Mum's Monday: Pixar's The Good Dinosaur (The Pixar Theory)

I love how the dinosaurs are farmers. The lighting effect of the fireflies is nice to watch. Now all the good dinosaur young Arlo (Jack McGraw) grown up Arlo (Raymond Ochoa) has to do is catch the one stealing the food to ‘Make his mark’.

It is sad to see Arlo injured and the loss of his father and now Arlo is also far from home. 

This film isn’t the most action packed film i have seen, in fact i find it a little boring in places, also biting a head off an insect, i wouldn’t say was exactly child friendly.

I knew it, you blow down a hole and you get what you get things being blown out of it, this is an amusing part because it shows a playful nature between Arlo and the critter.

I don’t know what the prehistoric term for ‘Magic mushrooms’ is but Arlo and his now pal certainly found some. This is interesting to watch but the scenes are a little rushed.

It is heart-warming to watch the part about each of their families because the pictures and the circles enclosing them representing Arlo and the critters family units mean a lot and is nice to watch.

Now sadly, the weather is turning bad. Although it is nice to see Arlo act on advice from a memory of his father, again the scenes are rushed.

I don’t like the aftermath of the storm. What was the point of freeing the ‘Critter’. This part is not nice to watch, luckily there are a few more dinosaurs to help out, well one good turn deserves another.

It is nice to see a familiar sight all Arlo has to do now is follow the river to the mountains. Just when you don’t want any action, as Arlo is so close to home, this film delivers. I should have been careful as to what i wished for at the start of this film. Arlo sees his father. I hope he can help from the beyond. Now Arlo has found some new found strength this is good to see.

There is a dramatic waterfall scene on there way home, made that much more tense by the stunning computer animation which looks highly realistic. The accompanying music elevates the scene further, making sure you are on the edge of your seat.

It is nice to see them both go home in the end. After a long journey together, and with a strong friendship having been developed along the way, seeing Arlo and the Critter separate ways, both with the knowledge that neither of them are as bad as they first believed at the beginning.

Throughout the films released by Pixar there has been widespread talk of a theory linking all the films together. Although this isn’t the first Pixar film to be released the theory for this one is that in this one the meteor doesn't hit the earth and doesn't wipe out the dinosaurs therefore creating an alternative universe where anything can happen, hence the following and previous Pixar film releases is part of this. I mean who is going to question what an alternate universe would look like as we don’t know as the meteor did hit the earth in our universe timeline?  My answer: ‘Anything can happen in an alternate universe’. 

I am going to write blogs in order as to the theory. Heading it by the films title and Pixar and will add in where the film fits into the theory, so you can look out for the information at the end of each Pixar film blog.

Film of the Week: Scoob

I wouldn’t say I love the Scooby-Doo episodes, but I definitely don’t hate them, and to say that I only like them does do them a disservice. The classic episodes that aired when I was a kid, structured around a formula which is used in every episode, provided me with endless entertainment, and whilst I haven’t seen an episode in years, I know I haven’t grown out of the show. I don’t think it’s possible to grow out of the show. Sure, its target audience is kids, and I’m 26, I am sure I’m not the only adult who can happily spend a couple of hours binging the classic Scooby-Doo episodes, or am I?

And with most cartoons, someone comes along and tries to make it into a live-action film – which generated a cult following – a small one, but loyal, nevertheless. There must have been enough fans following to generate a sequel, but unfortunately both films weren’t met with glamorous critical claim, and most cinema goers said in their own ways that the films weren’t as good as the cartoons.

But live-action films weren’t all that people tried to squeeze money from the franchise, and many direct-to-DVD films were released, including one where they meet Batman. I haven’t seen it, but do I really have to, to acknowledge the strange combination. Maybe the pairing is awesome, but surely, I would’ve known more about it if it were any good?

