyway, a lot of their songs are cover versions, with Shayne Ward being the exception. But as I've said they're not very memorable and make you wonder if anyone really cares about the songs as much as they do about the show itself. Actually people wonder about that anyway. Sorry.

The charity songs as well past these couple of years with the Military Wives Choir and The Justice Collective remains to be seen if they will be remembered at all even if they reached Number one, despite the work they have done and money they have made proceeded to charity. I'm not sure if they will to be honest. Then again, they are charities so to be very fair, reaching the top spot or being remotely remembered as Christmas songs is an afterthought, compared to what they do for each their respective communities. They have their moment to look back on and think "We did fucking awesome to have done as much as we could to help those who needed a voice".

Looking at the songs we are perfectly used to listening to like Slade, Wizzard and Chris de Burgh's "A Spaceman Came Travelling", not only are they original compositions (Cowell!), but they are all in some way or other connected to Christmas elements. Slade and Wizzard focus more on the fun side with playing out in the snow, hanging up the stocking on the wall, reindeers who have a red nose because they have a cold etc. "A Spaceman Came Travelling" however doesn't focus on that, but instead giving a sci-fi twist on the Nativity Story, about a man who came a star-built space craft. Erm.......was he watching Doctor Who at the time?

I got the chameleon circuit fixed again!


Actually there is a song that isn't technically about Christmas, yet could be considered to be memorable. Frankie Goes to Hollywood's "The Power of Love". No point in saying what it's about. But since it was released in November, a music video......actually scrap that, short film, was made around the song. It focused on the nativity story, following Mary and Joesph to the desert, right up until both parents and newly born bloodied child are surrounded by shepherds and three wise men.

Now that song got away with being related to Christmas because of its release and subsequent video of Christmas iconography. But if you want a little more depth, Christmas is about love around with your family, friends, cat etc. So just maybe that connection is a little more deeper and makes that song more relatable then you think. Though imagine if they had Coca-Cola hiding in there, that would made it more deeper then anything.


We are your life!


So now we might be getting somewhere! Maybe the new songs pass over as Christmas songs because they don't have the recognisable elements that make up Christmas itself. Especially where the X-Factor is concerned, their majority of cover songs might be part of the commercialisation of Christmas. But they do not represent Christmas itself. I know some people might not really care because it's the X-Factor and everyone has a love/hate relationship, but let's be honest here really. The songs that come from the X-Factor do not matter in anyway. It is a karaoke soap opera that is pushed at Christmas because Cowell knows his stuff and it makes great promotion material for him.

It's not always about that........sometimes I get sad. That makes good TV.


Christmas in one way is the closest we have to a real fantasy at all (without dragons sadly). It's an easier enough world to conjure up with the snow, the reindeer, and the figure himself dressed in his red/white robe. Oh wait sorry that's his corporate look, thanks to Coke-Cola.........ok you know what, I'm not going to bring realism in this, because it has become such an iconic tradition. Even as we grow up, we still keep those special images in our heads about what Christmas should be like. Mibs knows that all too well, she keeps it in her all year around!

That's why these songs are so timeless, because they can bring those fantastic fantasies to our minds and bring us back to a simple time, whether it's just thinking about the story of a virgin on her way to a stable to give birth, or just a stocking on top of the fireplace..........that, and most of them are enjoyable to listen to. I could listen to those a good deal of those over and over, and not get tired of them or think they're just stupid. And I think you lot feel the same way....

We agree!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I do believe that is it! And sadly, that is it for the Randomizer this year!

Don't worry, I will be returning early on next year in January. Just at the week after next is indeed Christmas Eve, Day, Boxing Day etc etc, and I've thought about having a bit of time out to celebrate, and keep writing my book as well. Who Knows......maybe I might even treat you to a chapter as a one-off special!
Until then, this is the Randomizer signing out.

Happy Holidays to all and a Happy New Year!





Saturday 30 November 2013

Henry II: This is your life! + Day of the Doctor Mini-Special

Welcome back to the Randomizer!

This week we go back to my old favourite subject, History. The ever-twisting turning DNA structure wrapped in stone as we use a pick-axe to discover the truth history.

The year is 1154.

Two cousins King Stephen and Matilda (grandchildren to William the Conqueror) have been vying for the throne of England for the past 19 years, in a period known as the Anarchy. One of them is an Anti-christ, but I'm not telling you which one.

Matilda was supposed to have been the first Queen of England, but Stephen had nicked the crown because he liked women making his sandwiches. Matilda was not amused and decided to try and take the throne back by force. At the beginning of the 1140s, she did just that, but completely cocked it up for herself when she tried to act like a King more then a Queen. Actually, she had the idea, just probably all men in government at that time liked their sandwiches made by women. So that failed, and Matilda went sulking off back to France. Stephen got his mitts on the throne again.

But then things started to get a little complicated for him: Matilda already had been married to the unpopular Geoffrey of Anjou and given birth to a son, Henry. Henry fancied a shot at being King of England and made a few expeditions to England in the preceding time.

Stephen had a multitude of problems including that one: He was not able to enforce the law, or control the barons who either defected or warred against each other. These problems increased when his own Eustace died in 1153. So who could take over the throne after Stephen. He caved in.

A deal was made that Stephen would keep and die on the throne, on condition that he nominated Henry II as his heir. The next year, Stephen died. Henry was now officially King of England.

He also won Best Small Church Building in the model competition


SO who is Henry II to us? He is quite well-known in our world, but for a few reasons only, one of which is pretty controversial: The Murder of Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. The other reasons as famous are for being the father of the first set of warring brothers: Richard the Lionheart and John Lackland. As if there isn't any more of these today. It's all politics.

But as history likes to do, there are so many sides to every story. Henry II is a great example of this. There's no obvious denying what he did. The relationships he had with many people had come to defy his own legacy. Not just with Thomas Becket, but his own family and perhaps a few select people that came and went in his life. We should take a look at these relationships, and see how they conflicted with Henry's own ideas and how he came to be the person he is known by today's standards. Maybe then, our perception of him will change slightly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's start this overhaul with a look at one of Henry II's greatest enemies: Justin Bieber........oh wait, he's everybody's enemy. Sorry about that.

