SHERLOCK and DOCTOR WHO SPOILERS ABOUND

Anyone who has had a five-minute conversation with me, has read any of my blogs, or has even looked at me knows I’m a feminist. I make no secret of it since I don’t think it’s something to be ashamed of. Do I want to over-throw the men of power and use them all as slaves (sex or otherwise)? No, no I don’t. Do I want all people to be treated and paid equally with the same constitutional rights? Absolutely, yes. So I can only hope everyone hears me when I say: I don’t see Moffat’s so-called sexism and misogyny in his shows. His personality could sure use some help, but he has created quite a few strong and successful women during his tenure running DOCTOR WHO and SHERLOCK.

The women of focus here are the most prominent in both series:

WHO-DOC: Amy Pond, River Song and Clara “Oswin” Oswald

SHERLOCK: Molly Hooper, Mrs. Hudson, Irene Adler and Mary Morstan

Amy Pond was one of my least favorite companions (trumped only by Martha Jones who was a waste of space, goddamn her). I found Amy annoying and Karen Gillan’s portrayal of her boring (nothing against Karen, I don’t dislike her at all) – and I still just can’t get past how she treated her future hubby Rory in Series 5. However, she was a good character. My nit-picking (and crazy love of Rory notwithstanding) had nothing to do with how she written, but more how she was acted. As far as characters go, she may have had an unhealthy fascination with The Doctor during her first series as a companion (as evident by trying to make-out with him the night before her wedding… Little did she know, she’d be mama in-law one day.) but she was a witty, strong-willed, competent character. She believed in The Doctor (who doesn’t?) but she believed in herself, too. (re: Riddell: “This is a two-man job! What are you doing?” / Amy: “I’m easily worth two men. But you can help if you like.”) My turning-point episode, The Girl Who Waited, is seen as one of Moffat’s more controversial episodes (Amy gets stuck in a different time-stream than Rory and The Doctor and has to wait like, 35 years, for them to pull her back into their time-stream. She becomes a badass warrior and survives on her own the entire time. The episode ends with Future-Amy being left behind to, presumably, die while The Doctor and Rory save Current-Amy. If you’re confused… It’s all just wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff. Go watch the show.) I happened to love the episode and it’s one of the few that really made appreciate how strong Amy was (and what all the crazy-Amy-loving-fans are obsessed with). She showed such resilience, and an unwillingness to give up at any cost which she then carried with her until the end of her run as a companion in Series 7. WATCH: “The Girl Who Waited”, “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship,” and “Angels Take Manhattan”

Few words can really show my deep love and connection with River Song (AKA Melody Pond, AKA Amy and Rory’s daughter who was raised in a different time stream, brainwashed to be a psychopathic assassin whose sole purpose was to kill The Doctor, and who decided instead, to fall in love with – and marry! – The Doctor.) Sexy, a master marksman, part Time-Lord, she is DOCTOR WHO’S answer to if Black Widow and Zoe Washburne (re: FIREFLY) had a lovechild. River Song was not only stubborn as an ox, she was brassy, just as clever as The Doctor, and (though not surprisingly) more logical than The Doctor (because most everyone is, really.) I can’t help but think that those who call Moffat’s female characters weak and shallow have never watched a single River Song episode. WATCH: “The Wedding of River Song,” “The Pandorica Opens,” and “The Name of the Doctor”

As for Clara “Oswin” Oswald, she is the closest we’ve gotten to any of the original WHO companions. She’s clever, loyal, impassioned and serves as a conscience to The Doctor when he can’t seem to find his. While that may not help her [or my] case (it could make her seem as if she’s only there to fill the role of the obligatory female companion), once Moffat reveals at the end of Series 7 that Clara has been watching over The Doctor since he initially stole the TARDIS how many hundreds of years ago, you realize that this companion, this girl, has been protecting him and guiding him since day one. She’s already saved him from how many threats, and we get to see her save him from himself on more than one occasion. WATCH: “Journey to the Center of the TARDIS,” “The Name of the Doctor,” and “50^TH Anniversary Special: The Day of the Doctor.”

