Rugby League World Cup Final Network Data Visualisation

First, the semifinal highlights

The BBC haven't bothered to put their "funny" one up yet, so instead, have the 5 minute highlights of Fiji vs Australia, of which the important details are Fiji were in the lead and they did score a try this time. That Australia won is a completely unimportant detail.

In much the same way, of the Tonga vs England match, the 70 minutes that England were way ahead are unimportant when you consider Tonga's glorious near-comeback, which involved 3 tries in 10 minutes. The third try in particular was a thing of beauty. If only they didn't keep giving other teams a head start!

~~~~

Final Network Data Visualisation
 

Going into the final, the team closest to the centre are Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs. The other teams which would have had World Cup winners no matter who won are St George Illawara and Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks.

Interestingly, all of Canberra and South Sydney Rabbitohs representatives are playing for England, Josh Hodgson and Elliot Whitehead for Canberra and Sam and Tom Burgess for the Bunnies.

The team with the most players in the final are Melbourne Storm, with 7, all for Australia, with their two Fijians having gone out in the semifinals. Next are Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks, Warrington and St Helens with 4 players each. The Sharks lost 1 Tongan in the semis, Warrington 1 Fijian, while Saints have the same number in the final as they had in the semis.

The community view makes little sense, as it tends not to when down to only two teams.

Most of the English and Australian players are the same colour as England or Australia, the players that play for teams that join the two countries are coloured by club but for some unknown reason so are Leeds, Canberra, Wests Tigers and Penrith, all of whose players play in one country. If that was because there's a large number of them, you'd think Melbourne Storm would be coloured a different colour too, because they're a (relatively) large community. One day I will understand how the community concept works in Gephi!

Rugby League Final Thoughts

(This was written when the original England team for the finals was announced, after Hodgson's injury, but before O'Loughlin was announced as being unavailable. I still stand by most of it, even Jonny Lomax can only add so much flair on his own. The original team was here.)

You remember how I promised I wouldn't complain about Wayne Bennett's squad pick because he had at least picked Walmsley and Percival? Some of his recent choices are making that hard to stick to.

Even at the time, his decision not to take more than two hookers was, interesting, brave and other insults from Sir Humphrey Appleby. Now that Josh Hodgson is injured, it looks particularly foolish. I know Roby can do 80 minutes, but I am a Saints fan so I am equally convinced that Roby can play 80 minutes followed by walking on water and feeding the five thousand.

Given the lack of hooking back up, the Bennett hasn't picked a single back on the sub's bench is ... worrying.

To an extent, I can see Bennett's plan. There are two kinds of coaches, ones who think that their formation of choice is *the* one and will squeeze their players into it, and then ones that look at the players they have at their disposal and try to get them to play in whatever formation suits their skills the best. Bennett is definitely of the second type.

I can see why he's going with "bringing back the biff" because, man for man, the England forward line *is* better than the Australian one. It's just that he's sacrificed the scoring power of one winger (Ryan Hall who is getting zero service because the centre inside him is John Bateman who is actually a second row) and any chance of explosive flair for this plan. 

I want to believe that England will win. I know everyone keeps saying we should back our boys and I would love to. It's just, as a whole, and Watkins and McGillvary being honorary exceptions, there's a distinct lack of creative flair in this squad as a whole, never mind the 17 men chosen for the final. 

This is not a classic Australian team. For most positions, man for man, they're not that much better than England. The problem is that in those few positions where they are better, they are significantly better, and all of those positions are the creative roles.

After umpteen years in the NRL I don't think the three musketeers are going to be put off by a few hard tackles, no matter that they're creaky with age and short a musketeer.

The other reason I don't want to believe is that I've been here before. I was there for that loss to New Zealand, that horrible moment when Shaun Johnson scored and then converted and Pompeii by Bastille blared out of the loudspeakers, at just the wrong moment for a song encouraging me to be an optimist about anything. If hoping leads to that again, I don't want it.

Rugby League World Cup Semi Final Diagrams

The BBC's quarterfinal micro-highlights video is here.

Obviously they can't show the entirety of NZ vs Fiji, despite it being 80 minutes of gloriousness and far more entertaining than any 4 - 2 rugby league match should ever be.

Do, however, spend 5 minutes watching the start of the match. Not just because Fiji have an entire squad that can sing.

The semifinal diagram is much simplified due to New Zealand and Samoa's removal.

 


The club team nearest the centre are now St George Illawarra, while the national team nearest the centre are Australia. England do stick out somewhat.

The club team with the most players left are Melbourne Storm with 9. The players they lost between the quarterfinals and the semifinals were 2 New Zealanders, 1 Samoan and 1 Papua New Guinean). They are followed by Brisbane Broncos and St George Illawarra with 6. Brisbane are missing 2 New Zealanders, 1 Samoan and 1 Papua New Guinean from before while St George are missing 2 New Zealanders, 2 Samoan and 1 Papua New Guinean.

The community view is interesting.
 

In the community view, the four countries are all different communities.

Clubs which link players from more than 1 country (Sydney Roosters: Boyd Cordner (Australia), Sio Siua Taukeiaho and Daniel Tupou (Tonga) and Kane Evans (Fiji); Wests Tigers: Aaron Woods (Australia), Tuimoala Lolohea (Tonga) and Kevin Naiqama and Pio Sokobalavu (Fiji); Manly Sea Eagles: the Trbojevic brothers (Australia) and Apisai Koroisau and Akuila Uate (Fiji) and Huddersfield: Jermain McGillvary (Eng) and Ukuma Ta'ai (Tonga)) are also each their own separate community, which makes some sort of sense.

Rugby League World Cup Semi Final Predictions

The matches are Australia vs Fiji and Tonga vs England.

Australia vs Fiji:

I know what people are saying, that we have been here before and it ends badly for Fiji.  And yes, it did, because I was quite literally there, but I believe Ashton Sims when he says that this Fiji team are better than that Fiji team, not just because I'd believe Ashton Sims if he said the moon was made of cheese.  And this is not a classic Australia side.

Such tiny hopes are what sports fans hangs their dreams on.

Tonga vs England:

Tonga are beatable, and Lebanon did themselves more than proud.  May all our national teams perform with as much heart.

I have given up on England.  I know I always say that, and I know that they are in the semifinal which is what they were expected to do, and therefore better than what New Zealand have done, but at the same time, none of the performances have been all that good, and Kallum Watkins and Jermaine McGilvary notwithstanding, no one has lived up to their potential, and there are a couple of players who have been played in positions that seem designed so that they can't.

They may or may not beat Tonga, but even if they do, I can't see them beating the winner of Australia vs Fiji (please let it be Fiji).

Rugby League Quarterfinal Data Visualisation

You have no idea how difficult it is to post this without giggling with glee about today's results. Let me assure you there is off-screen gleeful giggling.

