I woke up in a coughing fit this morning but I'm feeling better now.
I wanted to tell you all a story that happened to be but I can't remember whether I told you all or not. I has a morale. The morale is that, whether we like it or not, Merlin is dominated by shipping and fans of the show will seek to identify 'their own' even in RL. Especially when it comes to the stand-off between the two main ships of the show: the Fandom-Fulled Arthur/Merlin pairing and the Show-Fulled Arthur/Gwen pairing. There are naturally other ships too but they are all a minority and small in comparison to these two.
The Arthur/Merlin fans hold dominance in fandom while in RL, in my experience, Arthur/Gwen are on top. In fandom, the 'Arwen' shippers tend to view other shippers with suspicion due to the overwhelming abuse some of them got between S1 and S2, and what they view (Quite rightly IMO although I *am* biased) as unreasonable dislike of Gwen simply because she's the one who 'has Arthur'. They tend to take this as a personal attack which comes not just from a handful of overzealous Arthur/Merlin but also a few people from other ships too. So there is this feeling of "ganging up" from what I have seen in the past. As a result in fandom they tend to shut themselves off from everyone else from fear of causing shipping wars. I am told that from time to from a couple of the idiots from both camps charge at each other and start fighting.
However I have a feeling that this secretive culture has slipped into RL too despite the fact that everyone I asked in RL who do *NOT* partake in the fandom experience, view Arthur/Gwen as the only proper romantic relationship in the show. If you are a hardcore or casual fandom goer however A/G fans seem to have this defence shield they raise up whenever they encounter *anyone* new outside the fandom.
Now I shall tell you my story:
Whether you like it or not Merlin is dominated by shipping even when fans meet accidently in RL, and I have proof:
I shared my Post-Victorian lecture and seminar last year with a girl who watched a lot of the shows I watch. True Blood. Being Human. Doctor Who. She was also a fan of Smallville and liked to complain to me about how much she hated it, lol!
She also mentioned in passing that she watched Merlin too.
Then one day while we were waiting for a lecture to start I happened to mention I watch Merlin too. Guess what the first thing she said to me was?
“Arthur and Gwen?”
Those were her exact words. Arthur and Gwen. Not, ‘Me too!’ Not ‘Oh do you?’ Not anything to do with the past series. Not even “Do you like Arthur and Gwen?” She just said ‘Arthur and Gwen?’
I gave her a thumbs up. She nodded and smiled.
My point is that while this girl is a casual fandom goer from what she has told me, the fandom has still changed the manner with which she interacts with other Merlin fans. Given I was 19 at the time and a girl she quite rightly assumed that I had dealt in fandom. So that was how she related to me.
As sad as it might be, Merlin fans know their own kind and seek to identify them in the real world, especially if no one else they interact with in RL is a fan of the show. I never think to ask anyone about ships in fandom or RL anymore because I suppose I feel cushioned by the knowledge that away from the computer screen I am surrounded by Merlin fans within my own family and friends. I watch the show with my little cousins, their friends, their parents and even their friends parents and babysitters. My friend John watches the show too (one of the few childless adult male viewers I do know). My mother watches the show. Every single one of them consider Arthur and Gwen to be the only romantic relationship in the show. Why? Because as far as they are concerned, it is. You could say Merlin/Freya are also a genuine romantic relationship of the show. In fact my cousin John (That's the Trio's dad not my aforementioned ex-bf, lol) remembered those two - although granted he referred to Freya as "that girl". There is also an argument for Gwen/Lancelot, but nearly everyone I know consider Lancelot more to be an appendage of Arthur/Gwen.
From being with all of them my attitude has come to match theirs for the most part. I retain my fandom quirks as you do but otherwise the reason why fandom has lost impact on me and why I can't be bothered to sweep to the defence of my ships when someone insults them or freak out it might get ruined, is because I don't see the point. Moreover I don't think my friend really sees the point either. She just wanted to know whether I agreed with her or not.
What's my point again? That fandom changes the way some fans think and even how they interact with other fans. Because there are no set forums, threads or communities for fans of ships to talk to each other in RL.
All I will say is I wonder how my friend would have reacted if I were a Arthur/Merlin shipper. I doubt it would have put a damper on our friendship but I definitely think it would have limited what we were willing to talk about. Because fandom shippers are generally good natured and do no like to provoke fights, hence why they stick to their set areas. It's the same in RL. If you know something is a topic you disagree on (Especially if its something as trivial yet infesting as shipping) you try to stay off that particular topic.
It reminds me to a less extreme extent of the rivalry between the fans of different companions in Doctor Who a few years ago. This was especially hot between the Rose fans and the Martha fans. I was a Martha fan and hell and brimstone falls upon anyone who insults me for being so. In fact the reason my PMs are locked to friends only is because I was harassed by two Rose fans during the 2007 run. I had never encountered fandom wars before now because I was *always* a canon shipper and I had always been in the majority. It kind of left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
I makes me wonder whether girls who had a particular companion they liked, when they met other female fans of the show, whether they too simply started the conversation by saying "Rose or Martha?" Because, let's be honest, it *is* mainly girls and women who start these fights. Most boys and men can't be bothered and really don't care about this sort of thing.
Incidentally, I prefer to talk about plots in the shows I watch over ships anyway and so did she. We haven't really talked about ships at all but rather what is going to happen in the show next. The whole ship aspect was really just a security blanket.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Do not buy the M&S Roast Chicken Sandwitch!
Since when did M&S think it was a good idea to put carrots in a sandwich?
Anyone here from the UK and tried the Meal Deal at M&S. I saw a new sandwich that advertised itself as Roast Chicken. It was new so I thought I'd give it a go. Big mistake!
The damned thing has genuine carrots in it, and not even mashed carrots. Proper hard and barely cooked (it seemed) carrots. It also had a horrible oniony dressing or whatever the hell it was. It was like chewing on plastic. The carrot taste had done me good though and I drank all my Valecian Orange Juice in order to get the taste out of my mouth.
Next people I'll get the chicken and bacon salad, as I usually go.
M&S shoppers, beware!
Anyone here from the UK and tried the Meal Deal at M&S. I saw a new sandwich that advertised itself as Roast Chicken. It was new so I thought I'd give it a go. Big mistake!
The damned thing has genuine carrots in it, and not even mashed carrots. Proper hard and barely cooked (it seemed) carrots. It also had a horrible oniony dressing or whatever the hell it was. It was like chewing on plastic. The carrot taste had done me good though and I drank all my Valecian Orange Juice in order to get the taste out of my mouth.
Next people I'll get the chicken and bacon salad, as I usually go.
M&S shoppers, beware!
I don't get the point of Tumblr (Though I keep trying...)
Sorry people, I just cannot get on with Tumblr!
It claims that it is supposed to make blogging easier but I just find it a pain in the backside. It's OK if I want to share stuff like pictures or want to share something else someone has posted... but that's it!
I don't care what anyone says, that bloody tag-blocker thing won't work for me.
And to top it all off I can't reply to what other people have said to my own posts. Or I can't figure out how it's supposed to be done. Even if I do it looks like the comments have to be really short and messy. :p
And I don't want to go onto other people's blogs because they posts spoiler stuff, stuff that *I* can't get to block properly.
*shakes head*
I really might as well just give up fandom altogether if I can't even keep up with what the "cool kids" are doing now. I never really liked Tumblr to begin with. :'(
It claims that it is supposed to make blogging easier but I just find it a pain in the backside. It's OK if I want to share stuff like pictures or want to share something else someone has posted... but that's it!
I don't care what anyone says, that bloody tag-blocker thing won't work for me.
And to top it all off I can't reply to what other people have said to my own posts. Or I can't figure out how it's supposed to be done. Even if I do it looks like the comments have to be really short and messy. :p
And I don't want to go onto other people's blogs because they posts spoiler stuff, stuff that *I* can't get to block properly.
*shakes head*
I really might as well just give up fandom altogether if I can't even keep up with what the "cool kids" are doing now. I never really liked Tumblr to begin with. :'(
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
YT: Two More Fanvids
Fandom : Merlin
Characters/Pairings : Arthur/Gwen
Music : A Time for Us (Romeo and Juliet)
Artist : The Strictly Come Dancing Band
Software : Sony Vegas Pro 11
Download : http://www.mediafire.com/?t158t69dlsfnu2k
This is my first music-music video for a while. My last couple of uploads fanvid wise have been comical broadway-style vids. The video is in honour of the return of Strictly Come Dancing this week, lol! For those of you who don't know 'A Time for Us' is the lyrical version of the Romeo and Juliet theme. I just like this version of the song so much I decided to make an A/G vid for it. It took me a while to finish this one.