Molly Hooper. Lovely, nerdy, smart, frumpy, socially awkward Molly Hooper. The one that mattered most. She literally saved Sherlock’s life. While Molly Hooper has spent basically the entire run of the show thus far pining after our beloved sociopath, she is shown to be intelligent in her own right. Looking at the little bit of information we know about her personal life (she has tried to connect with Sherlock on multiple occasions, “…[my father] was always cheerful, he was lovely. Except when he thought no one could see. I saw him once. He looked sad.”) She’s observant, understanding and warmer than anyone gives her credit for. While sure, those are all considered “feminine” traits, by the end of Series 3 she’s had enough of Sherlock’s shit (ZING!), and sees right through him. She might still appreciate his genius, but is done with his attitude – which for a person like Molly (shy, introverted, unable to really stand up for herself), who’s been run over and ignored and put down by Sherlock basically the entire first two series – it’s a huge mark of strength for her to take a stand against someone she cares so much about, slap him across his face (how she didn’t cut herself on Benedict Cumberbatch’s cheekbones, I’ll never know), and tell him she’s ashamed of his actions. WATCH: “The Reichenbach Fall” and “His Last Vow”

The second great, supporting female character we get from SHERLOCK is the infamous Mrs. Hudson. She’s older, has had some life experience, is a bit of a proper English lady (save for the drug running and stripping from her more youthful days). She acts as a Wendy to the Lost Boys of 221B Baker Street. Another “feminine” character, she’s protective, loving, optimistic, open to any lifestyle (her upstairs tenant Mrs. Turner has married ones, after all), and she encourages dysfunctional brothers Sherlock and Mycroft to connect as much as possible. While she may not be a gun-toting badass, she portrays a very real older woman that would serve as landlady to this quite ridiculous group of overgrown children. The ability to create a realistic and relatable woman is hard enough, but Moffat succeeds in doing so even through all his sexism. WATCH: “A Study in Pink,” “A Scandal in Belgravia,” and “The Empty Hearse”

Ms. Irene Adler. The Femme Fatale to Sherlock’s PI. One of the biggest criticisms I’ve been privy to regarding the ever-elusive Ms. Adler is that she admits to John Watson that she’s gay, yet she’s believed to be in love with Sherlock Holmes, who is in fact, not a woman. I seem to be the only person who doesn’t have a problem with this. The term “gay” is, unfortunately, thrown around very loosely. Those who identify as bisexual (as well as pansexuals, queers, and every other category there is to describe someone’s sexuality) are most often referred to as “gay.” By Irene responding to John’s: “I’m not actually gay!” with a: “Well I am.” that doesn’t necessarily mean that she is strictly attracted to women. She was a dominatrix by trade, and made mention of quite a few of the men whom she had taken in for some kinky fun. Maybe Irene was merely making a point to shock John? Maybe she leans more towards women than men when it comes to romantic relationships. Either way, there is no reason for all the crazies out there to plot Moffat’s death by axe for making her a “bad” lesbian when he himself has said, “It’s love among the mad. He’s a psychopath, so is she.” WATCH: “A Scandal in Belgravia”

Lastly, we’ve got the killer for hire, trained assassin (my Spidey-Sense in tingling. Didn’t we just cover this one?) Mary Morstan. Anyone with half a brain can conclude from this psycho’s story that she is anything but weak. She’s prepared to kill Sherlock (probably not the best example) to protect John from finding out the truth about her past. She made a conscious decision to leave that life of murder and mayhem behind her because she fell in love with someone. That, to me, is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of strength to abandon the only thing you’ve ever known in order to pursue something (or in this case someone) that may not work out after all is said and done. Mary Morstan was cunning and manipulative which maybe are not two of her finer traits but she was also brilliant and resourceful – all things she shared with River Song. WATCH:  SHERLOCK Series 3

The complex, powerful and witty women Moffat (and Gatiss!) created were not one-dimensional sticks in the mud, but rather an ode to all the different women we have in the world. Each one was unique and tenacious in her own right, and I cannot fathom all the hate for these characters, and for Moffat himself. His unfortunate and unabashed misogynist comments that are circulating the internet have seemingly tainted the wonderful women he’s created, giving those anger-challenged folks at home fuel for their witch hunt. While I disagree with Moffat’s public persona (after all, we know how this crap can get twisted), I cannot and will not condemn him for “weak” female characters.

