"So tell us, Alex, was the Hobbit the Tokien Phantom Menace?"

As those of you who follow me on Twitter or in real life will know, I love to say "I told you so". With the release of the Hobbit, I have decided that in the spirit of inferior additions to popular franchises, I will write a follow up to my popular 2011 blog post "The Hobbit: Tolkien Phantom Menance?".

Firstly, I have to say this: The Hobbit is nothing like The Phantom Menace. Beautifully rendered, well acted, solidly entertaining and consistently enjoyable, The Hobbit is a good, well made film. Yet it suffers from a couple of the same problems. 

I don't want to blow my own trumpet (if I could I'd never leave the house), but everything I predicted about The Hobbit has come true.

Upon writing, on April 4th 2011, I bemoaned the decision to slice the Hobbit in two. That sounds like what would happen if there was a Lord of the Rings/Saw crossover, but that may have actually been less horrific than this decision. What I didn't know at the time is that Jackson and team would be sharpening their swords once again to chop it into three. This remains the biggest problem with An Unexpected Journey in that there's just not enough going on.

The fact that the Hobbit was never going to reach the heights of Lord of the Rings was true from the start, and is down to the source material. The lighter tone (perfectly captured, I might add) detracts from its epicness, but this is necessary. Basically, they should have made the films the other way round to avoid anticlimax. As I said previously "How is seeing Sir Ian take Tim from The Office to steal some treasure going to compare with the epic battle with the Balrog, or the painstaking crawl up the slopes of Mount Doom?" If you want to add grandeur to a story, hiring that bloke who played various nondescript, interchangeable characters in various things is probably a mistake. Also, having a Goblin King that resembles Boss Nass? You would have thought Star Wars Episode 1 imagery would be avoided at all costs.

The modest source material is comparable to Star Wars prequels being tied down by their explanatory duties, but contrary to Star Wars, the Hobbit turns its prequel nature to its advantage to explain aspects of the Lord of the Rings in a way that wasn't done in the book due to it being written first. Also, the fact that the book was written first means it's a good story in its own right, rather than just a path to what follows.

I also complained about the number of Lord of the Rings actors who were signed on for the Hobbit, whose characters don't appear in the book. I stand by this, and since writing my original blog more were announced such as Christopher Lee and Orlando Bloom. The things in part one that were additional to the book were brief and felt peripheral to the main story, but I still believe they might pay off more substantially in part two and three. But as a standalone film, the scenes in part one with Galadriel, Radagast and Saruman felt irrelevant and didn't go anywhere. (Although as a huge fan I still enjoyed seeing these event put to screen)

So while there are some points on which the Hobbit was like the Phantom Menace, to brand it a failure in the same way is innaccurate and unfair. Its lighter tone is to be expected, and its only real failing is the fact that not enough happens due to being split in three to make more money, slightly akin to the Phantom Menace.

The final point on which I was right was that the Dark Knight Rises would be awesome. I told you so.

Thanks for listening to how right I was. For more accurate future predictions keep reading my blog.

Equality in succession

No sooner had the dust settled on Kate Middleton's uterus than it was announced that the long-awaited change to royal succession laws has been approved by all 16 “realms of the commonwealth.”

This long awaited change marked a crucial step in the liberalisation of the UK, as the position of head of state is no longer granted to the oldest male child of the current monarch, with no election or debate, to rule over us until death. Now, the monarchy is granted to the oldest child regardless of sex...with no election or debate, to rule over us until death.

It's claimed the bill “ends the discrimination of women in royal succession”, but this isn't strictly accurate. 99.9percent of women in the UK are still discriminated when it comes to the monarchy, so are 99.9percent of men. The long process of changing the rules of succession was embarked upon for the benefit of no living person. In nine months we will see whether or not it will become relevant after the death of William, but there's a 50percent chance it won't.