~~~~

For those who haven't been watching, please enjoy the Week 1, Week 2 and Week 3 highlights from the BBC.

This is my favourite individual try so far.

The two best moments have probably been the Sipi Tau vs Siva Tau war dance off which was amazing, and then the Haka vs Siva Tau near fight which may have taken dance-related leniancy to it's extremes. It also lead to the glorious Tongan victory over New Zealand. Which has ensured that there cannot be an Australia vs New Zealand final, which is unexpected.
  Well that was embarrassing for the Northern hemisphere. None of them, with the exception of Ireland, who were stuffed by being in one of the 3 team pools, can complain given their performances. I realise that it's a minority sport in the countries that have not qualified from the groups but there's a difference between losing and losing horribly!

Samoa are the national team closest to the centre, Catalan Dragons are somehow the club team closest to the centre.

Melbourne Storm now have the most players in the World Cup with 13, followed by St. George Illawara and Cronulla Sutherland Sharks, with 11. All the Melbourne players that started the tournament are still in while 1 St George's and 1 Sharks player, both playing for Italy, are out. In the community view, despite how interconnected Australia, New Zealand, Tonga and Samoa are, they all appear as separate communities.

Rugby League World Cup Quarterfinal Predictions

Since I will not have my quarterfinal dataviz ready before Australia vs Samoa on Friday, I want to record my predictions now.  Mostly so I can say I told you so.

The four quarterfinals are:

Australia vs Samoa
Tonga vs Lebanon
New Zealand vs Fiji
England vs PNG

I expect Australia will win, but I hope Samoa will get at least a couple of tries.  Tonga vs Lebanon could get tasty but I expect Tonga to win by several tries.  I am excited for NZ vs Fiji, even if I know Fiji, the team I want to win, probably won't win.

With regard to England's quarterfinal, I want to join everyone else in saying that it's not fair that it is being held in Melbourne rather than Port Moresby.  As PNG are co-hosts with NZ and Australia, it is wrong that they don't host any matches after the group stage.

It also improves England's chances of beating them.

I am slightly torn because I want PNG to do well, but I don't want a team featuring James Graham, James Roby, Alex Walmsley and Mark Percival to lose.  I also think a close match might finally kick England's posteriors into gear.  Because that second half against France was not acceptable.

Thor: Ragnarok

I can see why some people thought it was too broad.  Because it probably was, a smidge.

I don’t quite get why people thought it was so wow, but it was fun.  Which is something which should never be underestimated or undervalued.

Spoilers begin underneath

I would probably have restructured it slightly, with less time on planet weird so that Skurge got more screentime for his last stand.

Karl Urban is great in the time he does get.  Because he makes it quite clear that Skurge is a loser, rather than evil, and that he's in over his head.  Without any dialogue. This use of Skurge also fits in with the overall theme of the Thor films - we all make mistakes, the important thing is to try to fix them, rather than pretend you didn't make them (or you know, bury them and paint over them with a giant mural).

Thematic consistency, I like it.

The new stuff also makes sense of things from the first film, like why Odin flipped out when he thought Thor was being too blasé about war with the Frost Giants. To have one child go kill crazy is unfortunate, to have two smacks of carelessness.

I love that Thor has learnt enough to push Loki’s buttons back.  That scene in the elevator is some of the best work Hiddleston has done as Loki, because he conveys how worried Loki is that this is it and Thor has finally had enough of him and it upsets him.

That's the thing.  Loki would do anything for Thor if Thor made it clear how much he loves him, while Thor just doesn't get it because of course he loves his little brother. Even if they occasionally stab each other.

I know it was deliberate, but I didn’t like how every serious scene was immediately undercut with a silly bit.

I would also have saved “Immigrant Song” for the last fight only.

~~~~

I had been pre-warned that Matt Damon would appear, possibly so that I didn’t grab L and go “OMG, is that Matt Damon?!”  It didn’t stop me from giggling and then going “OMG is that Sam Neill?!”  Of course Odin is Loki, you’d think someone else that wasn’t Heimdall would have twigged roughly when the statue was made with horns!

I see that Doctor Strange has taken over his rightful role as explainer of mystic weirdness from Selvig. Which makes more sense than Selvig knowing about mystic weirdness in Age of Ultron.

I did love Doctor Strange inconveniencing Thor and then Thor being gloriously petty back.  Particularly Thor’s smile of “sorry, not sorry”.

I know they killed off the Warriors Three to make Hela look dangerous but there must have been a better way.  Then again, I am probably out of step with everyone else in missing them and the usual Earthers.

That being said, notice that Hogun, on his own, did nearly as much damage as Thor and Loki did in their first confrontation with Hela.  Warriors Three represent.

I do love that Thor now has sub-plans for that moment when Loki betrays him.  The boy is not as stupid as he looks or pretends to be.  I’m also reasonably sure that Loki stole both the tesseract and any other shiny things present in the treasury, because he’s a power magpie in human form.

I also love that Valkyrie is every bit as fight mad as the rest of the Asgardians.  I believe Thor when he says that he wanted to be a Valkyrie when he was little.  I just get this vision of him running around pretending to be a Valkyrie, Odin going “someone’s going to have to tell him,” and Frigga going “nah, what’s the harm.”  Loki is, of course, the one to tell him in the end.

I am trying to decide if Cate Blanchett can do *that* with her voice naturally or if she just has a voice SFX pedal on hand at all times.  I want to believe she has a natural reverb setting.

Heimdall is the most polite rescuer ever - “sorry about the violence while I was rescuing you”.

I get why there was almost nothing of the gladiators’ revolt, but I would have liked to have seen a bit of it anyway.

Somehow, Chris Hemsworth looks ever more attractive the more damage he takes.  That is voodoo, either from the actor or the director.

I know the scene where Bruce chooses to Hulk out is a counterpoint to the one where Black Widow forces him to, but I think Natasha did the least worst thing there so I am, once again, not the intended audience.  It also shows the problem with any Hulk solo film.  A goodly chunk of the audience are waiting for the bit where Bruce loses and becomes the Hulk despite himself.

I do love that Thor’s plans involve him doing the risky bit, and total trust in Loki, because he knows that Loki can be trusted, as long as you don’t give him time to think.  I wish we’d got the hug that came roughly three nano-seconds after Thor realised that Loki was staying.

The loudest laugh I gave was when the Grandmaster landed amidst the people he’d held under.  I live in hope he got his the same way the Beast Rabban got his.

~~~~

In other important news, I’d like to give a shout out to EJ at the BFI IMAX.  He deserves any Nandos that he got from the blue forms.

Also, just an FYI, if you position yourself just right, the subway tunnels running from the BFI IMAX to Victoria have fantastic acoustics if you’re singing along with Robert Plant.  It’s possible that I don’t need the help on the volume though ;)

Rugby League World Cup 2017 Data Visualisation

I've done my usual thing of mapping what club team and nation the players play for.