**None of this is to say that he doesn’t employ – or even over-use – some cliché attributes in each woman, but I think more than that the entire issue of his “weak” female characters is really an issue of femininity-vs-masculinity, and that’s a whole different conversation in and of itself.

An avid BBC fan, when SHERLOCK came out my initial reaction was to die of excitement before ever even watching a single episode. Then I watched it. Then I became obsessed. It’s brilliant, clever, interesting, full of talented – and beautiful! – actors, it’s superbly written with great characters and character development, and every episode is unique and charming. How could anyone not love SHERLOCK? Moreover, how could anyone watch ELEMENTARY when SHERLOCK is out there?

And then I watched ELEMENTARY. And then, again, I became obsessed.

ELEMENTARY, like SHERLOCK, is full of intrigue and mystery and some quite fabulous characters. Set in modern-day New York with a former-doctor-turned-sober-companion-Watson, it’s a well-known fact that the creators of ELEMENTARY worked extremely hard in differentiating themselves from SHERLOCK and they did quite an extraordinary job, really.

While ELEMENTARY is designed for primetime American TV and has many of the same qualities of an CSI-type show, it captures the charisma of Holmes and Watson at their best. Combining the classic elements of the Sherlock Holmes we all know and love, he’s been through hell and back fighting addiction and is now sober working as a consulting detective with the NYPD.

There’s no doubt that SHERLOCK is truly a gift to television, but lately I’ve actually started to wonder if I don’t like ELEMENTARY’s Holmes/Watson more. (For confusion’s sake, here on out they will be referred to by the actors last names – SHERLOCK’s Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, ELEMENTARY’s Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu – because it’s super difficult however way you spin it.)

I do quite firmly believe that SHERLOCK is a superior show in most aspects: the stories, the acting and the technical merits are all far above that of ELEMENTARY, however in getting to know Miller and Liu, I find their relationship much more satisfying than that of Cumberbatch and Freeman.

SHERLOCK’s entire schtick is that Cumberbatch is the smartest man in the world and Freeman is just his sidekick; Cumberbatch solves the case, Cumberbatch is endearingly self-involved, Cumberbatch walks all over Freeman (and Freeman lets him), Cumberbatch is oblivious and for all intents and purposes, pretty douchey. We see and understand that he cares about Freeman and his “high functioning sociopathy” is quite a key point in all of this (though I tend to believe the Aspergers theory more than the sociopath one). But the point is, we the audience forgive him because he’s a genius and it’s clear that he loves Freeman!…right?

ELEMENTARY, however, actually shows Miller loving Liu. Not in any romantic way (sit down quietly, JohnLock shippers. SHERLOCK’s gay love is not the point of this post!), but in a true sense of the word friendship. While Miller is of a genius-level IQ, he doesn’t rub it in Liu’s face every episode, or consistently make sure that everyone knows that he’s so clever and they’re so idiotic.

Miller treats Liu as an equal, teaches her (HER!) how to be a consulting detective, gives her lessons and reading and even gives her cases to figure out herself. When she needs help, he doesn’t put her down, but he helps her find the answer for herself. When she goes through a crisis, he is there for her. Miller offers to accompany Liu to visit a grave of someone she knew, he sits and keeps her company with her when she’s upset, he reaches out and talks to her about her feelings, and more importantly, his.

