Vamp

Something I've always wondered, and maybe someone on here might be able to answer, what do Japanese commentators tend to talk about? I'm assuming that they mainly just call the action but do they make jokes as well? What kinda things do they tend to say exactly? Does it vary from promotion to promotion?

Ringleader of protest violence revealed to be council worker (and son of Labour head of Corporate Development).

 

What a f**king idiot. What a surprise that he's a public sector worker too. It's blatantly obvious that all the protests last weekend were purely about self-interest, they couldn't give a flying f**k about the public, they just know they're up shit creek if they lose their jobs in the cuts.

Have there been any protests where the core of the protestors haven't gone out of self interest?

I've been getting my girlfriend into Mystery Science Theater 3000 lately so as a special treat she downloaded Twilight with a RiffTrax commentary that someone had kindly synced up and uploaded to a Torrent site. She read the first few chapters of the Twilight novel and despised it while I despised the novel and its fanbase without reading it to save time, but we thought we'd try out RiffTrax and watch the film to see what the fuss was about.

 

Fuck.

 

If you watched this film and genuinely enjoyed it then you need to die. No joke, totally serious, if you enjoy Twilight then you should kill yourself, and if you have a friend or relative who enjoys Twilight then you have a duty to kill them too. This "film" is horrible, everything from the dialogue to the cinematography to the actors to the so-called "visual effects" was just appalling, I can't even begin to understand how this vampire-themed masturbatory aid even became a novel let alone a series of movies. I've seen a lot of shit movies in my life but Twilight, just saying the word make me want to vomit, is the only movie that I've ever seen that made me drop to my knees and pray for the end of the human species. I don't care if it's a natural disaster, some kind of nuclear holocaust or even the fire and brimstone shindig described in the book of Revelations; kill all humans now. Remember how the plot of Constantine revolved around God and Lucifer having a wager over the souls of all mankind? Remember how neither true angels nor demons can manifest on Earth, but they are allowed to possess and influence humans? Yeah, well, Stephanie Mayer is a human possessed by a fucking demon under the watchful eye of Lucifer. Her mission on Earth is to make millions from her shitty novels thus destroying the credibility of the written word, which will be the first step in a calculated attempt by Lucifer to plunge humanity back into another intellectual dark age and win his wager with God. Stephanie Mayer is the first, but mark my words she will not be the last. May God have mercy on us all.

I hate the film as much as anyone else, and I'll agree with anyone that calls it crap, but you kinda overdidit with the 'comical wish death on fans of shit' thing. I know Charlie Brooker's cool (mostly because he makes sure the joke's equally on him as much as anything else), but saying that you wish a holoucaust to happen because someone made a bad movie actually makes you look worse than the 18 year old Twilight fans who pick a team and wear the t-shirts displaying their chosen character. I mean, rip into the film all you want and those responsible, that's amusing and fun to read, but ripping into people who like it and saying they should die just makes you look like a twat. I realise it probably seemed funny in your head, and its not like I'm offended or anything, but seriously? I just don't get people who go so far. Especially since most of its fans are probably about 14, I liked shit when I was 14, you liked shit when you were 14, everyone likes shit when they're 14. Hell, I like watching shit now.

Isn't there the Google factor to take into consideration? Sure, not everyone would, but there might be a few who saw Hogan and googled him to see what he's actually been up to. I'm guessing the TNA website, or something relating to TNA, would appear on the first page of answers somewhere. I know it does for me. Twice.

Did anyone catch The Killing on BBC 4 last night? Seems like it'll be quite a good watch if the first two episodes were anything to go by. I mean, they wern't anything groundbreaker but still pretty good I thought.

That reminds me of one of Stuart Lee's jokes where he goes on a rant about why anyone would consider writing a 'toilet book' an achievment. I couldn't quite make up my mind at the time whether he was being sarcastic or not but he reminded me of an English Literature lectuer who only believes in 'quality' novels. But then I'm not a fan of Stuart Lee.

 

Anyway, some of the QI books are good for what you suggest, a few interesting quick facts. I suppose the Private Eye annuals have to be mentioned too. Come to think of it, some of the shorter Sherlock Holmes stories are good for a quick read.