Fandom : Merlin
Characters/Pairings : Arthur/Gwen, Merlin, Gwaine, Uther (Cameos from Morgana, Gaius, Elyan, Alice, Jarl, Taliesin, Grettir, Dagr, Catrina and Igraine).
Artist : The Princess Bride
Software : Sony Vegas Pro 11
Download : http://www.mediafire.com/?2g8ua8q1ql46s6a
This was just a silly idea I had. Unlike the EVITA trailer I haven't assigned any roles specific roles to anyone. The closest I get to that is Gwen being Buttercup, Arthur being Westley and Uther being Humberdinck. Gwaine and Merlin *sort* of share the roles of Inigo/Fezzik but otherwise I just selected clips to suit what's going on and the narrator's descriptions...so it *is* a little disjointed.
Like I said, this one was just for fun and to get my mind of RL.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
9/11: Ten Years On...
I was a ten-year-old girl. I was still in Primary 6 and had heard nothing about the attacks until I came home at the end of the day. I don't even think the teachers knew - and if they did, they hid it very well as they didn't seem shocked or off. They were just normal.
At 15:00 I walked home as usual by myself. It only takes a few minutes for me to get home as we all live in an area known as 'The Manor' - basically the privately owned, non-ex council homes in Tilbury. So my school was literally just across the field from me as our house backs onto the field.
I let myself into the house. It was only then I knew something was wrong because usually my mum, back in the days when she could walk a bit better and was generally better in health, was usually downstairs with some homemade bread with some Philadelphia cheese on it. I called out to her and she said, "I'm upstairs!" I went up and saw her sitting on her bed with the TV on.
The first image I saw of the towers was 'earlier footage' shown on the BBC of the first attack, which was initially reported as (and assumed to be, according to my mum) an accidental plane crash. I asked whether it was an accident and my mum said, "We thought it was, but then ten minutes later another plane crashed. The BBC didn't immediately realise it was another plane crash and not debris hitting the second tower." I vaguely remember standing at the bedroom door and looking across the room at the TV and seeing the repeated footage of the planes crashing into the towers. Then they showed the footage of the first tower falling down. My mum then told me that was the second one that was hit and that the first one that was hit was still standing.
I went to my room at that point. I was a child and didn't quite grasp what was going on. I had no thought about it being terrorists. When I thought of terrorists, I always thought of the IRA and the Troubles. Even then my labelling them as terrorists was very hazy. My knowledge of them came from them making nail bombs and setting them off in Manchester. I remembered a documentary I had caught sight of several years before when I was about seven about the Manchester bomb. It had only happened two years previous then and was probably the most recent terrorist attack in my living memory.
Even then my thoughts turned to simpler things. I was disappointed that all the channels - all five - were dedicated to this attack which, even at this point, I didn't quite grasp the gravity of. I knew it was horrible but terrorist attack... I didn't comprehend that something so big could actually be a terrorist attack or even grasp was real terrorism is. Like I said, I might have thought of the IRA but this was something completely different.
Children's Hour wasn't broadcasting, and I'll admit I was more annoyed by that. We didn't have satelite or cable then so I couldn't watch it being broadcast on another channel either. So I watched the BBC news like everyone else was. Mum went downstairs to make me my bread and get me a drink. I remember then seeing the footage of the Pentagon too. I asked my mum about it and she said there were four planes; two that hit the Twin Towers, one that hit the Pentagon and another that crashed in a field. "They think it was headed for the White House," she told me.
It all went over my head. I still didn't grasp the gravity.
The last thing I remember about that day was watching the second tower falling down. They didn't catch it live, obviously, because the British news feed was slow due and we didn't quite understand what was happening. Mum and I were in the kitchen at that point and I was eating. After that all I remember is them repeating the footage and talking to bystanders on satelite phone. My dad came home from work that evening and said he'd only heard about it when the staff were called into the staff room and had their old TV on. That might explain my teachers didn't know - their staff room didn't have a working TV.
Everything felt very matter of fact. I don't remember horror from either of my parents or anything. My dad immediately suggested it was probably a terrorist group. "I thought it as soon as I saw the second plane flying in," he said. I don't really remember anything much after the second tower collapsed.
The news coverage of BBC media, which I flicked between on the day, have been preserved on YT:
At 15:00 I walked home as usual by myself. It only takes a few minutes for me to get home as we all live in an area known as 'The Manor' - basically the privately owned, non-ex council homes in Tilbury. So my school was literally just across the field from me as our house backs onto the field.
I let myself into the house. It was only then I knew something was wrong because usually my mum, back in the days when she could walk a bit better and was generally better in health, was usually downstairs with some homemade bread with some Philadelphia cheese on it. I called out to her and she said, "I'm upstairs!" I went up and saw her sitting on her bed with the TV on.
The first image I saw of the towers was 'earlier footage' shown on the BBC of the first attack, which was initially reported as (and assumed to be, according to my mum) an accidental plane crash. I asked whether it was an accident and my mum said, "We thought it was, but then ten minutes later another plane crashed. The BBC didn't immediately realise it was another plane crash and not debris hitting the second tower." I vaguely remember standing at the bedroom door and looking across the room at the TV and seeing the repeated footage of the planes crashing into the towers. Then they showed the footage of the first tower falling down. My mum then told me that was the second one that was hit and that the first one that was hit was still standing.
I went to my room at that point. I was a child and didn't quite grasp what was going on. I had no thought about it being terrorists. When I thought of terrorists, I always thought of the IRA and the Troubles. Even then my labelling them as terrorists was very hazy. My knowledge of them came from them making nail bombs and setting them off in Manchester. I remembered a documentary I had caught sight of several years before when I was about seven about the Manchester bomb. It had only happened two years previous then and was probably the most recent terrorist attack in my living memory.
Even then my thoughts turned to simpler things. I was disappointed that all the channels - all five - were dedicated to this attack which, even at this point, I didn't quite grasp the gravity of. I knew it was horrible but terrorist attack... I didn't comprehend that something so big could actually be a terrorist attack or even grasp was real terrorism is. Like I said, I might have thought of the IRA but this was something completely different.
Children's Hour wasn't broadcasting, and I'll admit I was more annoyed by that. We didn't have satelite or cable then so I couldn't watch it being broadcast on another channel either. So I watched the BBC news like everyone else was. Mum went downstairs to make me my bread and get me a drink. I remember then seeing the footage of the Pentagon too. I asked my mum about it and she said there were four planes; two that hit the Twin Towers, one that hit the Pentagon and another that crashed in a field. "They think it was headed for the White House," she told me.
It all went over my head. I still didn't grasp the gravity.
The last thing I remember about that day was watching the second tower falling down. They didn't catch it live, obviously, because the British news feed was slow due and we didn't quite understand what was happening. Mum and I were in the kitchen at that point and I was eating. After that all I remember is them repeating the footage and talking to bystanders on satelite phone. My dad came home from work that evening and said he'd only heard about it when the staff were called into the staff room and had their old TV on. That might explain my teachers didn't know - their staff room didn't have a working TV.
Everything felt very matter of fact. I don't remember horror from either of my parents or anything. My dad immediately suggested it was probably a terrorist group. "I thought it as soon as I saw the second plane flying in," he said. I don't really remember anything much after the second tower collapsed.
The news coverage of BBC media, which I flicked between on the day, have been preserved on YT:
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Friday, 2 September 2011
Speculation on TV Shows
I've not been feeling well the last couple of days. Like I've been really irritant in several ways, I've had a nasty summer cold and had really painful stomach cramps. So for lack of anything else to do I have been speculating about the shows I watch/am going to watch, and thought about some speculation for them.
Please remember that I don't look at spoilers nor really participate in any general fandom stuff anymore, not since the start of April anyway, so if you know better you probably won't pay any attention to me please don't attempt to drop hints or remark on anything I have said as to deny or confirm. Without spoilers and fandom, speculation is all I have and I prefer it that way.
Of course if you are one of the five people left in the world who do keep themselves spoiler free then you might want to speculate with me.
OK, first of all True Blood.
So like everyone else I have been a little down about the last couple of episodes. I was desperate for Eric to get his memories back but when he did it was so much worse than the books. He remembered everything rather than forgot it all, and that meant he was pleading with Sookie rather than being confused by her awkward behaviour. In the books Sookie was left feeling down and out by Eric's lack of memory of what passed between them. Here it now turns out that, with his memory back, Sookie has suddenly decided she still love Bill -- which frankly is probably down to his blood more than anything else.
