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 1^st 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 4^th 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!

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 50^th birthday since its inception on 22^nd November 1963.

For a good while this year, I have thought about doing a Doctor Who special in celebration of the show's 50^th 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 40^th anniversary Dalek Collector's Edition, consisting of three Dalek focused serials: The Dalek Invasion of Earth with the 1^st Doctor (played by William Hartnell), Resurrection of the Daleks with the 5^th Doctor (played by Peter Davison), and Remembrance of the Daleks with the 7^th 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 26^th 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 21^st 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 50^th 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 50^th 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 50^th 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 21^st 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?

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

The Twilight Saga..........someone kill me

Well guys, you know it's coming. So let's get it out of the way.

The Twilight Saga.

It's like Marmite. You either love it or hate it. I hate Marmite. But do I hate Twilight? I have spent last week sitting though the five films that make up these saga.

You all know the story.

Written by Stephanie Meyer, it is the story of Bella Swan, a girl who has 'felt' different. When her mother decides to chuff along with her new husband, Bella makes the choice to go to Forks to live with her father, Charlie. At her new school, she is told of a family called the Cullens, and takes particular note of Edward Cullen. Though they don't get along at first, Bella is bemused by this guy, who saves her from being crushed by a van and actually almost throws up at the sight of her. Bella researches the internet to discover the truth and figures out that Edward is a vampire. Eventually the two fall in love (somehow), and thus begins the journey that will change Bella forever......

Needless to say, the series has become a source of greatness or destruction. From Mormon beliefs incorporated, to the talked about abuse Bella puts up with from Edward. From the introduction of werewolves in the series, to the probable infamy of 'imprinting'. And from living with the love of her life forever, to being hated for being a poor role model for girls and women alike.

So what is it about these films that are praised and reviled at the same time? What are the main questions brought up from the series that I had discoverd? And why hasn't someone turned Justin Bieber so that we at least HAVE an excuse to beat the shit out of him?....Oh sorry, that's my personal problem. Yes, personal problem. ......fucking bieber.

So today, I will do a 500 word review for each film and ask some big questions later that arose when watching these films. Some of them most definitely will be quite buggy to ask.

Two things before I start:

One: I have only focused on the films for this article, as going through the books will have taken too long and frankly would have been psychologically damaging to my brain. As if it might not be to others already.

Two: There are definite spoilers here of plot development, so sorry for those who haven't seen it......actually, you could count yourselves lucky you haven't seen it! But if you fancy it spoiled, good for you.

Here we go, to the place where we all suffer......Forks.

Missing words: TO DEATH

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

TWILIGHT:

The first film begins with.....well what I've mentioned above to be fair. The story begins with Bella Swan's move to Forks, shifting in with her dad Charlie Swan. At her new school, she makes new "friends" (I say friends in quotations because they eventually become second grade citizens in her mind), and is told about the Cullens, in particular Edward Cullen. The two of them meet and after he saves her from an oncoming van, she eventually discovers he is a vampire. The two fall in love overtime, but that is threatened by a tracker vampire James, during a game of baseball. Bella is taken back to Phoenix, where she confronts James, but Edward and the Cullen clan save her from death. At the end of year, Bella makes a choice: become a vampire.

Sooooo, what is the first film like?

The story to me is difficult to talk about. Where can I start? It's an odd story. Not bad, but off-putting I know it has vampires to make it weird, but maybe the film didn't intrigue me so much as others.

Maybe what threw me off were the characters. I have a belief that the characters are the driving force of a plot. If the characters fail, the audience is pissed. The main characters themselves are odd, in their mindsets to say the least. There are silly moments like when Edward tells her that she didn't know the vile things that the rapists were thinking, but she did say 'Don't touch me' to them beforehand (This, I'll come back to later). The same goes with Jacob at the beach when his friends said the Cullens don't come to the beach.

Speaking of friends, the side characters are bit in between. Bella's lot at school do bug me a little, especially Eric Yorkie. He is a creepy fuck. But I do like the Cullens to a point. Alice and Jasper are ok, Carlisle and Esme are good. Rosalie...erm....Moving on! James the Tracker (he had fame, money and all that you know) was alright too, he didn't bother me so much.

I suppose one thing I did like was the acting, to a point. Some of the actors were good casting for their roles. Kirsten Stewart....no. In her first outing as Bella, she wasn't great. The delivery was average, but she could sort of get away with the desperation near the end. Robert Pattison, on the other hand, wasn't bad at all as Edward. He seemed to capture the guy pretty effortlessly, but there were a few moments where I thought he was just a little bit creepy with his facial expressions. The actors in the smaller roles did a better job than the main attraction I thought despite the characters being odd as they are.

One part I did like at first was the way it was the mise-en-scene, and the use of the dark and light contrasting colours with each other. I didn't feel distracted by it at all and made some scenes more interesting. But I think it didn't work to its full extent, like it could've made most of the human characters perhaps more colour in their faces, and Bella more pale so you can see a contrast. But nope.

Twilight then, is ok. Not great, just ok. It's an average start to the series which might be a bad thing. It's one of those films you either love or hate. Hate is the more stronger word. It could've been better, but it's certainly could've been worse.

