“There’s this phenomenon of fans who become very proprietary, not just about the objects of their fannish-ness, but also their status in the fandom,” she says. “They always want to be the one who had the inside story, the inside contact, the latest cutting edge stuff about the show or the actors. There’s almost a need to be an object of famousness themselves.”

For those who have read my previous Finnish-inspired Fandom posts, which generated some hate from the types of people the quote above refers to, I thought I’d share an interesting article from AfterElton.com by Brent Hartinger. Click here to read the full piece

It’s been over a month since I started the funnies thread of the geeky list thing, and it’s time I move forward with some of the classic movie funny men. For me, I looked back at those characters which have stayed with me all these years and made a lasting impression in my mind.

Some of them may not give the hardest laughs, some of them might not come from the best actors in the world, but they’ve all stuck with me for more than a few seconds of giggling. So to start of, I have to go back to 1955…

Doc Brown wouldn’t have worked if anyone else was playing the part. Sometimes it’s odd to think of Lloyd as a shy man when performances like there are wonderfully over the top. He could make one single facial expression funny, and he did many times in the movies. Despite Michael J Fox getting a lot of comedy moments, for some reason Christopher Lloyd always steals the show for me.

Anchorman is like a bad wank. You start off well, it’s really good, but when that moment comes it’s so good that you want to keep going, so you slow down, push on… and when it’s finished you realised you went on ten minutes too long and feel ashamed.

But! The comedy moments were worth it. In the movie, I don’t tell jokes while I masturbate, not after that incident in the park. Brick’s one liners are worth the movie alone, but the arrogance and stupidity brought to life by Will Ferrel’s usual tone makes you love the over the top character.

He’s an idiot, but he’s a competent one who gets the job done despite only worrying about the major problems too late in the game. Hes also a wonderful sadist who doesn’t think twice about his actions and just seems to run on instinct. The performance is so… weird as well as wonderful that Otto is the sole reason I watch this movie.

And so should you.

A graduate of Evil Medical School and hailing from the mean streets of Bruges, Dr. Evil traveled from the 60′s to the nineties as part of an evil plan to overtake the world. And then hilarity ensues. He’s the guy that doesn’t quite get things right, has to struggle with his rebellious son and is just not connected to the world at all. He’s the worst villian ever created. And it’s fun.

Murray wasn’t the initial choice for the movie, but in all honesty I don’t think it would have worked well without him. Venkman is a bit of an oddball sleaze and had the potential to fall into the goofy or cringe worthy categories, but Murray seemed to bring a charm that made Venkman a character to connect with in the land of geeks. even though Winston was the teams every man, Murray was far easier to relate to and took the lead in a way that made the movies classics.

His quirky personality covers the hints of arrogance and greed. In the first movie he’s got a few great moments, but in the second his character grows more than the others when the sleaze is put to rest somewhat with his re-taking of Ellen Ripleys heart.

Unfortunately Bill Murray seems to be taking himself too seriously to reprise the role and quite frankly, he’s too old to do the same gimmick in the never-to-happen-but-rumored-lots Ghostbusters 3. But this was Murray in his prime and without him… I doubt this would have ever got to the level of success and cult love it has.

There are hundreds of great comedy characters in movies, not all from the comedy genre either. But out of all the movies I’ve seen – which sadly, is a ridiculous high number – it’s the above characters which have the full package. Whether that be something to relate to or something that’ll make you laugh out loud. These actors and characters are irreplaceable.

But then, everyone’s got a different opinion and a different taste. So, who’s in your list?

After a recent conversation with Barry Miller at the recent Battlezone event, and seeing a post by the always wonderfully minded Obsolete Toaster on GBBS, I’ve decided to re-evaluate something I evaluated here before. The Treks. Arguably it’s one of the most successful franchise and one that’s survived several incarnations.

But, while I’m a trek fan – the new name of this site should be a clue – I can still see the bad as well as the good and with the discussion coming up more than once lately, I decided I was bored enough to take another bash at looking back on the franchise.

The 1960′s show was, obviously, the show that started it all, a colourful science fiction drama with a bold captain, a cold alien scientist and a grumpy old country doctor. I do view this through rose tinted glasses and I do forgive some flaws as it was a style of the time thing. You can’t bitch at Citizen Kane for not being in HD. But this show was built around that trio, had some good supporting characters and was very exciting and imaginative for it’s time.

As I said, it was imaginative. Sure, there wer ebudget restraints and looking back it’s cheap and cheesy. But even with those labels it’s still appealing, it’s still good. The science and the look might be dated but the shows speak volumes. A lot of people like to remember it for having strong messages, sometimes it did, but for me the key was giving a bright and hopeful idea of the future wrapped up as an adventure story with all the drama and silliness thrown in.

Sometimes the siliness worked, Tribbles are still good fun and worked a charm in DS9′s re-visiting the episode in an anniversary special. But sometimes there was Spocks Brain. And that wasn’t so good.

The discussion with Barry was interesting. He’s no big Star Trek fan, but he liked Voyager as he said ‘it had a purpose’. We both talked about that problem with TNG – there is no point. Exploring strange new worlds? No they don’t, they go around, have a chat with world’s they’ve known for years and drink tea. Deep Space Nine (my favourite of the lot) to him was a bunch of people sitting around. I get that too, partly.

Voyager had a twist, it had purpose. But as has been mentioned, they didn’t follow through with that purpose. They mentioned their dilemma for several years, tossed in the word ‘rations’ and we even saw them do deals to buy supplies and weapons we never saw again. Supposedly they had little supplies, yet rebuilding the two or three shuttles they had was fine and when they needed to, they built the Delta Flyer. Where did those resources come from?

