Aladdin: The New West End Musical.

Price Edward Theatre, London. 

The stage musical adaptation of the beloved Disney film, the West End transfer of the Broadway smash. The songs you know and love. And the songs you don't know, or love, when the movie songbook oasis runs dry. 

Ladies first: Princess Jasmine is played by Jade Ewan, famous for replacing the last remaining original member of The Sugababes (thereby completing their Trigger's Brooming), and she does a cracking job as the Princess longing to break free from the shackles of tradition by outbreeding the royal bloodline. Jasmine also has the best non-movie song in 'These Palace Walls', nailing its multi-layered harmonies with some help from her gal-pals. 

Jasmine can sing, no question; but the strongest female voice is that of Michelle Chantelle Hopewell, as Jasmine's BFF/Marketplace Fortune-teller/"still, I think he's rather tasty" interjecter; the needle on my sassometer nudged dangerously into the red whenever the spotlight was on her, before pinging off entirely during a solo. Hopewell is a-star-is-borning all over the West End stage. You can foresee her carrying 'most any top tier musical on her shoulders, including this one: I dream of (female) Genie, anyone? 

Still, while the star of Hopewell is in the ascendency, the charismatic supernova of Trevor Dion Nicholas explodes from the stage like PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER bursting forth from an itty-bitty lamp. 

As the Broadway stand-in Genie, Nicholas is a veteran of 70 plus performances and he. is. transcending. He has some big, curly shoes to fill in Broadway Genie - Tony award winning, James Monroe Iglehart, but West End debutant Nicholas is little short of phenomenal. 

You go, Trevor Dion Nicholas. 

But, let's get to the big problem with Aladdin: Aladdin.

The big solo-number for Al is the insipid 'Proud of your boy', where our hero seeks approval from his dead mother. Are we not already rooting for the underdog street rat here? 

All Aladdin really has to do is keep up with the dancing, flash toothy grins, and look constantly amazed at the constantly amazing things happening around him. But poor Dean John-Wilson is out of his depth. 

John-Wilson better wish for three more wishes, because once timing, technique and posture are magically fixed; we still have a lot of polishing to do on this rough diamond. 

Still, even though he is the title character, he is not the main character; you are here to see Genie, and Genie rubs me the right way. 

If the show was Trevor Dion Nicholas, just standing there and singing, it would still be worth spending the cost of admission; but add the sets, the choreography, the razzle-dazzle, the orchestra; and a flying carpet that I couldn't actually see the strings on, and it is damn-near worth spending a wish on a ticket. 

Everything about Aladdin is sensational (except for Aladdin). 4 stars. 

Bonus minor gripes: 

Jafar is a bit pantomime. Sultan is a bit too statesman-like (how is this benevolent leader being fooled by panto Jafar?) The pacing is a bit wobbly in the second act, we blow through both 'Prince Ali' and 'A Whole New World' straight after the intermission; leaving Aladdin's three-amigo monkey-substitutes, cowardly Omar, tubby Babkak, and 'hey, I should be playing Aladdin' leader of the group Kassim to fill time with another non-movie song (urgh) until the big finale. Speaking of the big finale, Jafar only has 2 seconds as an all-powerful Genie; the audience didn't even have time to realise that peril was happening before it was all resolved. 

Also, when Aladdin's bros and Jasmine's squad pair off, the stunning Michelle Chantelle Hopewell is lumbered with the comedy fat bro; despite obviously being the Alpha BFF, just because she ain't no size two? 

Notes: 'The Sugababes, the Trigger's Broom of girl bands' is a joke I stole from a The Guide (Saturday Guardian) from about 8 years ago. It is never too late to steal a joke. 

The staging is absolutely wonderful; the Cave of Wonders especially. Heh, they should call it The Cave of Won... No, wait, it is already called the right thing.

Sound design supremo Ken Travis was in the row behind us with a notebook, looking grumpy; possibly because of the noises coming out of Dean John-Wilsons mouth? 