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

NEW MOON:

In the next instalment, after an incident at Bella's 18^th birthday party, Edward doesn't want to risk her life anymore and the Cullens leave for Forks. This goes.....pretty badly wrong. Bella falls into a deep depression, raised out by her desire to get his attention and thanks to her old friend, Jacob Black. She starts to develop some feelings for him, but ultimately thinks Edward is the better man for her. She goes cliff-diving and nearly drowns, prompting Alice to tell her that Edward is going to the Volturi to provoke them in killing him. The two fly to Italy where Bella manages to save Edward and they get back together. At the end, Bella asks him to turn her. Edward asks for one thing: Marriage.....oh, and Jacob is a werewolf. Just thought I'd throw it in.

This is the one film I had originally HATED with a passion after watching it the first time. Watching it last week, I still hate it to a point. There are some bits I like, but few and far in between.

Let's try and think about the good bits. When we come to finally meet the Volturi in person, I liked Michael Sheen's kind of subdued childish performance as Aro, Head of the Volturi. And Dakota Fanning was pretty good as Jane, despite her lack of appearance.

And admittedly, the werewolves weren't so bad either. Sam Uley and his wolf pack weren't terrible, but I don't remember them so well to care about them. With Jacob becoming more of a main character in this film, his story is pretty good in theory. On the screen, I did come close to understand what he was going through from his point of view, but he does become a bit of a dick because he uses the treaty as an excuse to protect Bella.

Talking about the visual aesthetics. The film has become more darker then the first one, with the contrast in colour more noticeable. I didn't like it at first because I thought it would be nicer if all the films had the same lighting as the first one, to give it some unique nature. But on subsequent viewings it's not bad as I think about it now. It does match the darker side of the Twilight mythos and probably matching Bella's emotions maybe.

Now onto the bad things about the movie. Unsurprising to some, Bella is there. But we'll come back to this later.

Little bits like Harry Clearwater were pointless because he really didn't do anything for the plot, just cover up footprints for the family. Essentially cannon fodder. And there is Jacob and Bella's conversation on the beach, Bella calling Jacob out for killing someone when the Cullens haven't done. Which is bullshit where one person is concerned, as we'll see.  She also wonders if he can stop being a werewolf.....that confused me a little. Why does she want him to stop?

The acting too has suffered a little bit. Stewart's acting here hasn't improved much. Her delivery is still pretty bad, but it's a little bit better than in the first film. Taylor Lautner is not bad as Jacob, but there's a lot to be desired. He does do a good job of being subtly emotional in the first half of the film, but it does go downhill after he cuts his hair and it just feels a bit off when he makes the actual change to being a werewolf. I can't comment on Pattison's job too much because he appears sporadically, but he still does a good job as Edward.

New Moon is a bad continuation, but in my mind now it has put itself on the same level as Twilight. I will come to the major issue I have had with this film in due course. The acting is substandard, the characters not bad, but not brilliant. I suppose it's worse crime is that it didn't make me care more than it should've done.

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

ECLIPSE:

Bella is caught between a poor man's emo and a poor man's Wolverine, but has another problem: Victoria is out for revenge. She's creating an army of newborn vampires with new mate Riley to take down Bella and the rest of the Cullens for James's destruction at their hands. So the Cullens make an uneasy alliance with the Wolf Pack to defeat the newborns. In the meantime, Bella slowly comes to terms with the point that she is in love with Jacob, but she chooses Edward over him still. Eventually, the armies clash and the newborns are defeated very thoroughly. The Volturi Guard come at the end to oversee matters, and kill Bree Tanner, the remaining survivor. At the end, Edward and Bella become engaged and need to tell Charlie about it.

Honestly at first, I thought this was the best of the films on first viewing. But watching it the second time and talking about it, it's around the same level as the first two.

The action isn't half bad to be fair in the fight scene between the newborns and the vampire/werewolf alliance. And it's quite brutal with almost all the newborns wiped out (which does beg the question if the newborns are strong in their first year, shouldn't they have been a match at least, even with Jasper's experience and training?). And they are moments between Victoria and Edward that are interesting, especially him possibly taunting her with James's death.

And this was the film where one of the characters actually shined through to take my interest, even if it was for a good few minutes. HER I will come to later on to discuss my favourite character from watching the films.

Acting wise, I don't think Stewart made that much of an impression AGAIN. Three out of five so far! Robert Pattison and Taylor Lautner's acting were ok, though I wonder whether they could've put a little more into the little cock-fight they had in the tent. Bryce Dallas Howard playing Victoria was a good choice. She put herself on as at least a credible threat to the family, and was generally believable a lot of the time. On par with Rachelle Lafevre I reckon.

But there are moments that just make you go: what?. For instance there are some bits of dialogue that won't make any sense unless you know your history, like Bella saying she's Switzerland. I wonder how many people the films are aimed at know their history in knowing the countries that were neutral in the First and Second World Wars.

And the love triangle between the three fools could have been better done I suppose. I feel as if it could've come across as so much better and more conflicted then what was actually shown. I don't remember a point where Bella could be struggling with her actual emotions for Jacob, as well as figuring out why she loves Edward as well. Those type of questions could have made for better storytelling, but alas this is what we have.

And Bree Tanner was kind of pointless as well. I had originally read that the actress was given 'The Second Life of Bree Tanner' as inspiration, but the character wasn't focused on much in the whole film. So that was my expectations shot down.

Despite those little niggles, Eclipse is better to some extent with delving into the backstories of certain characters and some good acting, but not by much. For what it's worth, it has its moments of glory. But there are points that brought it down to being just on par with the first two films. It's one of those films that could have been better, but sadly not.