The Adonis of Evil


His first enemy (I say enemy, more rival than most) that he would contend with was the King of France at the time of his ascent, Louis VII.

Here's where things get a little complicated, going as far back as the Norman Conquest, nearly four generations ago (and quite a few Randomizer articles back). The Kingdom of England was an independent country of its own accord, but when William the Conqueror became King of England, it became part of his Norman lands as a fiefdom, which he was its lord. The lord in turn gave service to his overlord, and that overlord was the King of France. On first sight, it may seem like the French were in virtual control, but actually the Dukes of Normandy were passively independent as they became more and more powerful in intervening years.

But another French province was becoming more a threat to Louis: Anjou. Geoffrey of Anjou was always increasing his power to a good point, not just marrying Matilda, but also managed to conquer Normandy from Stephen, bringing it into his little empire. Thus the province became an objective for Louis to bring back under his fold and retain permanent control. However, things soon turned a little personal.


Louis had married in 1137, who I'll be keeping a surprise for the minute. Their marriage resulted in two daughters for them, but it was fraught with some difficulty. Especially apparently if your husband is more monk than king. Louis was a deeply religious man, creating the Second Crusade after he regretted the burning a cathedral. That had 1300 people inside. Right. His wife on the other hand was intent on living the court life and having some kind of power, and during irked her husband during their travels to the Holy Land, more so at the court of her uncle. Ultimately, the marriage was annulled and both went their separate ways.
Who was this woman? Her name was Eleanor of Aquitaine, who would become one of the most powerful women ever to live in the world when eight weeks later, she married Henry of Anjou. Oops.

N'awww shit


For Henry, that was a political coup. By successfully married a woman who had a good strip of land, it gave Henry a territory fortress surrounding the French crownlands. Also with her being the former queen of France, that must've been an embarrassing pill to swallow for Louis, making him look a complete idiot. However for all the power he had, he never went for the Kingdom of France. Maybe because his mother was part of the English royal family, it seemed the better prospect to have that throne. Besides, what kind of threat could France be in future.......right?

For the first part of his life, Henry was a bit of a clever sod, developing on his father's gains by marrying Eleanor to get the more territory and then becoming King of England with more land under his control. It made him seem one of the most powerful rulers ever in Europe and a force to be reckoned with. However, as we'll see, his future did not become as bright........and it was definitely not orange.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of his biggest enemies in his reign was the Church.

Now the idea of the church was something entirely different compared to today's standards. It was literally part of your life. Monestaries like Riveraux Abbey were commonplace up and down the country, housing monks and nuns alike to do their prayers, writing in Latin (still not a dead language until no one bothers to speak it anymore), and warning people of the dangers of going to Hell to live with Satan. People were big believers in the word of God then we are now to be fair, and the threat of damnation was strong. Excommunication from the church was one sign that your very soul would be sentenced straight down to Hell, with no chance of salvation unless forgiven by the head of the church, The Pope.

Kings and the Church have had scraps in the past. Over 80 years ago, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV was incensed by Pope Gregory VII's decision to ban kings appointing priests, bishops and other heads in the church. Only popes had this right to appoint such people, so claimed Gregory. Henry ignored the ban and called for the Pope to abdicate. In turn, Gregory excommunicated him. Amongst threats of a new election by his noblemen and fears of rebellion, Henry decided to try and be lifted of excommunication. The story is told as 'The Walk to Canossa' where Henry walked to Canossa and when refused entry, waited three days and nights in a blizzard, wearing only a hairshirt. Fuck me he must have been cold. After this feat, Gregory re-admitted him into the church. This is important because the tide is turned in terms of power. By penance, Henry had accepted the Pope's law, and in effect, given up the king's authority to be equal or greater than the Church.

As Simon Schama bluntly put it: "This wasn't an academic qibble. This was a fight to the death".

"I see your attempts to take power, and I raise you a church-tank. Fuck you. Yours, God"


When Henry became king, the office of chancellor had become available and he was suggested that one Thomas Becket should take the position, because he had a super awesome brain.

"This cross represents my brain. It's that big"


Believe it or not, the two were actually really good friends to start with. Becket took on some of the aspects of the kingdom that annoyed Henry, and Henry lavished clothes on his new found friend in probably a goodwill gesture. They had quite similar personalities too, driven to do the best job they can do in their respective offices. They seemed inseparable.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury position became available, Henry was insistent that Thomas Becket should take the job. Becket was reluctant, I think, to take the position as I've read somewhere that him taking the job would cause a rift in their friendship. Henry however showed no queasiness, and continued in his plans. Becket was first made a bishop first because he wasn't consecrated, and the next day became Archbishop. From then on, everything changed.

In Henry's mind, kingly assertion was to be re-created and bring the church back under his dominion. The major point had been made that there were a number of clergymen who were not tried in the King's Courts, but in their own church courts. Some of those clergymen had not been ordained, but still claimed the way to be tried just like their brethren. In the church courts, they would possibly attain a more lenient sentence then they would in the King's Courts, if for example they murdered, raped, and any other gruesome bit of devilry they would've done. With Becket in place, Henry believed he had a good man on his side who would change the church for the better. Except he wasn't.

"Henry, stop pointing out what I was supposed to do. This is what happens
when you put friends in high places, you fucking twit"


Becket changed himself all around. Gone were the days of pleasure and fancy clothing, now came the vestments, the food was left on the table, and a new outlook of supporting the church instead of helping capitulate it. He helped his bishops and protesting successfully against the trial of a canon who was brought before the King's Court for the murder of a knight.

Henry overtime felt angry and betrayed at his friend's new found love for the church. They had minor arguments for a while, mostly around an idea that Henry wanted to deprive those who made such crimes of protection from the church. Becket saw at face-level that those people would no longer be clerics and undermining the basis of clerical immunity, eventually resisting the idea itself.