With the royal pregnancy marking the inevitable next step in the world's most upmarket soap opera, it almost feels like these archaic sponges are spawning offspring for the purpose of pissing off republicans, and keeping their personal lives in the media for a few minutes longer. Soon there will be the messy divorce, and the inevitable appearance on I'm a Celebrity... I'm dreading the live birth, with military parade and tedious Huw Edwards commentary.

If you're going to defend an institution like the monarchy, it's probably because of tradition. If you're going to tinker with it and change the rules, you're acknowledging that we can alter the way we choose our head of state to suit our times. With this in mind, it seems like now is the time to put an end to the monarchy. People argue it creates unity and patriotism, but perhaps people would feel greater allegiance to their country if it recognised their eligibility to be head of state. This change makes no difference to anyone who is currently alive. If the government cares about equal opportunities, it should abolish the monarchy so anyone has the chance to be head of state, regardless of gender, race, social class, religion, sexual orientation or political views, so we can proudly say we have more chance of being king or queen than a foetus.

King of Popcorn

Early this year, for better or worse, the noble people of Bradford West elected one of the UK's biggest political characters back to Parliament. Like him or loathe him, George Galloway is without a doubt a strong voice for the causes he represents, so the film industry should now be quaking in its money that Galloway has set his sights on them and their overpriced snacks

Apparently one of the most pressing concerns to Galloway's constituents is not...ok, I admit I was going to find some more important local Bradford news stories at this point, but after a trawl through Bradford's local newspaper, I see that the price of cinema snacks may actually be quite high up their agenda.

In this interview with the Daily Politics, which Dead Ringers once described as "CBeebies for pensioners", Galloway explains why he's table an Early Day Motion against cinema confectionary prices. The precise wording of the motion is as follows

"That this House deplores the profiteering by cinema chains in the provision of catering to their customers where the prices of sweets, drinks and ice creams in the foyers are many times those on the high street; notes that this particularly affects families with young children at whom much of the merchandising is aimed; calls on cinemas to stop exploiting their customers by insisting that the stalls and franchises inside their buildings reduce their prices to a level commensurate with local shops and restaurants; and congratulates the cinema goers who are campaigning for fair prices."

Not only is Gorgeous George, and by gorgeous I mean borderline insane, making a complete fool out of himself by using parliamentary time on something so petty, he's also demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the subject in hand.

His appearance on the Daily Politics begins with him being asked why he is suddenly interested in popcorn and he replies "I had to buy it". That's a lie, isn't it George? You didn't have to buy it. I go to the cinema on a regular basis and I never buy popcorn. If you were at a cinema with an enforced popcorn buying policy, you should take your business elsewhere. That's the beauty of competition.

He blames having to buy popcorn on his kids. "You can't drag your kids, saying 'I want popcorn, I want popcorn...you have to buy it". Again, not true. What you're essentially admitting is that you're tabling an Early Day Motion attacking cinemas because of your own parental failings. Telling your children they can't have everything they want is a crucial part of being a parent. Sure, they might cry this time, but next time they will know that when you say they can't have something you mean it and that they can't have everything they want all the time. Otherwise you'll have greedy, materialistic, spoilt children, which will probably mean you have to disown them George.

The problem is that if Galloway had researched this for, I don't know, eight seconds, he would know that cinemas hardly make any money off ticket sales. Hollywood charge up to 90% of the ticket price for distribution. Either Galloway expects them to run at a loss, or they have to make their money back elsewhere, i.e. on snacks and drinks which people purchase voluntarily. His suggestion that people sell popcorn out side the cinema for customers to take inside shows his complete lack of knowledge on the subject. If this happened, cinema ticket prices would shoot up, making the cinema less accessible for everyone.

The way I see cinema snacks is a bit like lottery tickets. When something's funded by the lottery it's great because it probably means money is going somewhere it wouldn't if left to the market, but it's also money people have given voluntarily. If people want to spend large amounts on cinema snacks and subsidize my cinema ticket as a result, great! It's a system that works for everyone.