 

I fucking love Stewart Lee, he's my favourite comedian. I thought that was a great rant, but I still believe in good toilet books.

 

I will have a look at the QI books - cheers.

 

What does Clarkson write about in his columns? Can't say I'm nuts about the guy, but I'll have a browse if I see them in the book shop.

Sorry, I'm just not a fan really. I can't make up my mind whether its his material I have an aversion to or his delivery. One of those things really.

That reminds me of one of Stuart Lee's jokes where he goes on a rant about why anyone would consider writing a 'toilet book' an achievment. I couldn't quite make up my mind at the time whether he was being sarcastic or not but he reminded me of an English Literature lectuer who only believes in 'quality' novels. But then I'm not a fan of Stuart Lee.

Anyway, some of the QI books are good for what you suggest, a few interesting quick facts. I suppose the Private Eye annuals have to be mentioned too. Come to think of it, some of the shorter Sherlock Holmes stories are good for a quick read.

I also like Radio 4's Friday night comedy. The News Quiz I can give or take, but I heart the Now Show.

How could I forget the Now Show! Always worth a listen, although I couldn't make it through the recent Christmas Panto at all.

Still the radio but not music, I am in love with 'Just a Minute' just as my mother and grandfather were before me, which I think speaks of how universal and wonderful the show is. Probably not for everyone, its never edgy comedy, its just some fine comedians trying to speak for a minute. Far more exciting then it sounds.

A question I've wondered for a while, partly inspired the WWE's new policy regarding blood, has there ever been a first blood match in which one of the wrestlers was busted open unintentionally? People like William Regal seem to start bleeding hardway all the time, so surely it must have happened at some point? If it did happen what did they do about it?

Funny Games (Austrian version)

 

Again, another subbed film that hit the spot. The film has a great way of building up great tension for the viewer.. there were times where I was on on the edge just waiting to see what would happen next. The thing I love about the film is that you dont actually see much violence, but it makes it obvious that its happening (if that makes sense).

I've seen the American remake of this which is supposedly a more or less shot for shot remake of the original. Whether it is or not I couldn't comment but it was quite well done. Its genuinely quite chilling at times and I think its because you don't see the violence. It seems to make it more real, perhaps because we've all just becoe too desensitized from seeing violence onscreen. There's a brilliant bit somewhere in the middle where they do something unrealistic (I'm trying not to give away spoilers) that pisses you off in all the right ways. Certainly worth a look for anyone that hasn't seen either version. ITs quite tense pretty much all the way through.

Nah, still cant see what the fuss is all about.. Press after blood, want the coalition to fail, have done so since the start and are picking off the Lib Dems as they are seen as a weak touch the wankers.

 

Who is control papers and media strugglimg for figures and readers or the government. Utter bollocks

Really? Because when the coalition first started a lot of the media seemed to agree with the utter arsewank that Clegg and Cameron were spouting about how the coalition is what the public had wanted. Which, of course, wansn't in any way true when you consider that the Lib Dems had come third. The public had mostly wanted a Tory government, although were almost nearly as in favour of a Labour government and definately didn't want a Lib Dem one. Technially if it was the Coalition people wanted, then it would have been a Tory-Labour one, which obviously wasn't goign to happen, but certainly its what the public wanted more than the Con-Dem one we've got now.

The fuss though is pretty obvious. Murdoch having that much control over the media is a cause of great concern for many, not just because of how much of the media he already controls in this country but because of the power he has elsewhere too. The Conservatives are all for it and Vince Cable was probably the only person that could and would stand in the way. Personally if I were him that's a position I probably wouldn't want to be in and I'd by lying if I said a part of me didn't wonder whether or not he knew precisely what he was doing.