Aladdin bro, Cowardly Omar (Rachid Sabitri) has his own stage weapon combat school; watch him buckle some swash in the fight scenes. 

If you what to cry like a bairn, read up on lyricist Howard Ashman's life story 😭😭😭

Reasons to be Happy

A play about a substitute teacher named Greg, who is trying to figure out just who he is; a 30-something coming-of-age story. Married and separated early in life with a dead-end job, he has now returned from university; full of wonder having read some books. Greg is vey much the modern archetype of the 'nice guy who finishes last'; he doesn't want to offend or upset anyone, desperate to please in all his relationships. 

I really cannot begin to stress how annoying he is. 

He strings along his ex-wife, and current girlfriend, and his former best-bud. He gets a '100 books to read before you die' book out at every opportunity; the world is Greg's coffee shop to be seen reading worthy books in. He is just so cloyingly needy, passively patronising, self-centred and spineless. 

Reasons to be Happy looked like a play about four individuals, two couples, whose lives are intertwined and complex. But is just about this one, whiny guy; and these three stupid bimbos (including one him-bo) that he has to dumb himself down for. Oh poor, clever, special snowflake. 

If this play is autobiographical, then writer Neil LaBute hates women: they shriek; hysterically in public, and are stupid; not having heard of Brown University (which is just down the road), and manipulative; using the threat of abortion as a tool of control. 

He also hates muscular men who get the chicks, represented here by Kent; an uneducated meathead, in the same dead end job that Greg escaped by reading a John Steinbeck novel. 

Eventually, having fully condescended to the three people in his life, Greg leaves for New York; leaving behind a guidebook to New York (not a novel, not for these dumb-dumbs), so they know to come chase after him in NEW YORK; if they would only read the BOOK he deigned to bestow upon them. 

Reasons to be Happy: an awful sitcom, that is apparently given some level of credibility just by being on stage. A red-pill menimist's comments board rant, brought to life with some dodgy American accents. 

1 out of 5 stars. 

Greg does get punched and slapped, so that's a reason to be happy. 

It isn't the actors' faults, they did all they could. 

Greg puts me in mind of Ted Mosby from How I met your Mother (actually a good sitcom, with an awful lead character).

God I hate you, Ted Mosby. 

Exploring every facet of a whiny asshole; and winding up with no character progression, right where you started off: a Mösbius strip. 

Bonus review.

How I met your Mother without Ted Mosby, or when bad things are happening to him: 4 stars.

How I met your Mother with Ted Mosby: 2 Stars. 

Sicario & Mad Max: Fury Road - Women being kick-ass in 2015

Producers wanted the lead role in Sicario rewritten for a man,and I agree with them: Sicario could have been a better movie with a male lead. The lead character in Sicario is a dupe, and a patsy.

Lead character (Emily Blunt) starts off kick-ass enough, kicking down doors and shooting up the place. 

But they are quickly outclassed in every way by a couple of grizzled pros (Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro), whose door kick-downing and place up-shooting skills are totally superior. And they know just what the hell is actually going on. 

After a kick-ass start, Blunt spends the next 90 mins blundering into every rookie mistake possible. 

And then she isn't even in the climax of her own movie. 

Emily Blunt has built up a fair bit of kick-ass credit as the Full Metal Bitch in middling Sci-Fi actioner Edge Of Tomorrow. 

And I would have enjoyed Blunt in Brolin or Del-boy's roles. 

I suppose the lead could have been written as male or female, and it shouldn't have mattered. But the whole 'Hollywood didn't want a female action lead' furore, that accompanied the release of Sicario, puts the spotlight on the action lead; and this character is bad at action. 

Yes, the whole point of the movie is to have a character out of their depth, in a situation they can't control. But due to being screwed by the system; not because they are a woman. 

