Doctor Who: The Time of the Doctor - Spoiler warning

Well that was better than the End of Time.

I’m always hesitant to compare different eras of Who, particularly ones that are pretty much right next to each other, but there is no way of denying that Matt Smith’s exit is superior to David Tennant’s. What’s odd is that the driving force of the story in both is the same thing; the Time Lords returning, the thing that elevates The Time of the Doctor is that all of Smith’s series have actually lead up to this point, whereas Tennat’s jumped all over the place then just shoved the Time Lords in at the end, so that they could attempt pretty much the same plan as the Daleks had in the series finale before that one. In this respect they were the generic villains behind the fall of the Tenth Doctor.

I could write pages and pages about what I liked about this episode, but I do actually have a life to get back to at some point. So I’ll pick out the things I liked most.

Old, Old, Old Doctor.

Going on his appearance, Id say the Doctor is probably the best part of 2000 years old by the end of this episode. It’s a really nice touch to have him visibly age on-screen, especially being that Smith is the youngest Doctor in the Shows history. It also means that the big finale (his “last bow”) relies mostly on Smith’s delivery and not his hair.

Dalek trumps Silent

There’s always the worry when Moffat creates a new villain, that it’s going to become the new Dalek; well the Daleks had something to say about his latest creation, the Silents (or the confessional priests). And that thing was; we’re gonna put Dalek eye in their heads, because no matter what powers they may have, we’re still more awesome than them.

The questions are answered.

Ok, we pretty much all thought that Moffat had just changed his mind about the overall narrative half way through and abandoned half the story ideas, but they all make it in here.

Smith’s goodbye sign off:

No self-indulgent monologues about how awesome he is, as nice quiet performance to reassure the audience that it’s still the same show. He also has a nice hallucination of  Amy Pond, to tell him goodnight and presumably provide Twelve with his new accent. For a fun fact, the reason stated that David Tennant didn’t use his own accent as the tenth Doctor was that he imprinted the English accent from Rose Tyler. This means that the third Scottish Doctor  gets to keep his accent for the same reason that the second couldn’t.

Peter Capaldi

Not nearly as explosive as the last new Doctor entrance, but still has the same amount of humour and excitement. A joke about the Scottish to start him off (“I’ve got new kidneys – I don’t like the colour”).

Capaldi then demonstrates his fantastic comic timing, by revealing that he seems to have temporarily forgotten how to pilot the TARDIS…while it’s in the process of crashing.

It is impossible to do this episode justice on paper; it’s a must-see. A very fitting end for the 11^th Doctor and an exciting beginning for a new direction of Who.

Too rich to be punished!

So the latest news out of Texas is that a 16-year-old who, while under the influence of stolen alcohol and valium, careered his car into two others killing four people and causing severe brain damage to another, is too rich to be punished.

Ethan Couch (a young man with very rich parents) has successfully argued that his condition of affluenza prevented him from perceiving or predicting any consequences when doing such things as drink driving, taking drugs or attempting to sleep with 14-year-old girls. In short; he is too rich to understand the law or the fact that he has to obey it.

This man is a murderer. It is that simple; he has murdered four people. The fact that a state judge believed that 10 years probation is in any way an appropriate alternative to 20-year sentence normally attached to this kind of offence in Texas, is a product of a truly corrupt legal system. That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this sentencing decision. Were it not the case, the state of Texas would have to release anyone who's criminal behaviour could be traced to their upbringing.

Let’s look at the condition that this young man supposedly suffers from. Essentially; he is apparently incapable of obeying the law because he has been raised to believe that he has enough money to get out of anything.

So he feels confortable in repeatedly breaking the law, as he can just get his dad to write a cheque and everything will be fine. So naturally, the best course of action for the court to take is to completely validate that viewpoint.

It is logically impossible for someone to be intelligent enough to be a state judge and simultaneously not intelligent enough to recognise a circular definition.  The Defence’s argument is that he does not obey the law because he does not see the punishments given by the law as incentive to obey the law, therefore he should be given no punishment.

The only way that this condition could exist is if the law truly doesn’t punish people like Couch.

Now, I’m not saying that Couch does have the ability to perceive risks or consequences in illegal, violent and destructive behaviours, but we already have a term for people like that; “psychopaths”.

At the very least, this guy is criminally insane and should be locked away, but as his dad probably owns the very building he was tried in, I doubt that will ever happen.

The Amazing Spiderman 2 Trailer thoughts:

Opens with a monolougue that is in no way pitched specifically to pull in fans of Twilight. I mean it’s only pretty much exactly the same in tone, volume and overall delivery.

Just when we thought the brooding “I’m dangerous” male protagonist, with stupid indie-sticky-up-hair was finally gone, this film jumps out to grab more money out of the special way he sweeps women off their feet, with what would be considered a controlling and borderline abusive personality; cuz women love that.

Little further on we discover that Harry Osbourne is in the film and good news everyone; he’s got emo hair, which means not only is there now an obligation for those in the early stages of puberty to go see this, now they have to like it too.  Oh my god, this film is so subtle in the way it’s trying to pull in younger viewers!

We then meet electro who tells us two things; 1) that Jamie Foxx is really keen to destroy his career and 2) that this villain would appear to have the same motivation as the Lizard guy from the first one. Namely, no motivation to do evil whatsoever; he’s evil because the plot requires it.

Overall thoughts:

This does not look good; this trailer gives off the impression of a film made by a group of men over the age 50, attempting to cram in anything that “appeals to the youngster audience”. However the broodiness of Twilight doesn’t even work in Twilight, so I fail to see how it can possibly sit comfortably along-side the campness required for a spiderman film.

Cyclists Don’t have to use the Cycle lane

Something that a shocking amount of road users in the UK don’t know is that cyclists are not limited to using cycle lanes, where available. A cyclist is permitted (by the Highway Code) to use as much of the road as they feel they need to.

A lack of awareness of this right frequently causes motorists to question whether cyclists should even be able to share the road with them as they see the use of the full road (by cyclists) as a blatant disregarding of their own safety.

As with most things, however, this is not a simple case of saying motorists don’t do enough to educate themselves on the rules of the road. This is a case of the rules of the road not being good enough.

Firstly, you would assume that the commissioning of cycle lanes (at the expense of motorists) would come with an obligation that they be used, unless it is unsafe or impractical to do so. If cyclists are allowed to use the whole road what was the point of spending a single penny on a specific lane for them?

Secondly there are some cyclists who will forever say “read the Highway code; I have the right to use the whole road” assuming that the “right” is completely unconditional. A car driver has the right to use the whole road; he/she may move on to the opposite side of the road to avoid a hazard for example or change lanes where the road allows it. However when doing such things he/she is obliged to demonstrate judgement as to whether it is safe to do so. What some cyclists don’t seem to realise is that they have to do the same.

If you’re cycling and change lanes and a driver honks their horn at you, there’s a good chance that you just forced them to slow down rapidly or stop. I’m not saying that’s always the case, but at least consider that the fact they’re annoyed with you isn’t that you’re not in the car club, but that you cut them up.

In summary, if you’re driving and you see a cyclist not in the cycle lane, remember that they have every right to use the whole road.

If you’re cycling and decide to leave the cycle lane, be aware that that the vast majority of drivers aren’t out to get you and that you have just as much of an obligation to let them know what your intentions in the road are as they do.