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

BREAKING DAWN: PART 1

The day of Edward and Bella's wedding arrives, and everything goes without a hitch (even though the night on his stag do, Edward tells her that he killed before. Why didn't he say so at the beginning?). At the reception, Jacob arrives and is shocked at the idea of Bella's turning after they made love. He leaves in a huff, and the Mr and Mrs Cullen (urgh) go to Rio de Janeiro for their honeymoon. Not without its problems with the many bruises and jumping into the water many times, Bella is shocked to find that she is pregnant (which is impossible, but never explained why). They fly back to Forks, and the pregnancy speeds up to balloon up Bella and she gives birth soon after, but at the cost of her own life. (Yay!) But thanks to Edward's venom and biting her many times, Bella's wish comes true (aww). She becomes a vampire. ......oh and Jacob imprints on the baby, Renesmee, but that's not important much.........right?

First feelings after watching this was thinking this was the second worst, after New Moon. On second viewing......

There are a few plot points that do need to be addressed. Firstly, Bella's pregnancy. She says it's impossible for her to get pregnant but low and behold. Reading back the notes I made for the films, there hasn't been one mention of this being an impossibility, not one single line of dialogue. If there was an explanation in the books, why was it not brought forward? Also I made note of the fact that the baby drinks blood, and that helps Bella feel better, and I do wonder if someone would've figured that out beforehand. Edward is a vampire after all. Vampires drink blood. Duh. The imprinting I will cover later on.

The acting has gotten better as the actors continue to grow with the characters. Kirsten Stewart improves slightly and becomes alright. Just alright, not brilliant. Pattison's ok as ever as Edward. He does nail some of the emotions, but not all. I would've liked him to be a bit more serious with his killings in the past, as opposed to being a distant memory. But it's not bad. Lautner was good in this film. His crying at Bella's death was pretty spot on and his reaction to his imprinting was impressive. Everyone else was pretty good in their roles, so nothing much has changed in respects.

But what REALLY bugged me was the CGI baby Renesmee. No doubt about it, you could tell it was a fake and not a believable thing to see. Though it might have been funny to learn that upon learning Breaking Dawn auditions had opened, babies around the world would've downright refused to act. It is the Twilight Saga after all, they need some dignity ahead of their lives.

There's not much action to speak of really, the film is really just character development to the last film, building up to the crescendo. We see how Bella's choices have affected her body to the point of death by holding the child inside that will kill her eventually, and how she sticks with her decision regardless what everyone (apart from Rosalie, and eventually Edward) thinks. Cramming a good chunk from the book can work against you, but the pacing wasn't off-putting. Everything goes fast, but the ending point was a good point, as Bella opens her eyes.

The Volturi do make cameo appearances at the beginning and the end of the film, and were at least enjoyable to watch though they were small, Michael Sheen obviously making do with what he can. Unfortunately I don't think it's enough to save the film from going over well.

Breaking Dawn: Part One is again on par with the other films, despite being the penultimate film. This was a film that was meant to raise the stakes. Instead perhaps, it tried to raise the stakes and failed. There were some bits that made for interesting viewing like the acting, but the plot points and that....CGI abomination (I know it's a baby, but....my god) really can be distracting. With only character bits to go on, it's not worth the viewing again.

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

BREAKING DAWN PART 2:

Bella awakens from her slumber and starts doing vampire stuff: hunting for animal blood, running fast, and attempting to beat the shit out of Jacob for imprinting on Renesmee. For once, life is peaceful (?) and she is happy on turning her back on humanity, saying she was born to be a vampire.....that is until Renesmee grows up and is discovered by the Cullen's cousin, Irina, and assumed to be an Immortal Child, a taboo in the vampire world because they are uncontrollable throughout time. The family gather witnesses to defend against the Volturi's 'proof' and meet one another on an snow covered field. After Irina is killed and a fake out battle by Alice's vision, the child is proved to be of no consequence. At the end of it all, Bella and Edward have their perfect piece of forever, sitting in a field and having all the time in the world.........until Blade arrives (hopefully).

From the start, the finale does have a bit of promise. We see Bella's first reactions to seeing all the little details on vases, bookcases etc. Then she talked. And it gets a bit hilarious from there. From still very bad CGI babies, to unintentional funny deliveries of lines, to very poor relatability, Breaking Dawn Part 2 does have an accidental edge of comedy underlining it.

Stewart's performance is....you guessed it, the same. Although her delivery of the line, "YOU NICKNAMED MY DAUGHTER AFTER THE LOCH NESS MONSTER?" is pretty hilarious. Always gets a smile on my face. Pattison does bring a bit more emotions to Edward, from glee at Jacob having the shit beaten out of him, to shock at Carlisle being "killed". It made me notice him a lot more and cared a little then perhaps mostly throughout the series in the first place. Lautner didn't really do much in this movie, and perhaps because of that the acting does suffer. I suppose because his own story is complete, there isn't much to do, especially how his arc ended controversially.

One of the characters I was sort of drawn to was Garrett, played by elf king Lee Pace. He was slightly enjoyable in the role and had a sense of cockiness about him that is likeable, though he is kind of a Anglophobic. So we couldn't be friends. Boo.