But WTF?! Sookie still loves Bill?! He is nothing more than a controlling, abusive prick who used Sookie like his own vending machine. Say what you like about Eric, he may be a cock but he treats Sookie with an odd degree of respect and seems to understand her better. As I've said before though I'm biased. I like Eric and I hate "Beehl". The only positive thing about Bill is his relationship with Jessica.
The best thing about the last episode was definately a combination between Sam/Alcide's new found bromance (which is oddly apt considering they are two self-hating shifters/weres and both have that "nice guy" feel to them) and Sookie/Jason/Laffy/Jesus staking out Martonia's hideaway. I should add that I love Martonia too because Fiona Shaw is the be all and end all in greatness. You know what else I love? Laffy/Jesus's relationship, which is totally normal and not in your face. Sookie's relationships are so in your face all the time that it can be irritating. Laffy/Jesus is just subtle and regular. Despite the whole medium/demon thing, they are normal and cool.
So my first hope is that Jesus (or Laffy for that matter) does not die in the finale. I have heard that a couple of characters might be culled in the finale. We've already seen the death of Tommy "Turd with a Heart Sort-Of" Merlotte-Mickens, and I'm willing to bet at least two more people might snuff it. My guess is Hoyt will probably go (*cries* I hate that they keep messing with his character!) and maybe Nan the Bitchy Vampire. She gets on my nerves. I'm also thinking Debbie will get hers too, although I only say that because its in the book that she does. Knowing TV-land they will probably drag out the whole Debbie v. Sookie over Alcide thing for a billion years. Showrunners really do like to drag dead carcasses around.
Oh! 'Fort Belleflour' was pretty sweet too. Gotta love the Belleflour cousins. :D
Anyway, I wonder if we wil see a return of the fairies. Maybe Queen Mab will come to take Sookie back to fairyland and punish her for what happened at the start of the series? I just don't know how this whole witches thing will be resolved because I'm thinking that Antonia, who has already displayed an unwillingness to live in Marnie, might decide to go to Laffy instead and Jesus somehow settles her spirit. I'm also thinking that there might be a few more ghosts cropping up and that Laffy will get possessed by a couple of them too.
But I can't think how they are going to resolve the whole Queen Beehl situation. Frankly I think Eric would make a better king of any state. Can Bill stay king after pissing Nan off so much? Also what's the deal with the f-king authority? It almost makes me hope that this series ends in a Herrick-style fashion with someone digging Russell out of the ground and getting him to stamp out the authority or something...
I also realise now how much I miss Sophie-Anne, and not just because she's called Sophie-Anne (My name and my mothers name! hee ~)
Now for Doctor Who, and as usual I haven't go a f-k what is going on yet again.
Moffat is the ultimate king of the mindf-k, isn't he? I have to say that I loved the latest episode 'Night Terrors' if just because it was a nice break from all the relevant timey-wimey stuff. I have a feeling that next week will have some bearing in the overall plotline but I'm still not really certain where Moffat is taking this storyline.
If there is one thing I miss about RTD (and it's not the overly graphical sexy stuff, especially the gay scenes - I get annoyed when I see sex in sci-fi :p) is that he would wrap up his plots in one series and not drag it out over several series. The events taking place now in DW have been seeded since 5x01, apparently.
Well, we know it is. Just look at the Silence.
So in order to get my head around my own speculation I am going to make a list of what we know so far about the Silence and who they are working for:
1.) The Silence are not a species but a religious order, or movement but let's go with religion because it's cooler, who believe that silence will fall when 'the question is asked' - but no one knows what the question is.
2.) The Silence are the ones who want the Doctor dead. Therefore is stands to reason that Madame Kovarian is a member of the Silence too. The Clerics are not part of the name religion - because they are Christians - and only allied themselves with the Headless Monks, who presumably are also religious leaders within the Silence.
3.) We still don't know who or what the creatures from 6x01/2 are. If their species is not 'The Silence' then what are they? Why did they kidnap Amy in 6x02? Why were they the ones keeping River prisoner before she escaped and regenerated into Mels?
4.) Another question people often forget to ask is how do the Silence (or at least the creatures from 6x01/2) have their own TARDIS? Or rather, how do they have the knowledge to build a TARDIS? Because that's what that spaceship was in 5x11 and 6x01/2.
There are also a couple of other points Moffat has yet to explain:
5.) How and why did the TARDIS go to the day that Amy/Rory got married (also the day River was conceived) and blow up? Who was controlling the TARDIS? We can gather it was the Silence from the creepy voice saying "Silence will fall" in 5x12 but how do they have the power to control the TARDIS and who did that voice belong to? It wasn't one of those creatures so who was it?
6.) We still don't know why they got the date on Rory's ID badge so radically wrong in 5x01. I can't believe it was a continuity error when they zoomed into the bloody thing so the date was there for all and sundry to gawp at. It said something like 1990 rather than 2007 or maybe 2008 (when the year is set), which would be a more realistic issue date for Rory's badge as in 1990 he and Rory couldn't have been anymore than one or two years old! Given that Rory is clearly a trainee nurse in 5x01 he would only be about 19/20 years old. I just can't believe they would get it so wrong!
7.) River's aging progress. Back when she was Melody Pond she regenerated in New York City, January/February 1970 into a toddler (so around two-years-old) - who eventually became known as "Mels" by Amy and Rory - yet she is shown as growing up as a contemporary of her parents and growing at the same rate as a human. That means that River/Melody would have been a toddler for nearly twenty years before finally hitting a growth spurt in around 1990/1 when Amy and Rory themselves would have been toddlers, if we assume they were born between 1988/90. That doesn't make sense either.
8.) WTF is up with River Song, anyway? They make her a Time Lord and then randomly have her throw it all away to save the man she's supposed to kill. What does that mean for the Doctor's death in 6x01? Obviously it won't happen in the end but does this mean River isn't in the suit? Or if she is how does it happen? WTF is going on with her?! WTF! I figured she saved him in 6x08 because he suddenly gave her life another meaning than just being programmed for the one task of killing him.
9.) What did the Doctor whisper in Melody's ear when he told her to "Find River Song"? And why did she reply, "I'm sure she knows." It'd be easy to believe he said something mundane that he could only ever whisper in someone's ear, i.e. like at the end of that god-awful episode of DW 4x13. It also seems too simple that he would whisper his name to her - although this is the most logical thing he did. Could have whispered a way in which she cane save him from his eventual death? He knows it's going to happen, so will he try to change it or stop it. It does seem that River holds the key to saving the Doctor.
10.) Is River really a Time Lady because of the TARDIS or is there something else at work there? Nothing much to say on this other than that and "GUH?!"
There are probably loads of other things I'm forgetting but here is my speculation as it stands now:
I believe that the Silence are a religious movement who are being controlled and headed by a powerful force existing outside the universe. It could even be what we would understand to be God, although I have seen plenty of people suggesting it will be the First Time Lord Omega. This is really down to the Omega symbols on the clerics' badges and a load of other factors too. Whoever this powerful force is, it seems to me that they wish to kill the Doctor for one reason or another. He was probably the one who blew up the TADIS, possibly to create this new universe and new timeline in which the Doctor is destined to die. I guess this will all get rewritten/unwritten again at some point.
The question could possibly be "What is the Doctor's real name?" as we know that River knows his name, and his name has been hinted at several times in Moffat's past episodes dating back into the RTD era.
I think that everyone in the Silence plays a different role. I think make Madame Kovarian will turn out to be some sort of high-up religious leader (Maybe the eye-patch is symbolic of that somehow?) The creatures are probably the gofers whose duty was to look after the child and steal technology for whatever it is the Big Bad is planning. The fact that when you look away from them, you forget them, might suggest that they are trying to make people 'forget the question' and maybe they also used that power to brainwash River? The Headless Monks seem to be the devout franaticals or something.
Now as for Rory's badge and River's prolonged aging, I'm guessing this might have something to do with the damaged time we keep hearing about. I wonder if maybe Amy and Rory were actually born around 1968/9/70 or something but, due to problems with time, aspects of the 21st century have been tumbled up in their timeline back in the 20th century. I keep thinking about how Leadworth was described as the "village that time forgot". I don't know, I definately think there is something in time being jumbled up or something.
Anyway I'm pretty certain Moffat said that the answer to our questions in S6 been right in front of our faces since 5x01... so if anyone can think of something besides Rory's badge that appeared in 5x01 that could hold the key to everything, so let me know. I just can't think of anything good. IDK what's wrong with me, lol!