Part of Galloway's problem may be that he thinks "they throw you out if you bring your own [food]". Not at any cinema I've ever been to. Some of them have policies against your own food, but they never enforce it. You know why? Because people will take their business elsewhere. Probably when Galloway tried to take his own food in he did it while shouting about food prices and claiming to be fighting against the fascistic confectionery purveyors. Plus they were probably looking for any excuse to get rid of him. "George Galloway's here? Shit. How do we get rid of him? Is he carrying drugs? Does he have recording equipment? Shit! I know, get him for the bourbons!" 

What I do when i go to the cinema is put my previously bought food in a non see through bag. Clever, right? Once you're in the cinema it's too dark for the gestapo to see what you're eating when they do their mid-film inspeation.  Galloway appears to think they search you on the way in like that annoying Orange ad. Just replace "phone" with "food" and you get the picture.

I don't like the price of cinema snacks, but there's a reason for it, and if George Galloway was actually serious about doing something about it he would be fighting the distribution costs of Hollywood studios, not the price of snacks. He needs to do some research, not table EDMs to make up for his parental failings.

Yet another thing on religion.

As those of you who follow me on Twitter or in real life will know, I'll do quite a lot in the name of politeness. If I go into a food shop and they don't have what I want, I'll still buy something to be polite. I don't like using toilets in restaurants or pubs where I haven't bought anything. Except Little Chefs. I don't think anyone expects you to eat that stuff. But even I won't renegotiate my metaphysical or theological beliefs in the name of politeness.

It's a strange thing, to try and change someone's religious beliefs in the street. I wonder how many people it actually works on.

I know that for most British people religion isn't a big deal. They don't think about it. If pushed they'll tick Christian, because, you know, they have a Christmas tree and sort of think there might be something there. But are these people going to be persuaded to join a religion by a leaflet and a slightly disgruntled stranger who looks like they gave up washing for lent in 1983 and haven't got back in the habit?

I make these generalizations based on the religious groups I frequently see on the streets of Sheffield. On a normal Saturday there will be a Muslim group and a couple of Christian ones. A regular Christian group included a collection of angry hard line nutcases with a "We must all come before the throne of judgement" sign who believe "drunkeness" is a hell-worthy sin that no amount of good deeds can make up for. So I could discover a cure for AIDS, but go to hell for my celebratory magnum of champagne. Although I admit this is unlikely to happen. I'm not even looking for a cure for AIDS.

I also wonder what benefit it is to a religion to sign up people who are swayed so easily, by a couple of people shouting at them in the street. Sure, you've got them on your mailing list and they might come along to a free coffee morning, but as soon as the Mormons come knocking they'll up sticks to Utah, and coffee will be a thing of the past. And I hear the Mormons don't let their prey go so easily so they won't be coming back any time soon.

This doesn't really have a point to it. I guess I just don't think trying to nag people to join your religion in the street is a good use of time. There's not really much chance of changing anyone's mind now is there? So why do it when you could be doing something more worthwhile, like good deeds, masturbation or collecting stamps?

The reason is simple. People like to say "I told you so". As those of you who follow me on Twitter or in real life will know, I like a good "I told you so". So much I actually keep a recording of everything I say so I can reference it back at a later date. But I have no intention of doing it on Judgement Day.

The religious who clog up the already busy streets with their meager attempts at conversion do it because they think that when we all die and are faced with their deity, and he sends everyone except them to an eternity of torment they can say "ha! Told you so!". Which is the worst thing about being an atheist. You never get to say "I told you so". Your only reward is not wasting half of the only life you have on worshiping iron age imaginary characters.

But even if these people's religions are true, you would have thought saying "I told you so" would be unnecessarily adding insult to injury. When I've been told I'm about to be tortured for ever, someone saying "well, we did warn you" is just gonna piss me off. And if this isn't their intention, they should make a decent effort to convert people rather than their half arsed, angry, misspelled leaflets. You should put your whole arse in. I'm sure that's in Leviticus somewhere.