The final action piece, the huge battle between the Cullen Friends United and the Volturi, can be a proper slap in the face because it DIDN'T HAPPEN. It can be sort of got away with because it's Alice has the vision to show Aro his future. But still the battle is pulled off quite well, that I've can see it before my eyes as I'm writing this. And if the pay-off is that the battle doesn't happen, it's very insulting to the audience. It's like a dream sequence that show every you just watched in a film was not real, and everything's sorted already. It's stupid and not very good storytelling.

Breaking Dawn Part 2 is then a comical insult as a film series finale, but also average at the same time. A finale needs to bring lots of threads to an end that feel not poor, not satisfactory, but when you can say "that was fucking awesome!" Part 2 fails to do that, having an ending that feels ok. If at the end of a 5-film series, this long journey, and you can't think of anything good to say, then what does that say about the film as a whole in your mind? All the bad points overwhelm the film, not allowing me to care enough for the ending as a whole. It's not on par with the four films, but below it. That in itself, surely, is a bad sign.

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

That's my rant on the Twilight films altogether, showing in my mind to be just an average series of films.

So let's rant about the main three characters, and the problems raised with them all the mile, as well as talking about one character that has become a near favourite of mine when watching the series.

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

Bella Swan:

Who better to start with? Bella is our hero (ahem not much) and the series is about her own personal journey of not only becoming a vampire, but staying with her true love forever and ever. But however, LOTS of people really think she is a boring, selfish person with no real personality, a real waste of space and a bad role model to boot. And what I think of the character?

A load. A fucking load. BUT! Not as so super manically psychopathic as I see her. Just manically psychopathic. What do I mean by that? There are some traits I do need to question about the character overall.

I have heard and read that she never fights for herself and is always leaving stuff up to everyone else. However, in Twilight she does actually punch one of the would-be rapists away when they came near her. She wasn't expecting Edward to come out of the blue and save her ass. And maybe later on when she sprays James with the pepper spray. Yes she's running away after that, but at least she's attempting to use her brain (what little matter there is in that head). Another point in this is.....she is in a world of vampires and werewolves. And she was easily broken by James. Humans are owned very much in the story a number of times, until they turn into vampires or other such creatures. And in Eclipse, does it look as if she could take on Victoria and come out the victor? I don't think so, argument invalid.

But that's probably the only real defence I can think of for her.

In attacking her, they are a few points that do need to be brought up.

At the end of Eclipse, she talks about how she's never been normal, always stumbling through her life and never had that feeling of being normal ever. Ever since she's entered that new world, she has come face to face with death (and never been killed to people's sorrow), loss, and pain. But she has never felt stronger and more real to herself, because she feels it where she belongs now.

This little speech bugged me at first when watching the film.  I didn't fully understand what she saying. Now I think I get what she means: She believes that she belongs in a supernatural world because she feels she has become a better person because of it after facing a great multitude of challenges. She has somewhere where she can truly be comfortable with. .....I'm on the fence about this for the minute. When watching Twilight, New Moon and Eclipse, I didn't really get much of a feeling she had become a stronger person because of the events that happened. Maybe it's because she hadn't really learned anything from being in those situations, like in New Moon when she continuously put herself in danger so she can hear Edward in her mind. Because of coincidence with the tidal wave and Alice's visions, they manage to get back together at Volterra. I guess I feel as if I don't fully understand what she's learned. If that's a bad sign for a film I don't know what is.

Speaking of New Moon, there is another point that needs bringing up: Bella's break-up with Edward. She's built Edward around her life at that moment, and falls into a deep depression when he breaks up with her. I will not deny that break ups with someone you truly love can be hard and bring you down a notch. But Bella.....Bella sticks around in her mood for a good few months. Many people have cited that this is not normal behaviour for a break-up. I don't know fully the average time it does take for someone to move on from a relationship break-up, but I also don't know if four months is exactly the right point, especially when you decide you want to be with that person forever and stay in that supernatural world as well. Seems a bit obsessive to me.

That's probably the main reason why people hate her with a passion: She's made her life around this one man that makes her world go around (somehow) and with her stubborn nature she pushes her way into this world, not wanting to come away from it, because she thinks it's where she belongs, with Edward. What she wants, she'll have.

Finally in Breaking Dawn Part 2, we hear her say she has never felt more alive being a vampire and thinks that she was always destined to become one. She takes pleasure at being something different, cracking more smiles in that film then she ever has in the other four films overall, has more control over her senses (even though she's a newborn)and able to defeat Emmet in an arm contest. So are we meant to interpret her human life as utterly boring compared to the life of being a vampire? Well....possibly. Her life could be intended to be shown as lifeless and dull, and more weird than it needed to be.

Let's look at the so called "Friends" she makes at school. The friends she makes take an immediate interest in her (especially Eric Yorke. Creepy fucker), and probably help to make her feel very uncomfortable in her environment. In the first few minutes, Eric leaps on her, Mike and Jessica know her name on first meeting and Angela takes a photo of her upon seeing her. Yeah, I'd be scared too. These guys GIVE her an excuse not to be human at all because they're all over her in the first place.

Her father Charlie doesn't really make her life anymore interesting, nothing I can really remember from the films about the commitments he made to make her life a little more better or such. But he still had his moments where he does truly give a crap about what Bella is actually doing with her life.  He wants to be there for his daughter, except Bella can't allow him to because she gets herself into problems that she can't get herself out of, like the pregnancy. Maybe Bella sees their relationship in the first film as repetitive (going to the same restaurant) and boring. With Edward, she sees a new life of freedom and love. If that makes any sense. But that's never really mentioned or hinted at in the films, just the idea of being with Edward. Yay.