My head hurts, lets move on to Merlin
So having been a good little girl I have stayed away from all Merlin spoilers for the last couple of months. I did catch a couple of the early ones before my joy for it all was immediately stucked away and I decided I was better off without it. So bearing that in mind all my speculation is probably completely off with what everyone else has seen, known and said.
But I don't care because I don't know any better and I'm going to speculate anyway.
To recap how 3x13 ended, we saw Morgana and Morgause flee Camelot with the latter being apparently badly injured or dead. Uther had a nervous breakdown upon realising just how much cruelty is in his daughter to a point where she would murder simple civilians who just happen to be standing by, try to murder her own little brother and using his actions as an excuse for it all. Now apparently incapable of ruling alone, Arthur and Merlin were left sitting on Camelot's steps wondering if he would ever recover. Finally, Arthur now has a band of five-strong knights at his back: Sir Gwaine, Sir Lancelot, Sir Elyan, Sir Pericval and, of course, good ol' Sir Leon. The show ended with Arthur snogging Gwen and Merlin having his traditional summing up over dinner with Gaius before heading off to seal the Excalibur in the stone.
Where do they go from here? All I will say before I begin speculating is that I only know a handful of details about the show released around March time, beginning of April at the latest as it was around then I packed in spoilers and fandom. So aside from ONE character spoiler, I know nothing else. So don't tell me anything else about this character another than what I know, which is the following:
Arthur is going to be getting an uncle this series called Agravaine. I've forgotten who is playing him but I do remember that he is supposed to be a maternal uncle, not a paternal one. So he is Ygraine's brother, not Uther's. By that reckoning we can rule out the possibility of Agravaine turning up to steal the throne out from under Arthur's feet in a Hamlet style manner. If he is Ygraine's brother then I can only guess that he's after revenge for his sister's and their brother Tristan's deaths. After all Uther did kill both of them. I have also heard that he's also going to pull-a-Morgana by pretending to be on the side of good while sneaking out every night to stand around a cauldron singing "Hubble-Bubble" with Morgana and Morgause. Like that's not going to get old pretty soon. It did get me wondering though because why would Ygraine's brother help the bastard daughter of the man who murdered her? I cannot believe he would back someone he has no familial relationship with over his own flesh and blood nephew when he would have nothing on the face of it to gain. It's not like Morgana is in any position to make promises. She's probably living in a cave and plotting evil deeds. Therefore I think it would be interesting if he is doing the reverse-Morgana; he is pretending with her while actually trying to find a way to possibly have it both ways by destroying both her and Uther. Either that or he shares some sort of history with Morgause, which seems logical considering I have yet to be proven otherwise that Morgause is not related to Arthur via his mother. But I'm probably still wrong. For all I know Agravaine probably hated his sister, although I fail to see why you'd invent such a character if that was the case. I mean, there is no point. What could she have done? Exiled him to the same village that Elyan was living until 3x07? :p
So aside from Agravaine's appearance I know nothing else about his character or any other characters. And I don't want to know, thank you! (I have to keep saying it because I'm worried people will forget.)
Now all I can do is base by speculation on what I saw at the end of the show last year and assume the showrunners will build from that in this new series. My first guess is that Morgana will be plastering her ever growing annoying face all over the place this year too at least for the first two episodes. I hope and pray she's not in all of them as she and Morgause lost their effect on me very quickly last year with their idiotic, half-baked plans.
But I'm guessing this next series will mainly consist of Merlin and Morgana staring angrily across at each other while not actually doing anything successful to hurt the other. Frankly, I really hope Merlin doesn't hold back with his powers anymore like he did last year. It's not like Morgana can run and tell daddy anymore. As for Morgana - given her magic was pathetically weak and uncontrolled last year, I'm guessing she'll have spent the hiatus either nicking magic off other people a la the legends or training under so sort of guru. Maybe Morgause, maybe someone else?
Either way the reason I am hesitant to say Morgause is because I'm wondering whether two Js have decided to play on the whole "is she dead or alive?" thing by making Morgana go on some sort of stupid rampage to revive her or something? We know that the magic of life and death exists. We've seen lifes being created, lives being exchanged for lives, and we have seen magic that creates living-dead immortals a la the Black Cauldron. We also know that the spirit world and ghosts exists, so it is logical that reviving dead people is possible too. I reckon though that if there is doing to be some sort of "Mummy" moment where Morgana decided to dabble in the blackest of all arts by bringing back a corpse, I'm guessing it'll work the same way that creating a life does. Ygraine died to give life to Arthur, and again like in The Mummy (I love that film!) where Imhotep needed Evie to bring back his girlfriend, I gather that to raise the dead someone else has to die...
Didn't we see that before with Nimueh and Gaius? He died to save Hunith and Merlin, and then Merlin killed Nimueh which ultimately brought Gaius back to life. So is Gaius living on borrowed time? He is old anyway but given that I think Morgana will blame him for whatever happened to Morgause and not Merlin, maybe she plots to kill one of the goodies in order to raise her dead (adopted) sister?
I probably sound mental, don't I? But it is one thing this show hasn't tried yet... I don't think. Well, they did raise Tristan Dubois's wraith but I'm thinking this whole bringing back a dead person might mean bringing them back properly. Although I have reached a plot hole in how you would preserve a corpse for any longer than a few days in those days. IDK, maybe magic would restore the flesh as well. Like in Buffy when Willow brought Buffy back from the dead.
That would be interesting. If Morgause does die but then Morgana does some sort of creepy voodoo spell to bring her back to life, what if she comes back different? What if she comes back wishing she hadn't been brought back? Or maybe she comes back and it turns out she's been in some sort of hell? Hmm.
Maybe that's what Agravaine is really there for? To steal the Cup of Life which undoubtedly now lives in Camelot's vaults. Ooo! Maybe we get to see the Isle of the Blessed again? That would be fun.
Yes, I'm listening to myself say all of this and I realise just how far off the mark I probably am with this idea. I've been blissfully thinking about it without any actual knowledge of what is going on with the show. But who cares? Even if I am completely wrong and out of it, the idea is a good one to me! ;D
For all I know the show opener will probably be some crappy storyline about how Morgause didn't die and all she and Morgana are doing is screwing with everyone in Camelot by doing the small crap tricks they did in S3. I certainly hope not, though. While I have always maintained that Morgana is better evil than she even was attempting to be a goodie, she irritated me to no end last year and to see this buck continue would be enough to make me stop watching this show as religiously as I did in the past. As I would if they f-k about with Merlin still doing boring magic tricks and not doing badass powerful magic like he has done on-and-off but not enough, or f-king about with Arthur and Gwen's characters to suit the lame-as-hell love-triangle they will undoubtedly insist on dragging the carcass of out until the end of S5.
That's another thing I expect, that a couple of the knights will wander off and no be in Camelot all the time. I just don't see how the show will manage all five of them fairly without them getting in the way or eating away at the stronger main characters (Arthur, Merlin, Gwen, Gaius, Uther and Morgana). So either they get rid of some of the knights by having them decide to go backpacking somewhere... or they will eventually cull a few at the end of S4. In my experience S4 of any show = major character cull in which all but the main characters are in danger of dying.
I decided a long time ago that Elyan would probably get culled at the end of the show's run if only because of Guinevere's brother's small yet interesting role in the legends of getting mixed up with Morgan Le Fay. I also figured that by the end Lancelot would probably be culled too, and of course Uther will have to die by the end of S5 at the latest. His death will be another carcass I expect the show will drag on and on as long as possible. I suspect that Gaius will probably die soon too not just because he's old but it's also time that Merlin cut the apron strings, and the best way to do that is by culling his beloved father figure in some tragic and significant way. While it would be nice if Gaius could just retire, go to live with Alice and pick herbs, I think it would hurt more to kill him. And, you know what, if Percival doesn't develop into a better character... what the hell? Cull him too! I'd like to repeat that most of these culls I expect to happen in some big blow-up at the end of S5 where all bets are off and loads of people die.
But I'm still expecting a couple of culls this series simply to trim the fat of characters this show has suddenly lumbered itself with. Like I said it's that, or sending a couple of the knights away to "do stuff" while leaving two or three left in Camelot. I'm thinking Elyan would probably stick around and Leon too - not that Leon matters that much as he's never really been anything more than a plot-device with a beard. The others have at least had storylines to their name. Or at least Lancelot, Gwaine and Elyan have. As I said Percival doesn't seem to do much at all... and I think it'd rather find out more about Gwaine and Elyan than try and invent a backstory for Percival.