I should probably have done this for the last world cup but at that time I was still coping with the idea of James Graham playing for a team that aren't Saints. Even five years on, it took me all my time not to mark him down with an asterisk. Because hopefully he will come home one day.

Ahem!

I am not going to say anything about the England team because I promised I wouldn't if Wayne Bennett picked Alex Walmsley and Mark Percival. If neither of them gets a game, this may change. 

On to the actual diagram: 

I didn't expect to find such a sharp divide between the Northern and Southern hemisphere sides. Italy and Lebanon having been temporarily moved into the Southern hemisphere, because both of them have a lot of players who play in Australia.

England are the national team closest to the middle, this is probably because they have both players who play in Australia, and a lot of the other Northern hemisphere teams are mainly made up of players who play in England.

Salford Red Devils are the club team closest to the centre. It sounds somewhat inexplicable. It is probably because 2 of the 4 Salford players play for a Southern hemisphere team (Tonga) and the other two play for Northern hemisphere teams (Ireland and Wales).

I know PNG and the US only have 23 players not 24. Not it's not a mistake, at least not at my end, I double checked their official press releases (http://www.nrl.com/png-kumuls-name-world-cup-squad/tabid/10874/newsid/112727/default.aspx and http://www.rlwc2017.com/news/team-usa).

Yes, that is that Mirco Bergamasco. Yes he was a union player. Yes, he is that old. But I have spent so much of my life cheering for him as he does stupid, reckless and impossible things, I will happily do it one more time.

Melbourne Storm are the team with the most players, with 13. Next are St George Illawara, Cronulla Sharks, London Broncos, Parramatta Eels and New Zealand Warriors with 12.

Interestingly, only 2 of the St George Illawara and 3 of the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks are playing for Australia. The remaining 10 St George Illawara players are playing for New Zealand (2), Samoa (2), Fiji (2), England (1), Tonga (1), Papua New Guinea (1) and Italy (1). Of the Sharks players meanwhile 4 play for Samoa and 1 each for England, NZ, Tonga, PNG and Italy.

Of the New Zealand Warriors players, despite the name, only 3 are playing for New Zealand. The remainder play for Samoa (4), Tonga (3), Scotland and the United States (1 each). None of the London Broncos players are in the England team, they are largely playing for Wales. None of the Parramatta Eels players play for Australia. They seem to be playing for every nation except Australia. In the community view, Ireland and England as one community, ditto NZ and Australia. 

I think that's because most of the Irish players play in England for teams who also have players playing for England. For Australia and New Zealand, all but two of the New Zealand players play for teams in the Australian National Rugby League. 

It'll be interesting to see how this develops, especially as there is a chance, however slim, that Tonga might beat New Zealand to the top spot in group B.

Rugby League 101

As it is Rugby League World Cup time again, I felt it might be an idea to briefly cover the basics of the game for any new fans watching.  The information is taken from here and here.

Somewhat worryingly, both of the rules pages start with the information that you're trying to score more points than the other team, but I'm going to assume that you can guess that.

The very basic rules of the game are that each team is given six chances to score.  Each chance ends with a tackle (a tackle is a tackle when the referee calls "held").  If, after six tackles, the team have not scored, the ball is handed over to the other team who then get the chance to score with their six tackles.

There are 4 ways of scoring:

1 - A Try - A try is worth 4 points.  It is similar to a touchdown in American football, except you actually have to touch the ball down with control and downward pressure.  I've highlighted those last words because if you don't do them, the try will not be awarded to your team.

2 - A Conversion - A conversion is worth 2 points.  They can be scored only after the team has scored a try.  The kick is taken from a position perpendicular to the goal line where the try was scored.  The ball must pass between the goalposts and over the crossbar.  If the team scores a conversion after a try, it is referred to as a converted try.

3 - A Penalty Kick - Also worth 2 points.  Often just referred to as a penalty, this is one of the two options a team captain can take when the referee awards his team a penalty.  The other option is to receive another set of 6 tackles with which to try to score.

4 - A Drop Goal - worth 1 point.  This is scored when the ball is kicked between the goalposts and over the cross bar in open play.

A match lasts 80 minutes, split up into 2 halves of 40 minutes.  The time is kept by a separate time keeper who sounds a hooter to signal the end of each half.  If you're really unlucky and playing at one of the French stadiums, it sounds like an air-raid siren.

Both teams will have 13 players on the pitch at any one time.  As in ice hockey, there are rolling substitutions with no need for a stoppage in play.  There is a limit on the number of these interchanges, with a maximum of 12 per team per game.

When passing the ball, it must go level or backwards.  If the ball goes forwards, this is called a forward pass and the referee will award the other team a scrum and give them the ball.  The team is said to have been "given head and feed at the scrum".  A rugby league scrum is formed of 6 players from each team.  The scrum half puts the ball into the scrum, and the hooker from his team hooks the ball backwards to gain possession of the ball for his team.

Scrums are also awarded for knock-ons.  A knock-on is when the ball is dropped forwards by a player and hits the ground or another player.

A 40/20 kick is one where a player standing on or behind their 40-metre line gains ground by kicking the ball into their opponent's 20-metre area.  As long as the ball has bounced inside the field of play before going out to touch (out of bounds) in the 20 metre area, the kicking team are awarded head and feed at the scrum.  Therefore they will probably six more tackles to try to score.  It is very rare that the team that gets the ball to put into the scrum don't have possession after the scrum.

If the ball goes out behind the posts after a 40/20 rather than going out in the 20 metre area, the non-kicking team are given 7 tackles to try to score a try.

Don't worry if you're not sure what's happened.  The referees wear microphones and have a set of hand signals that they use to indicate what is going on.  These have been handily summarised here.

The offside rule does nothing but cause everyone headaches but basically, the defending team have to be 10 meters away from the attacking team when they play the ball after the tackle, and the person on the attacking team receiving the ball from the play the ball must be directly behind their team-mate.

Obstruction is when one of the attacking team runs across the line of a defender trying to tackle their team-mate.

Tackles are not allowed to be above shoulder height.  Above that it is a high tackle.

For something like that, or other foul play that is deserving of more than a penalty to the opposition, a referee can give one of 3 punishments:

1 - A yellow card - the offender has to spend 10 minutes in the sin bin.  Their team has to play the 10 minutes with 12 players.

2 - A red card - the offender is sent off and cannot play for the rest of the match.  Their team has to play the rest of the match with 12 players.

3 - The player is put on report - while better for the team in the short run because the player gets to stay on the pitch and carry on playing, it means the disciplinary panel will look at the offence and decide what punishment is appropriate.  This can be anything from nothing to a 4 match ban.

I think that covers the important things.

This year, the women's rugby league World Cup is taking place at the same time, so please show the ladies some love.

While I am cheering for the Lionesses, please enjoy this photo of Sarina Fiso (NZ captain) and Ruan Sims (Australia captain).