I guess in a few years the kick-ass, female action lead will be fully established; and the flawed action lead of Sicario will have aged incredibly well. But at present, the cry went out: 'here comes a film with a kick-ass, female action lead'; and that just isn't really the case. 

But then, what happens if you make your female lead infallibly, impossibly kick-ass? Why, Mad Max: Furiosa Road happens. 

Imperator Furiosa was essentially given her own movie, in all but name. I suppose rebooting Mad Max without Max himself would have been a bit weird; but more weird than him playing second fiddle in his own comeback? 

Theron is kick-ass at punchin' n' drivin' n' shootin'. Besting Max at fisticuffs, using him as a tripod for her rifle, and it is she who drives the big rig; where Max only gets to drive his little boy-racer car. 

Theron's character is broadly analogous to Brolin, or Del Toro's in Sicario; is this the type of character women need to be playing? Or is it just it needs to not be big deal when a woman does an action scene? 

Obviously it is the later thing, rhetorical question fans. 

At least 2015 will be the last year in human history society will have to deal with this nonsense, because soon the Force will Awaken; and Nemi Astwansan will be the most kick-ass action lead of any gender. 

Although no one will be as kick-ass as Han Solo, obvs. 

Sicario: 6/10

Furiosa Road: 7/10

Theron's character is certainly broadly analogous to Brolin, or Del Toro's in Sicario for the purposes of what I am writing here, that is for damn sure. 

Han Solo: he acts like he doesn't care, but he does. (TM:TM). 

Haywire: the punchin' convinced, but folk didn't buy the acting. I quite dig this film. 

Kick-Ass: Hit Girl is a huge fan favourite, partly because it is awesome to see a young girl swearing and fighting like she has a black belt in both; but mainly because she kicks the most ass. 

I... I didn't Google the name of the Star Wars chick. Padwé Udwelo? 

Alright, pal. Trying to compensate for something much? 

Shake Shack versus Five Guys versus Byron versus Honest: BURGER WARS.

Homegrown, fancy-dan, gourmet burger restraints Byron and Honest Burger have been forging a reputation for deliciousness over the past five years. 

And now AMERICA, birthplace of ze hamburger, is sending over two fast-food behemoths to enter the fray: Five Guys and Shake Shack. 

Which is the most delicious and best value for money? Honest Burger is (10/10). But continue reading anyway if you want. 

Fries: Guy's fries are cooked in peanut oil, I guess that makes them pretty crisp; and potentially a good way of murdering a nut allergy sufferer. Or introducing Elephants to human food (make sure they aren't allergic). 

Shack Fries are crinkle-cut, and if modern society knew what an incredible conduit for ketchup these 80s revivalist fries are, all fries would be crinkled. 

By-Fries come with a choice of thin or chunky, and both are adequate; competent, even. But not spectacular. 

Honest fries have some good old-fashioned potato skin left on, so they are rustic-as; and they have rosemary so they are classy. Classy-as. 

Everyone does good fries, in fairness. 

Five Guys burgers are almost-smashed style and have a nice, well-done crust. And they are hella flexible on the toppings; like the dream of early 90s Burger King TV ads. You want it your way? You got it. I wanted onions, I got onions. 

Shake Shack give the choice of medium or well-done; and they do a very decent medium. Fantastic onions. 

Byron give the same choice, but have the added bonus of making you feel like a big man for ordering medium. Good onions. Very good. 

Honest just give you medium and it is freaking perfect; there's confidence, right there. Onions? Heck yes. 

You don't like onions on your burger? Yes you do, don't be ridiculous. 

Everyone has fantastic buns. Buns must surely represent the greatest advancement in the burger experience in the last 10 years. Lovely buns. Buns of steel.  

For drinks, it is unlimited soda refills at Five Guys: Five Guys, one cup. And they have grape; which is the greatest soda flavour known to man (except for black cherry, which is an esoteric sub-flavour: black cherry>grape>regular cherry). Infinite grape! 