And technically the Murdoch media backed the Tories, just as they have done with Labour in the past, and both times they got the result they wanted. So the who is control question is a good one. Murdoch's a powerful bed fellow for the Tories and they won't be happy to lose him. He met up with the parties prior to the election, and prior to supporting any of the parties, for private meetings, and this was likely one of the items discussed. We've already seen that the government had no problem undermining the BBC in what will be, for supporters of the Beeb, quite a worrying way. Not just because they're having to make cuts but because what they're having to shoulder the cost for, and what they could have had to shoulder the cost of is actually quite surprising.

So yeah, this is actually pretty important. It also comes at a time when the Director General of the BBC publically stated that he thinks that a television news show that isn't mean to be impartial shoud be encouraged in this country. He actually suggested something like Fox news, that's quite worrying. Or at least I think it should be. It'd be nice to say people are media savvy enough in this country not to have strong opinionated news lead them tobelieve things they probably shouldn't, but I'm not sure they are. There's people in this country that still believe media is a soft subject when its quite possibly one of the most crucial subjects on the curriculum when you consider the amount of sway the media arguably has now. We've been a country that, bar the newspapers, has maintaiend a fairly impartial news. We haven't completely, certainly the BBC have made dodgy political decisions in the past (they didn't cover the General Strike a few decades back because the government didn't want them to) and now there seems to be a somewhat liberal tendency to the broadcaster but certainly don't have anything openly biased. If Murdoch's allowed this he'll have a staggering amount of media coverage in this country, rivalling the BBC, and if as I suspect he will be he is given free reign to have a politcally biased television news channel then he'll be able t osay whatever he wants in his papers and through Sky. He's already backed winners at elections and some would suggest that they won because of his support. If that's true than Murdoch would have a lot of say politically as well. Don't forget tha Fox news, owned by the news corporation, is incredibly biased and a lot of the times its quite scary. A lot of people believe some of the more paranoid stories on that channel, and that's why we have the America we do now where there's some quite loony right wing beliefs, and equally left wing. Its because of their media.

Harry Potter

 

I thought this was cracking. They got a lot of stuff in without making it feel rushed (like with HBP). I usually find Emma Watsons performances a little cringeworthy sometimes (she overacts) but I thought everyone including her was fantastic. Rupert Grint has put on some pounds too, the boys buff.

 

Can't wait for part 2.

I thought it was complete crap. Its not that I don't like films or books meant for children, and its certainly not that I don't like fantasy films or books, but it was so boring in parts. Those parts being pretty much whenever the main characters were on the screen. Although I actually think emma Watson's got the best potential out of all of them, she just needs some pretentious French director to fall in love with her and she'll be sorted. But generally the movie was only interesting when the add on characters were on screen. There was also the stupidity of the fear scene with Ron, that I kbnow the reasoning behind but actually didn't make any logical sense in the way it played out. The whole point of "oh, if we piss him off he'll only attack Harry and not destory me too" was utter stupid and nonsensical. It was probably in the books, I gave up on them after the fourth or so. The whole quest thing seemed a bit tacked on when it came to the films, obviously that's from the books too and I'd hope that it fits the books more naturally, but everytime they mention it in the films I can't shake the feeling that Rowling didn't know how to make an ending that would satisfy her followers and so tacked on a big quest thing that doesn't quite fit it. Again, whether that's her fault or the people doing the films I couldn't say. In twenty years time when someone remakes the Harry Potter movies I genuinely think we could end up with something better than we have now.

I'm actually quite excited about seeing the new Narnia film. I was a Narnia kid during my childhood and the first one was wonderful, the second slightly flatter but the new one looks promising. Narnia at Christmas just feels right.

The simple truth about the violence of the streets is this, its not soley anyone's fault. I think the media, both left and right, is looking to point the finger at specific groups and go "yeah, its all their fault" but its pretty obvious who should get the blame for the violence on the streets; the Government for lying and then not being able to win people over through rational arguments, the rioters who should never have gone to that level of violence, the police who have made questionable decisions from the start, the media who have shown that the only way to get so much attention is to be violent and controversial and those who have given any money to the media which continues, on both sides of the political fence, to be nothing short of awful.