Everything came to a major conflict at Clarendon where Henry asserted his constitution (that's what she said) and demanded they consent to the carefully worded document. Becket saw through this as blatant royal control and in a piece of own personal theatre, refused to comply with him. Henry would probably have exploded. This was the real point of thinking he was betrayed and wanted to get revenge.

After an attempt to try him on charges of embezzlement, comtempt, and eventually treason, Becket fled to France where he spent the next half of the 1160s in exile.

You can see here how this event affected Henry quite deeply. He had created reformations in the court system from William the Conqueror's day, such as unifying local customs into one overall national system, reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn to investigate criminal acts or claims, and have travelling judges around the land to enforce the law, going around in a circuit in England. This soon became known as the 'Common Law' and Henry is usually attributed as its father. By trying to curb the power of the Church and their system of courts, he was trying to make in a way an equal principle for every one of his subjects to obey and follow (even if he might not have realised), as well as bringing his justice to those avoiding the system.

On the other hand in Becket's point of view, being given the job as Archbishop of Canterbury is taken with a pinch of salt. He didn't want to see his friendship with Henry ended in hatred, but as a man driven to do the best thing for his office he must have thought he could not back down easily as everyone would have thought he would do considering he was in good graces. It was an undesirable decision by everyone apart from the King, who obviously thought friends would be best suited in high places. A very bad move politically.

They worked against each other for the next six years until finally in 1170, words ran out. Henry attempted to have his son Young Henry crowned as co-king, and Thomas excommunicated all responsible for an act that was deemed illegal. Fearing indictment, Henry agreed to finally meet Thomas at Freteval. There he agreed to give him all his processions back, in return for Thomas to return to Canterbury. According to Simon Schama, Henry had forgiven those remaining loyal to Becket. Someone in turn suggested that likewise, Thomas could forgive those remaining loyal to Henry. He did no such thing. Thomas returned to Canterbury in December that year, and immediately excommunicated those who opposed him.

It's not fully proven that Henry said 'Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?' but Schama has another suggestion from a comtempary source: "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished, and brought up in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?". People knew what he meant, for Becket to just sod off. Four knights interpreted it in another way.

They took a ship to Dover, getting to Canterbury on 29 December.......and had a tea party with Becket. That involved scoops of brain.

I wanted Strawberry jam on my scones!


The damage was done. Henry's reputation reached a new low and was probably beginning to be known towards this day as the Murderer in the Cathedral. 16 months after the events, Henry met with papal legates to draw up the Compromise of Avranches. He was absolved of his part in the murder. In return, he would send 200 knights to the Holy Land for a year, take the cross himself to fight either in the Holy Land or Spain, restore properties seized from Canterbury or the church itself, allow appeals from England to Rome, and undo the laws he introduced that prejudiced the church. Two years later, he came to the Becket tomb at Canterbury to confess his sins, and be whipped by the monks. Finally church and state were reconciled once more, just like with Henry IV.

Henry's passionate anger had got the better of him. His reputation lay asunder to the world from a mistake he would never recover from. He lost a close friend and confidant. Once more the church was now on equal terms with him, even could be considered to be above him. His plan to bring a spiritual power to heel had failed miserably by his own hand, however unintentional it was. What his intelligence built up, his emotions broke down.

So far we see him attempting to be an autocrat, being the one man in charge of government and state through the law, an equal right for everyone in the land. Intelligent as he was, politics was not a strong point. In sending his own friend to be part of breaking the power of the church, it backfired immensely with Becket's own drive to succeed in his job creating a war of egos between the two. It was a no-win situation with the most obvious disaster of consequences.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The next big enemy he had was, in actual fact, his family.

Religion wasn't the only big concept in medieval times. Politics as well was as controversial, bigger than all the crap 1st world countries get nowadays with their leaders and minions.....sorry, cabinet and party members. Families of course are privy to love and manipulating each other for vengeful reasons or whatever. It was the way in medieval times. Here's a picture of a medieval family at table and just imagine what they were like after you've read what I said.




Henry's family were no exception.

As I mentioned before he came to the throne of England, Henry had married the recently divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152. The match was a considerable age gap. He was 19, she was 30. But nonetheless they had a certain attraction to each other. They married eight weeks after her divorce from the French king Louis VII. She took part in administrating the land, even more so with managing her own domains, such as turning her court of Poitiers into the centre of troubadour life, with poetry and courtly love and manners taking middle stage. In addition, she was matriarch to a great family dynasty that would last for well over 330 years. For all her exploits and adventures, she has been considered by some to be the "grandmother of Europe".

So how did Henry cock it all up? Sex! With other women. Oops.

Henry had a penchant for having quite a few mistresses over the years, with Eleanor keeping her peace for over 19 years, especially with the well-known affair involving Rosamund Clifford (who wasn't a big red dog in case you're wondering......she was a big blue dog). Until that is, came 1173.

Henry and Eleanor had four sons that lived throughout infancy: Young Henry, Richard, Geoffrey and John. Henry (old) as per the kingly parent he was gave his sons lands across his little empire, but forgot (I say forgot....) to give them real authority in those areas. Young Henry in particular was a stick in the mud.  As I mentioned, he was crowned co-king in 1170, but like his lands he had no real power. Also he was having to go to Old Henry for money. A lot. It's possible that Eleanor might have had a hand in "suggesting" to Young Henry that his father was keeping him out of the way.

Why Henry decided not to give any real authority and power to his sons, it's difficult to uncover. Perhaps it's because he liked to be in control of everything and could control things from his hand more easily then if he spread his power to certain people around his lands. Good idea in theory, but maybe again not politically sound. If his sons don't have any proper authority to have, it might make them seem weak and still look like they're not ready for due responsibilities. But of course I am spectulating, so don't take my words for granted. Yet.

Finally, things came to ahead when Young Henry disagreed over lands considered being given to his younger brother John at Geoffrey's expense, and allied with his father's old enemy, Louis of France. The Great Revolt as it was called lasted for over a year, and Old Henry managed to push back and defeat his sons, despite his dealings with the Becket problem. All the sons involved were forgiven. Eleanor was not, finding herself promptly in prison for the rest of her husband's natural life.