Shake Shack has incredible shakes; as you would hope, nay, expect. They had a s'mores special on my visit; and oh, it warmed the soul like a thousand camp-site bonfires. 

Cream-soda is my go-to at Byron. They have a custom-made, unfiltered American lager from Camden Hells (which is hella good) booze-wise; but the on-the-wagon selection is, perhaps, slightly uninspired. 

Honest has homemade lemonade. And they have iced tea. I always wuss-out of asking for an Arnie Palmy, but one day. One day. 'What is an Arnie Palmy?' A manly drink! I will tell them. A manly drink. 

So, really, all the food and drink is great at all of them.

And yet, the price is the same. £15.00 for burger, fries and drink. 

Honest is the best burger, and the best fries; and, inexplicably, the least expensive. So go to Honest. 

Five Guys burger costs 6 bucks in America, and 6 quids in UK. Shake Shack burger costs $6.25 across the pond, and £6.25 in the UK. 

Dollars don't equal pounds! Do they not understand the exchange system? Well, neither do I; but I do have an app that'll convert it: $6.00 = £3.85!

£6.00? Come on, man. 

Honest and Byron are actual, sit-down restaurants with table service. 

Five Guys and Shake Shack are very nice fast-food joints; they both have better burgers than any McDonalds or Burger King you've ever had. But they are just fancy fast food joints, and neither has a burger to match Byron or Honest. And yet, they are charging the same? Possibly because they don't know (or care) what an exchange rate is? 

McDonalds and Burger King are a fiver for a meal. Byron and Honest are £15.00 for a meal. If Five Guys and Shake Shack were a tenner, you would go there all day every day; but they aren't. They could slot into the middle of the burger market, like some sort of meaty filling between some sort of bread; there is a niche there, but they don't. 

That drives me cray. They could charge a tenner and fit in nicely. But they don't. Doesn't that drive you cray? It drives me cray.

Cray for days.

Ronnie and Reggie Cray.

Honest>Byron>Shake Shack>Five Guys. 

Honest: 10/10

Byron: 9/10

Shake Shack: 8/10

Five Guys: 7/10

Gourmet Burger Kitchen? Man, eff Gourmet Burger Kitchen. 

Marvel’s Daredevil: Netflix original series.

Daredevil  is  blind,  his  power  is  he  can  see.  He  sort-of  works  as  a  lawyer,  but  mostly  as  a  vigilante.  He  likes  to  beat  baddies  bloody,  and  to  get  beaten  up  himself.  

Nerds  on  the  internet  love  Daredevil  because,  unlike  Spiderman  or  Thor,  your  auntie  couldn’t  pick  him  out  of  a  line-up.  

Like,  really  beaten  up.  Beaten  bloody  and  raw,  punctured,  bludgeoned.  There  is  a  guy  who  gets  decapitated  by  having  his  head  slammed  in  a  car  door,  there  is  a  guy  who  head-butts  a  jagged  metal  pole  through  his  own  eye-socket;  to  put  over  to  the  audience  how  scared  he  is  of  the  main  baddie. 

The  main  baddie  is  the  crime  Kingpin,  who  oversees:  The  Russian  Mafia  (they  beat-up  women)  The  Triads  (they  cut  out  the  eyes  of  their  heroin-sweatshop  slaves),  The  Yakuza  (they  are  also  ninja-assassins),  and  corporate  accountants  (the  most  evil  of  all  criminals  –  take  that,  one  percenters).

Nerds  on  the  internet  love  Kingpin  because  he  has  some  sort  of  undiagnosed  anxiety  disorder,  and  all  the  nerds  on  the  internet  think  they  have  some  kind  of  undiagnosed  anxiety  disorder  too.  

Intricate  criminal  underworld.  Ooo,  so  complex.

Brutal  violence.  Ooo,  so  gritty.

Everyone  drinks  whisky.  Ooo,  so  grown-up. 