So it isn't those 'bastard' Tories who are to blame, or those 'lying, treacherous' Lib Dems, or those 'sulky middle class' students, the violence on the streets of our nation's captial is essentially the fault of our entire country (or at least those over the age of 15 or so). People arn't going to like admitting it, and I dare say that my view will be met of "oh, how is it my fault", but it is. We've had, in the past two years or so, an expert come out and explain how the reporting of murders has celebrated murders to the point where it can be seen as appealing to certain people, and what he said made a lot of sense, and there's not a single person who can rationally argue that the student protests would have gotten this much attention if they didn't act so violently. The media has encouraged it, and we've all supported the way the media have been and will continue to do so. Not that I condone people who have used violence to get attention, personally I'd rather people used sheer numbers and words to fight their battles, but I'm certainly not shocked (and nor should any rational person be) that people felt that violence was the only way of getting their message across.

So there you go, that's the violence explained. There's no one section of sociey to pin this all on. Even if you do agree with the government's policy I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that they did a very good job of getting their message across. People will no doubt argue this with "oh, well, these sulky students just put their fingers in their ears and didn't listen because they were too busy shouting' but in doing so they'll just be part of a rhetoric which has become a major problem with this country today; the fact that youngsters are constantly derided. The more and more you put down a section of society, the more and more you pin them as something, the more and more likely they are to take on your words, take on your comments and then throw them back at you, taking on those negative connotations and throwing them in your face. For years people have suggested that 'violent youngsters have taken over the streets at night' making them feel its unsafe to walk about town, the student protests ended with a mass of youngsters taking on that image and chanting about the streets being theirs.

The only part of this that has shocked me is this basic assumption that all students are middle class, or that it's only the middle class complaining. I'm a student from a working class background and I'm deeply concerned about the new cost of tuition fees. My reason is simply this; I'm a Beaver leader and I know that one day those six year olds will grow up, and some of them will want to go to Uni and some of them won't, but I live in a working class area and I know for a fact that the new numbers that students will now have to face would have put me off from going to University. I would have had second thoughts. Some of those kids will have to see those figures and face such high debts and make a decision; go to Uni or not, I would hate it some of those kids decided not to persue their dreams because of those numbers. And I know for a fact that some of them will. That's not debatable. Of course the debts that the entire country must face have be taken into consideration, but there are those out there who have simply brushed any problems with all this aside as "they haven't got a point at all, this isn't going to stop anyone from going to uni, its just the middle class sulking" which simply isn't true. An entire country is, of course, more important that one simple person, it would be foolish to argue that it wasn't but we must all face the fact that the decision this government has made, a decision that by and large it seems this country agrees with, will stop certain people from doing what they want to do with their lives. This generation is guilty of stoping people from achieving their dreams. Whether it was the right decision or not will still be debated for a while but anybody who's tried to wipe their noses of this guilt must face those facts. Not all right decisions are easy, I grant you, and maybe there was no choice but the fact still remains, those who claim that it won't really have any effect are as blind as any leftist cries that education should have been made free.

Doesn't surprise me, I go to the Guardian for the culture and media stuff quite often but they're quite unashamedly left wing the majority of the time. But then its no secret that we've got quite a few right wing 'papers in the country so I guess it balances it out a bit. Really the only way to get at the truth of matters in this country is to read all the newspapers and form an opinion that way. If you read one chances are you're being given a very biased view. The jounalism in this country is nothing short of awful.

My biggest concern about the Guardian's coverage at the moment is their decision to use that image of a child spraypainting the word "revolution" for seemingly pretty much everything to do with the protests. I'm not disputing that there's been some "down with the government" speeches or words liek that tagged on walls but the majority of the students arn't after a revolution, suggesting so heavily that they are isn't helping matters at all or presenting the matter fairly.

I must say that while some of the tactics the police have used have been controversial they've done well so far to not make a massive fuck up so far. Its a volatile situation, a lot of the people protesting are kids, they're mixing with some socialist nutters and they're pissed off and yet while some of the policing has been somewhat questionable they haven't done anything terribly wrong which it'd be easy enough to do.