Bella Swan's character can be summed up in one word: Nutcase. She is pretty much just that, someone who makes the point of cutting off all ties with her boring life and builds a new life around the man she loves (?), eager to have herself turned at the drop of a hat. She isn't a good role model for the audience at all, if she turns her back on what she calls a miserable life for one person who makes her whole (I will come to this soon, don't worry). Yes, she does have her moments of fighting back and being marginally clever, but most of that is overwhelmed by her sense of desire.  She is a poorly driven character with no sense of proper self until she gets what she wants, an obsessive child. That's what she is, a child. Nothing else. What a load.

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

Edward Cullen:

Edward is the male protagonist of the series. Always trying to convince Bella to remain human and protecting her from all sorts of danger: vampires, werewolves, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc. Eventually he does turn her into a vampire in the end, and spends the rest of his life with forever and forever and forever.....until he kills her. For breaking his heart with some guy called Rupert Sanders.....honest! But like Little Miss Succubus above, he has received a number of criticisms for being an abusive character, overbearing and boring.  So Edward is an...odd character from the look of things.

One of the attentive bits of creepiness he achieves come in Twilight, where he reveals to Bella that he likes to watch her sleep, and has been doing so for the past couple of months, because it fascinates him. Many people have pointed out that this could be attributed to stalker like behaviour. And yes it can be unnerving to hear that someone you like has a habit of coming into your room. I do have the feeling that it is creepy. You may remember the sequence where she wakes up and sees him standing just a few feet away before she turns the light on and then he's not there. Yeah, doesn't that scream charming to you? He might be doing it because of his overwhelming attraction to her scent, but that's more likely to lust more than actual fascination.

Speaking of scents, one thing that did bug me again was Edward's overwhelming attraction to her blood (note to self, don't put fans in rooms where blood might be smelled). He says while in the mountains that he has never been so attracted to a human's blood before, and her blood is like heroin to him. Yes, he made a comparison with heroin. I ask the question: Why Bella specifically? Why not anyone else? He's been with Carlisle for many years and has trained himself to not be attracted to human blood, so why does Bella's blood smell so alluring? It's never explained. At least in the films.

In the Twilight wiki (yes it exists), "singers" are explained that each human has their own individual taste and smell, and those smells can be more then appealing to one specific vampire. It makes them go crazy. Now that's left me really confused. I've never heard of a case where vampires have an overwhelming desire for one specific human, just for all humanity. Maybe this was just meant to be an explanation for Edward and that would make a lot of sense. But I'm not entirely sure of this whole idea that vampires have "singers" that are more appartising, it just doesn't flow right to me. It's like drinking coke I guess, it still tastes the same anyway. Unless someone modified to taste absolutely divine.

Another part of his charming personality is his overprotective nature for Bella. He stops her from doing something he thinks will compromise her safety, like leaving her in New Moon, stopping her from seeing Jacob in Eclipse, and also wants to kill the growing Renesmee in Bella's womb for breaking his precious little human into pieces. Let's look into this.

He leaves Bella in New Moon to protect her from himself and his world because it is dangerous by lying to her that he doesn't love her. He thinks he's doing the right thing for her. And to an extent, it is kind of successful. Yes, the vampires leave town and don't make contact with her until Alice sees Bella almost killing herself accidently. And also he didn't exactly take into account Bella's obsessive behaviour with trying to keep some reminder of him in his head. So in one way, this is a case of him doing the wrong thing to protect her. By lying to her, it doesn't push her away. It does the opposite, pushing her to find a way to keep him in her head.

Another example of him doing the wrong thing is when Bella tries to go see Jacob of her own accord,  to patch things up with him. However when trying to start her truck, Edward appears and explains that the werewolves may harm her. Bella however knows that the pack would not do such a thing, especially Jacob. Eventually, Edward relents and tolerates her visits to them. Along with the fear against the pack, It might be understandable why he's trying to do: Jacob is in love with Bella after all. Everyone knows that, even the cat knows it. And she doesn't give two fucks. This picture shows how much she cares.

And after Jacob forcibly kisses her, Edward is rightfully pissed. Bella is his. So perhaps his paranoia isn't without explanation. Also Bella did say she would always choose Edward, and Edward could've read Jacob's mind at the time. So yeah, one point for each side.

And finally we come to his decision to kill the child growing inside Bella that will become Renesmee. I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on in his head, but I can guess that because he's a vampire, he's fearful that the baby inside will damage and eventually kill her, leaving him all emo and depressed again

(sooo...shouldn't he have known that vampire babies can drink blood before they figured it out?). 

Now that would make sense because the baby is obviously a vampire as well. So again, his fears are rational. But Bella somehow feels a connection and refuses to kill it. Later on after Bella has tasted blood and feeling better, Edward can read the baby's thoughts and realises that it adores both of them. So he loses all sense of hatred for this baby and loves it back. Not entirely sure how a baby can do that, but let's just suspend whatever disbelief we have left (if any). So maybe again it's understandable where he's coming from, but there might be a fine line. He wants to kill it because it would take her down, but it's still a baby. Like any baby, it needs to feed and love and attention (and blood). Such a difficult stance to take.