And with every TV show that popularised my childhood, I slowly stopped watching them and moved on with my life. (pardon the pun) I watched my TV evolve over the years, but I still held on to those fond memories of coming home from school and sticking on CITV, or waking up on a Saturday morning, grabbing a bowel of cereal and tuning into my favourite shows without a single worry in the world. They were simple times back then, and Scooby-Doo is one of those shows where it has a strong connection to it being easier – and coupled with the show being practically faultless (until Scrappy-Doo started to make appearances, but that’s an article for another day and you have better brace yourself for that one as it’s going to be quite the rant), how can I not like it.

Skipping ahead a few years, whilst browsing the list of films that had unfortunately been affected by current situations, I noticed one I hadn’t heard of before, and whilst immediately intrigued. A computer animated theatrical Scooby-Doo film, Scoob. Well, it was a no-brainer that I was going to watch it, and I have to say, I’m glad I did, but it does have its faults, I’m not going to lie.

It’s a theatrical film, not a standard episode, so more elements have to be included, and when you start messing around with a formula that has worked for years without ruining the classic show; if it isn’t broke, don’t change it. Starting off with a scene which I believed would set up the entire movie, but turned out to just be the opener, Shaggy and Scooby’s first ever meeting. It gave the impression that it was going to be an origin story for the team, but then the montage of showing them growing up and gaining experience on many adventures happened behind the opening credits until stopping at the point where they’ve made a name for themselves and people seek their help with potential hauntings.

I want to make it clear that I do not have a problem with the story once it gets going. When the wheels start turning, gaining momentum, it’s a genuinely compelling story with a good couple of solid laughs here and there, with a moral interwoven between for the kids to learn something whilst watching their favourite characters go on a grand adventure.

But... 

There is one massive elephant in the room, and it changed the way I saw the movie as a whole. It’s the first film in a potential cinematic universe, because of course it is. Every film these days is part of some cinematic universe. This is the first in what hopefully will be established as the Hannah-Barbera cinematic universe, or what it may be eventually abbreviated to, the HBCMU.

But, why? Is it necessary? Is it necessary to have Tom and Jerry standing in the same room as Shaggy and Scooby and the gang? They’re both great TV shows, and whilst they’re made by the same company it does make sense that they can crossover, but again, is it necessary? After giving it much thought, I’ve developed an answer that surprised me.

Scoob does have two other Hannah-Barbera properties involved, Dick Dastardly and Blue Falcon, but it’s a standalone film. I didn’t know that it was intended to be the first instalment of a cinematic universe until after I watched the film, I just thought they were taking advantage of the other characters and using them to create a unique story for Scooby and the gang, for the sake of taking advantage, because they can. The collaboration felt natural, not forced or rushed like every other cinematic universe trying to imitate Marvel’s success. The reason why this film is as good as it is, despite the knowledge of it being an attempt at starting yet another shared universe, is because it’s doing its own thing, at its own pace, not at all trying to imitate anybody else. If they can keep that level of quality going throughout the many films which may come over the years, I can see this franchise being an extremely successful one.

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)

Mum's Monday: Doctors (Lockdown Special)

This episode of Doctors shown on BBC1 on Friday 12th June 2020 is dedicated to all who has been affected by this deadly virus and all the key workers, NHS staff, Dustmen and shop workers. Also anyone else working on the front line to keep this country running during this awful pandemic. This episode was filmed during the lockdown itself so it gives a clear indication of how a doctor's surgery coped/operated during this time. An inspired/fitting idea for an episode of yes, doctors working in the NHS.

The script is written in a well informed, knowledgeable way all the appropriate wording is there. It is heart-breaking to hear some of the stories. Doctors are known to have patient based storylines and this is no different with the counselling Jimmi (Adrian Lewis Morgan) is giving to his patients.

To cover all aspects and to clarify that anyone can get the virus, it is one, a surprise, but two inevitable that one of the characters would have symptoms/get it, which one character does. However the episode also high-lights that some symptoms can just be an allergy. In lockdown yes, some people do ‘go up the wall’ so this is also included and all that cleaning caused the ‘Dust allergy’.