Blade Runner 2049

A lot of the points I am going to mention cover the same ground as Selenak does here.  She explains what I liked and disliked better than I can, in fewer words, so I recommend reading her take on the film, and then coming back to read this for the couple of points where we disagree, and a few more specifically-me points.

• I maintain my feeling of unease about a film about 30 years in the future of what people 40 years ago thought now would look like. Where are the films about what people now think 40 years in the future will look like?
• Denis Villeneuve is a stonkingly good director.  He keeps a lot of the visual language from the original, but imbues it with his own feel which is a lot softer than Ridley Scott’s.
• The BBFC rating includes a warning for sexualised nudity.  Anyone who finds any of the nudity in this film arousing has issues.  I think it was very well done, and thematically works but yes, the director deliberately went for “the commodification of sex and bodies is bad” and it worked.
• The film works best when deals with the flipside of Blade Runner’s “what does it mean to be human”.  2049 asks “what does it mean to not be human?”

Everything below this is a spoiler.

Because the “what is it to be non-human” bits do work, I am more than a little bit miffed that the film’s main answer to the question is reproduction makes you human.  

My miffed is four-fold.  

1) I like to believe that I am not any less human than my friends who have reproduced.  

2) Of all the facets of humanity to choose, the film choose the one we share with animals.  Birds do, bees do it, even educated bacteria do it and so on.  

3) I am sorry to put this quite so bluntly, but in terms of the replicants wanting their freedom, I’ve never known the ability of their slaves to reproduce ever stopping slavemasters keeping their slaves enslaved.  

4)  It goes against the message of the first film, where being human is what you do, not what you are.  The replicants were more human than the humans, quite literally.  Leon and Pris’s willingness to risk what lifespan they had for Zhora and Roy Batty, Pris and Roy Batty’s love for each other and Roy Batty letting Dekker live are all more human than any act of the humans in Blade Runner.

I’m not sure some of the background of the story works with the information from Blade Runner.  Do you believe that a technology that had already been banned from Earth after several previous rebellions would suddenly become legalised just because someone said the technology was now safe?  I don’t either.

I presume that they let the replicants live out amongst humans to try to tie them in closer to humanity so that they’re less likely to rebel.  That’s also reflected in the words that Joe is expected to repeat in his check-ups.

I’m pleased that they decided that Joe wasn’t a human, mostly because you know, Ryan Gosling only has the one facial expression.  It also meant that something I thought was a plot hole wasn’t.  (I’ve gone with calling him Joe because I am terrible at remembering alphanumerics.)

I guessed that the child was actually the girl because the quickest way of hiding someone is saying that they’re dead.  I should have guessed who the child was because such an extreme immunodeficiency suddenly cropping up at 8 is … unlikely.  But I didn’t.  The DNA section threw up another plot hole though because if Joe has the DNA sequence of the child, it should be easy enough to compare it with his own, and, depending on what DNA segment is recorded, he should have been able to check if the female identity or the male one was the real one.

Joi is probably the most human of the characters, in one of the bits where the film decides humanity is the ghost in the machine.  Which is interesting, given that she’s the only unembodied/disembodied character.  She's the one who makes decisions about herself and chooses danger rather than being forced to betray Joe.  She's so lovely. And also opens up a whole vista of philosophical questions. Like is she any less human because she's disembodied? Why does Joe choose her over another replicant (presuming, of course, that as a Replicant he’s not allowed to date humans - did I mention whole vistas?)?  Does Joi choose Joe as a name because it’s the name she’s been programmed to use it as a name or because she likes it?  How much of Joi is Joi and how much is the programming, and is that any different for Joe?

My favourite scene is the one where Joe is going back to Los Angeles and sees the advert for Joi.  He looks at her and it’s so full of love and sadness, because he knows that a new Joi would not be his Joi, and the ghost is in the electrons.  (Okay, so Gosling actually has three expressions, but he’d be more effective if he used the other two in more than one scene each.)

The odd thing is that the weakest scenes in Blade Runner 2049 are the ones that tie it into Blade Runner.

I feel bad about saying that because Harrison Ford is exceptional in his scenes.  The silhouette of Rachel was possibly the most terrifying unseen person since Joyce in “Forever” (Buffy, episode 17 season 5).  And yet, they slow an already slow film down and add nothing, because trust me, I already hated Wallace.  It feels like there were two scripts, one a direct sequel to Blade Runner, and one a more general sci-fi “what measure is a human” one, that they smushed together.

I am not sure what they were trying to do with Wallace, who was so much just Tyrell that D and I just called him not-Tyrell when we were talking about the film.  He’s just so unnecessarily horrible that I was hoping that dear, unstable Luv was going to gut him.  I am most sad that no-one gutted him.

My uncertainty with Wallace begins with his casting.  Given that he’s surrounded by faux-Japanese cultural motifs, why they didn’t just cast a Japanese actor is beyond me.  That was one of the things that did strike me, the film had much less of an Asian influence than the first one (even if I do understand the complaints that for all the Asian set dressing, there were no Asian characters in Blade Runner), and much more of a Soviet one.  It felt odd since I don’t think the Soviets were mentioned even once in Blade Runner, possibly to avoid dating the film.  I suspect this is partly a hangover from filming in Hungary.

On to some more general points:

I know why film-makers have characters use axe kicks in films.  They look cool.  I am willing to go with “rule of cool”, even if I don’t like axe kicks.  What I don’t get is why the characters being attacked by axe kicks never use the “proper” defence against them, even if that character is supposed to have fight training.  Axe kicks are so easy to defend against, why does nobody ever do it?!

I say this about every film he’s in, but when did Dave Batista get so good?  He’s a foot taller than me and about two of me in weight, and yet, when Sapper Morton put his glasses on I wanted to protect him.  That’s a neat trick.