For now I'll put my faith in the idea that if there's such a thing as a god who in whose company I'd like to spend eternity, he wouldn't send messengers who look like an amoeba's embarrassing cousin with a message as incoherent as the Star Wars prequels in Welsh.

Prometheus and the Vatican

Ridley Scott's mediocre return to sci-fi, this year's long-awated definitely not an Alien prequel but actually an Alien prequel Prometheus was not a particularly good film.

While Alien mixed brilliant sci-fi themes and ideas with pure horror, and Aliens blended the genre with first rate action, Prometheus was happy to settle for some second-rate pseudo philosophical navel gazing set in space. Its skepticism of science and support of "faith" through its religious protagonist should be the perfect message for the religious right, but it turns out even the Catholic Church weren't happy with it.

The Vatican's newspaper, "L'Osservatore Romano", declared that the film "'mishandles the delicate questions raised by… the battle eternal between good and evil in yet another attempt to steak the secret of immortality'. Finally I've found something on which I agree with the Vatican. Of course, they then add a paganesque warning that it's a "bad idea to defy the gods" at which point we're reminded how backward and crazy they are.

Unfortunately for Scott even the people he was trying to appease with his film aren't impressed. Maybe by the inevitable Prometheus 2 he will realize that vilifying scientists and making a sci-fi film with a knee-jerk conservative ethos isn't the way into nerds' hearts.

Carnage

Carnage, the company responsible for a variety of infamous student party events has caused controversy in Sheffield- home of the much criticized war memorial urination at one of Carnage's events- is ruffling feathers once again, this time with a "pimps and hoes" theme.

The criticism is in the form of accusations of sexism at the theme. This is probably true, much in the way any gendered theme, such as doctors and nurses, vicars and nuns etc. is sexist as it presumes gender roles assigned to certain jobs (although Carnage don't specify which side of the theme men and women are expected to follow, and I doubt they'd have a problem if men turned up as "hoes" and women as "pimps"). However, the criticism that it trivializes violence against women is unfair. If it was a beaten wife theme or some suchlike they might have a point. Violence against women is not a necessary prerequisite of prostitution, and to argue that it is could in fact be sexist in itself, as it implies that no woman who works as a prostitute does so as a result of a free choice, and only ever as a result of violence something which is simply untrue.

To mount this criticism of Carnage also seems a peculiar line of attack. "Carnage" is defined as the killing of a large number of people, yet the company use it as a positive thing, to suggest a particularly messy night out. This appears to be trivializing mass killing more than it's trivializing violence against women. Also, highlighting the disastrous consequences of a night out as something in its favour clearly suggests an irresponsible approach to drinking and could be said to encourage antisocial behaviour. While I believe in personal responsibility for actions, and wouldn't place the blame for the war memorial urination solely on Carnage, it seems that this would be a more apt line of attack.

A quick look at Carnage's website shows that it's not aiming to be classy. Endorsed by Loaded and Nuts, the website is full of pictures of various drunken behaviours and the sexualisation of young women. It makes no secret of its sleazy nature. Perhaps we should just trust people with self respect to stay away and let everyone else whore themselves out the violent pimp that is carnage.

These aren't the toys you're looking for

As those of you who follow me on Twitter or in real life will know, I think George Lucas is a dick. Some people give him credit for making Star Wars, but once you acknowledge that the original trilogy is almost as bad as the prequels, and certainly suffers from the same flaws of bad acting, annoying comedy sidekicks, thin plots etc. you realize that Lucas is just a man who had one good idea once. Like Tim Berners-Lee.

However, one thing the prequel trilogy has in abundance that is really lacking in the original trilogy is racist aliens. During one of the long, long days I have to fill I was looking into racist aliens in Star Wars because there really isn't anything more important going on in my life. During my investigation I discovered this 1999 BBC interview with the man himself.