They are including most if not all the aspects, scenarios of lockdown. The good, although not that is much of that and all of the bad.

I know the actors are actors and not actually doctors so as they are just acting as front line workers yes, they have to stay at home and not be at the set/surgery which is just a TV set after all. However, the script does cover where they go out and be the front line workers they portray.

You always get one, upbeat and want to ‘Cheer you up’. This is amusing to watch and light-hearted in dark times. Which this episode flips quickly between. 

We also have to remember that the virus doesn't just affect the patient, it affects the family as well, again it is horrible to watch an originally upbeat son become so deflated.

Also now sadly, the economic cost, a daughter losing her job. Seeing the news reports is one thing but when you put it all together in a brilliant well executed idea of an episode like this, it really hits home the serious extent on everything and I mean everything this pandemic has caused. It is nice however, to see a mum help out. The niceness continues ‘You got this’.

Yes, I thought that why would she tell a son what she did about his mum. I know the script was to include all but sadly, now I see NHS workers have to give out bad news all the time, but I do feel that this could have been worded slightly differently and I hope despite the bad out look that she does pull through.

It is sad to see an upbeat, happy and want to cheer you up person deflate. It sadly does go to high-light people who have their limits and things can go on too long, way beyond anyone’s tolerance or imagination.

Thank goodness for technology a son can see his mum and SHE IS OK!! So heart-warming and now let the ‘Quiz’ begin. Also thankyou, and yes, ‘See you on the other side’.

A massive well done to everyone involved in such a cleverly well done episode of this Doctors.

The Written Podcast: Resetting the Clock

As I’m writing this, I have less than one day to go before officially returning to work. When this post comes out, I’d have been back to work for an entire week. After 12 weeks of being lockdown and being furloughed, it is certainly giving off the impression of starting afresh, or resetting the clock back to 0, if you will.

I remember at the beginning of the year, keeping track of the virus as it spread throughout the world, watching countries go into lockdown one by one, thinking that we’re next. For a couple of months of the year, the entire world had come to a standstill; England had come to a standstill, save for all the heroic NHS staff and every single individual essential worker who made sure it kept ticking over at a steady pace until England was ready to gradually reopen.

The first couple of weeks of being furloughed was certainly a new experience for everyone, but for me personally, I might have been off work, but it certainly didn’t feel like a holiday. The first full week of lockdown, I remember firmly believing that I had slept in and would be late for work, only to realise straight after that I’m legally disallowed from stepping in through those doors.

I wrote a post whilst during lockdown about keeping my mind active by posting a few images of Premiere Pro and the sequences I made as I gradually developed my editing skills. That’s not all I did, though. I finished editing 1 book, whilst publishing another and wrote 2 short stories. I also watched an incredible amount of TV and used up a fair few hours playing games that I’m quite sure I now have literal square eyes. I also made sure I went outside for some fresh air by taking my dog, Jerry, for a decent walk around the area. Whilst Jerry will miss all the extra attention he’s been getting during this lockdown when I return to work, I don’t think he’ll miss all the exercise he had, but he needed all of that to compensate all the extra treats he was getting simply for being a good dog. In fact, as I’m writing this, he’s curled up by my feet asleep after a good long morning walk.

This is where I stopped writing this article as I didn’t know what to write. Whatever I had in my head sounded too poignant for this article, and I didn’t want to sound too philosophical or say what has already been said about the lockdown. I had intended to write this article in one go, but once I had gotten to the end of the paragraph above, I realised there wasn’t anything else I could say. This paragraph is being written on a Thursday night after four days being back at work.

On Monday, I didn’t know what to expect. Some things had changed, but the actual job itself remains the same. The first couple of hours certainly felt as if I was playing catch up even though there wasn’t anything for me to catch up to. When the phones began to ring, they never stopped, when customers began appearing at the counter they never stopped, and when every other element comes into play, the day resumes to what it was before the furlough period. It did not take long before it got back to how it was before lockdown began, but it never really felt like I hadn’t taken 12 weeks off, simply because I knew I had and therefore knew I had taken the opportunity to relax when I could.