At  a  wedding  where  TV  shows  are  the  guests,  Daredevil  is  the  surly  13  year  old,  sulking  that  they  have  to  sit  on  the  kids’  table. 

‘Take  me  seriously!’  Daredevil  screams,  with  its  pretentions  of  being  a  serious  crime  show;  after  all,  it  has  not  one,  not  two,  but  three  organised  crime  syndicates;  that  is  three  times  as  super  serious!

And  it’s  a  show  about  lawyers,  serious  lawyers.     

And  it  is  graphically  violent.  So  bleak,  like  real  life.

Marvel’s  Daredevil  isn’t  ashamed  of  being  a  comic  book  character,  but  it  does  have  a  chip  on  its  shoulder;  and  tries  to  distance  itself  from  its  Marvel  stable-mates  by  having  a  level  of  barbarousness  you  just  wouldn’t  get  in  Marvel’s  Agents  of  Shield. 

The  people  who  like  Marvel’s  Daredevil:  Netflix  original  series  are  the  same  people  who  call  comic  books  ‘graphic  novels’  –  you  don’t  need  that  in  your  life.    

And  while  this  violence  isn’t  cartoonish,  it  is  over  the  top. 

Like  Game  of  Thrones,  Daredevil  is  so  unrelentingly  violent  that  it  feels  pointless  developing  any  kind  of  attachment  to  any  of  the  characters;  they  are  just  going  to  end  up  with  some  horrible  fate.  So,  like  Game  of  Thrones,  you  switch  off  emotionally.

And  without  any  emotional  connection,  what  is  left?

‘*blerg*  Excuse  me,  I  just  coughed  up  some  gritty  realism, *cough*  so  bleak  *cough* ’

Well,  there  are  some  good  fight  scenes.  Very  good,  in  fact.  Although  punch-fatigue  soon  sets  in.  I  appreciate  DD  can’t  see  their  kissers,  but  does  he  ever  just  spark  someone  out  with  one  punch?  He  takes  as  long  to  dispatch  a  hired  goon  as  he  does  an  end-of-level  boss. 

There  is  some  very  occasional  lawyering,  something  I  would  have  liked  to  have  seen  more  of  before  resorting  straight  to  fisticuffs;  I  mean,  at  least  pretend  you  have  exhausted  all  legal  avenues  before  taking  the  law  into  your  own  fists. 

Your  own  bloody,  bloody  fists.

Daredevil  yellow:  quick,  apply  the  grittiest  color  filter  we  have!

Daredevil  is  disappointing  because  it  is  almost  good,  it  is  almost  great.  But  it  is  crippled  by  a  lack  of  confidence  in  itself  as  a  premise,  and  its  desperation,  its  pitiable  desperation,  to  be  seen  as  credible  by  those  outside  the  Marvel  sphere. 

Marvel’s  Daredevil:  Netflix  original  series  score:  3  out  of  10 

Review  Everything  scores  with  Just  a  Score  app  –  the  app  that  lets  you  score  anything.  

 

Season  two  preview:  Kingpin  beats  the  same  Russian  with  a  golf  club  for  8  episodes  while  DD  ‘watches’  from  the  corner,  masturbating.  

Feminism

Who wore it better?

You  are  a  feminist.  I  am  a  feminist.    We  are  all  feminists.

Feminism  wants  equality  for  Women;  for  Women  to  enjoy  the  same  liberties  as  Men.

That  is  good.  That  is  fair.

So  why  does  everyone  hate  feminists?

Feminists  can  be  annoying

.  ...  but  everyone  can  be  annoying.  People  who  are  against  racism  can  be  annoying.  People  who  are  against  child-abuse  can  be  annoying.

'These  aren't  the  feminists  you're  looking  for'  snides  one  headline  in  The  Guardian:  bitter  perhaps,  that  Emma  Watson  did  one  talk  at  The  United  Nations  and  got  more  praise  and  recognition  than  an  entire  career  of  sniping  from  the  sidelines.