"Dear Diary.......fuck"


A decade passed without much trouble, except for the succession to Henry's throne. Young Henry died of dysentery while fighting his brother Richard, and Geoffrey found himself under a horse. Louis himself had died as well. Henry might have been a little bit joyful I guess. But Louis's son was a little bit more of a master manipulator at politics, and perhaps family matters.

Henry tried to give some land to John finally (he was given the name Lackland because he was unlikely to receive anything for being the youngest), namely Aquitaine. But the land was in Richard's procession, and he was unwilling to give it up. The new French King, Phillip Augustus, was all too happy to place family members against each other, playing up the idea that Richard's fiancé was taken by Henry. Richard came to Paris and joined forces with Phillip. Henry begged for him to come back, which Richard did so.

With Richard being the heir to the throne, why did Henry choose to give John Aquitaine? With Richard being in line to be in control of an empire, it might have been possible that John must have something that would be worth a damn in future. His own mother's land would be a good enticement to pass on. Richard however, had grown attached to the province, resulting in his refusal to back down. This problem would eventually come back to bite Henry earlier than he anticipated.

Henry and Phillip went to war against each other with Richard caught in the middle. Once more, Phillip played on Richard's fears with Aquitaine being placed into John's care, and the two became close again. This time, Henry refused to acknowledge him as his heir, and Richard pledged homage to Phillip, including every inch of Angevin land. In June and July 1189, the duo had the upper hand against Henry, who was becoming more ill.

On 4th July, Henry near death was forced to accept a peace to humble him. When he seemingly embraced Richard in a hug of peace, it's rumoured that he said "May God spare me, long enough to take revenge on you". One thing he promised was an amnesty to those who had worked against him, and he asked to see a list of who needed pardon. To his shock, the first on the list, was John. It was the ultimate treachery paid to him. Maybe memories of Becket came back to his mind.

Henry died two days later at the castle of his ancestors, Chinon. Only his illegitimate son, also named Geoffrey, was at his side. "The others are the real bastards", so he said.

I stand by my statement. Richard may be at the foot of my tomb, but he's still a bastard.


So you see, the relationships he had between his wife and sons were not good.

His relationship with Eleanor completely fell to pieces because of his amorality to honour in his marriage, having it off with many mistresses at a time and having more children by his hand in addition to the eight he had with Eleanor. I suppose the idea was that he liked sex a lot, he could do things his way because he was the King of England. His marriage as well could have been seen to be more political rather than pure affection for one and other, as has been done repeatedly over the centuries, like with Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragorn. But Eleanor must have loved him very much to be hurt and turned against him in such the manner she did.

Subsequently, his relationships with all his sons were all problematic, turning to complete disasters when he died. Dividing the empire between his sons without any power onto them was bad enough, but the conflicts rising from who to give land to pretty much turned three of them against Henry. Only his youngest John remained steadfastly loyal, at least in the revolt of 1173. Each son had their own piece that most were unwilling to let pass or disagree to uphold their father's ideas and rebelled against him.

Perhaps it was an equality problem again, coupled with the fact that the sons were not going to budge. In trying to give John some decent inheritance, he incurred the wrath of Young Henry and Richard for attempting to do so. Maybe they thought John was a bit of a git as well, who knows? In the end, it all fell back onto his face and he had to accept that humbling peace before Richard. Thinking about this part as a no-win situation again, only the war at the end of Henry's life was just that. Trying for the best intentions for his son, he ended up pushing everyone away.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So at the end, who was Henry II?

In his early life he was quite acute at gaining land through the legal system, marrying Eleanor and becoming greater then his liege overlord in that respect. Unfortunately, as he went on he become less the politician and more taking things to heart, especially with Becket and his family in later life. He liked to work through the law so he could try and come out on top a number of times, especially through his wrangling with the church. He was probably better suited among his courts, working to make sure no one was above his judgement.

His war against the church was a disaster as ultimately he had to undo all the changes he made after Becket's death. But it was a disaster the moment he gave Becket the post. Two egos playing against each other destroyed the dear friendship they once had. Only Becket had some reservations about taking the post because he knew that he might have to work against him. Henry was too passionate and not a very good listener. Maybe he liked turning his music up a bit. I read he was quite keen on Rihanna.

You're my oldest fan? Awesome. Yes, I'll sign your parchment. "To Henry. Keep up the good work.
Hope to see you soon. Rihanna



His family life was probably more political than most, he came to finally treat his wife and almost all his sons with utter comtempt, which all came from his own mind. So he was a bit of a tit. If he hadn't been getting off with other women, Eleanor would've been less likely to encourage her sons to revolt against their father in the first place. In addition, if he had given his sons some sort of power instead of honorary positions, they in turn would have been more grateful and respectful towards his person.

Final words: He comes across as a person who tried to do things his own way, wanted a realm loyal only to him and no-one else. But in assuming he could do so, he pretty much was walking over burning coal with his very life and reputation. He had some ideas that we would most definitely have thought modern, especially with our legal system, but ultimately that will probably be his only good thing. The other parts are the real game-changers.

".....Maybe I should've stuck to model building...."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it for this week. My mini-review for The Day of the Doctor is down below. As usual, there will be spoilers. If you're not interested, I'll see you all next time!





















---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day of the Doctor Mini-Special

Guys.......what do I say? I think it was fantastic!

Fantastic!


Where do I start?

The story itself is pretty good. Seeing how Matt Smith and Clara got roped into a situation with UNIT (United Nations Intelligence Taskforce) and eventually meeting his other selves for the 'moment', the point in time that wiped out Gallifrey off the universe, was a well done set-up. We know the stakes involved, how it has actually changed the Doctor as a person and how he really sees himself (literally).