Before the lockdown began, I was stressed. I was constantly feeling tired and knew my performance at work was greatly affected, but I kept powering on. Whilst I’ve mentioned that being furloughed didn’t feel like a holiday, I was still able to do acknowledge that I did not have to go to work, and therefore could sit back and relax.

I didn’t just reset the clock in terms of going back to work after a long weekend, I reset the clock in terms of having never worked there before and yet gifted with all the necessary knowledge to do the job. I walked into my work on Monday with the unexpected mentality of, this is a brand new job, and yet I know all that I need to do to do a good job. My performance has greatly improved, I have noticed.

Being furloughed was an unique experience, and during those times when that word had been used more times in the last three months than it ever had been in the last five years (I had not done any research to support that claim, just wanted to state how I had heard that word every day on the news), I let myself relax. I couldn’t go outside (except of course it was absolutely necessary), I couldn’t go to work, and I couldn’t not do nothing. Going back a couple of years when I was looking for a job, I put in a decent amount of effort into finding a job I equally knew I could do and enjoyed, but it was tough. I spent a year and a half since leaving college and finding my first job looking hard, but not being remotely successful. If I had sat around and watched TV all day, films, played games, I would have been told I had wasted my time. During the last three months in furlough, whilst I did keep myself occupied with various things I wanted to do, I did spend a good chunk of it watching TV and films, and I never once felt guilty of doing that. I watched two films back to back one day and did not once feel like I had wasted my time, because simply, the world had come to a standstill so I could.

Being able to sit back and not have to worry about wasting my time helped me reset my clock back to 0, allowing me to be the freshest I’ve been in a very long while.

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)

TV Show of the Week: Space Force

Written by the same person who wrote the American version of the Office, and the recent release of the Amazon’s Original, Upload, Netflix’s Original, Space Force is a satirical take on the inner workings of a Government Branch. Penned by Greg Daniels and Steve Carell, the series, as a whole, doesn’t have the same flair as the aforementioned two, in that it’s inconsistent.

The first episode established what it wanted to be, character wise and plot wise. Steve Carell’s character, Mark Naird (played brilliantly by Steve Carell), pushes the scientists to launch what they’ll believe is a failure waiting to happen. Instead of listening and understanding what the scientists are saying, he overrules them all and orders the launch of their new rocket anyway, which does happen at the end. When the chief scientist, Dr Adrian Mallory (played equally as brilliantly by John Malkovich) questioned Mark on why he believed the mission to be a success, Mark responded with a decent speech about taking risks, to which the Dr Mallory seconded with a clink of their glasses, toasting a successful mission.

Whilst it was only the first episode, I believed I had figured out where the series is going, but not in a stereotypically predictable way where it doesn’t become fun as I was looking forward to watching the friendship between Mark Naird and Dr Adrien Mallory develop as both learn a valid lesson from each other throughout the series.

I was wrong as each episode consistently had this rivalry between the two characters, even going so far as to indirectly state that Dr Mallory does not have respect for Mark, an inconsistent direction to what the first episode set up. The second episode went even further with Mark’s imaginative ideas by getting a monkey to repair a damaged satellite, which nearly succeeded. I could see the idea behind Mark’s idea not working as he would’ve learnt a valid lesson in trusting the Dr Mallory, but that didn’t happen. Neither character proves they’ve learnt anything throughout the series. They set up a good idea, only for it not to be paid off. They’re rivalry does get a little tedious over the course of the series, creating the bad side of predictability as you just know that the other character is going to instantly dismiss any idea given to them.