Hipster  feminists  welcome  you  to  the  fold,  so  long  as  you  defer  to  them  and  acknowledge  you  didn't  actually  buy  the  debut  album  when  it  came  out.

Still,  can't  let  a  few  bad  eggs  ruin  the  bunch,  eh?  We  tried  equality  for  women,  but  we  found  some  of  the  feminists  annoying  so  we  stopped?  Please.

Feminism  seems  unfair.

Positive  Discrimination  (and  it's  less  oxymoronic,  alliterative  cousin  Affirmative  Action)  sets  off  the  hypocrisy  klaxon  in  most  people’s  minds.

If  the  three  most  qualified  or  experienced  candidates  'just  happen'  to  be  not-women,  then  how  is  equal  and  fair  to  include  a  woman  in  that  short  list?  How  is  it  equality  to  give  them  the  job?

Well,  that  is  tokenism.

The  reality  is,  though,  that  it  does  need  a  bit  of  a  jump-start.

Maybe,  over  time,  things  will  balance  out  naturally.  Good  luck  with  that.  I’m  sure  the  men  in  the  board  rooms  and  parliaments,  the  straight  white  men,  will  get  the  equality  sorted. 

I  suppose  people  perceive  feminists  as  being  in  two  camps.  Ones  who  want  equality  for  women  starting...  Now!  From  this  point  on.

And  those  who  want  to  balance  out  the  inequality  of  the  totality  of  human  history  by  giving  women  everything  Men  have  enjoyed,  and  treating  Men  like  women  were  treated.

There  is  no  magic  wand  for  option  one,  and  people  don’t  like  the  hypocrisy  (and  scariness)  of  option  two.  Neither  works,  call  the  equality  off! 

All  we  can  do  is  keep  improving  things,  little  by  little;  and  you  can’t  begrudge  the  feminists  wanting  to  hurry  things  up  a  touch. 

Fem-Guardian Leviosa! 

Labelling.

‘Feminist’  is  a  label,  and  whatever  your  definition  of  ‘feminist’  most  people  do  not  like  to  be  labelled.

Time  Magazine  infamously  nominated  'feminist'  as  one  of  its  words  to  ban  for  2015.  They  are  obviously  pro  equality  for  women,  but  didn't  like  the  labelling: 

“nothing  against  feminism  itself,  but  when  did  it  become  a  thing  that  every  celebrity  had  to  state  their  position  on  whether  this  word  applies  to  them,  like  some  politician  declaring  a  party?  Let’s  stick  to  the  issues  and  quit  throwing  this  label  around  like  ticker  tape  at  a  Susan  B.  Anthony  parade.”

Why  can’t  you  be  in  total  favour  and  support  of  equality  for  Women  and  not  be  labelled  a  feminist?  You  can,  obviously  you  can. 

Bring  back  'Women's  lib',  remember  that?

Bring  back  suffrage,  remember  that?

It  is  much  easier  for  society  to  rally  against  something  than  be  a  part  of  something.  People  rally  against  feminism.

Bring  back  sexism:  'I'm  not  a  sexist,  but...'  That  is  how  you  weed  them  out.

Most  racists  don’t  think  they’re  being  racist,  most  homophobes  don’t  think  they  are  being  homophobic;  they  might  acknowledge  they  have  old  fashioned  views  that  society  would  consider  discrimination,  in  this  day  and  age,  but  that  is  society’s  fault  anyway,  for  being  screwy. 

People  don’t  like  being  labelled,  so  label  them  ‘sexist’  when  they  are  being. 

I'm not giving up my clown pants for no wimmin.

Feminists  make  people  feel  bad. 

Women  don't  like  being  made  to  feel  like  traitors  to  their  gender.  Men  don't  like  being  made  to  feel  like  rapers,  just  because  they  have  got  the  equipment.