I really like Hans Zimmer’s work.  If you need a film composer who can ape someone else’s style and rework it into something new, he’s the best choice.  The problem isn’t him, the problem is when the soundsystem of the cinema you are in can’t take all those tones at once, and you get massive reverb even when the soundtrack doesn’t want it.  Also, I’m reasonably sure that chunks of the soundtrack could be used for soundboarding people.  I know it’s deliberate but some of that really messed with my brain.

~~~~

In short (too late, I know), Blade Runner 2049 is a good film.  It’s not as good as Blade Runner.  It may or may not be a good sequel to Blade Runner.

Adieu Rob Burrow

Saturday evening will see Rob Burrow's last rugby game. 

He's my favourite active rugby player. And, as per usual, I will be hoping his team lose. Because that's what happens when your faourite player doesn't play for your favourite team. Not that Castleford are my favourite team, but I'd really rather than them win than Leeds again. I have seen Burrow tear Saints apart one time too often (even the mention of the 2011 Grand Final remains painful).

I will be honest here, the reason Burrow is my favourite *is* because he's the littlest. In a time when rugby players seem to be ever larger behemoths, that he's 5 foot 5 and made it with hella hard work and talent is inspiring.

 I believe some Youtube videos are required.

 The Leeds Rhino's official video - Tributes to Rob Burrow -

 Grand Final Golden Moments: Rob Burrow's Solo Try, 2011 - (Also refered to as that bloody try by me)

 Epalahame Lauaki Fights agiants Rob Burrow -

 Rob Burrow 500 game tribute - Rob Burrow 500 game tribute -

He's fast, sneaky, clever and brave, the littlest and the best. Why did he have to play for Leeds?

Book Review - As Good As It Gets - The Story of St Helens' Grand Slam Class of 2006

This book is about the glorious, all-conquering Saints team that won every trophy 🏆 available to them in 2006.

It’s written by Mike Critchley who works as the sports editor for one of the local papers, the St Helens Star.  He sets the team’s year in context, not just of rugby league, but also the team’s importance to the town.

It’s wonderfully one-sided.  It’s also written in authentic Northern gibberish in parts, to the point that I feel like asking my London correspondent if it makes any sense to someone not from my neck of the woods.

The pro-Saints angle actually quite nice, because it’s so common that Saints don’t get the credit they deserve.  It does occasionally leave me wanting more information or analysis than the book gives.  But that’s understandable because it is quite clearly designed to be an happy overview of that glorious season, not an in-depth rugby analysis book.

The book is also rather obviously pro-Daniel Anderson.  Which makes sense.  It was a season of success that was partly down to his tactical choices and player rotation.  It should actually have been his second title.  Saints would have won the title the year before if Sean Long hadn’t had his face broken in a match against Wigan. No part of that last sentence is an exaggeration.  But the book chooses to do this not just by bigging up Daniel Anderson, which is reasonable, but by putting down Ian Millward at any opportunity.  I have no idea what Mr. Millward did to the author but it must have been something.  (It's Ian Millward and the author is a journalist so I presume Millward swore at him.)

That, and a couple of “I do not think it means what you think it means” word usage issues, are the only problems I found.

It was interesting to get an insight into how a successful team works, and how it really is all the little things and building things up step by step.  The Ade Gardener section, and indeed Gardener’s own analysis of both season and how wing-play works in rugby league, was probably the most interesting part, but there were lots of interesting tidbits.

As for an actual number of stars, this is 5/5 for a Saints fan, 4/5 for rugby league fans and probably 3/5 for other sport fans.

Alvarez vs Golovkin

Since I’ve written about the freakshow and turned out to be mostly right, I feel I ought to write about an actual boxing match.  And Alvarez vs Golovkin could be a damn good boxing match.

I always feel I don't give Canelo the respect he deserves.  Because he's good, he lets his boxing do the talking and he doesn't duck fights.  He's a model professional in a time when that's a rare commodity.

But he’s fighting Golovkin and I <3 Gennady Golovkin.

I first became aware of Golovkin sometime around the time he moved to the US.  Mostly I noticed the number of boxers trying to avoid him.  It annoyed me because I was worried that he’d never get to make his name because he wouldn’t have strong opposition.

I am so pleased he proved me wrong.

I like tidy boxers, which he is.  I like no-nonsense boxers, which he is.  Also, you know baby-faced Kazakh destroyer :D

His technique is not perfect; I wish he’d use his feet more to get out of range because he takes way too many punches.  It’s all well and good being an iron jaw (and an iron face in general) but, as someone said about Carl Froch, all that means is people keep hitting you in the face.

I look forward to this fight (and the BBC’s excellent radio commentary).  It should be a good match-up between two stand-up boxers with solid technique.  It’s exactly what I want from boxing.

Atomic Blonde

Atomic Blonde is a great soundtrack in search of a film.

I think my anger with the film is because of its wasted potential. It could, and should, have been so much better.

The acting is solid, as is the directing and the technical stuff. The make-up department deserve an Oscar nomination. No, seriously. A character goes into shock and they made the character up to the right shade of pale.

The problem is the plot.

It makes no sense. No, seriously.

Without the last two "twists" (neither of which is a twist if you'd paid any attention during the film), it just about makes sense, because of some serious legwork by the actors, mostly Charlize Theron.

SPOILERS BEGIN HERE

With the penultimate twist, it becomes a solid entry in the gay spy drama category.

Think about it, young British agent, commits a lesbian indiscretion and is blackmailed by the Soviets, becoming Satchel. In protecting herself, she loses yet another chance at happiness and gets Delphine, who is very much the girl she was, killed. But she's got to see it through to get her freedom. It's all very bleak and actually works with the story.

Unfortunately, that's when they throw in the last twist. Which isn't really a twist and ruins all that has gone before. I'm not joking about it not being a twist. If you've ever heard John Goodman's voice before, you'll get it about halfway through the film.

With the last twist, a CIA op has killed 3 Allied agents, and one defector, mostly because of a lack of communication by the CIA. And we're supposed to be happy about this and think it was a successful operation.

Also, MI6 is so incompetent that it didn't notice a CIA mole, who was pretending to be a Russian mole, for about 10 years.

You've got poor Spyglass, killed trying to do the right thing.

Then poor David Percival, who is a see you next Tuesday, don't get me wrong, and in the throws of the traditional British spy middle-life crisis, who finds out that a friend of his was killed by the Russians to protect someone who has betrayed Percival's government, and therefore goes all dark side. We're supposed to be happy she kills him, and that he gets blamed for the whole thing, even though she's the mole and there isn't a mole, she's actually triple-agent but the CIA didn't bother to tell anyone. And I'm like ... no.

In short, when your most sympathetic character is a Stasi agent, there is something wrong with the film! 

I'm not even going to go into the really weird thing where there is only 1 German actor, who gets no lines in German. All the other Germans and Russians are played by Scandinavians. Now the amassed Vikings all do a damn good job (no, seriously, all my love for Roland Møller and Bill Skarsgård) but if you're actually filming in Germany, which this was, it's a bloody odd casting choice.

Mo Money, No Problems - Or Mayweather is going to win Mayweather vs McGregor

Mayweather will win Mayweather vs McGregor. He was always going to. He won it the minute it was announced as a boxing match, not that he would have agreed to an MMA match (nor should he have been expected to). Mayweather is very proud of the 0 in his defeats column and, at this stage of his career, he’s not going to risk it. If he thought there was a chance of losing, Mayweather wouldn’t have agreed to the fight.