One final thing I will make note is the possibility of his and Bella's relationship being abusive. In Breaking Dawn Part 1, Edward tries to make Bella look at the results of their love-making with bruises all over her. Amongst this point are a few others leading some people to conclude that Edward is an abusive character towards her. In the films, I'm not entirely sure I got that argument. Don't get me wrong there are moments where I thought he's a dick and didn't need to do everything for her, but there are some moments where I do think he isn't as bad as people make him out to be. Perhaps what he needs is a good slap every now and then.

Edward is a difficult character to talk about. When it comes down to it, he perhaps should have a little more guidance in what he's doing, rather than being let out of the house so often. He tries doing things completely the wrong way and doesn't really get punished for it from Carlisle or anyone else, and he's certainly not the perfect guy for anyone to fall in love in with, especially if he watches you sleep. And maybe they shouldn't turn people at the age of 17 as well as kids. They obviously don't know what they're doing. So this guy might be a good reason to stay single, if you come across anyone like him.

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

Jacob Black:

The second male protagonist of the series, Jacob has a small role in the first film. He gives Bella information about the Quileutes and says his dad brings word: There'll be watching (when it's probably more him than most). In the next three films, he develops an budding friendship and unrequited love for Bella, which isn't fully returned. But his love for her disappears when he imprints on her daughter Renesmee, bringing his story to.....a happy conclusion?  His character is a bit of a stick in the mud, moping over Bella every few seconds and is a bit of a dick at times.

His story arc begins in New Moon where his feelings for Bella develop further as she uses him to hear Edward in her head, turning into full blown love that doesn't go anywhere in the series. No matter what he does to convince her that Edward's a dick, she still sticks to her guns and remains with her vampire stalker fancy.

At times though, he does come across as a dick to me. It's when he keeps mentioning the treaty a number of times to Edward, threatening him if he bites the one he loves, the truce between Cullens and the Quileutes is over. When seeing that onscreen, I believed he's simply using the truce as an excuse to make sure he has a chance to be with Bella. And even if Bella tells him it's none of his business and it's her choice, he's still insistent that he won't let her become one of them. The problem here is that Jacob's obviously masking his own motives so he tries to not be seen as the bad guy, and passing off Edward as the evil man. But everyone to an extent sees through his plan and it does backfire everytime.

The Alpha Male thing was a little bit interesting. Though touched upon lightly and wasn't much of an journey for him (he only broke away from the pack because they would kill Bella), it would've been a little more interesting if that was looked at more, and maybe elaborate further why he chose not to be Alpha since his grandfather was alpha of the pack to start with. But sadly, we're given the what of the situation, but no why it happened. The 'why' is important for any character, it allows us to maybe relate to them better and perhaps put us in their shoes. Without the why, we're left with bones, not flesh. If you get what I mean.

And now we come to the most obvious point in Jacob's life: his imprinting on Renesmee. And there are a few issues that arise from this. Firstly, the two instantly connect with each other (while she's a baby) and in Alice's vision, they'll develop a future relationship together as she grows to full term adult. Now you might be asking, and I'm asking myself: eh? What is this strange devilry delivered at our doorstep? I have one theory that this might have been an attempt to give Jacob some sense of a happy ending and explaining how their relationship from brotherly love to romantic love. But...it's still weird thinking about it. This is all Stephanie Meyer's fault in fairness, using the excuse that it's involuntary to do so to your soul-mate. Maybe it would've made more sense if she reached full term and then he imprinted. But the fact it's done to a baby, knowing you might develop romantic feelings for the child in future, it makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. Secondly, what throws me off is the fact that Jacob and Bella are brought together more so by a connection, when in fact it was Renesmee unborn and Jacob that were drawn together. He explains later in Breaking Dawn Part 2 that him and Bella never made sense, but now it does: Renesmee was the reason. I think my brain just blew up.

So Jacob was attracted to Bella, but it didn't make any sense for him until Renesmee was born. His destiny was to be with Renesmee through Bella? first thoughts: kind of weird again. Is Jacob basically Meyer's fuck puppet?  This was not in anyway talked about EVER in the series at all. I'd always assumed that Jacob had developed some kind of attraction for Bella, not for her kid (wouldn't he be more likely to go for Edward? His testicles would have more than likely contained a sperm Renesmee somewhere). I might've missed something here completely, but until I get further confirmation or correction on whether he was drawn to the child in the womb, or was drawn to her in the whole series...........I'm more inclined to go for the former because it makes a little more sense, but still makes it weird.

Jacob is an even more odd character in the series. He doesn't really do much in the series that doesn't involve being around Bella and Edward, moping about their relationship, using treaties for his own issues and imprinting on random babies for a happy ending. Perhaps he was more developed just for the sake of more drama to occur in the series when really it was not needed past New Moon, and the fact that he gets a happy ending in the shape of imprinting.....it's just weird. I wouldn't go as far to say he is a pointless character (Harry Clearwater always felt pointless as you might tell), but he just throws me off as an total idiot.

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

My favourite character:

Believe it or not, I did develop somewhat of a liking for one or two people in the series. One of which recently has been Carlisle because he's probably the only one who at least shows a modicum of intelligence, or whatever intelligence he's been given. He probably should've realised that vampires still drink blood with Bella's pregnancy in tow so that might knock him down a bit. But...ever since I watched Eclipse, one character has stayed properly in my head that made me think at first: My god, you're awesome.