There are a couple of good points which stand out. The first being episode be one, and episode 8, where Mark and his wife, Maggie Naird (played just as brilliantly by Lisa Kudrow), who’s in prison from committing a crime, talk about having an open marriage. The way the episode handles that topic is superb. It hits all the right points so we, the audience, understand both sides of the argument, and can establish our own points also.

It’s easy to understand the intention behind the show, both character wise and story wise, but the loose connectivity between each episode which contains only a few moments of those intentions makes it hard to follow and get into as much as I had hoped I would from watching episode 1. 

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)

Mum's Monday: Fatal Getaway

A great start, after leaving an abusive relationship, which turns out to be the perfect background story for instincts on men, Eliza (Christie Burson) and three friends Vicky (Laura Ault), Bridgette (Karlee Eldridge) and Monlca (Shein Mompremier) just ‘Getaway’ for a weekend.

It is a lovely looking house but has it a mind of its own? The thriller aspect is very strong, will the three friends still be friends by the end of the weekend? I hope so. To add to the creepiness there is also intrigue as well.

The surrounding area the house is in is also nice, but not so nice if you feel lost. This is a light-hearted house and setting which is normal and just goes to show that it can be the people and their minds that can make a place feel creepy. I don't like James (Tilky Jones) . He seems very clingy and negative. I also don’t trust him, I am glad Eliza is ok and I wouldn’t eat the soup. I knew it. i , all of a sudden, worked it out whilst Hector (Fedor Steer) chased Eliza and Monica in his car. I did have an idea before from what twists and turns I have watched in other programs/films or read in books. Sometimes nothing is as it seems.

James is a nice guy, NOT!! I hate him, I hate the annoying influence he has on the police. I like Hector, Eliza has to be careful, they should team up? I wonder what ‘Four packages’ mean. Well I do know but it is a clever yet sinister way of describing what is going on, also poor Hector. Again Eliza ought to be careful.

Yes, one more night is all it can take. They had to really for this film, leaving early wouldn’t give this film it’s title. Awkward. But Eliza is the sensible one but you still shouldn’t antagonise a bad guy. What a fantastic ending.

Mary Ann Cotton Dark Angel, Britain’s First Female Serial Killer by Martin Connolly.

Chapter one, I like where this book starts, right at the beginning when Mary Ann’s parents were born, lived then married, Mary was then born. It does explain the hardship that Mary was born into. 

Chapter two, with all the diseases of the day and the health system not as it is today, I can see how it was gossiped about when Mary Ann lost the majority of her family and subsequently received the insurance claims.

Chapter three, sadly, it seems back in the past even though the information was written down on official documents it cannot be trusted to be right/correct.

Chapter four, this book very much high-lights the need for the modern day ‘Background’ checks and ‘References’ that we have in place today in 2020.

Chapter five, the two letters are difficult to read in this short chapter. They are interesting in the content as well as in the spelling in them.

Chapter six, it is a fairly common trait that if multiple deaths have occurred in the presence of one person then any death would be blamed on that one person. What fact that we can rely on is that Mary Ann did commit bigamy.

Chapter seven, yet more deaths, the question I have is ‘if they are paying lodgers, then why kill them?’ I know it mentions the insurance money but surely the rent would add to more in the long term? It does depend on how much rent Mary Ann was receiving.

Chapter eight, I can see why the death of Charles Edward Cotton would be the turning factor/downfall towards her guilt. The fact that she openly tried to either get him into the workhouse or asked to get him to move in with family.

Chapter nine, it seems strangely unusual that Mary Ann Cotton should openly ask someone to buy arsenic and then to use it to murder someone, also to openly admit the child is in the way and will probably ‘Go like the rest’. It is nice to read that someone acquainted with Mary Ann did survive, refusing to have life insurance could have helped/been a factor in saving his life as deemed at the time. As is the nature of this book about death there is a lot in the way of descriptions of exhumed bodies and post mortems. If you haven’t got a strong stomach you may not be able to read it. They say that ‘Everyone deserves a fair trial’ this could be deemed easy, then again possibly not, but finding representation/a solicitor in this case is a lot harder to accomplish. This chapter is repetitive but every person told what they saw and they all see the same. There are a few exceptions where different people see different things elsewhere. It is annoying that the contents of the ‘Teapot’ were not examined, although with what Mary Ann used to clean the house or to get rid of ‘Bugs’ with was enough to prove enough guilt to proceed to trial.