Just to end my lovely speculation on the topic of death, I wonder if they will pretend to kill one of the proper main characters to try and scare the kiddies. I have gone on record pleading that this show not get so dark and gruesome that my little cousins can't watch it with the same enjoyment anymore. It is still a kid's show after all. Nonetheless that can usually be very effective, tricking kids into thinking that one of the main characters is dying or dead. It probably wouldn't be Arthur or Merlin because the former has already nearly died about a billions times and Merlin is the glue that holds this show together (Plus he's already nearly died twice himself). I imagine my little cousins would react to an Uther death the same way they did to Morgana's in 3x05 i.e. they didn't care and would actually be disappointed if the death wasn't see through (Uther and Morgana = Baddies). Plus, like Arthur, he's nearly died more times than I care to count. I've already stated that I think Gaius could eventually die for real, but he *has* already nearly died twice himself. In fact thinking about it the only character who hasn't had a storyline where they were either dying or dead is Gwen. She's nearly been executed twice in serious storylines, but so have Merlin and Gaius. She is due her turn her go at lying on a death bed or actually dying and having to be brought back. So if they do another storyline to this effect, it'll probably be Gwen's turn to nearly die or actually die. It's her go. It might make a nice race against time episode, or even a two-parter if she (or unspecified character who is not her in my head-canon) dies suddenly at the end of one episode and has to be saved in the next.
OK, now I am really off the ball. I realise that. This is the glorious thing of not having a clue what is going to happen in the show. You can go with your head-canon.
Two more things I hope next series will address that they annoyingly failed to do last series was explain Morgause's sodding background. They said they would explain it later but they never did, so they better do so now. We know she's Gorlois's daughter but I can't believe she is Vivienne's too. Even before the Uther thing came out Gaius was calling them half-sisters and that their common parent was their father, not their mother. So who the hell was Morgause's mother? Igraine, Nimueh, Random Lady Not Mentioned Yet? The list is endless.
Also we need to out the truth about Arthur's mother. I don't even think Igraine's death came up last series, did it? She appeared to Uther in that vision Morgause induced for him - and I'm still speculating on what it was he saw her drowned with all those children. It kinda had a whole "not in my name" feel about it. Like Uther knew deep down that Igraine would be disgusted in everything he has done. Although I thinking that goes without saying. There still isn't something quite right about Igraine's death that I think is yet to be revealed. I think there is definately more than what we learned even in 2x08. It is certainly clear that the royal marriage wasn't the picture-perfect image he liked to paint to the world, or even to himself.
Given that he appears to have cheated on Igraine more than once with his friends' wives and messed around with serving girls, he is a tragic example of a man who clearly didn't appreciate Igraine until he'd gone and killed her. I have no doubt he loved her more than anything, he just treated her like crap. So much so that a part of me even started to wonder (even hope) that Igraine did not return Uther's love in the same way. Maybe she too was the victim of a pushy dad who forced her into marriage with Uther for an alliance. While it eventually worked out for him (i.e. he fell for her) she didn't for him and so she spent most of the marriage walking around like Arthur at his forced marriage; with a face that looked like it was about to burst into tears and vomit down Geoffrey's front.
Hell, Uther seems to love marriages of connivance! Seems logical that he had one himself and in his twisted and blurred mind considers it a success story of what a good idea they are. :p
I suppose I just like to think that at least one of Arthur's parents would understand his and Gwen's plight, were they both there to judge the situation. I used to think Uther would be harsh but sympathetic seeing as he claims to have loved Igraine with such passion. I often feel that it was his moving plight to Arthur that he had loved Igraine and longed for her to still be alive that save his neck in 2x08. I don't say that just because Arthur feels that natural sensitivity to his mother's memory but because Uther's words touched something inside Arthur. He understands what it is like to love someone that much and for it to hurt to think about them and not have them. I know Gwen is alive and Igraine is dead but there was a likeness there. While Arthur and Gwen are cautious but ultimately honest about their love for each other, you get the feeling that Uther never was all that open with Igraine. He messed her about, and I hate him for it, but he was that sort of man. Arthur isn't really; the idea of using Gwen for his own desires just completely goes over his head, even when Morgana and Uther both alluded to it. Uther is beyond redemption now but at least we could send him to hell while feeling sorry for him. He loved his wife but never really told her, and then let her die thinking that he had given her up for his son. From what Igraine said in 2x08 it could be that Uther's desire for an heir pushed her away? Maybe she felt he was more interested in her as his waling baby-making machine than as a woman.
Yeah, there are still a few gaps worth plugging there. Sorry for waffling on but with so little to go on, my mind wanders... what was I originally talking about? OH, S4 speculation. LOL!
Please remember that I don't look at spoilers nor really participate in any general fandom stuff anymore, not since the start of April anyway, so if you know better you probably won't pay any attention to me please don't attempt to drop hints or remark on anything I have said as to deny or confirm. Without spoilers and fandom, speculation is all I have and I prefer it that way.
Of course if you are one of the five people left in the world who do keep themselves spoiler free then you might want to speculate with me.
OK, first of all True Blood.
So like everyone else I have been a little down about the last couple of episodes. I was desperate for Eric to get his memories back but when he did it was so much worse than the books. He remembered everything rather than forgot it all, and that meant he was pleading with Sookie rather than being confused by her awkward behaviour. In the books Sookie was left feeling down and out by Eric's lack of memory of what passed between them. Here it now turns out that, with his memory back, Sookie has suddenly decided she still love Bill -- which frankly is probably down to his blood more than anything else.
But WTF?! Sookie still loves Bill?! He is nothing more than a controlling, abusive prick who used Sookie like his own vending machine. Say what you like about Eric, he may be a cock but he treats Sookie with an odd degree of respect and seems to understand her better. As I've said before though I'm biased. I like Eric and I hate "Beehl". The only positive thing about Bill is his relationship with Jessica.
The best thing about the last episode was definately a combination between Sam/Alcide's new found bromance (which is oddly apt considering they are two self-hating shifters/weres and both have that "nice guy" feel to them) and Sookie/Jason/Laffy/Jesus staking out Martonia's hideaway. I should add that I love Martonia too because Fiona Shaw is the be all and end all in greatness. You know what else I love? Laffy/Jesus's relationship, which is totally normal and not in your face. Sookie's relationships are so in your face all the time that it can be irritating. Laffy/Jesus is just subtle and regular. Despite the whole medium/demon thing, they are normal and cool.
So my first hope is that Jesus (or Laffy for that matter) does not die in the finale. I have heard that a couple of characters might be culled in the finale. We've already seen the death of Tommy "Turd with a Heart Sort-Of" Merlotte-Mickens, and I'm willing to bet at least two more people might snuff it. My guess is Hoyt will probably go (*cries* I hate that they keep messing with his character!) and maybe Nan the Bitchy Vampire. She gets on my nerves. I'm also thinking Debbie will get hers too, although I only say that because its in the book that she does. Knowing TV-land they will probably drag out the whole Debbie v. Sookie over Alcide thing for a billion years. Showrunners really do like to drag dead carcasses around.
Oh! 'Fort Belleflour' was pretty sweet too. Gotta love the Belleflour cousins. :D
Anyway, I wonder if we wil see a return of the fairies. Maybe Queen Mab will come to take Sookie back to fairyland and punish her for what happened at the start of the series? I just don't know how this whole witches thing will be resolved because I'm thinking that Antonia, who has already displayed an unwillingness to live in Marnie, might decide to go to Laffy instead and Jesus somehow settles her spirit. I'm also thinking that there might be a few more ghosts cropping up and that Laffy will get possessed by a couple of them too.
But I can't think how they are going to resolve the whole Queen Beehl situation. Frankly I think Eric would make a better king of any state. Can Bill stay king after pissing Nan off so much? Also what's the deal with the f-king authority? It almost makes me hope that this series ends in a Herrick-style fashion with someone digging Russell out of the ground and getting him to stamp out the authority or something...
I also realise now how much I miss Sophie-Anne, and not just because she's called Sophie-Anne (My name and my mothers name! hee ~)
Now for Doctor Who, and as usual I haven't go a f-k what is going on yet again.
Moffat is the ultimate king of the mindf-k, isn't he? I have to say that I loved the latest episode 'Night Terrors' if just because it was a nice break from all the relevant timey-wimey stuff. I have a feeling that next week will have some bearing in the overall plotline but I'm still not really certain where Moffat is taking this storyline.
If there is one thing I miss about RTD (and it's not the overly graphical sexy stuff, especially the gay scenes - I get annoyed when I see sex in sci-fi :p) is that he would wrap up his plots in one series and not drag it out over several series. The events taking place now in DW have been seeded since 5x01, apparently.
Well, we know it is. Just look at the Silence.