And  what  is  big  fuss  anyway?  The  wimmin  are  being  hysterical  (as  is  their  wont).  YOU  CAN'T  EVEN  HOLD  A  DOOR  OPEN  FOR  THEM  NOW?!  YOU  CAN'T  EVEN.  TELL  THEM  THEY  LOOK  NICE?!  People  who  have  a  spaz  when  they  hear  the  term  'Political  Correctness'  have  a  large  Venn  diagram  overlap  with  people  who  hate  feminists.

Perhaps  an  inherently  segregated  society  faces  different  challenges  in  discrimination  against  Women,  than  it  does  of  race  and  sexuality.

I'm  not  saying  we  should  Ally  McBeal  all  the  public  toilets  to  unisex.  Toilets  are  not  segregated  by  race  (although  they  used  to  be,  in  the  South),  nor  by  sexual  orientation  (although,  they  would  have  been,  if  we  weren't  pretending  homosexuality  didn't  exist).

But  whites,  heterosexuals,  males,  are  all  ‘majorities’.  Yes,  discrimination  can  happen  to  them;  but  putting  whiney  comments  on  the  internet  every  time  there  wasn't  a  little  asterisk  saying  *HashtagNotAllMen  is  petulant.

So  feminism  isn't  about  hating  men,  with  their  penises  (or  'rape  sausages'  as  the  Feminazis  probably  call  them),  but  it  does  have  time  for  hating  on  sexists,  misogynists.

So  if  you  read  an  opinion  piece  in  the  paper  (probably  The  Guardian,  or  Huff  Post),  or  see  an  interview  with  a  women  on  the  news,  or  if  a  meme  happens;  and  mans  are  criticised,  try  not  to  take  it  personally.  Get  over  it:  grow  a  pair.

Conclusion

Feminism  is  good  because  it  is  trying  to  deepen  levels  of  empathy;  from  ‘try  to  imagine  how  you  would  feel  if  the  tables  were  turned’,  to  ‘try  to  imagine  how  you  would  feel  in  that  same  position’. 

This  is  the  difference  between  –  empathy  level  1  -  how  you,  as  a  man,  might  feel  if  a  woman  came  up  to  you  and  said:  “Hey  sexy,  I  know  you  want  it.”  (As  a  man,  you  might  actually  quite  like  the  idea  of  a  woman  coming  up  to  you  and  saying  that).  And  –empathy  level  2  –  how  you  might  feel,  as  a  woman,  if  some  randomer  came  up  to  you  and  said  the  same  thing. 

That  kind  of  attention  is  unwarranted,  no  matter  how  provocatively  you  might  be  dressed. 

So  feminism  is  good,  obviously.  But  it  does  struggle  with  brand  identity.  4  Stars.

That's what people say, Mmm-mmm.

Appendix  1:

That  Guardian  article  which  seemed  jelly  of  Hermione  was  actually  pretty  good  tho: 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/10/-sp-jennifer-lawrence-emma-watson-feminists-celebrity 

Appendix  2:

It  should  be  pointed  out  that  TIME  removed  feminist  from  the  ban  list  shortlist  (which  included  ‘bae’  and  ‘literally’  as  other  most  hated  words,  YOLO  and  Twerk  were  banned  from  appearing  in  the  magazine  in  recent  years): 

“TIME  apologizes  for  the  execution  of  this  poll;  the  word  ‘feminist’  should  not  have  been  included  in  a  list  of  words  to  ban.  While  we  meant  to  invite  debate  about  some  ways  the  word  was  used  this  year,  that  nuance  was  lost,  and  we  regret  that  its  inclusion  has  become  a  distraction  from  the  important  debate  over  equality  and  justice.”  –Nancy  Gibbs.

Christ,  first  TIME  Magazine  had  to  change  it  from  ‘Man  of  the  Year’  to  ‘Person  of  the  Year’,  and  now  this?!  Etc. 