Chapter ten, although there are differences in this chapter reporting on the trial this chapter still repeats some of the previous hearings. Sadly, there are some major flaws in the trial and the jury returns a verdict in this chapter.

Chapter eleven, it is good to see that some people were on Mary Ann’s side, what good it did her sadly.

Chapter twelve, this chapter was hard to read not only was it a challenge to read the content of the letters, as it portrayed a woman who protested her innocence and her loss. Also because of the spelling.

Chapter thirteen, to sensationalise Mary Ann in Madame Tussauds and a play is sad to read also what is macabre is what happened to the rope with many others. What I am fascinated in, because I am a fan of the paranormal, is that there was a report of a spirit/ghost of one of Mary Ann’s alleged victims.

Chapter fourteen, although it is interesting to read of what happened to the people involved in Mary Ann’s case after the event. What is the most interesting yet very sad, is what I was hoping to read about was of what happened to Mary Ann’s baby daughter Mary gave up. I would have liked to have read that she had had a better life, but sadly, it wasn’t to be.

Chapter fifteen, however, a bit late, I am glad the trial has been looked at in the light of modern times. I agree with the more modern verdict, it does show/high-lights how far, and the importance of, research techniques and the justice system has come, from when Mary Ann’s trial was conducted.

The Written Podcast: Am I Hypothetically Right or Wrong?

Surely the whole point of a hypothetical debate is that neither side is right or wrong, and yet the whole nature of a debate is both sides share different viewpoints, thus alluding to the other person being wrong; or am I misunderstanding something?

Hypothetical debates are fluid with their meaning, anyway, aren't they? Commonly used as a way for a character in a story to subtly admit they done something wrong by using the phrase, "but what if, hypothetically..." and also commonly used to discuss topics based upon the individual person's perspective and knowledge of whatever is they're discussing. Some take it seriously, some take it not so seriously, others accidentally take it seriously, and a small percentage don't understand don't play along and refuse to accept anything remotely not real, by using the phrase after being pitched a hypothetical question, "but that won't happen, though." This can be annoying, but isn't the subject of this article.

The hypothetical debate I've been building up to happened the night before writing this article, because it's still fresh in my mind and maybe keep the nature of the debate alive long enough for me to get the words written. Last night, I and three friends were playing Red Flags, a card game where you set up dates for the other person. Each round someone is the designated "single" person, and the others play 2 white cards known as positive traits for their partner. Once everyone has played their 2 cards, a third red card is played - a negative trait. The goal of the game is to convince the "single" person to pick your person to be their partner and win points. The game continues for as long as anyone wants. We weren't really competing to a specific score, just played until we had enough.

Red Flags can be immediately comparable to Cards Against Humanity, a card game solely focused on absurd hypotheticals, and when I say absurd, I really mean completely absurd. Anyone who's played the game knows why I can't go any further into the nature of the game. Red Flags is a little light-hearted compared to Cards Against Humanity, but still include the absolute absurdities. They're solely hypothetical and should never be taken seriously. But you still have to convince the "single" to pick your cards, so the nature of the game is structured around debating, and those debates can get a little hairy, but again shouldn't be taken as serious, but I fell into one of the personas and started to take it seriously, purely because I was adamant my set of cards were the best. And I know what I've just said; being adamant about your set is the purpose of the game, but let me explain the hypothetical situation.