People keep saying that it just takes one punch to knock someone out, and that that’s the beauty of boxing. But Mayweather’s style of boxing has always been to avoid getting hit and he has faced far better boxers than McGregor. Mayweather’s counter-punching style is also going to frustrate the heck out of McGregor, making a wild haymaker from McGregor more likely, which opens him up to a body-shot from Mayweather. And Mayweather body-shots are a thing of vicious beauty.

McGregor went into this knowing all of that, and is making no bones about being in this for the money, so I don’t think even he thinks he’ll win. He’ll still try, bless him, but he’s not going to win.
McGregor has one chance - he can win if Mayweather turns up too old. There’s no way of telling when that will happen to an athlete (Bernard Hopkins was fine till he hit 50, other people are too old at 30.). I think this is unlikely to happen to Mayweather for 2 reasons.

1 - Mayweather keeps himself quite near to game shape in between fights. I suspect this causes less wear and tear and keeps him fresher than if he kept having to do big weight cuts before each bout.

2 - Like I said before, Mayweather is really proud of that 0. If he thinks he’s lost a step, he’s going to call the fight off.

I can see the match going a couple of rounds, because, weird match against Ortiz notwithstanding, Mayweather hasn’t gone less than 10 rounds since 2006. I don’t think it will reach 10 rounds, mind you, because I really do think McGregor’s going to go for a haymaker and get body-shot before then. I can see it going 4 rounds. That’s long enough that people are going to think they’ve got their money’s worth and won’t complain too much. Although, in the UK, I do not understand why you’d pay to watch this freakshow (let us call it what it is) when you could listen to it on the radio for free.

Film Locations

An update of this post. Includes films watched up to the 15th February 2015. First things first, I really do like the new pie chart layout from google docs. It's much neater and easier to read. The number of films set in the US is the section that's increased in size the most. As before, there's a much greater spread of locations than in the books I read. Are completely skewed towards England. At least the outer space set films still haven't overtaken French-based films.

Halos, Shields and Fighter Jet Canopys, Oh My!

The FIA have pre-empted this post by going with the halo design but I was going to write something about the plans for increasing cockpit safety anyway.

Your fears are formed by what you see.

The two most recent serious F1 accidents have featured something hitting the driver's head while they're seated in their vehicle.  Understandably, this has led to calls for fully enclosed cockpits to be used in F1.  The first F1 accident I remember was Gerhard Berger's 1989 crash at Imola.  Which I swear is where my fear of burning to death comes from.  Now, that ended happily, or at least only with minor injuries, but the main reason I don't like the idea of having fighter jet-style canopies is what happens if they fail to release.

The other problem with a full canopy is how it would be cleaned as it got dirty.  If the driver is fully sealed, he can't just rip off a tear-off strip the way you can with helmets.  Sure, the mechanics could do it during a pit stop.  But what if it got dirty in-between times, or if the car in front sprayed oil all over the canopy because of a mechanical failure?

I suspect these problems, or something similar, are the reason why the FIA and the teams haven't even tried anything like a full, sealed canopy.

With a "shield", there aren't the same problems.  The driver can get out, and I presume tear-offs can be made for them.  On the other hand, objects can still bounce off and in, and something could go over and in to the cockpit.  I don't think that you're ever going to be able to make any motorsport 100% safe, but I think the shield is probably the best option.  It mixes increasing safety without introducing different risks or just leaving things as is of the solutions so far put forward.

I don't get what the halo is supposed to do.  I'm sure I'm missing something, and I'm sure someone with more engineering know-how can explain it to me.  It seems to offer very little extra protection while reducing the driver's field of vision.  I don't think the central column visibility issues will be as bad as it looks (see also how quickly you can get used to seeing through mesh in a fencing mask).  However, I've no idea how it's supposed to prevent objects entering the cockpit.  It seems to only be capable of preventing things if they're on a trajectory that crosses over the halo pillars and bars.

The FIA have gone with the halo over the shield.  I'm sure they have their reasons.  I'm sure they are good reasons.  It would be nice to know what those reasons are because from the outside, it looks like a ridiculous decision.

Mama Do - Why motherhood doesn't have to be the end of Serena Williams's career

The minute Serena Williams announced that she was pregnant, various journalists dusted down their "is this the end of (famous sportswoman)'s career" articles.

This is annoying for a variety of reasons.

The first is that it really is always the same article, with just the name of the sportswoman and the sport changed.

The second is that, if Serena chooses to come back, it's not the end of her career.  Sportswomen can, do and have achieved after having children.  For instance, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/rio-2016-jessica-ennis-hill-takes-silver-in-thrilling-conclusion-to-womens-heptathlon-a7189731.html">Olympic silver</a> in the heptathlon, generally regarded as the most physically demanding of the athletics disciplines.  Or you know, being <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Blankers-Koen">the Flying Housewife</a>.

But I suppose they don't play tennis.  Like oh, Kim Clijsters, who won the US Open after giving birth, and she's not the physical force that Serena is.

Those are sport or related reasons.  The remainder of the reasons are more society based.
The social construct of "the perfect mother" appears to exist only to make all mothers feel bad.  (Any mothers reading this, you are amazing.)  The perfect mother, she does not and cannot exist.

More than that, the extreme self-sacrifice that this ridiculous construct demands, that a mother no longer has her own life outside that of the identity of mother isn't safe or healthy for the mother, her children or any attendant partners.

Reporters and journalists are intelligent people and shouldn't be buying into it or propagating it.

There's also this weird idea that Serena (or any other woman) will be so overcome by the awesomeness of having a child that she will not be interested in pursuing her career.  I don't have children, but my mother would like to tell you that this is nonsense.  I have her permission to quote her.

The interesting double standard is that it's assumed that no man would be so distracted by having children that he'd want to stop his career.  There's no "will Murray stop playing tennis now that there's a second mini Murray on the way?" articles.  If kids are so all-consumingly awesome, you'd think both parents would be affected.

Every woman's choice is different, and it is her choice.

I realise journalists have to fill up the column inches so how to earn their pay.  Maybe next time though write about a British (change nationality as applicable) junior that's doing good rather than digging out the old "is this the end of (famous sportswoman)'s career" article again.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2

Which I enjoyed.  It might not have been as good as the first but it made me cry as much.

The main thing I disliked was that the characters were too broad in the first half so the reconciliation in the second half would work.  But it did work.  Probably better than the equivalent scene in the first one.

The character-is-a-screw-up-because-of-missing-Dad is a trope I could live without, but at least Peter Quill has a better reason than most.  Peter Quill is still the one of the gang I like the least but that is not Chris Pratt's fault, as he does a damn fine job.

The film struck all the "I'd still rather have the Farscape film this isn't" chords that the first one did.  Not helped by bonus Ben Browder.  (Who got this film's giggle of recognition.)

And also every other Australian actor I sort of recognised.  Although I want Elizabeth Debicki in all the films.  I really like how they did the Sovereigns (or however one is supposed to pluralise that), that mixture of dangerous and silly.