Appendix  3

That's  right,  a  bunch  of  eggs.

Appendix  4:

Feminazis  stole  my  ice  cream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZmFCs-ltY 

Appendix  5:

Lewis’s  law:  “The  comments  on  any  article  about  feminism  justify  feminism.”  –  Helen  Lewis.  

Does it matter that Doctor Who is awful?

He  flies  through  space  and  time,  mostly  England  (and  Wales),  in  a  Deus  Ex  Machina,  with  his  Deus  Ex  Machina  screwdriver/magic-wand  thing  at  his  side.  Battling  BBC  costume  department  cast-offs  from  the  70s.

People  look  back  on  the  old  episodes  of  Doctor  Who’s  with  nostalgia,  and  laugh  at  how  terrible  the  special  effects  were.  But  the  special  effects  are  terrible  now;  they  wouldn’t  get  on  American  television,  that’s  for  sure.   

It  has  some  quite  cool  high  concepts  every  now  and  again,  but  the  storytelling  is  awful:  the  exposition  is  clunky,  so  clunky;  they  virtually  stop  mid-episode  to  explain  what  is  going  on. 

I  don’t  think  the  young  kids  are  going  to  like  this  new,  old  Doctor  anyway.  Maybe  he’ll  get  regenerated  sooner  rather  than  later,  maybe  even  as  a  non-white,  non-male?  Although  this  wouldn’t  stop  the  show  sucking. 

But  does  it  matter  that  Doctor  Who  is  awful?  The  fanboys  and  fangirls  like  it,  so  why  not  just  let  them  be?  After  all,  they’re  not  hurting  anyone  -  are  they?

Well,  they  are  hurting  television.  Because  the  fans  support  the  show  like  they  are  supporting  a  sports  team:  with  zero  objectivity.  Worse  than  that,  they  wantonly  ignore,  and  justify,  everything  wrong  with  the  franchise:  they  turn  a  blind-eye  to  diving  in  the  penalty  area,  plot-holes  in  the  episode,  shirt-tugging,  outmoded  CGI.  Biting,  sucking. 

They  revel  in  the  tradition,  each  doctor  like  an  historic  team  from  an  era  gone  by;  battling  derby  day  Daleks.   

Well,  you  damn  nerds,  TV  shows  (or  movies,  or  books,  or  videogames  or  whatever)  are  NOT  sports  teams.  And  supporting  them  through  thick  and  thin  when  they’ve  got  no  one  to  play  against  means  they  can  suck,  and  never  have  to  improve.     

What  if  Manchester  United,  or  the  New  York  Yankees,  or  whoever,  didn’t  have  to  play  anyone;  and  we  just  took  the  word  of  their  fervent  supporters  that  they  were  the  best?  In  sports,  there  is  genuine  completion:  an  answer  to  who  is  better,  at  any  given  time.   

“Timey-wimey.”

This  is  why  fandoms  are  bad  generally,  and  the  Whovians  (urgh),  are  the  most  poisonous  of  all.  Because  they  are  lowering  the  standard.  Instead  of  storytelling;  you  get  overbearing  exposition,  instead  of  character  depth;  you  get  bow-ties  and  catchphrases.  Fan-service  becomes  the  focus  of  the  show,  and  that  would  be  less  irksome  if  Who  was  buried  away;  but  it  isn’t:  it  is  prime-time,  a  flagship,  and  holding  it  up  as  an  example  of  what  a  good  TV  should  be  is  one  of  the  major  reasons  why  Britain  is  so  far  behind  America  in  the  quality  of  their    television. 

Doctor  Who:  1  Star  (out  of  5). 

The  theme  tune  is  boss,  though:

Dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun.

Weee-oooo!  (dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun).

Weeeeeee-ooooooo!  (Dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun  duh-dun).

Weeeee-oooo-weeee-oooo-weeee-ooo-oooo  (dun  duh-dun  duh-dun).

Come  along,  Pond.