So in order to get my head around my own speculation I am going to make a list of what we know so far about the Silence and who they are working for:
1.) The Silence are not a species but a religious order, or movement but let's go with religion because it's cooler, who believe that silence will fall when 'the question is asked' - but no one knows what the question is.
2.) The Silence are the ones who want the Doctor dead. Therefore is stands to reason that Madame Kovarian is a member of the Silence too. The Clerics are not part of the name religion - because they are Christians - and only allied themselves with the Headless Monks, who presumably are also religious leaders within the Silence.
3.) We still don't know who or what the creatures from 6x01/2 are. If their species is not 'The Silence' then what are they? Why did they kidnap Amy in 6x02? Why were they the ones keeping River prisoner before she escaped and regenerated into Mels?
4.) Another question people often forget to ask is how do the Silence (or at least the creatures from 6x01/2) have their own TARDIS? Or rather, how do they have the knowledge to build a TARDIS? Because that's what that spaceship was in 5x11 and 6x01/2.
There are also a couple of other points Moffat has yet to explain:
5.) How and why did the TARDIS go to the day that Amy/Rory got married (also the day River was conceived) and blow up? Who was controlling the TARDIS? We can gather it was the Silence from the creepy voice saying "Silence will fall" in 5x12 but how do they have the power to control the TARDIS and who did that voice belong to? It wasn't one of those creatures so who was it?
6.) We still don't know why they got the date on Rory's ID badge so radically wrong in 5x01. I can't believe it was a continuity error when they zoomed into the bloody thing so the date was there for all and sundry to gawp at. It said something like 1990 rather than 2007 or maybe 2008 (when the year is set), which would be a more realistic issue date for Rory's badge as in 1990 he and Rory couldn't have been anymore than one or two years old! Given that Rory is clearly a trainee nurse in 5x01 he would only be about 19/20 years old. I just can't believe they would get it so wrong!
7.) River's aging progress. Back when she was Melody Pond she regenerated in New York City, January/February 1970 into a toddler (so around two-years-old) - who eventually became known as "Mels" by Amy and Rory - yet she is shown as growing up as a contemporary of her parents and growing at the same rate as a human. That means that River/Melody would have been a toddler for nearly twenty years before finally hitting a growth spurt in around 1990/1 when Amy and Rory themselves would have been toddlers, if we assume they were born between 1988/90. That doesn't make sense either.
8.) WTF is up with River Song, anyway? They make her a Time Lord and then randomly have her throw it all away to save the man she's supposed to kill. What does that mean for the Doctor's death in 6x01? Obviously it won't happen in the end but does this mean River isn't in the suit? Or if she is how does it happen? WTF is going on with her?! WTF! I figured she saved him in 6x08 because he suddenly gave her life another meaning than just being programmed for the one task of killing him.
9.) What did the Doctor whisper in Melody's ear when he told her to "Find River Song"? And why did she reply, "I'm sure she knows." It'd be easy to believe he said something mundane that he could only ever whisper in someone's ear, i.e. like at the end of that god-awful episode of DW 4x13. It also seems too simple that he would whisper his name to her - although this is the most logical thing he did. Could have whispered a way in which she cane save him from his eventual death? He knows it's going to happen, so will he try to change it or stop it. It does seem that River holds the key to saving the Doctor.
10.) Is River really a Time Lady because of the TARDIS or is there something else at work there? Nothing much to say on this other than that and "GUH?!"
There are probably loads of other things I'm forgetting but here is my speculation as it stands now:
I believe that the Silence are a religious movement who are being controlled and headed by a powerful force existing outside the universe. It could even be what we would understand to be God, although I have seen plenty of people suggesting it will be the First Time Lord Omega. This is really down to the Omega symbols on the clerics' badges and a load of other factors too. Whoever this powerful force is, it seems to me that they wish to kill the Doctor for one reason or another. He was probably the one who blew up the TADIS, possibly to create this new universe and new timeline in which the Doctor is destined to die. I guess this will all get rewritten/unwritten again at some point.
The question could possibly be "What is the Doctor's real name?" as we know that River knows his name, and his name has been hinted at several times in Moffat's past episodes dating back into the RTD era.
I think that everyone in the Silence plays a different role. I think make Madame Kovarian will turn out to be some sort of high-up religious leader (Maybe the eye-patch is symbolic of that somehow?) The creatures are probably the gofers whose duty was to look after the child and steal technology for whatever it is the Big Bad is planning. The fact that when you look away from them, you forget them, might suggest that they are trying to make people 'forget the question' and maybe they also used that power to brainwash River? The Headless Monks seem to be the devout franaticals or something.
Now as for Rory's badge and River's prolonged aging, I'm guessing this might have something to do with the damaged time we keep hearing about. I wonder if maybe Amy and Rory were actually born around 1968/9/70 or something but, due to problems with time, aspects of the 21st century have been tumbled up in their timeline back in the 20th century. I keep thinking about how Leadworth was described as the "village that time forgot". I don't know, I definately think there is something in time being jumbled up or something.
Anyway I'm pretty certain Moffat said that the answer to our questions in S6 been right in front of our faces since 5x01... so if anyone can think of something besides Rory's badge that appeared in 5x01 that could hold the key to everything, so let me know. I just can't think of anything good. IDK what's wrong with me, lol!
My head hurts, lets move on to Merlin
So having been a good little girl I have stayed away from all Merlin spoilers for the last couple of months. I did catch a couple of the early ones before my joy for it all was immediately stucked away and I decided I was better off without it. So bearing that in mind all my speculation is probably completely off with what everyone else has seen, known and said.
But I don't care because I don't know any better and I'm going to speculate anyway.
To recap how 3x13 ended, we saw Morgana and Morgause flee Camelot with the latter being apparently badly injured or dead. Uther had a nervous breakdown upon realising just how much cruelty is in his daughter to a point where she would murder simple civilians who just happen to be standing by, try to murder her own little brother and using his actions as an excuse for it all. Now apparently incapable of ruling alone, Arthur and Merlin were left sitting on Camelot's steps wondering if he would ever recover. Finally, Arthur now has a band of five-strong knights at his back: Sir Gwaine, Sir Lancelot, Sir Elyan, Sir Pericval and, of course, good ol' Sir Leon. The show ended with Arthur snogging Gwen and Merlin having his traditional summing up over dinner with Gaius before heading off to seal the Excalibur in the stone.
Where do they go from here? All I will say before I begin speculating is that I only know a handful of details about the show released around March time, beginning of April at the latest as it was around then I packed in spoilers and fandom. So aside from ONE character spoiler, I know nothing else. So don't tell me anything else about this character another than what I know, which is the following:
Arthur is going to be getting an uncle this series called Agravaine. I've forgotten who is playing him but I do remember that he is supposed to be a maternal uncle, not a paternal one. So he is Ygraine's brother, not Uther's. By that reckoning we can rule out the possibility of Agravaine turning up to steal the throne out from under Arthur's feet in a Hamlet style manner. If he is Ygraine's brother then I can only guess that he's after revenge for his sister's and their brother Tristan's deaths. After all Uther did kill both of them. I have also heard that he's also going to pull-a-Morgana by pretending to be on the side of good while sneaking out every night to stand around a cauldron singing "Hubble-Bubble" with Morgana and Morgause. Like that's not going to get old pretty soon. It did get me wondering though because why would Ygraine's brother help the bastard daughter of the man who murdered her? I cannot believe he would back someone he has no familial relationship with over his own flesh and blood nephew when he would have nothing on the face of it to gain. It's not like Morgana is in any position to make promises. She's probably living in a cave and plotting evil deeds. Therefore I think it would be interesting if he is doing the reverse-Morgana; he is pretending with her while actually trying to find a way to possibly have it both ways by destroying both her and Uther. Either that or he shares some sort of history with Morgause, which seems logical considering I have yet to be proven otherwise that Morgause is not related to Arthur via his mother. But I'm probably still wrong. For all I know Agravaine probably hated his sister, although I fail to see why you'd invent such a character if that was the case. I mean, there is no point. What could she have done? Exiled him to the same village that Elyan was living until 3x07? :p
So aside from Agravaine's appearance I know nothing else about his character or any other characters. And I don't want to know, thank you! (I have to keep saying it because I'm worried people will forget.)
Now all I can do is base by speculation on what I saw at the end of the show last year and assume the showrunners will build from that in this new series. My first guess is that Morgana will be plastering her ever growing annoying face all over the place this year too at least for the first two episodes. I hope and pray she's not in all of them as she and Morgause lost their effect on me very quickly last year with their idiotic, half-baked plans.