Yes, again, I understand about the sociopathy and Cumberbatch makes quite a few enormous sacrifices for Freeman, but do those life-threatening experiences excuse his crass behavior every other minute of every other day? Cumberbatch and Freeman have some sort of bond, some sort of love between them that doesn’t make sense and that we accept whole-heartedly because of their undeniable chemistry, but looking at their friendship outside of Moriarty’s ultimatum or Magnussen’s threats, Cumberbatch’s Sherlock is seemingly incapable of showing any real affection to Freeman’s Watson. All this being said, there was huge progress in Season 3 because of the nature of the story arc, but it just felt as if it wasn’t enough; especially when I have an equally clever and exciting, really beautiful Miller/Liu relationship to compare it to.

Is ELEMENTARY a better show? No. Do I like it more than SHERLOCK? Hell no. But I do very much appreciate how Miller/Liu’s Holmes and Watson relationship was crafted to resemble that of a partnership and not a dictatorship. Now here’s to hoping they don’t ever ruin it* with romantic feelings and an absurd love story.

*“It” being ELEMENTARY’s Holmes/Watson. There is no arguing with JohnLock. Partially because they’re totally gay for each other, but mostly because fangirls will murder you if you try. [See Tumblr for more information. Tread carefully.]

Until last night, TIME AFTER TIME merely meant one of the greatest songs of all-time. Now, after watching the gloriously cheesy, dated but vigorously acted and hilarious 35th anniversary screening of TIME AFTER TIME (1979), it’s alongside BACK TO THE FUTURE as one of the most delightful time travel movies ever made.

In the LA-based Landmark’s ongoing Anniversary Classics series, film critic Stephen Farber puts the spotlight on overlooked gems, bringing in fantastic guests to do a Q&A after the fact. Last night, Malcolm McDowell of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, ENTOURAGE and 229 (!) other credits, paid a visit to talk about his life and career. I’ll get to that, after I revel in discovering TIME AFTER TIME.

TIME AFTER TIME was a hard sell to studios, but Nicholas Meyer, the writer-director of the film, had written “The Seven-Per-Cent Solution,” a 1974 bestseller that combined Sherlock Holmes’ world with that of Sigmund Freud. Convinced by that novel’s success, Warner Bros. stepped up to make this film a reality, which was based on a novel by Karl Alexander (below).

Stephen Farber argues that he thinks TIME AFTER TIME would be a harder sell today, but a movie about H.G. Wells tracking Jack the Ripper in modern day San Francisco sounds exactly like the kind of high-concept crossover movie studios want to be making these days.

WB was hesitant to cast Malcolm McDowell in the role of the romantic lead and hero (H.G. Wells), thanks to his acclaimed role as Alex, the nutjob from Stanley Kubrick’s A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, that had typecast him (and would continue to do so). They eventually succumbed to Nicholas Meyer’s wishes. When McDowell got the script, it was a Godsend, “I’m not insane,” after all. He was thankful for not being made to play the role of Jack the Ripper.

That task went to David Warner, one of the greatest British thespians of all-time, who’s been in TRON, TITANIC, TIME BANDITS, THE OMEN and innumerable other gems, including indisputable career highlight Professor Jordan Perry in TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES II: THE SECRET OF THE OOZE. Here, Warner chews up scenery deliciously, as the creepy John Lesley Stevenson (or “Jack” to his friends), who opens up a creepy music box that never appropriately unnerves his forthcoming victim…right before slashing their throats. Also, if you ever wanted to see Jack the Ripper in a jean jacket…TIME AFTER TIME cures that long-held desire that many of us never knew we had.

Then you throw in Mary Steenburgen, who I’ve mostly only known as the curiously hot older woman (in ELF, STEP BROTHERS), as the hot and foxy younger woman who is super appealing, or Herbert’s love interest. She’s a career woman (in banking), who divorced her husband because he wanted her to be a doting housewife, and is all about the women equality movement, which tickles H.G. Wells to no end, since he trumpeted the cause back in the 19th century. TIME AFTER TIME is Mary’s second film right before winning an Oscar for MELVIN AND HOWARD, but this one is also notable because her and Malcolm fell in love, leading to marriage and two children. It didn’t last unfortunately, and now she’s married to Ted Danson. Here’s to you Mrs. Steenburgen!