Seeing the main three Doctors on show for all was brilliant, especially John Hurt as the 'War Doctor'. I really liked the character which was probably down to Hurt's brilliant performance, portraying a character that was tired, extremist, caring, and very funny overall. Even if his appearance was probably the shortest or second shortest in the entire series, I would count him as one of my favourite. Just as long as he doesn't meet any other certain aliens in the universe.

"What's this on the screen.....facehugger.......Maybe not. Last time
I met one, I was pregnant. The birth wasn't very good"


Matt Smith and David Tennant together on-screen was an interesting pairing to see. You'll remember when I wonder what the on-screen differences would be between the two. I'll admit there were some notable differences, with Tennant being the one to regret and wondering what his future would be like, while Smith is the one to forget and keeping his secrets close to the chest. They did bicker at each other quite a bit which genuinely made me laugh out loud! Especially with Tennant's attendancy to be......kissable.

Just switching to attractive mode........ok. Hello Ladies!


The overall end to it all was a gem. Seeing all the Doctors on-screen (yes, ALL of them) was a very good sight to see, showing the deep history this show has and how it intends to carry on. Unfortunately, Christopher Eccleston did not make a full-on appearance. Only using footage from his time and as part of the regeneration sequence for John Hurt. But what really had me going :D was the appearance of a certain Tom Baker. That is just.....UHDYAGFUSUFVUHSHYSGAHHHHHHHH!!!!! Though I have to admit, seeing all the Doctors at the end was slightly off-putting because you could really tell they were using fakes to do that, but that's really a minor issue with me.

I think what made the special more exciting was I actually managed to view it in the cinema. The number of people that came to see it really astonished me, how we all applauded at the start and how we all gushed and oooohed at what happened, it was quite the great experience that I don't think will ever happen again in my lifetime, or at the least, a very long while. The last time I saw a great majority of people in the cinema was for the film 'Paul' and that was so many years ago.


'The Day of the Doctor' was an absolute god-send to watch given the chance to experience it live. And I don't think I will be forgetting it anytime soon...........

Shag, marry or kill?

One last picture: Clara with the motorbike. Because......it's Clara with the motorbike. Nothing wrong with that. Honest!




Friday 15 November 2013

Trust me.....I'm the Doctor!

The Randomizer has returned!


Erm............DOCTOR WHO!

YAY!

I might have mentioned that I am a wee bit obsessed with the show, and how can I not? It is a great show. Full of suspense, iconic creatures and great acting from those few numbers who have been lucky to play the iconic role (this I will come to later).  And obviously a good number of you will know that this year is the good doctor's 50th birthday since its inception on 22nd November 1963.

For a good while this year, I have thought about doing a Doctor Who special in celebration of the show's 50th anniversary. But what could I do? I have thought about doing a 50 Years, 11 Doctors list, showing a list from my least to most favourite person to play the Doctor. But with personal issues arising in the past few weeks, I have not had the time to compose properly such a list. In addition, I'm thinking now the list will be growing with Peter Capaldi announced as the new Doctor at the Christmas special.

So in time honoured tradition (no pun intended), I would like to reflect to you all my own time as a Doctor Who fan with a few example points: How I got into the series in the first place, what I think about new and old series alike, and finally who my favourite Doctor is overall for the minute.

All in all, this will really be a genuine discussion. No lists, no overbearing details of the show, just a good old fashion talk about one of my favourite shows of all time (aside from Game of Thrones.....and Pingu).
So let's go back in time (pun definitely intended, so you can shoot me) to my first coming into the Doctor Who fandom.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I was a young warthog.....................ahem! human being! (If you thought about Pumbaa, well done), I was quite obsessed at the time with a certain radio show called Dead Ringers.

It was a satirical programme by comedic impressionists who virtually took the piss out of everyone: Politicians (who doesn't), royalty, TV shows, and soap operas, namely The Archers. And one of the shows that was parodied was.......Sesame Street. Obviously.

One of the comedians called Jon Culshaw played a parody of the well-renowned Forth Doctor (played in the original series by Tom Baker), making prank-calls to taxi companies, train station services etc, even making prank calls to the actors who played the Doctors! Look them up on You-Tube, especially the Tom Baker one. It is a fucking laugh!

All along the way, I would reherse what Jon Culshaw and his victims said to each other because I was so awesome like that, listening to the tapes and CDs over and over again. Such is the little things in life. What probably wasn't the best idea was saying them out in public to myself, because people would think I'm more weird then I intended. And I don't think saying part of the Archer's helped either.

But anyway, one morning in 2003 I was up early and watching TV when I came across one of the original Doctor Who serials squished into one episode.

No Johnny Depps were hurt in the making of this show

It was called 'The Pirate Planet' and starred Tom Baker in the role (everything's coming up Tom Baker isn't it?). In the episode, The Doctor, his companion at the time Romana and his robot dog K-9 land on the planet Calufrax, with a character called 'The Captain' in control. However, The Doctor and Romana soon discover that Calufrax is in fact the hollowed out planet called Zanak, which goes around plundering other planets and leaving them as minor husks.

Soon enough in a other twist, The Captain is revealed to simply be a puppet controlled by his nurse, a projection of Zanak's old ruler Queen Xanxia. With the help of Zanak's population, The Doctor manages to thwart her plans with sabotaging the engines on the planet. He then realises that Calufrax is in fact a second segment to the Key of Time compressed, an artefact that the two are searching for that show's season, converting it into a part of the actual key and picking it up and the duo take their leave to seek out the other pieces.

To be honest, I really don't remember this episode as much. The few things that did stand out to me was the blue-screen effects (it was the 70s of course), the twist at the end of the story and.........that's pretty much it actually. I don't think it was as bad as I remember it, but I suppose there was nothing really that stood out so much in particular. Though looking at the pirate captain now, he does look a bit like Hitler. Where he got the Saxon style helmet from, I have no idea.

This definately trumps Prince Harry. Mwahahaha!

The next episode I saw was The Androids of Tara. And quite honestly, the only thing I really DO remember from this serial was the ending.  K-9 is in a boat in the moat, and The Doctor just laughing. Let's see if the plot is any reminder.