But I'm guessing this next series will mainly consist of Merlin and Morgana staring angrily across at each other while not actually doing anything successful to hurt the other. Frankly, I really hope Merlin doesn't hold back with his powers anymore like he did last year. It's not like Morgana can run and tell daddy anymore. As for Morgana - given her magic was pathetically weak and uncontrolled last year, I'm guessing she'll have spent the hiatus either nicking magic off other people a la the legends or training under so sort of guru. Maybe Morgause, maybe someone else?
Either way the reason I am hesitant to say Morgause is because I'm wondering whether two Js have decided to play on the whole "is she dead or alive?" thing by making Morgana go on some sort of stupid rampage to revive her or something? We know that the magic of life and death exists. We've seen lifes being created, lives being exchanged for lives, and we have seen magic that creates living-dead immortals a la the Black Cauldron. We also know that the spirit world and ghosts exists, so it is logical that reviving dead people is possible too. I reckon though that if there is doing to be some sort of "Mummy" moment where Morgana decided to dabble in the blackest of all arts by bringing back a corpse, I'm guessing it'll work the same way that creating a life does. Ygraine died to give life to Arthur, and again like in The Mummy (I love that film!) where Imhotep needed Evie to bring back his girlfriend, I gather that to raise the dead someone else has to die...
Didn't we see that before with Nimueh and Gaius? He died to save Hunith and Merlin, and then Merlin killed Nimueh which ultimately brought Gaius back to life. So is Gaius living on borrowed time? He is old anyway but given that I think Morgana will blame him for whatever happened to Morgause and not Merlin, maybe she plots to kill one of the goodies in order to raise her dead (adopted) sister?
I probably sound mental, don't I? But it is one thing this show hasn't tried yet... I don't think. Well, they did raise Tristan Dubois's wraith but I'm thinking this whole bringing back a dead person might mean bringing them back properly. Although I have reached a plot hole in how you would preserve a corpse for any longer than a few days in those days. IDK, maybe magic would restore the flesh as well. Like in Buffy when Willow brought Buffy back from the dead.
That would be interesting. If Morgause does die but then Morgana does some sort of creepy voodoo spell to bring her back to life, what if she comes back different? What if she comes back wishing she hadn't been brought back? Or maybe she comes back and it turns out she's been in some sort of hell? Hmm.
Maybe that's what Agravaine is really there for? To steal the Cup of Life which undoubtedly now lives in Camelot's vaults. Ooo! Maybe we get to see the Isle of the Blessed again? That would be fun.
Yes, I'm listening to myself say all of this and I realise just how far off the mark I probably am with this idea. I've been blissfully thinking about it without any actual knowledge of what is going on with the show. But who cares? Even if I am completely wrong and out of it, the idea is a good one to me! ;D
For all I know the show opener will probably be some crappy storyline about how Morgause didn't die and all she and Morgana are doing is screwing with everyone in Camelot by doing the small crap tricks they did in S3. I certainly hope not, though. While I have always maintained that Morgana is better evil than she even was attempting to be a goodie, she irritated me to no end last year and to see this buck continue would be enough to make me stop watching this show as religiously as I did in the past. As I would if they f-k about with Merlin still doing boring magic tricks and not doing badass powerful magic like he has done on-and-off but not enough, or f-king about with Arthur and Gwen's characters to suit the lame-as-hell love-triangle they will undoubtedly insist on dragging the carcass of out until the end of S5.
That's another thing I expect, that a couple of the knights will wander off and no be in Camelot all the time. I just don't see how the show will manage all five of them fairly without them getting in the way or eating away at the stronger main characters (Arthur, Merlin, Gwen, Gaius, Uther and Morgana). So either they get rid of some of the knights by having them decide to go backpacking somewhere... or they will eventually cull a few at the end of S4. In my experience S4 of any show = major character cull in which all but the main characters are in danger of dying.
I decided a long time ago that Elyan would probably get culled at the end of the show's run if only because of Guinevere's brother's small yet interesting role in the legends of getting mixed up with Morgan Le Fay. I also figured that by the end Lancelot would probably be culled too, and of course Uther will have to die by the end of S5 at the latest. His death will be another carcass I expect the show will drag on and on as long as possible. I suspect that Gaius will probably die soon too not just because he's old but it's also time that Merlin cut the apron strings, and the best way to do that is by culling his beloved father figure in some tragic and significant way. While it would be nice if Gaius could just retire, go to live with Alice and pick herbs, I think it would hurt more to kill him. And, you know what, if Percival doesn't develop into a better character... what the hell? Cull him too! I'd like to repeat that most of these culls I expect to happen in some big blow-up at the end of S5 where all bets are off and loads of people die.
But I'm still expecting a couple of culls this series simply to trim the fat of characters this show has suddenly lumbered itself with. Like I said it's that, or sending a couple of the knights away to "do stuff" while leaving two or three left in Camelot. I'm thinking Elyan would probably stick around and Leon too - not that Leon matters that much as he's never really been anything more than a plot-device with a beard. The others have at least had storylines to their name. Or at least Lancelot, Gwaine and Elyan have. As I said Percival doesn't seem to do much at all... and I think it'd rather find out more about Gwaine and Elyan than try and invent a backstory for Percival.
Just to end my lovely speculation on the topic of death, I wonder if they will pretend to kill one of the proper main characters to try and scare the kiddies. I have gone on record pleading that this show not get so dark and gruesome that my little cousins can't watch it with the same enjoyment anymore. It is still a kid's show after all. Nonetheless that can usually be very effective, tricking kids into thinking that one of the main characters is dying or dead. It probably wouldn't be Arthur or Merlin because the former has already nearly died about a billions times and Merlin is the glue that holds this show together (Plus he's already nearly died twice himself). I imagine my little cousins would react to an Uther death the same way they did to Morgana's in 3x05 i.e. they didn't care and would actually be disappointed if the death wasn't see through (Uther and Morgana = Baddies). Plus, like Arthur, he's nearly died more times than I care to count. I've already stated that I think Gaius could eventually die for real, but he *has* already nearly died twice himself. In fact thinking about it the only character who hasn't had a storyline where they were either dying or dead is Gwen. She's nearly been executed twice in serious storylines, but so have Merlin and Gaius. She is due her turn her go at lying on a death bed or actually dying and having to be brought back. So if they do another storyline to this effect, it'll probably be Gwen's turn to nearly die or actually die. It's her go. It might make a nice race against time episode, or even a two-parter if she (or unspecified character who is not her in my head-canon) dies suddenly at the end of one episode and has to be saved in the next.
OK, now I am really off the ball. I realise that. This is the glorious thing of not having a clue what is going to happen in the show. You can go with your head-canon.
Two more things I hope next series will address that they annoyingly failed to do last series was explain Morgause's sodding background. They said they would explain it later but they never did, so they better do so now. We know she's Gorlois's daughter but I can't believe she is Vivienne's too. Even before the Uther thing came out Gaius was calling them half-sisters and that their common parent was their father, not their mother. So who the hell was Morgause's mother? Igraine, Nimueh, Random Lady Not Mentioned Yet? The list is endless.
Also we need to out the truth about Arthur's mother. I don't even think Igraine's death came up last series, did it? She appeared to Uther in that vision Morgause induced for him - and I'm still speculating on what it was he saw her drowned with all those children. It kinda had a whole "not in my name" feel about it. Like Uther knew deep down that Igraine would be disgusted in everything he has done. Although I thinking that goes without saying. There still isn't something quite right about Igraine's death that I think is yet to be revealed. I think there is definately more than what we learned even in 2x08. It is certainly clear that the royal marriage wasn't the picture-perfect image he liked to paint to the world, or even to himself.
Given that he appears to have cheated on Igraine more than once with his friends' wives and messed around with serving girls, he is a tragic example of a man who clearly didn't appreciate Igraine until he'd gone and killed her. I have no doubt he loved her more than anything, he just treated her like crap. So much so that a part of me even started to wonder (even hope) that Igraine did not return Uther's love in the same way. Maybe she too was the victim of a pushy dad who forced her into marriage with Uther for an alliance. While it eventually worked out for him (i.e. he fell for her) she didn't for him and so she spent most of the marriage walking around like Arthur at his forced marriage; with a face that looked like it was about to burst into tears and vomit down Geoffrey's front.