Overshadowing everyone else though, is “Boy at Museum,” played by the one, the only…Corey Feldman, right before booking a role on THE BAD NEWS BEARS TV show.

TIME AFTER TIME was critically beloved, but never found the mainstream audience that WB had hoped, thanks to shamelessly publicizing the film as a “Jack the Ripper” movie. It didn’t hurt Nicholas Meyer’s career though; his next film was STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (he also would direct STAR TREK VI). You might have caught that one.

The trumpeting opening, in which the titles zoom toward the screen with altogether too much alacrity, indicates a movie from another age, even dating the late 70’s film, as if we’re stepping into a Universal horror movie. It’s a fantastic introduction to Miklos Rozsa’s soaring presence. The legend won 3 Oscars for film scores, including SPELLBOUND, A DOUBLE LIFE and…BEN-HUR. He was nominated 10 other times, and he’s still got it here, in what was his final film.

In case you couldn’t figure it out from the poster or the trailer, TIME AFTER TIME is a time traveling caper/love story, in which H.G. Wells follows Jack the Ripper into the future to stop him. How do we get there?

In 1893, H.G. Wells has a big announcement to make to his closest friends, waiting for Dr. John Lesley Stevenson’s arrival. He’s late, of course, busy murdering a hooker in an alley somewhere. When he arrives, Wells announces that he’s made a time machine, and intends on using it, though he hasn’t worked up the nerve to do so yet.

When the cops arrive, searching every house in the area, and stumble upon John’s bag, filled with incriminating evidence, Stevenson is gone. To the future. Thanks to plot, the time machine returns home (because H.G. Wells had the homing key, or something), and Wells is forced to follow Jack the Ripper into the future, believing that he’s unwittingly sent a murdering psychopath into a utopia. Instead, he happens to land in 1979 San Francisco, a place that Jack the Ripper feels more at home than H.G. Wells does…until our resourceful hero runs into a horny young banker desperate to exchange foreign currency (that’s a euphemism, but also her job).

With the setting 1970’s San Francisco, I thought that perhaps they were going to link Jack the Ripper and Zodiac Killer, but the timeline would be messed up, not that we wouldn’t have forgiven that. It’s a time travel movie after all.

From there, we get many scenes that BACK TO THE FUTURE either borrowed, stole or paid homage to, blowing my mind, and possibly rupturing the space-time continuum in the process.

Consider this scene, when H.G. Wells outs himself as a time traveler to Amy:

It’s very much reminiscent of when Doc Brown comes clean to Clara in BACK TO THE FUTURE III. Take a deep breath…CLARA IS ALSO PLAYED BY MARY STEENBURGEN, who proves a lot madder the second time around, probably because Mary Steenburgen is tired of falling for liars/raving lunatics with awesome hair. Of course, the “second” time technically happened in 1885 in the Old West, eight years before she ultimately travels back to London with H.G. Wells (oh, spoilers). Is Clara/Amy an evil mastermind, collecting awkward time travelers? Is BACK TO THE FUTURE a spin-off to TIME AFTER TIME? “This is heavy, Doc.”

The date that Wells and the Ripper go back and forth on is November 5th, which is in fact one of the dates used in BACK TO THE FUTURE, as we can see from the following chart:

A newspaper from the future is even used as a key plot device in several scenes. There is no Enchantment Under the Sea Dance, unfortunately.

Whenever H.G. Wells’ silly time machine travels through time, it’s akin to LSD-laced/PTSD-like flashbacks from when you were a kid and you stared at those psychedelic kaleidoscopes too long, with rainbow colors splashing across the screen willy nilly. Considering the time machine is littered with rainbow orbs like the friggin’ Infinity Gems, it makes sense.