The Doctor and co travel to the planet Tara to get the forth piece of the Key of Time, hidden as part of a statue. Unfortunately, they are taken prisoner by Count Grendel of Gracht. Huh. Didn't know Angelina Jolie was in the series.

Anyway, Grendal is attempting to take over the throne from its rightful heir Prince Reynart, and mistakes Romana for a android duplicate of the betrothed Princess Strella. The Doctor meanwhile, is sent to help the Prince make his own android for any potential assassination attempts. When Grendal kidnaps the real Prince, The Doctor has the Android Prince crowned in his stead. In time, Grendal destroys the android, and both Doctor and Romana escape from the castle Grecht.

But they come back to save the kingdom, and get the forth piece of the key, forcing Grendal to retreat and jump into the moat to escape. In the end, the Prince and Strella are re-united and The Doctor and Romana continue their journey onwards, along with saving K-9 in the moat.

Reading this back on myself, there was probably good reason why I don't remember this episode so well. It doesn't read well when you learn the plot and get all confused by the shenanigans happening all around. I suppose some things were a little interesting with Romana and Strella being the same person, but other than that, I don't think I was that vested in it. Maybe it's worth watching these two episodes again so at least I have a full picture of what the bejesus I was watching.

In that same year, I found that the BBC would be creating an animated mini-serial of Doctor Who available on the BBC website, called Scream of the Shalka. I was quite happy enough to sit and watch this little serial, and I do think it was good thinking back to it.


The plot revolves around The Doctor landing in a Lancaster village and investigating (as ever) strange occurances. With the help of barmaid Alison Cheney, he discovers that the Shalka are preparing for a wider invasion plan and thoroughly defeats them ease. Alison then accompanies him, leaving her dear boyfriend behind (well that's obviously never been done again). I did enjoy the story greatly, and had a vested interest in what was actually going on.

Richard E. Grant as the 'Shalka Doctor' was quite interesting to see as the iconic figure: a little grumpy, but quite dramatic and still willing to fight the good fight (after some coaxing). Sophie Okonedo playing Alison Cheney is as good too, being someone who is not exactly afraid to talk about the Shalka , but can be I suppose a little bland. Maybe she was saving her performance for Hotel Rwanda. She did get an Oscar nomination for that. Oh yeah, there was someone else I forgot to mention.....erm....whathisname....Tennant wasn't it? Apparently had a small cameo.....hmmm I can't really remember. Oh well, I'm sure I won't care so much.

Now perhaps those above serials didn't endure me to the legend so much. But then I came across these jolly creatures right here. At least I think they're jolly.....

HELLO. THERE. YOU. CALLED. FOR. SOMEONE. TO. KILL. JUSTIN. BIEBER?!


First time I was introduced to the Daleks was oddly enough a kit-kat commercial, preaching "GIVE US A CUDDLE!" (Surreal tangent, in that same commercial, Lemmy of Motorhead is playing a violin. o_o). I did wonder to myself if they were the exact opposite in the actual series.

That particular Christmas, I had the opportunity to find out for myself. My parents brought me the 40th anniversary Dalek Collector's Edition, consisting of three Dalek focused serials: The Dalek Invasion of Earth with the 1st Doctor (played by William Hartnell), Resurrection of the Daleks with the 5th Doctor (played by Peter Davison), and Remembrance of the Daleks with the 7th Doctor (played by Sylvester McCoy).

I have very fond memories of watching these stories as a boy of 14, getting a more real taste of the old series and seeing how well done these stories were, considering their production values at the time. The Dalek Invasion of Earth was a favourite of mine to watch. Just seeing the Daleks as actual conquerors of our little planet was something that fascinated me at best, though I don't think I understood the full idea of their plan. I was also quite saddened a little by the actual departure of Susan Foreman, The Doctor's Granddaughter and first real companion he ever had. It was something I wasn't expecting to come out of the blue, and it was quite emotional watching the scene back on You-Tube.

A few days later, the BBC played an hour-long documentary called 'The Story of Doctor Who', where it introduced me to a general history of the old series. Some of the people interviewed included a great number of the companions featured such actresses as Carole Ann Ford (Susan Foreman), Louise Jamieson (Leela), and of course the late, enduring Elizabeth Sladen (Sarah Jane Smith). It also showing some moments that prompted the kids to 'hide behind the sofa'. One example was of a plastic monster that stuck its fangs into a elderly man and his wife discovering the body. Oh err!

It was an interesting retrospective into the series overall, seeing where the idea for Doctor Who came from originally, how it developed overtime into the mega-hit it became, and how everything went wrong for it, going on hiatus finally in 1989.

BUT what really grabbed my attention was at the end of said documentary was the Sixth Doctor Colin Baker's words: "We now hear that there's going to be another series coming out soon". My jaw dropped. I think I can best express that feeling in these words:

AHFGHSDGUSDHFJUHDSVUHSRUIBVJISHBVHUSDVGHDSHJGDSKJBVFKDSBVHJBDSJVBDSHJBHJSDBGHDSGBDSBOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGDOCTORWHOISGETTINGANEWSERIES!!!!!!!!!

(ahem)

In the mean-time while waiting ever so patiently for the new series to start.......actually, that's bullshit, I'm NEVER patient, while waiting for the new series to start, I decided to start my own collection of Doctor Who old serial DVDs.

The second one I got was actually 'The Three Doctors', staring Jon Pertwee, Partrick Troughton and William Hartnell in their roles as the Doctor. I thought it was more practical to do this because I could get a feel for each of the second and third Doctors. The Three Doctors was a pretty good story, with it being shown for the programme's tenth anniversary. Some of the special effects...can be a little silly I grant you, but as a story it does hold up well.

In a way it developed the idea in my mind to get a DVD for each Doctor when I got the opportunity (and the money obviously. Do you have any idea how much they can cost, or nowadays they can be rare to find in HMV? ARGH!). So that's pretty much what I did, going through the next years buying whatever Doctor Who DVDs I could get my grubby mitts on.