My set of cards were: "writes poetry", and "never gets jealous". I played those cards because I believed simplicity would win. In a game about struggling to choose between the best of the worst, a straightforward set of traits would overcome the absurdity of the others, with no need to debate. The other set of cards were "casually practises spellcasting", and "chance of dropping legendary loot upon death." My friend who had the role of "single" asked me what type of poetry the person writes, and I thought I'd play it safe and state all types as a blanket safe-guard. He then immediately dismissed my person because of the chance of writing something he wouldn't like... can you spot the key word in this paragraph? It's chance. I picked up on that and the debating began.

He's a massive MMO player, and so loves his legendary items. They are exceptionally rare so most of the time you find nothing, but on the small occasion you come across something, I have no problem with liking that moment. The change of finding a legendary item is an opportunity I can understand why you want to take, because not taking it has a guaranteed 0% chance of not getting the legendary item. That part I can understand. But, let's flip the scenario and apply to my side of the debate.

His reasoning for immediately dismissing my partner was on the rare chance she'll write something he doesn't like, whereas the other chance involves the rare chance she'll give him something he does like. That's the issue I had here, because there's more of a chance my partner will write poetry he does like than he doesn't, whereas the other side has a more of a chance of my friend's partner will not drop something he likes, therefore becoming something he doesn't like.

The debate went on and someone pointed out the stats of acquiring a legendary item in of my friend's favourite game, which was 0.02% out of 100, which means there's a 99.8% chance he'll have something he doesn't like, which is nothing at all. I took those stats and placed it onto my card and stated that my partner would write poetry he does like 99.8% of the time and the remaining 0.02% would be something he doesn't like. And yet he's picking the loot because there's a chance he'll have something he doesn't like over the poetry which has more of what he likes... the debating lasted for quite a while, and we no one had played any red cards yet, which is the game itself.

I ultimately lost that round and the point went to my friend who played the card with the loot, simply because the red card did in fact change make it very difficult for me to defend, and when it was played, I had to accept the loss and move on, but that debate was still ringing through my head, and I remained convinced his reasoning for going for the loot was wrong.

So the question is: Am I wrong, is he wrong, or does it not matter in the slightest? For most of you, it doesn't matter. It's a hypothetical situation that'll never happen so making that decision within the context of the game has no immediate effect on the world; the person who you pick in the game doesn't suddenly become real. I will admit that I took that debate a little too seriously at the time, and I missed some opportunities to say some golden one-liners which came to my head the moment I settled down in bed, because that's just how it always works.

The idea is meant to ignite a friendly debate among friends involving situations that'll never happen, but since we're competing for points, shouldn't it be necessary to pretend as if it were real? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)

Film of the Week: Terminator – Dark Fate

At this point is it necessary to try and figure out the timeline of the Terminator world? Genisys tried to reset the timeline by diverting it to an alternate one, in an attempt to make another trilogy of films, even leaving the first on a cliff-hanger where the characters believe they’ve defeated the A.I., but inevitably haven’t, establishing that Skynet is still powerful force. The box office records had its own timeline which saw the trilogy of films being cancelled. Possibly even yet another alternate timeline sits Salvation, a film set solely within the war between machine and humans, and maybe even yet another alternate timeline sits Rise of the Machines. My point being, the convoluted nature of the Terminator franchise is beginning to be a bit off putting.

When Dark Fate was announced, I think we all sighed. They tried rebooting the franchise, it didn’t work, so they’re trying again, and then I think we grew a little curious when we discovered that Dark Fate would completely disregard all that came after Judgement Day, including Rise of the Machines, which was widely regarded as the worst of the original trilogy. Dark Fate is a sequel to the best Terminator film in the franchise. Watching the film, it was easy enough to follow; I didn’t need to open a new spreadsheet in an attempt to understand where this sits within the timeline, it was just a standard sequel, going so far to bring back the original cast members, Linda Hamilton, playing the iconic role of Sarah Connor.

Unfortunately for many, the damage was already done, and they weren’t interested in yet another instalment in the franchise, they were happy with the first 2, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s definitely not the first time a studio has pumped out film after film within a franchise in an attempt to revitalise what was already had, oblivious to the fact that the reason why the franchise is still popular is because the first film or couple of films made it so. The Terminator franchise won’t be the last.