While TIME AFTER TIME is clearly a science fiction movie, it’s more heavily rooted in rom-com territory, thanks to the overarching romance between Herbert and Amy, as they fall in love on the eminently fall-in-lovable streets of San Francisco.

The pair of them are so adorably awkward, and so clearly hot for each other, that you’re begging them to mash genitals after the first scene. When they do finally start kissing, Amy even admits that she’s practically raping him. This is after she said she wasn’t a dyke and asked if there were a lot of A-rabs in Britain (her co-worker wanted to marry into oil). Visual evidence:

Either way, it’s nice to see a woman take control, giving bumbling geniuses with girl problems a break.

In many ways, H.G. Wells is like Ichabod Crane of SLEEPY HOLLOW, doddering around, stumbling upon astounding new inventions like the electric toothbrush, garbage disposal, and escalators. You already knew McDowell was a genius, but in TIME AFTER TIME, he shows off his slapstick and comedy skillz. It’s impossible not to chuckle at him following a woman in saran wrap (?), whilst taking notes:

There’s a lot to write about, there. Oh, and check him out trying McDonald’s (referred to later as a “Scottish restaurant”) for the first time, a few of the more blatant product placement opportunities that don’t feel as manipulative as they should:

Early in the film, it’s established that Stevenson and Herbert are the type of friends that always play chess, and that Stevenson ALWAYS wins, a face-palm metaphor for the cat and mouse game that is to come. The best scenes in the film, except when I’m fantasizing about Mary Steenburgen’s frizzy hair and chuckling at H.G. Wells’ “oh, dude in the past” antics, are when David Warner and Malcolm McDowell share the spotlight, going mano e mano:

TIME AFTER TIME is one of those movies that gets better with age, because its jokes are just as funny, and so many other lines become unintentionally hilarious. Plus, it’s a time travel movie, and time travel movies are the best subgenre there is. If you haven’t seen it, it’s high time to rectify that mistake, like I just did.

Besides, if there’s justice in the world, there will be a sequel, since Karl Alexander wrote one to his book. Behold:

Bwahaha.

OPTIONAL MINI-DRINKING GAME:

-Drink every time H.G. Wells touches his glasses.

-Drink for every bank you see.

If you want to cough up $1.99, you can watch Time After Time on YouTube here. Or, buy the DVD on Amazon for $5.99. It’s well worth it.

MALCOLM MCDOWELL ANECDOTES:

Afterwards, McDowell got to talk about his astounding life and career. Anyone who can tell stories that include Laurence (“Larry”) Olivier, Alan Bates and Helen Mirren (for ONE PLAY) has won. He recounted his age of debauchery with the Royal Shakespeare Group in England, where he tried to get fired (and filled his off-time with drinking, gambling and women). While he clearly missed the stage once he got going about it, he characterized himself as “a stage actor, but I escaped.”

While he loved and trusted Stanley Kubrick, and had to for his role in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, he mentioned that Kubrick screwed him out of money for the movie. This was an ongoing theme, as he told a story about when he met Gene Kelly (who he paid homage to in the infamous Singing in the Rain sequence from CLOCKWORK), who looked him up and down, and stalked off without a word. 40 years later, Gene’s widow would tell him that he wasn’t mad at McDowell, but at Kubrick, because he hadn’t gotten paid.

His favorite actor of all-time? James Cagney (WHITE HEAT, SCARFACE). For him, there has never been someone more unpredictable, possessing his unique brand of energy.

To confess that it’s rocked a few friendships maybe isn’t that shocking, but I am still not ashamed to admit that I have never seen STAR WARS, nor do I have any direct intention to. Not to say that if it’s on or some buddies want to watch it I’ll run for the hills screaming, but I won’t put it on of my own accord. Why? Because I don’t need to. And I am no less of a nerd for having not watched it.