Here's the collection I have of the old series thus so far:

Some of which I still haven't watched...... :(

I know it's not as big as you'd imagine but hey, get what you can!

After a number of promotional trailers and posters alike, the new series finally broadcast on March 26th 2005. And it was a bloody joy to watch. Lots of drama, new creatures to behold and of course, Billie Piper. Duh! Those three months that the new show was on kept me glued to the sofa, wondering the bloody hell was going to happen (though I admit I didn't see the introduction of Captain Jack Harkness in the two-partner 'The Empty Child'/'The Doctor Dances. Believe me I was like Mickey). Russell T. Davies was the first man to produce the new reboot, and he has made us all proud with his fresh spin on our favourite Time Lord.

Now eight years have passed since the reboot, and as far we have been reintroduced to the Daleks, the equally jolly Cybermen, and a new host of evil creatures, especially the recently marked Angels. And of course, new Doctors. Christopher Eccleston was on board for only the one season, and was replaced by arguably one of the most popular Doctors of all time: David Tennant. Ohhhhhh....oops. From the 2005 Christmas Special to New Year's Day 2010, he was THE Doctor and wowed audiences alike with his aloof personality and quirky charm.

But of course all good things must come to an end, as Mr. Tennant left right at the start of 2010, turning into Matt Smith. It was the start of a new era as well, with Russell T. Davies leaving after five years at the helm. In his place has come the complex controversial Steven Moffat, who has made some quite mixed reactional changes to the series. I think one of these is about to come upon us a week on Saturday....

Smith's Doctor won over the fans greatly with his quick temper and quick thinking, and even managed to attract the attention of my friend Jamie. Get in there Jamie! Again sadly, this is coming to an end with Smith bowing out of the role, and bringing Peter Capaldi into the role as the man. Whether Capaldi will bring out a better role remains to be seen. Although I do have it on good authority that he is fucking brilliant. Thank you Mibs!

Needless to say, I have enjoyed the new series a great deal as much as the old serials. The three new Doctors are all great in their own right, and can hold their own against the Doctors of old. And of course I will continue watching like the geek I am.

Also I think this might have been the reason why the Ninth Doctor didn't allow cats on the TARDIS.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So here's another question to drool over: What do I think about both the new series and old alike?

Well, my opinion of the new series thus far is that obviously it's brilliant. What got me thinking is a point that really the first four seasons can be all one great big reintroduction. Seriously, all the big stuff is established in the first season. You have the Doctor, The Daleks, the Time Lords etc. Over the coming seasons, more of the memorable villains are introduced: Cybermen, The Master, and creator of the Daleks, Davros. It's all one big awkward family reunion, headed by one Russell T. Davies to begin with.



What he essentially did was bring all elements of the past 26 seasons into the 21st century, and showing a good chunk of those to a new generation of fans who had never seen the show before, as well as the old generation who had so they could sink their teeth into it. With all those bits in mind, I think Davies succeeded in that respect because he chose the right kind of elements that made Doctor Who the popular show it was: a good balance of the well-known stuff, with new monsters and challenges thrown in for good measure. I enjoyed it all the same, especially being quite surprised with the Time Lords and whatnot.

Steven Moffat's time at the helm pushes deeper into the mythos of the Time Lord and brings out more dramatic elements: Looking at the power of the Doctor's name, the ever hopping River Song, and especially Amy Pond being at the centre of the Eleventh Doctor's universe for a good two years. He does have his critics however. A good number of people have shown disdain at where the story is actually going in terms of plot, sometimes with River Song and how things apparently got a little complicated in Season 6.

I regret nothing!

But quite honestly while watching it only two years ago I didn't find massive problems with what he has done so far. The twists have been quite interesting to me where River Song and another certain character was concerned, and the emotional impact of Amy and Rory can be quite punching, definitely more so in their last season onscreen (though some people can be quite nit-picky). I just enjoyed the stories for what they were: Twisty-turny-topsy-turvy-intelligent-creative programming.

But what I DO think sometimes, is that the Eleventh Doctor can sometimes share personality traits with the Tenth Doctor. What I mean is that sometimes on the outside, they both show themselves to be happy go lucky people, always smiling in the face of danger and serious when they need to be. It just kind of feels repetitive to me because why do we need another character that sounds the same as your predecessor?

Another thing I've think the new series has developed more is a human dramatic standing. What I mean by this is there's more emotions emphasised by the characters all around. It's a more character-based series, and we see them go through all sorts of different issues with time-travelling, family problems, and romance. Romance is the new bigger addition to the series, with the couplings of Tenth Doctor/Rose and Eleventh/Amy (yeaaah, there's got to be fan fiction somewhere on that!) playing such a big part. That kind of drama is pushed to the forefront more along with all the other stories happening all around.  Personally, I don't have a problem with this. I jsut thought it would be interesting to note, as I shall compare in a minute.

Now let's look at the old series.

From what I have watched so far, I have enjoyed the serials with great fun and interest, gorging on the nostalgic goings-on with DVD after DVD.

One of the things that should be noted is the production values for the show. It would be pretty to do a comparison to the new series because honestly there's not much point. The old series budget into making the stuff they did can show the programme to be a little bit dated and unrealistic. That's what various production teams have said, seeing the costumes as cheap and daft. I do tend to agree, the costumes can be quite silly at times, mostly on the monsters, and more so with the Sixth Doctor's costume. 

That trip to the smarties factory didn't go too well

But on the other hand with all the bad stuff, they can be a joy to look at. The Forth Doctor's costume is always the iconic image one can see, and of course with the Daleks design is again a pleasure to watch. Some of the sets can be creative too (apart from the appearance of a planet made of rocks. I.E. a quarry), especially in the studio. None of the old serial sets really bothered me so much, or made me care to notice. I was more into the story of the serial itself.