Yep, It's Rosalie Hale. Why?

Her Backstory. It's a sort of reminder of The Bride's revenge story from Kill Bill. She had a fiance, Royce King II, whom on one fateful night bragged about her beauty while drunk. Despite her rejections, he continued further and groped her against her will, eventually raping her along with many of his friends and leaving her for dead in the streets. After her turning, she took her revenge on all of them, saving Royce for last and donning a bridal gown to be theatrical (makes sense if you think about it. Now married to Emmet, she hates her vampire status and wishes to be human again, have the opportunity to grow old with him, being surrounded by their grandchildren and not be stuck in time. The first time I heard this backstory of her life and desire to become human again, she grew on me so much more then Bella did throughout the first two films. She would've made a better main character than Bella would have done in the first place. In fact, I'd even go as far as saying Twilight should have been THAT backstory.  She's a more sympathetic, and complex character than Bella any-day.

As well as that, her desire to be human again leaves her at odds with Bella, believing she is disrespectful of her choosing immortality for the wrong reasons (which is probably true, Bella is a twit) and voting no for her to become a vampire because it's not a life she'd choose for herself. She believed she had a perfect life, in love with a man she thought cared about her. In that, I do feel sympathetic towards her for losing her life when it was bliss, such a rude awakening to go through. If she was to be human again, I would've taken an interest in looking at that story more than this whole saga.

Admittedly, she does defend Bella's decision to have the child instead of listening to everyone's idea of an abortion, apparently due to her being unlucky not to have a family. It does make sense, considering she could imagine grandchildren being around her, though she wouldn't be the mother. Renesmee becomes a kind of surrogate child for Rosalie to an extent. Despite it being a little bit overbearing, it does give her some development.

Secondly the actress that plays her, Nikki Reed, does a pretty decent job playing her (with the addition of looking hot, but that's just a little personal like). Some of her delivery was pretty good throughout the series and the expressions she does do match up with the character to make her at least believable. Granted some of it isn't always spot on, like she says some lines that sound as if she's bored (no offense), but nonetheless she does a pretty good job overall.

 Also, she had probably the best joke in the entire series: Giving Jacob a doggy bowl. That just cracked me up, I was nearly on the floor. It might've been a bad joke, but it was her way of being snarky to Jacob. She just oozes sarcasm and nastiness.

Those are some of the reasonS why Rosalie is close to, in my mind at least, being the best character in the series, despite the lack of screen-time. She is a breath of fresh air on screen from the mind-numbing of Bella and Edward's relationship, giving us a good deal to look at and take some proper interest in. If she was ever in York at some point, I'd think I'd ask her if she fancied a drink around town even though she's fictional.

For  all the idiotical things The Twilight Saga does have, I'm quite happy there is some things to genuinely like in the film, whether they're badly delivered lines, Michael Sheen's laughter, or even seeing Jasper in pain from being around humans. But over all that, Rosalie is simply divine. My favourite character.

I don't care if spelling is an issue, SHE'S STILL AWESOME!

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

So I would've been putting questions to anything wrong with the series in general. But I think I pretty much covered everything that made me feel confused, freaked out, angry, wanting to kill people in general etc. But in the end I only have one question to ask:

Why, oh why, oh why, oh my fucking god WHY........are Bella and Edward in love?

It's the first question I ever asked myself when watching the first film, and it has bugged me for a while ever since. Why are these two people in love, or better yet: HOW are these two people in love?

When I first watched the film and I heard Bella says I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him, I was asking: why? Nowhere in the film did they have a proper defining moment or conversation where you could see on their faces that they properly like each other. It was moment, after moment, after moment, after moment without any proper scenes to show how these two know their destined to be together. Even watching the film twice for this blog, I could not fanthom properly why and how these two sticks in the mud are believable.

This is meant to be the gel that sticks with the whole film series, to make a relationship believable with these two characters and yet...is there really an answer as to how and why these two are in love?

Ok......let's start from the point where these two met to where they 'fall' in love.

When Edward comes through the door, Bella almost instantly finds him attractive. That's fair enough, I can believe that she think he's looks awesome. But during that day in their class, Edward gives her the heebie-jeebies (did I just say that?) and she wants to confront him about his behaviour, but doesn't get a chance. It's only after he returns that they start to hit it off (her convienantly forgetting to ask him what his deal is), and she starts telling him about why she moved up. Then he saves her life from the van crushing her to death, and then she wonders who the fuck is this guy.

When they chat again in the cafeteria, he says that its better if they're weren't friends, not that he didn't want to be friends. So is he trying to make friends, or is he just being an awkward fuck? Bella gets some information from Jacob about cold one and finds a book in Port Angeles where he's saved by him, and has dinner. There he explains that he feels very protective of her (why?) and doesn't have the strength to stay away from her. It's from this point she does her research and comes to the right conclusion that he's a vampire.

And finally, they have their chat in the mountains. Edward explains how Bella is weaker compared to him (AS IF YOU COULD OUTRUN ME!) and how her smell had driven him crazy. Bella doesn't care (even if he's killed people!) and says she's afraid of losing him, and it feels like he'll disappear. Then they go to their favourite meadow and stare into each other's eyes.......urgh my brain's turning to mush again.