The cool thing about the Guardians of the Galaxy films is that they acknowledge that they're based on comics so they occasionally go "stuff physics and reality".  It is glorious.  As is James Gunn's direction.  Can he direct all the things?  Because he makes everything look so pretty.

Spoilers begin below

There was no real twist to the story.  The obvious thing was obvious and Yondu was far too cool to live. Also, he's a father in a Hollywood film.  But that's okay.  See Hollywood, films don't need twists.  What they need is character and motive.

This film is totally going into evidence as to why you never trust a guy who woos you with someone else's song lyrics.  I do like that they make it clear that Ego is lying while he's lying, just from the sculptures he shows.

I love Baby Groot less than grown Groot, but there are few characters I like more than grown Groot.  (I am Groot).  That being said Baby Groot's fighting technique and mine are horrifyingly similar.  And he is adorable.  I especially loved that scene with Baby Groot and Peter at the end when Father and Son was playing (hey, film, that's cheating).  I think it's because Peter was so worried that he's going to screw up like his father and Yondu did (accidentally on the part of Yondu) and eeee!

Gamora is such the big sister.  And loves Nebula despite everything.  I also <3 Nebula and her grim determination and her knowledge of who the major problem in her life is (Thanos, always Thanos).

I am totally here for the Expendables in Space with Michelle Yeoh if anyone wants to make it.  Really, please :)

All those who suspect Craggle is yet another lost boy Yondu picked up somewhere along the line say yeah.

Drax is my favourite (if we ignore Groot.  Temporarily.)  Although that highlights one of the things I like about GOTG is that I do actually like all of the good guys.  Drax is hopeless in the best possible way.  He's the character that suffers the most from the broadening in the first half.  But when it comes down to it, Drax is there for them, utterly.  I loved the shot where he lifts Mantis up as they're being eaten by the Ego-planet.  Because he's literally using the last of his energy to try to save her.

Of course I love Mantis, as I was supposed to.  The film does something interesting.  Normally, when there's a character who is "not pretty", the character is played by someone who is either 1) actually pretty and we're supposed to ignore that or 2) there's a reveal scene where they're "prettied" up and we're supposed to be shocked.  GOTG2 avoids this by making it clear that Drax is crazy, but it's cultural crazy so Drax can't help it.  I loved that that Drax doesn't love Mantis any less just because she is hideous to his eyes.

Rocket is a hard character to love, and that's deliberate.  I did love the scene with him and Yondu, because Yondu is right, they are so very similar.  I'm intrigued by the way Yondu has enough self-knowledge to recognise Rocket's brand of self-sabotage, but not enough to stop himself for doing it.  Because at least half of his downfall is him being an arsehole to his crew (don't be mean to your underlings is a lesson many people should learn).

At the same time, Rocket's Rocketness is what helps him save the others because you know Gamorra and Drax would have waited for Peter even if it had meant death.  Drax especially.  Which Dave Batista really sells.  At some point Dave Batista has become a more than passable actor.

Anyone who knows me can guess the precise second when I started crying.  And you'd be right with your guess.  The film viciously goes for my button of "doing a good thing with no expectation of reward", and then Yondu gets his reward and a proper Ravager funeral and ... well yeah, I cried and hard.

While it didn't quite work for me, I like that the film went full bore on its themes and linked everything together.

Magic Weekend

Last weekend, as I was in Newcastle, I took the opportunity to go to Magic Weekend at St. James’s Park.

Magic Weekend is when all 12 Super League rugby teams play in one stadium over the course of 6 matches, 3 on Saturday and 3 on Sunday.  It’s £40 for all 6 matches, which is a very good deal.

Now, I’m not saying I had the best view in the house, but I pretty much did.  

I missed the first ten minutes of Wakefield Wildcats vs Widnes Vikings.  On the way down to St. James’s I saw a couple in full Viking dress.  Complete with hat and horns.  

Other important Widnes information includes the fact that the Viking fanclub is called the Stronghold.  Because of course it is.

The Widnes mascot was fantastic fun.  In between hitting the Wildcat mascot with his axe (don’t worry, they hugged and made up

), and lending a Widnes fan in a wheelchair the axe and running her up and down the side of the stadium so that she could hit people with it, he was fun chaos.  And trust me, if you’re anything to do with Widnes, you need your fun from somewhere.

I did figure out what Widnes’s problem was.  They’ve got nothing going forward, so they have to defend constantly.  That leads to them tiring, their opposition scoring late on and Widnes losing.

Then came Saints vs Hull FC.  Now, I am a Saints fan.  I had no hopes going in.  I mean it, if they’d only lost by 10 points, I would have been happy.  They had been that bad.  It was also the new manager’s first game.  Low expectations were the order of the day.

They won.

45 – 0.

No, I can’t explain it either.

(The ever wonderful Saints team lining up)

I have no idea how Justin Holbrook did it.  At the time, I wasn’t sure if he’d just told them that he didn’t mind them playing badly he just demanded that they play like professionals, or if it was Saints being their usual inconsistent selves and being awful one week (vs Castleford, I have legitimately never seen them play worse) and good the next.  Since then, it seems to be that it’s Holbrook being a damn fine coach because Saints won the derby this week.  (The Saints vs Wigan derby is often held up to be the origin of the phrase “derby match”.  It’s a big thing locally, and the first official one was 122 years ago.)

The last match on the Saturday was Wigan (them, the great sporting evil) vs Warrington (who are so perpetually the bridesmaids that even they make jokes about “this being their year”).

It was a 14-14 draw.  Warrington had the lead, but they blew it.  Because they are Warrington.

(Stefan Ratchford who is my favourite Warrington player)

I think Warrington’s problem is that their line is too high up the pitch when they attack so it just needs one good kick or one line break to completely destroy their defence.

The first match of Sunday was Catalan Dragons vs Huddersfield Giants.

It was always going to be the least well-attended match of the weekend because Catalan are, obviously, a foreign team so, understandably they have fewer travelling fans.  I still say that there were more Catalan fans than Hull fans though.

Half time and between the matches entertainment included mini rugby, touch rugby and various sets of dancers.

And the St. James’s house band.  I discovered that “Take Me Home, Country Road”, “Wonderwall”, “Seven Nation Army” and “Chelsea Dagger” are universal rugby league songs.

There was also a Mushy Pea mascot because one of the Super League’s sponsors is a brand of mushy peas.

The Huddersfield Giant mascot was very good and shook the hands of the mini rugby players as they left the pitch.

The next match was Leigh Centurions vs Salford Red Devils.  I’m not sure why the Leigh mascot is a pig, but here he is doing one armed push-ups.

I am impressed.

Last match of the weekend was Castleford Tigers, league leaders, vs Leeds Rhinos, their local rivals.

Rob Burrow, who is my favourite player, despite the fact that he plays for Leeds, was playing.  Now, for reasons, some of the teams were wearing superhero-branded kit.  Wakefield were wearing a Spiderman inspired kit, Hull an Incredible Hulk one, Warrington a Thor one (which makes sense because of all the Ashton Sims is Thor jokes), Catalan Dragons wore an Iron Man themed one and Leeds got Captain America.  This is a problem because Rob Burrow looks like Steve Rogers pre-serum, in comparison to the other players.

Tiny Rob Burrow’s vital stats are he is 5 foot 5 (165 cm) and 10 stone 6 (66 kg).  And he’s a pro rugby player.  His lack of size may have some bearing on my love for him.  That he is also awesome also does.  Despite the final where he came on at half time and stole the championship from my team by hustle and moxie.

Castleford won.  I think the Castleford fans won for loudest fans of the weekend.