So with the way things are at the moment; Tories making spending cuts left right and centre, the Lib Dem's showing that they'll sacrifice anything to be in power and Labour seemingly unable to come up with many alternative ideas while shouting "that's not very nice" would anyone like to make a supremely early prediction at the results of the next general election? Obviously it's stupidly early, and anything could happen in the inbetween time, but it'd be interesting to look back after the fact and laugh at false predictions and marvel at those who were right.

Unfortunately I have been, which means I've seen a BBC news presenter pester a student saying "do you really think criminal actions are justified to get your message across" while they've been focusing the majority of their attention on the more criminal protest and more or less ignoring the peaceful ones up and down the country. Funny that people feel that they'll have to turn criminal to get attention isn't it?

What saddens me about this is I'm actually a BBC supporter.

There was also the incredibly fantastic moment where the Education Secretary essentially said that protests have no part in a democracy and instead he'll be happy to have a debate about it. Fine, when exactly is he going to invite each of the 50,000 that protested two weeks ago to have that personal debate with him?

I'm also worried that countries like France must be looking at the violent protest, shaking their heads and feeling like ruffling our hair and saying "Awwh, is it all too violent for you?" Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a peaceful protest, nor am I supporting criminal activity on any level, and I agree that these haven't been peaceful protests, but they're not really 'violent' protests are they? More mild mannered.

Making stars is easy in a real sport. if you beat the other guys, you are the star. There's no difference between Joe Rogan telling us Paul Daley (or whoever) is the next big thing and Jerry Lawler telling us John Morrison (or whoever) is the next big thing. In theory. In reality, Rogan is legit, the sport is legit and Daley's record is legit. It's way easier.

 

But it's much easier for WWE to decide that Morrison (just to stick to your random example) is the next big thing and just have him beat everyone. WWE can decide to push Morrison hard, have him beat everyone in the mid-card cleanly and move into a permanent main event spot. They just don't do it though, by choice. If anything WWE has it much easier because there is no chance of their 'chosen guy' getting beaten out of no-where by a lower level guy, killing his momentum.

I disagree with this somewhat. Admittedly the WWE can decide who they want to try and push, which for the UFC is more difficult to do (although not impossible, they can set a guy up with a series of matches they'll presume he'll win and make them seem a bigger deal than they perhaps are) but that doesn't mean the push is going to work. Sure they can give Morrison a string of wins and have him beat everyone in the midcard, but that doesn't mean he'll get over. If someone in a legit sport beats people then its impressive but we all know wrestling isn't real. Wrestling runs the risk of pushing someone too hard and having a an backlash because of it. That and it takes more than a bunch of wins for fans to care about a wrestler, and if they don't care about a wrestler than a bunch of wins won't matter. Goldberg beat everyone on his rise to the top of WCW, but if somebody else had that push than they might not have gotten as over, but he had the attributes needed and the push happened at the exact right moment in time. Everyone knows wrestling's fake, a guy winning a bunch of matches doesn't make the audience care. The wrestler needs a personality, somethign that makes the mstand out, and they need an it factor or some charisma or some such talent. Getting the balance between pushing a guy and not over-pushing him and findign someoen with the right personality to strive is a very difficutl thing to do. Plus with UFC the sense of unpredictability is always, to some extent, there. Purely because its real. The WWE have to create that sense of unpredictability and that's a very rare thing to amanage to do. Eric Bischoff used to look for one unpredictable moment a week which shows you how rare it is. With no competition to shrow a spanner in the works its even more difficult.

I'm not saying its impossible to get new people over and that the WWE shouldn't try. But I do think that it can be a lot more difficult than the internet and dirtsheet writers (I'm not aiming this at you personally but its more an overall trend) sometimes appreciate. Look at how many TV dramas there are out there which fail, there's a quite a few more than ones that get critical acclaim. The main reasons for TV dramas failing is because of the characters. Getting people to give a damn, really give a damn, is a difficult task, especially in today's age. That's why reality TV became so popular amongst TV execs, that's why that genre of television gets so many viewers, because gettign people to care about real people as opposed to characters is much, much easier.