The point where it turns first is probably when Edward returns to school and is nicer to Bella this time around. Bella doesn't ask him what his deal is after what happened first between them, instead just saying 'yeah' when he says her name. Neither does she properly follow it up. Now...shouldn't she ask him anyway, especially after he's being all nice to her now? Wouldn't that make you more suspicious to what he's like as a person if at first he looks at you funny, then is like 'Oh hi sorry I didn't introduce myself last week'. It's kind of weird not to isn't it?

In the same class, Edward asks why she moved up for the rain and she explains that it's complicated, but explains that her mom remarried to Phil. I don't know whether this is warranted or not because they are making small talk. But this is the guy that made her want to confront him, yet she felt the need to explain to him why she moved up. Logical. My thinking about this is whether they are close enough friends for her to think talking about her moving away from her mother. Answer: Nope, but in Twilight, anything goes!

Then we come to Edward saving her. It's understandable that Bella wants answers for what happened, and isn't going to take his lies. So she decides to find out for herself how the fuck he doing this....after a while of course. Does Bella have a brain?

One thing that does bug me is when he says in the cafeteria after that field trip: "It would be better if we weren't friends, I didn't say I didn't want to be". Well then, he keeps coming over to her and making conversation instead of doing the better thing. On the field trip, he was being quite rude to her so maybe he was trying to protect her there, but here...he's giving her some confused signals. Make up your mind Edward! Bella seems to be bemused by him as a person. He's rude one minute, the next he's all charm.

And again he saves her, this time from the rapists, and they go have a meal together (because the police obviously have enough on their plate without anymore attempted rapes to report, but whatever). He says he feels very protective of her. I asked myself at first: why? Is it because of her blood that he's not only protecting her from himself, and that sort of expands to her getting into trouble and him coming to save her? Or does he feel the need to do the 'right' thing to save a human's life? This is where it gets confusing. I know I'm thinking this stuff myself, but even if he had a reason, he still followed her unless she needed help. Isn't that stalker like, even though it's helpful? Bella didn't know he was following her at all! Yet she even says to him don't keep away from her when he says he doesn't have the strength to do so anymore. Bella is not normal or even, dare I say, weird in an acceptable manner.

So after all the research she does and figures out he's a vampire, she doesn't run away. She embraces the fact and doesn't care about his status, or what he's done, she accepts him for who he is, more intrigued with him than ever. It's how he saved her. It doesn't explain why he saved her. But she doesn't care, she's more concerned with losing him.

Now this is a point where I have thought is this the reason why, because he's a vampire? If so, Bella's in for a run of her money. Yes, she probably understands that's why he was weird to her at first, why he saved her from the truck and the rapists etc. But remember, he did follow her and gave her confusing signals, so I don't know if I myself, if I was Bella, would fall in love with him. But all of that's good anyway for her!

Perhaps then that's the reason WHY, because Edward is a vampire. From the moment she saw him, she was fascinated by him, and now she knows the reason why he's done what he can do, why he was funny with her firsthand, protect her (stalker), and makes his mind up that he can't stay away from her. For Edward, killing her was an incentive but chose to hold himself back. With the protection, it might have made sense before, but then he went down kinky territory, following her from a distance, and he can't hold back from her.

But I don't think these two are really in love with each other. For one, Bella might be more in love with the idea of Edward. The vampire thing is intriguing enough for her; she can feel protected (STALKER!) and it might explain why at the end, she wants to be like him. She wants to be a vampire because she enjoys that kind of lifestyle. Yes, I call it a lifestyle choice (suck it Westboro Baptist Church). And she does get that at the end, she becomes a vampire and basks in the glory of it. Edward on the other hand is a bit of a creepy guy. He can't make his mind up whether he wants to protect her, or be close to her due to his vampire nature. Perhaps it's more of a lustful thing in his mind because ultimately they do come together. Such sad sad fools......

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

And guys.....that is it. The Twilight Saga is over.

It's been a fascinating, confusing, brain-mashing, shitty ride.

What can I say about the saga overall?

Honestly, the films themselves are pedantic, frustrating, questionable and laughable. It started off as alright to just downright incredible HORRORENDOUS. Bella Swan is unbelievably stupid to an inane point where I just want her to DIE! Edward Cullen is a stalker who needs to DIE! And Jacob needs a KICK UP THE ASS. There are some really nice parts of the film, there really are. Rosalie is awesome, the colours used for the films are great in some of them, and in a couple of films did genuinely give me something to laugh about. But they are very far and few in between each film, which is pretty sad.

I know that the books might be just as awful, but these films have nearly given me brain-damage enough. So I don't think I'm going near the books for a very, very, VERY good while. Hopefully until I die.

I have nothing more to say about this series......ever, ever, ever, ever......EVER AGAIN!

But for a couple of last words, I can say without fear or problems:

FUCK TWILIGHT!!!

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

For last words, I am taking a break from The Randomizer for a month throughout October. I feel as if I have spent a good chunk on it with difficulty in finding what to talk about. For this time, I will be focusing on my book writing and get that sorted as quickly as I can in the time I have. I'm sorry if I will be disappointing many of you, but I need this time to recover ground for myself, and be able to have some time to myself. Don't take this the wrong way please. I still enjoy writing the subjects I have in mind, but there comes a point where I just feel what can I write about? And I will return in November. So don't fret my friends!

Until then, goodbye for now.

Love,

Si