But I couldn’t leave it be. I had to see what Dark Fate had to offer, and I was neither disappointed nor amazed. The story was simple to understand, and it started off with a shocking twist clearly no one expected coming as test audiences collectively stated that they were shocked, but in the lore of that world, it made sense. When one Terminator fails, they send back another, and another, and another until one succeeds in their mission, and eventually one did, setting up the events of the film. And this film reignites the progression of technology once more by introducing a new enemy, Legion. Skynet was stopped from ever becoming a thing in Terminator 2, but Judgement day will always happen in one form or another.

Overall, this film is better than those that came before it, of course with the exception of the first original 2, as they cannot be matched, especially the incredible Judgement Day, with special effects which still hold up today but were considered ground-breaking back then. This film also introduces new elements, by enhancing humans so they can stand up against the Terminators with hand to hand combat, which was fun to watch instead of consistently fighting with guns, although that does happen a lot still.

To be honest, Dark Fate doesn’t destroy anything, and tries to build something new, so I recommend giving this film a chance, because I was surprised by it, but I see this film as being one of those where if you don’t give it a chance, you can’t complain about it as it does very little to set up an alternate continuity. You just might be surprised yourself, but no one would expect anyone to say this was atop their list of favourite Terminator films, just above all the ones that ultimately tried for all the wrong reasons.

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)

Mum's Monday: The Theory of Everything

This film is based on the life of the famous scientist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne). It seems nine answered questions are impressive. It is interesting to see an insight into the development of a brilliant mind. I was intrigued by this film and now i am so glad i am watching it.

I believe that what Jane (Felicity Jones) heard and saw was more interesting than dancing. Until the time and place was right that is.  You could see it meant more.

Although inevitably there is a lot of science in this film, this is to be expected and this film makes it interesting, entertaining and sometimes amusing.

Sadly, we know Stephen developed and had Motor Neurone disease. It is well done how it shows the gradual hold on Stephen it takes. It is sad to think that the brain will still function and be as sharp as ever but the body is affected by the disease. Happily we know that although this film has to mention the diagnosis and outcome with ‘Two years to live’ and this would have been a waste of a brilliant mind to the scientific world. We now know this not to be the case and Stephen went on to live a long eventful scientific life.

I don’t think that a game of ‘Croquet’ has meant so much.  This is sad to watch, but luckily we know what the future does hold. 

I can see why they had to include all the negativity, as in some cases people are not so lucky.

The actor Eddie Redmayne who plays Doctor Stephen Hawking is brilliant, you almost forget that he hasn’t got the disease but is playing someone who has. The portrayal is amazingly captured.

Always the scientist even being stuck inside a jumper over his head there is science to be seen though it in the fireplace. 

It is lovely to see Stephen and his friends having fun celebrating his success. 

A lot is now happening to Stephen, his book has been published and he gets an electric wheelchair.

It is sad to see the effect it is all having on Jane the realisation is an eye opener. Some people do tend to forget the, the only way I can describe it as is, the carer.

It is lovely and heart-warming to see the family at the beach and all their other activities with their new found friend. 

It is also amazing Stephen’s ever growing family, although it is nice to see Stephen’s sense of humour, his family does need a live in carer.

Things have now taken a dark turn in more ways than one. These parts are not nice to watch. I am however, happy Jane has said ‘Goodbye’ to whom she did at the time.

In this film you can see the origins of the electronic board where Stephen can talk cam from. Now this film has turned fun and light-hearted, Stephen is a great ‘American singer’ and his loose audition for the television Sci-Fi program Doctor Who is so funny to watch.

All i am going to say is ‘The magazine is for a friend’ this is also fun to watch. 

Things have now changed and I love how the ending is just the beginning again, and you should see past the disease and see the mind.