Lucas first defends Jar Jar Binks. Defending Jar Jar Binks is not something anyone should have to do. Not even George Lucas deserves that. If the government was defending Jar Jar Binks on Newsnight they would send a junior minister. The criticism of Jar Jar Binks that Newsnight chose to focus on was the one that points out how it's kinda racist to have an entire species of stupid, technologically backward, clowning frogmen who live under the sea, play drums and all have mock Caribbean accents. Some people would say that's very racist. Personally I thought it was great, but I am very racist.

Lucas's defence of the character goes as follows:

"Those criticisms are made by people who've obviously never met a Jamaican, because it's definitely not Jamaican and if you were to say those lines in Jamaican they wouldn't be anything like the way Jar Jar Binks says them."

Ok, so far so good. No one who has ever claimed Jar Jar Binks is racist has ever met a Jamaican person ever. Fact. George Lucas says so himself, and George Lucas is an expert. On his gap year he lived with a tribe of Jamaicans in their home under the sea. Also, it's fairly accurate to say that Jar Jar Binks doesn't speak like a Jamaican. What he does speak like is a ludicrous Jamaican stereotype that wouldn't have sounded out of place in a sitcom in the 70s.

"They're basing a whole issue of racism on an accent, an accent that they don't understand. Therefore if they don't understand it, it must be bad."

Once again, good analysis George. If you don't understand something it must be bad. Pretty accurate really. I don't understand Star Wars Episode 1. Star Wars Episode 1 is bad. Spot on.

It's also quite funny that he tries to thwart Jar Jar's critics by claiming Binks is too complicated for them. They don't understand the character. That's the problem. You need to read between the lines.

"The movies are for children but they don't want to admit that. In the first film they absolutely hated R2 and C3-PO. In the second film they didn't like Yoda and in the third one they hated the Ewoks... and now Jar Jar is getting accused of the same thing."

I'm actually with him here. R2-D2, C3-PO and Ewoks are terrible characters too. But way to imply your fanbase, which has made you a billionaire, is made up of backwards, inbred, fast-food eating lardass adult virgins who live in their mother's basement and masturbate over Lara Croft while complaining that the kids films they've devoted their pathetic existences to features a comedy sidekick. That's pretty much what he said. Maybe I'm just scared by such an accurate analysis of my personality.

"it really reflects more the racism of the people who are making the comments than it does the movie."

Star Wars Episode 1 features gungans, the comedy race of clumsy Jamaicans; Neimodians, the greedy Japanese bad guys who blockade a peaceful planet in a trade dispute; and a Toydarian, who owns slaves and is only interested in money and is basically a stereotypical Jew, right down to the little blue wings. But racism is in the eye of the beholder. It's also worth noting that Lucas did away with any new racially insensitive aliens by Star Wars Episode 2. Almost like it was deliberate....

We then discover Lucas's views on the cost of his merchandise, which was apparently set to make $1bn in 1999. George Lucas is "uneasy" about the cost of the merchandise:

"I wish there was a world where nobody had to get paid and people could just do things for free but they don't. All the tens of thousands of people that make the toys and the films, they all have to pay their bills and so they demand to be paid."

I assume he said this in the most sarcastic tone imaginable. Is he suggesting he wishes he lives in a world where the greedy peasants who make merchandise didn't "demand to be paid"? I'm fairly sure the $1bn isn't going to end up in the pockets of Chinese sweatshop workers. By the way, that's a nice BMW there, George.

If, by this point in the article, you think Lucas has taken the biscuit, in his final comment he puts it in his mouth and goes "Om nom nom nom nom!".

"Most people don't like toys and don't think children should be able to play with toys."

Yeah! Fuck you, most people! Why do you hate children?

Is he from Victorian times?

"But I'm a big fan of toys, and I think it helps kids be able to play and expand their imaginations. To contribute to that is I think a good thing."

Star Wars merchandising is basically charity work, isn't it? Lucas for a Knighthood, anyone?

"I'm not ashamed of doing anything"

Clearly.