Is the original Assassin's Creed worth

Watched Canniball Holocaust for the first time yesterday evening. Despite not being a fan of exploitation movies, or the horror genre in general apart from a select few, I have to confess to be interested in viewing this particular film. Perhaps it just hasn't aged well but I can't say I found it as horrific as other people claimed it was. The turtle scene was kinda brutal, more from the fact that I didn't quite see why they felt the need to do it for real when it didn't really add much to the film and I must admit that the fire scene tugged at the heart strings a bit but it didn't effect me much at all. I had no real emotional investment with any of the characters, and therefore didn't find myself caring much about the atrocities depicted on screen.

It must be said, however, that the music is pretty cool.

It also brings me to another point. Why have exploitation movies become the "in" thing for the horror genre? I've got nothing against violence and brutality on screen, but so many times i just isn't done well. You need to create an emotional investment with characters for people to give a crap about them, its as simple as that. Final Destination is the worst at this particular crime, its like they don't realise that movies are a storytelling device. I can't stand these films and I really don't understand why they're so popular. I just find myself bored by them all. Its just meaningless spectacle that I can't even give a damn about. It seems as the horror genre, and I'm really only talking about Hollywood here, has gone back to the origins of cinema where people were amazed to watch trains pull up at stations.

I think I've seen The Hustler, it was pretty grim towards the end I seem to remember. Too grim to be enjoyable really.

A whole lot of "What the fuck's going on?" and the usual Mill phone-it-in FX job saved by some snappy dialogue ("You're Scottish; fry something!") and a fast pace.

Sorry but the way that reads is as if you're suggesting that the Mill are phoning it in on what is surely a loss leader for them. I highly doubt the Beeb are paying them anywhere near the amount that the CGI they supply them with for Doctor Who should actually cost.

I complained as it was no fucking different to what had gone before despite assurances that it woould be.. the rest of your post confirms that their were multiple references to the tennant/ Davies era as well So no different then.. Let down I was

That's not much of a criticism. Hey, this series is similar to that other brilliant series that won loads of awards and was generally one of the highest rated British dramas around. And it was appropiately different, its still Doctor Who, so what were you expecting? It had new actors, new sets, a completely different feel. I don't quite know what you wanted? And sure, they made a few references, but most of that was dialogue from the Doctor, who is still basically the same man as he always was. That's kinda the point. Especially since there's always a delay in him changing into whatever he'll become. And actually I'm pretty certain the hospital bit was more a homage to Buffy which has people in comas in hospital saying things during I think the fourth series.

Watched 'The Big Sleep' last night since I'm semi-addicted to movies of that type. Film noirs are normally good for a watch, and so is anything involving Bogart who's perfect for the roles he plays, although I've never quite worked out if thats because he's a good actor or because he very much is the characters he plays. It was a good watch, quite atmospheric, not as confusing as people make out, but the ending didn't quite suit it for me. I haven't read the book, so maybe its the same as the original ending, but it just seemed a bit too schmaltzy hollywood which doesn't really suit these type of films. Still, worth a watch if you like film noir, or Bogart, and if you don't its still worth a watch until you do understand why they're great...

I've had a "moment" with Daniel Radcliffe. I say a moment because it wasn't much of a meeting, I was ushering for a charity show at the theatre I volunteer at and it was kind of in honour of one of the stunt men from Harry Potter who had an unfortunate accident. We knew Radcliffe was there, he had a meal in our grounds looking all dressed up but when he went into the auditorium he had changed and had a baseball cap on. Anyway, letting people out of the door and he looks up and I recognise him, decided it was best not to say anything which he seemed grateful for.

And that's about it. Oh and I've done a favour for Cindarella, and had the piss taken out of me by Mark Jones but since he's a kids presenter, I think that right, I could be wrong, I doubt many people know him.

I remember watching one of the special features on a "Monk" DVD, and they asked Tony Shalhoub what was the worst thing that could happen to his character. He said "for him to get better", and right then I knew that I need never watch the program again because they were committed to him being the same as ever, for ever, and it depressed me a bit. It's the same with House - not the character, so much, but the show. I just wish they'd do something, anything, to shake things up properly- getting rid of Foreman, for one, or even changing the location of the show. They're never going to do anything with the central relationship of House and Cuddy, so they really ought to have House do something else with his enormous intellect. I just don't know. A proper girlfriend maybe?