~~~~
It was great fun.  I recommend going to Magic Weekend if you get the chance.

It’s an amazing experience getting to be around so many people who love rugby.  For example, there was a try-saving tackle by a Widnes Vikings player that got cheers from all the crowd (except the Wakefield fans, justifiably) because it was an excellent piece of play.
Seeing all the teams play, particularly from the vantage point I was at, meant you could get a much better feel of how they played than you can from the TV.  On TV, you often don't get to see off-the-ball play as much. I got to see some marvellous rugby, both attacking, such as Tommy Makinson’s try, and a lot of the tackling.

The atmosphere was great too.  I’m 5 foot 3 and a woman and I went on my own but I knew there wouldn’t be any trouble despite all the fans sitting together, not being separated by team affiliation.  There was a fair bit of banter, such as the Wigan Warriors fans walking round the pitch with a banner saying “We came, we conquered, we ate all the pies”*, which got the expected response (and the Widnes mascot giving them the thumbs down).  Or the Warrington banner saying “it’s always our year”.  Then there was the back and forth “stand up for St Helens,” “stand up for the champions” and “stand up if you hate Wigan” chants.  Or the Wigan and Saints fans joining together to taunt Warrington.  Or the Wigan and Saints fans having a throw football match.  The stewards were most disapproving, because they are used to football fans but the supervisor steward knew rugby fans are mostly harmless and threw the ball back.

On Sunday, there was an adorable child Leeds fan who ran round a group of Castleford fans when Leeds scored and just got chuckled at.

I love how much colour and sound there was.  Fans of every team took the idea of striking the colours seriously, repping their team.  This included fans of teams that weren’t at Magic Weekend, like the Crusaders fans in front of me or the Toronto Wolfpack fans to my left.

St. James’s facilities were excellent, except they could do with a better PA system because it was full of fuzzy reverb.

I had a fantastic time, would recommend going, and plan to go again as soon as I have the time and money again.

*the other team’s nickname for Wigan is the pie eaters.

Assassin's Creed

This began as a review of Assassin's Creed, and turned into a discussion of the nature of storytelling. If you want a review, that's easy:

Avoid. 

Run far, run fast, don't look back, don't try a Leap of Faith in the real world.

None of the following is a diss on the technical people involved. The film was beautifully made. The costumes were amazing, I loved the camera work. 

When you're as good as that cast list are, then the acting is not the problem. Particularly Michael Fassbender at the beginning, he was amazing.

The trouble was it was difficult to care about any of that when no-one is given all that much character.

I mean, Aguilar gets a bit, but the fact that I can only remember the assassin's name and not the modern-day dude should tell you something. The film was really bad at giving the characters names and identities. For instance, the only reason I know that Maria's name is Maria, not 'unspeakably hot Assassin chick' which I had to call her, was because I looked the film up on IMDB and had to work backwards from female actresses listed.

The same thing for the modern day Assassins. I would care a lot more about the fate of Assassin 3 and 4 if, you know, they were people rather than cardboard cutouts that some fine actors were doing their best with. 

I mean it. Name one non-Aguilar assassin just from watching the film. 

There's no sense of them being real people, they have less personality than the NPCs in the game do. 

What Mad Max: Fury Road did excellently well, this doesn't bother to do at all. I'm not given a reason to care about these characters, so I don't, which means the grand sacrifice scenes don't work. 

It's odd that a film that took so much care over everything else (the sets, the costumes, the little details like Aguilar's name and the Torquemada's nose) had such a bad, flat script.

My other problem is not the film's fault. Or rather, I have the same problem with the games but the film emphasises it. The whole, 'there are no rules' philosophy is well and good if you're strong and strapping. If you've the kind of person who isn't, it tends to end badly for you. Relying on people to look after each other in that sort of set up also ends badly. That the film just blithely accepts that the Assassins view of life without questioning it is ooky. 

Some spoilers below.

The film goes out of its way to avoid shades of grey. Whether it's making Cal Lynch a criminal who prays on other criminals (so it's okay to cheer him on), painting the Assassins as completely good and the Templars as completely evil, or just making Marion Cotillard evil all of a sudden (I cannot overstate how bad the film was at giving the names of the characters). That was also a shocking waste of Marion Cotillard. She’s an amazing actress, so use her.

Assassin's Creed annoyed me, because it came so close to being good. It had one glaring flaw, but the script was so bad and a script makes up such a large part of the film that I felt really let down.

Why UK NFL fans should be cheering for Toronto Wolfpack

Dear UK NFL fans (who don’t already have a rugby league team to support),

Support Toronto Wolfpack.

Why? Because Toronto are trying to do what any NFL franchise based in the UK would have to do.

Now admittedly there are differences between the two: size of squad, overheads and relegation into and out of various leagues for a start...but you can bet your bottom dollar the NFL are keeping an eye on what happens to the Wolfpack, and they will include it in their calculations about whether a UK-based franchise would succeed.

The hurdles Toronto are having to overcome would also be a problem for a UK franchise:  

• The distance (although, as several commentators have pointed out, the flight time between several US NFL teams is just as long as the US/UK flight time)

• Getting homegrown players into the team:  Toronto have done something sensible and clever, they've run trials in Canadian and US cities to find people who haven't quite made the grade in the NFL or CFL (Canadian Football League) but who could transfer their skills to rugby league.  The homegrown player thing is obviously less of a thing in the NFL because of the whole draft thing (and the franchise thing), but I think it would help embed the putative UK team better in the UK.

• Transport, although that’s not a problem for an NFL team as the NFL pay transport costs.  But because the RFL don’t, Toronto have done another clever thing.  They have signed a sponsorship deal with an airline, Air Transat.  The airline are covering the cost of Toronto’s flights and, and here’s the clever bit, the flight costs of the UK teams that are playing Toronto.  Toronto are also being nice and covering some of the travel costs for the UK fans coming over.  Presumably to keep costs low, the matches are being played in sets of 5, so Toronto have 5 games over here, and then five home games back in Toronto.  The putative NFL team won’t need to do that.

• Competition from other sports teams.  Toronto is a good proxy for London (and the UK in general) because it already has a lot of sports teams.  The Maple Leafs, the Blue Jays, the Raptors, the Argonauts and Toronto FC are just some of the teams that the Wolfpack will need to compete against to gain fans and an audience share.

If Toronto show that a transatlantic franchise could succeed, they might well be a stepping stone to getting the London Jaguars.  So get cheering for them, UK NFL fans.