Coming to the old Doctors for a moment, you can really tell the difference between their personalities somewhat more then you can with Tenth and Eleventh Doctors. Let's take....ooooh.....Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker. Pertwee was the technical boffin, someone who you could see as being intelligent and sophisticated at the same time, but can be pushed to his limits and shows a good deal of anger when he is serious. Baker on the otherhand was someone who was from the off eccentric, calm and excitable at the same time, and looked out of place with his scarf, and long coats. His voice had a kind space-like aura to it, making him seem more as an alien with his ranges of tone Baker could perform.

Compared to the Tenth and Eleventh Doctors, you could really tell the difference between the personalities properly. Each of the old doctors had some kind of unique trait that made them not just three-dimensional characters, but three-dimensional from EACH OTHER. In the anniversary serials when you see all the Doctors get together, you can see definitely see the tension there from seeing their previous or future selves as they bicker. But I think there is a great deal of friendliness as well. Whether the 50th anniversary special shows that balance as well remains to be seen, but from what we've seen from the trailers, it might just be there. And perhaps I will see what some of the differences are on-screen between those two better then what I've seen so far!

This is them after the conjoined operation

And finally we come to the dramatic points that the old series had. With the serials being almost always structured into their own little stories, most of the drama is more or less focused on the situation at hand, and what bad guy or such and such needs to be defeated.  The adventure at hand, if you will. That's not to say that some other dramatic elements aren't around because they are. But they're not as overly developed so much as what's happening onscreen nowadays. You do get really, I suppose, subtle glints that build up over time as the characters relate to each other throughout the seasons, and see how much they come to care for each other as friends, or perhaps even closer. (Even if the companions can be intended to be the audience's mouthpiece to ask the Doctor what the fuck is going on).

I suppose if you think about it over the years, the ideas of drama that come in TV shows have obviously changed, technically and dramatically. Techniques about how to tell a dramatic story can change over years. The love between two people has, to a point, always been a main-streak in the series. It's just brought out more in this generation then it has in the past, and makes for interesting storytelling. But at the same time, there can be some strength in having a story with two good friends that contrast and compel each other.

So there is quite a bit to take away from each series in my mind. They're both as great as each other and give the audience a lot to consider when watching. Story techniques can change overtime, but with something like Doctor Who it doesn't lose itself into murky depths so easily, as much as we dislike what can happen. All the Doctors are superb in their own way despite what I think so far of the new Doctors being closely similar to each other. Finally, the way the show looks between the past and now are obviously different to each other, but I think most of the sets can hold pretty well up despite looking like cardboard and plastic buttons all over the place.

My final thoughts on this section are thus: Bananas are a good source of Potassium. It is law.

Don't mention Bananas to Eccleston! You know he's a recovering Bananaholic!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So here's my third and final thought on the article: Who is my favourite Doctor so far?

Fuck me that's a good question. And let me destroy that notion: It's not David Tennant.
I don't have a problem saying that at all. You see, I didn't mind David Tennant in the role, I thought he was good, displayed a great range of emotions and you could really see the desperation on his face when things don't go his way. But....something about him never really clicked with me. I'm not sure what it is about him that doesn't resonate with me very much, maybe I just feel he wasn't THE Doctor for me.

Awww, don't worry David. You have your fan girls to help. Even Michelle Brito!

After much deliberation with myself, I don't think I could escape an inevitable conclusion: It's Christopher Eccleston.

Seriously, Eccleston to me has always been MY Doctor for the time eternal.

Bow to me!

When Doctor Who rebooted, it was the first time I ever seen and heard Christopher Eccleston. I didn't know what he would be like in the role as the man. But good god he was GREAT. To some people, he may say his lines like he doesn't care at all, but I think he put in a good amount of effort in getting into a character that is weary from the events of the Time-War, angry, manic, and maybe to a point, depressed.With the Doctor in that mindset, Eccleston seemed more the perfect choice at that time. He could bring that fluctuating attitude of happiness and sadness in a grandiose performance that David Tennant and Matt Smith developed further in their own right.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Eccleston came at the right time for the role. His kind of acting was what the show needed to come back the way it did with the storylines set in stone, to bring that depressed character back into the world. It is a shame that he only did the one season, because his performance was, for lack of a better pun, FANTASTIC!

If I could say one thing to him, it would be this:

I hope you bloody well ARE in the 50th anniversary special because if you're not I will cry! But regardless, you are MY Doctor. And I would consider it a great feat if you would come back to the series. Just once. I guess it's not your style to come back to things you've done before and from what I've read on various news sites, not had a great experience overall. But still, me as a fan of your Doctor Who, tickles me best. All the best in your career and your life.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there we are. My 10 years of Doctor Who in a nutshell.

If I have any final words on this article it is this: The show has always been a huge part of my life since teenage life and I do think it will undoubtedly continue for years to come, whether the show will be finished or continue as long as it's story-wise possible. The upcoming 50th anniversary special and Christmas special are sure to be controversial in their moment of glory, the former definitely more so, especially with the inclusion of a certain prequel to 'The Day of the Doctor', called 'The Night of the Doctor' which I only saw the other day.

Needless to say, it does bring in a few surprises and brings in how John Hurt appears as the Doctor. I WILL NOT SPOIL IT FOR THOSE YET TO SEE IT. But what happens is an absolute gem of a short story!
Also for those who don't know yet, there is a special one-off drama about the creation of the good Doctor, starring Brian Cox as Sydney Newman, Jessica Raine from Call the Midwife as the show's first producer Verity Lambert, and..........(sigh) Lord Walder Frey as William Hartnell.

Memories.........damn you Walder Frey. Damn you to the Stranger!

It's due to shown in the UK (sorry worldwide fans you might have to wait) on Thursday 21st November at 9 sharp!

So I hope you have enjoyed at my sharing my personal experience of watching the good doctor do his work for over fifty years, and I hope it will continue for many years to come.

Next fortnight will be a historical feature on Henry II and how his relationship affected his reputation throughout history. Along with that, I will be doing another mini-special concerning 'The Day of the Doctor' special. So savor your pleasure for then guys. Til then, Randomizer out.  And..........

Doctor.........Who?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------