Changing the location might be interesting I suppose, although I'd like to see more of it really. We get a few glimpses every now and then of the world outside the hospital, I'm thinking of the brilliant written one about the rape victim, and it all looks good and freshens things up a bit like, I don't want to say a breath of fresh air, but at least it creates some change. Then again I'd worry that a location change would only create interest for so long and then we'd realise that it actually hasn't changed much at all.

And it does seem that on the House and Cuddy front they've written a rule that says it can never happen. A proper girlfriend might be interesting, with Hosue struggling to change to keep her and the constant battle that'd provide for the character, but then it might be harder to accept him as a miserable depressed man. Then again, I'd imagine giving him a girlfreidn might make him even more so, as his midn would always be questioning her motives. Hmm, I like it. Could work. Will they ever do it though?

But yeah, as has been said, it's still one of the better shows on television, and probably one of my favourite ones from America but I just wish they could fidn that consistent brilliance htye had before and be interesting each and every week. Come to think of it, the colour pallete might be part of the reason why its been a bit more dull lately. They did one episode where the patients didn't feel happiness and they toned down the colour for that and made everything a bit more grey and dull, but now they seem to have stuck with a more dull natural colour scheme. Maybe its my mind playing tricks on my but the earlier series do seem a bit more bright and vibrant.

House is getting worse, unfortunately. Taub is back, but that's the only good thing.

The problem with house is, and I'm a huge fan of the show, its starting to get to the point where its past its prime really. I don't think there's enough left to be able to do with the show, and I think that whatever happens from now on (its past its peak for me certainly) will just be a pale imitation of what it used to be. I doubt there's enough original and interesting medical mysteries anyway, but getting them weak after weak will continue to get more and more boring, and while that wasn't the main hook anyway, which is character development, it also has to be said that that's going to take a hit in quality as well. We've discovered so much abotu the characters, that there's very little else to do with them, aside from House, and therefore it has to become more of a soap. Which is awful for something that was once a great drama.

Having said that, I still watch and for the most part enjoy, I just feel something needs to be done to give it a bit of a jolt really. I thought they had that at the start of the series, with House seemingly starting to become a changed man, and while obviously they could never have him become a clean cut good guy, I'd have liked a bit more of a struggle between him trying to be a better person and him being an asshole, even with the suggestign that its his job that leads him to beign the way he is. At some point we're bound to see him go back on the drugs, or seem like he's about to, which might make for compelling viewing. I'd like a crew change as well really. I'd keep Cuddy, because I like the romance story they've got going between her and House and always have (which is probably not the popular opinion) but maybe find a way to write Wilson out, at least for a series or so, as while Wilson & House have a wonderful chemistry and provide some good comedy at times it'd probably be pretty compelling viewing to take House's support away from him and seeing what happens. I don't really think Foreman has anywhere to go as a character, so maybe ditch him again, but for good this time. I kind of feel the same about 13 too, as hot as she is. Its not a knock on the actors, its just the caracters seem to be pretty much done in terms of development, there doesn't seem to be any interesting directions to take them in.

Then again if the producers behind House got rid of some people it'd be hard to believe that they wouldn't bring them back at some point. They need to have people leave and stay away for good. And do more freaky shit; show me more people's experiances in comas-is it real or not, House hallucinating and imaging things and not being able to determine what's real or not, that kind of stuff works well within the series. Do some more light hearted stuff. And bring up religions, House seems to do pretty well when they've got a religion to mock. But like I say, even if they did do all this, the show has passed its peak now, and I think that's more due to just how long its been on for. I don't think it could reach it again. And I don't know if having Hugh Laurie as an executive producer is helping. He's an amazing actor, and probably doesn't actually have that much sway in terms of stories and stuff, but his ideas about television and how character's shouldn't change and so forth might be hindering the series. Some change in House could only be beneficial.