Everyone loves STAR WARS. And what do people do when they love something? They talk about it. Constantly. (LOST, anyone? I never even finished Season 1 because the entire series was spoiled for me by the daily chatter and buzz about it.) I already know the plot twists (Thanks, PITCH PERFECT! But not really.) and have a general idea of what each installation is about, so why do I need to waste an entire day watching it? I like to maintain a spoiler-free zone at all times.

“But, hey! What about all it did for science fiction and film in general! You can’t deny it was revolutionary!”

I never said it wasn’t. I can appreciate how something was revolutionary and changed cinema without liking it (CITIZEN KANE? Who actually likes that movie?) or even watching it. I can respect STAR WARS and George Lucas all the same and still avoid sitting through R2D2 and Yoda for hours on end.

The big question I keep getting slammed with is: Why do I feel that STAR WARS should not be the golden standard to which we hold nerds and nerd-pride? Well, to me it seems to be the opposite. Why is STAR WARS the big kahuna? Why is STAR WARS the be-all-end-all? Without having seen it, I can only infer from the spoilers I’ve been privy to, that it was a largely generic story, albeit with a couple good twists and turns and a sci-fi journey that maybe hadn’t been seen before. But was it actually good? CITIZEN KANE –while it makes me want to gauge my eyes out – was a good movie. It was well-made, beautifully written, superbly acted… it just wasn’t my thing.

From all I’ve heard about STAR WARS, all the OMG STAR WARS, WTF U HAVEN’T SEEN IT and DISNEY’S GOING TO RUIN IT, I haven’t been told a single reason as to why everyone loves it so much. Colorful weapons, philosophical aliens, shiny robots, cool. I can get that pretty much anywhere, so why STAR WARS? Was it well-made, beautifully written, or superbly acted? In all the things I’ve heard and read about STAR WARS, I have never been witness to anyone commenting on the quality of the components individually, only the film as a whole. (Which, to be fair, was still mostly ERMAHGERD LERT SERBERS or drooling over the drones or whatever. I won’t pretend to know what they’re called.) Are being “revolutionary” and “good” mutually inclusive? From where I sit on my tiny soap box that’s covered in rotten tomatoes, no. They aren’t.

“Well, then you aren’t a real nerd!”

Ergo, my nerd-cred is then slammed for my aversion to STAR WARS every time it comes up, but I am still a nerd. (Sorry, folks!) I absolutely considered getting a GAME OF THRONES tattoo (I already have one for DOCTOR WHO!) and I am proud to say that I probably have more X-MEN comics than you.

But, if it’s so important to judge nerd (or is it fanboy? A topic for another time) culture and popularity, why shouldn’t it be on something absurdly impressive and noteworthy? Let’s take a vote on how many of us have seen all the original episodes of DOCTOR WHO: the longest running science fiction show in the history of television. At final count I believe it was 784 Classic episodes. And that’ not including any mini-movies, radio episodes, or any other DW narratives that used to air. I’m only halfway through season 1, but that’s probably a whole lot further than the rest of you self-proclaimed nerds.

Time permitting I’ll eventually finish up BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and all the STAR TREK series’. I own all the extended editions of LORD OF THE RINGS – am slightly embarrassed at how many times I’ve watched them – and the complete ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (in hardback leather binding, no less). I have no words to express how I feel about X-MEN: THE LAST STAND and am more hesitant than I’d like to admit about upcoming CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER. I refuse to borrow any books even if it’s only to read them once; I MUST OWN THEM. And I faithfully watch BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER all the way through seasons 1-7, once a year every year.

But my nerd-cred, no matter how big or how small, is thoroughly dismissed by all the “real nerds” because I choose to remain a STAR WARS virgin. I vote we abolish all the nerd-shaming and competition over who has bigger glasses and higher wasted jeans. In the hippie spirit of my motherland, Berkeley, California: Stop the nerdism. Love the nerds.

#NerdLove

NOTE: The images were chosen by your faithful editor, who happens to like CITIZEN KANE.