Hell, Uther seems to love marriages of connivance! Seems logical that he had one himself and in his twisted and blurred mind considers it a success story of what a good idea they are. :p
I suppose I just like to think that at least one of Arthur's parents would understand his and Gwen's plight, were they both there to judge the situation. I used to think Uther would be harsh but sympathetic seeing as he claims to have loved Igraine with such passion. I often feel that it was his moving plight to Arthur that he had loved Igraine and longed for her to still be alive that save his neck in 2x08. I don't say that just because Arthur feels that natural sensitivity to his mother's memory but because Uther's words touched something inside Arthur. He understands what it is like to love someone that much and for it to hurt to think about them and not have them. I know Gwen is alive and Igraine is dead but there was a likeness there. While Arthur and Gwen are cautious but ultimately honest about their love for each other, you get the feeling that Uther never was all that open with Igraine. He messed her about, and I hate him for it, but he was that sort of man. Arthur isn't really; the idea of using Gwen for his own desires just completely goes over his head, even when Morgana and Uther both alluded to it. Uther is beyond redemption now but at least we could send him to hell while feeling sorry for him. He loved his wife but never really told her, and then let her die thinking that he had given her up for his son. From what Igraine said in 2x08 it could be that Uther's desire for an heir pushed her away? Maybe she felt he was more interested in her as his waling baby-making machine than as a woman.
Yeah, there are still a few gaps worth plugging there. Sorry for waffling on but with so little to go on, my mind wanders... what was I originally talking about? OH, S4 speculation. LOL!
Thursday, 1 September 2011
We Know Our Markets From Our Meerkats
Mum and I boughtGwen's insurance from CompareTheMarket.Com and so are getting a cuddly toy. Good for us!
Isn't it time the World Took Up the Carbon Tax?
Australia: the next great hope for climate
My cousin Roz who lives in Oz sent this to me and I have signed it. Previously I admit I have remarked on the pointlessness of a carbon tax in Australia due to the fact they are responsible for only a small fraction of climate change. I have similarly held the same opinion about it here in the UK who, though 9th in the world for overall CO2 emissions, only produce 1.75% of the overall tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the air compared to 18.11% coming from the US and nearly a quarter coming from China. Statistically the entire European Union - that's 27 countries - produces 1,000,000 metric tonnes LESS carbon than the US does despite our overall population being 500,000,000 EU citizens to 300,000,000 Americans.
Naturally I felt that without forcing the US, China, India and other countries like this to comply with CO2 cuts, the cuts in countries like the UK, Australia, France etc. would amount to diddly-squat.
However upon speaking to Roz, who is very environmentally conscious and even grows her own food, I discovered that despite being responsible for just 1.32% of CO2 emissions, Australia are responsible for 18.9 metric tonnes per capita making them 11th in the world and one ahead of the US for most oil guzzling citizens, which made my head hurt. She explained to me that statistically one Australian is responsible for twice as much CO2 than one Briton is. The level of CO2 per person here in the UK (while still too high for my liking) is 8.5 metric tonnes, making the UK the 43rd oil guzzling country in the world. The reason I think this isn't good enough for the UK is because France are 63rd in the world, despite having only a slightly larger population than the UK, and are only responsible for 6.1 metric tonnes per capita!
So before we ask the question "what are France doing that the UK aren't?" Well, it certainly isn't a carbon tax as bit companies have already forced the President to drop the policy. And now Murdoch is trying to do the same for Oz.
Frankly I think someone has to lead the world in cutting carbon and we do need to work our way up to the top. Nothing ever works top-down, it has to be bottom-up. Therefore we have to stop the whole passing on of the blame for climate change. It's not fair or good enough for us to keep saying, "Well, the US is responsible for WAY more carbon emissions than MY country is!" because it goes without saying.
The US have a population of over 300,000,000 people whereas the population of Australia is just over 23,000,000... yet the latter produces about the same (if not a little more) carbon per person. If both these countries cut their emissions by more than half (i.e. to the level that France operates at) it WOULD make a dent in the overall emissions. Oz would probably be producing less than 1% overall if carbon could be cut right now.
Would I be in favour of a carbon tax here in the UK? Provided more money was put into public services, then yes I would. I can't drive and am too poor to afford a car. Here in the UK car ownership went down for the first time since the 1920s so people are obviously using less of their cars not least because the oil prices are terribly high here in the UK.
The people who would suffer the most from carbon tax would be the big businesses - which is why Murdoch is using his last sphere of influence in Australia to crush the tax. I'm sure if the tax was being considered here in the UK he would have tried to do the same. These businesses consume a great deal of fuel. It would also encourage people, businesses and countries overall to seek greener methods of fuel.
I know its an idealic thought but it's worth a try, isn't it? India has a carbon tax and HAVE managed to cut their carbon to meet their reduction targets. China are thinking of bringing in a carbon tax (and so they should - they are the worst offenders). I would recommend, in regards to my country, that the carbon tax should be used throughout the EU and not just pick and choose between our countries. Seeing as we have an overall target we want to get down to, it's definately worth a go.
My point is that we need to have a tax that will hit the companies and get them (and our governments) out of their cuddly relationships with the oil companies. So as unpopular as I know the measure is in Oz, I think other countries should follow their example and at times fly in the face of unpopularity.
But then again I'm left-winger. I love a tax! )
My cousin Roz who lives in Oz sent this to me and I have signed it. Previously I admit I have remarked on the pointlessness of a carbon tax in Australia due to the fact they are responsible for only a small fraction of climate change. I have similarly held the same opinion about it here in the UK who, though 9th in the world for overall CO2 emissions, only produce 1.75% of the overall tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the air compared to 18.11% coming from the US and nearly a quarter coming from China. Statistically the entire European Union - that's 27 countries - produces 1,000,000 metric tonnes LESS carbon than the US does despite our overall population being 500,000,000 EU citizens to 300,000,000 Americans.
Naturally I felt that without forcing the US, China, India and other countries like this to comply with CO2 cuts, the cuts in countries like the UK, Australia, France etc. would amount to diddly-squat.
However upon speaking to Roz, who is very environmentally conscious and even grows her own food, I discovered that despite being responsible for just 1.32% of CO2 emissions, Australia are responsible for 18.9 metric tonnes per capita making them 11th in the world and one ahead of the US for most oil guzzling citizens, which made my head hurt. She explained to me that statistically one Australian is responsible for twice as much CO2 than one Briton is. The level of CO2 per person here in the UK (while still too high for my liking) is 8.5 metric tonnes, making the UK the 43rd oil guzzling country in the world. The reason I think this isn't good enough for the UK is because France are 63rd in the world, despite having only a slightly larger population than the UK, and are only responsible for 6.1 metric tonnes per capita!
So before we ask the question "what are France doing that the UK aren't?" Well, it certainly isn't a carbon tax as bit companies have already forced the President to drop the policy. And now Murdoch is trying to do the same for Oz.
Frankly I think someone has to lead the world in cutting carbon and we do need to work our way up to the top. Nothing ever works top-down, it has to be bottom-up. Therefore we have to stop the whole passing on of the blame for climate change. It's not fair or good enough for us to keep saying, "Well, the US is responsible for WAY more carbon emissions than MY country is!" because it goes without saying.
The US have a population of over 300,000,000 people whereas the population of Australia is just over 23,000,000... yet the latter produces about the same (if not a little more) carbon per person. If both these countries cut their emissions by more than half (i.e. to the level that France operates at) it WOULD make a dent in the overall emissions. Oz would probably be producing less than 1% overall if carbon could be cut right now.
Would I be in favour of a carbon tax here in the UK? Provided more money was put into public services, then yes I would. I can't drive and am too poor to afford a car. Here in the UK car ownership went down for the first time since the 1920s so people are obviously using less of their cars not least because the oil prices are terribly high here in the UK.
The people who would suffer the most from carbon tax would be the big businesses - which is why Murdoch is using his last sphere of influence in Australia to crush the tax. I'm sure if the tax was being considered here in the UK he would have tried to do the same. These businesses consume a great deal of fuel. It would also encourage people, businesses and countries overall to seek greener methods of fuel.
I know its an idealic thought but it's worth a try, isn't it? India has a carbon tax and HAVE managed to cut their carbon to meet their reduction targets. China are thinking of bringing in a carbon tax (and so they should - they are the worst offenders). I would recommend, in regards to my country, that the carbon tax should be used throughout the EU and not just pick and choose between our countries. Seeing as we have an overall target we want to get down to, it's definately worth a go.
My point is that we need to have a tax that will hit the companies and get them (and our governments) out of their cuddly relationships with the oil companies. So as unpopular as I know the measure is in Oz, I think other countries should follow their example and at times fly in the face of unpopularity.
But then again I'm left-winger. I love a tax! )
Gwen the Cat
This has nothing to do with politics of any kind. I just wanted to show this footage I took a few weeks ago of my sweet little exotic shorthair tabby kitten, Gwen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)