The Borg… they seemed boring and I got fed up of them. The obvious casting of Jeri ‘doesn’t she look hot in this tight lycra’ Ryan and her taking on the role of not evolving and being very cliche was just dull. It felt as if it became all about her at times and with each Borg appearance, they seemed to become less of a threat.

Add to that Janeway… one week she’d be a by the book captain enforcing the law, the next she’d be changing her mind and being a rebel. Why not just stick with the Starfleet/Maquis command split and have Chakotay push the rebellious, out of the box actions and have Janeway try to stick by the book. That conflict alone adds more story conflict, shows both sides being strong and weak depending on the story, it shows vulnrability and all sorts of new doors could have been opened that, throughout the show, were closed leaving Chakotay being left as a calm, boring and unseen character who could have been so much more, and Janeway comes off as somewhat of a mental.

Then there was Enterprise… there were many factors against it.

Timing. Star Trek had been running solidly on TV in one shape or another since 1987, for seven years there were two on at the same time. The TNG movies, bar one, weren’t doing that well. The product was becoming stale and uninteresting and instead of giving it time, putting it on the shelf for a while and letting it rest – Star trek came back! Again. There just wasn’t enough time to let the audience rest and build interest in the name again.

Casting. I’m sure many people love the memories of Quantum Leap and Scott Bakula has been moderately good in a few TV movies I’ve seen. His interpenetration of Archer ws so bland and so dull, I felt like he may as well have skipped learning the lines and just read from the script on camera. It felt as if there was nothing in that performance, no interest, no passion – just say the words and go to the bank at the end of the week.

Characters. The blatant attempt to revive the TOS trio was awful. Other characters which could have had interesting personas were put aside and there were attempts to spice them up that didn’t make sense.

Writing. It was awful. Sure, there are some episodes I enjoy just like there are some with Voyager. Some are better in retrospect, others are better with lowered expectations. Re-watching the Xindi arc, that was better than remembered (still not great) and just like Voyager it felt like all the challenges made in the plot were swept aside.

When Barry said to me DS9 was just people sitting around, although I could see that (they rarely do any actual work) it was a character driven show, with involvement, that had a story line that wasn’t interesting – so they changed it and brought on the war which was interesting. But it stemmed from that initial plot.

Like anything, there were flaws – but seeing interesting characters, a good cast, good stories and arcs that seem gripping despite knowing the Federation would never lose the war… it just seemed to have the flow, story logic, development and characters that Enterprise and Voyager were scared to do.

I see DS9 as having a new beginning in it’s fourth season with the third building to it. The Bajoran stuff was good, but it wasn’t interesting enough to carry a show and there are only so many times you can write about aliens coming through the wormhole – part of Voyagers problem was ‘how many variations of bumpy forehead can we do?’ – so they rebooted and focused on one mighty civilization, the threat they posed and how that changed everything. With Voyager far away, DS9 had control of the Federation and how it would evolve.

Maybe it will be the show with people sitting around or not doing their actual jobs, I watched one the other day where Dax seemed to be pissed at having to do some actual work, and maybe Voyager and Enterprise had a plot closer to the original one that got everyone interested.

But both for me were a whole heap of undiscovered potential. Voyager in particular was trumped by the BSG re-imagining where, despite having more resources than Voyager, did run into problems. Hell, the entire fleet ate recycled goop because there was nothing else to eat and everyone felt the effects of losing their home and being trapped in their jobs.

With such let downs, is it any surprise the new movie went back to Star Treks roots?

Or have I just put undue pressure on a concept and hoped for more?

A few peope have noticed, and mocked, the Daily Mail for their recent coverage of Doctor Who. It’s absolutely fascinating how far they’ll go to have a moan. It’s as if before this new era of Doctor Who, the world of television was one of purity and politeness, where no imagination was challenged.

The RTD era gained some attention, mainly for what the nutjob fans called his ‘gay agenda’. This was probably one of RTD’s best moments of writing. A lot of the time it was subtle, the odd reference to a same sex spouse or something. The best part of it was that it wasn’t treated as weird, or shocking, or bizarre or controversial. It felt like, for the first time, a character being gay wasn’t a defining part of him. In a soap, usually a character is gay and he needs no other hook. He’s the only gay in the villiage, and thats his entire character. Does Coronation Street’s Sean have any defining characteristic that isn’t an over the top squeal? No, not really.

Adding more personal drama wasn’t a bad move. Television had evolved and Doctor Who had to in order to survive. It wasn’t quite as black and white as before, not that the show ever was. Hell, in the beginning the Doctor is a maniac who kidnaps two humans, treats his granddaughter like an idiot and does a runner. But Davies had to add something and he did. Not everyone liked it, but it worked and some of the best moments related to his more emotional hook.

But thankfully the gay agenda lot seemed to shut up, even though Davies was labelled a hack. Everyone began praising Moffat as the best thing since sliced bread and as soon as the reigns were handed over, the praise and respect turned into another reason to moan. Not just for hthe nutjob fanbase, but it seems the Daily Fail has started their own bandwagon and I expect them to get sillier and more pointless as the series goes on.

With Moffat, in a few episodes he seems to have caused more of a fuss than Davies. Not because of bad writing. But because of Amy Pond, the weeping angels and looking at the bigger picture of the fanbase. His companion for the doctor was too sexy. She’s a kissogram with a nice pair of legs which caused the Daily Mail to decide that Who should go back to it’s roots of not being sexy. What? Did no one see Leela wearing next to nothing every week? Peri’s chebs giggling around her low cut spandex tops? Even further back we’d seen Zoe in sme rather spanktastic outfits.

Then there was the scene. Amy kisses the Doctor, this leads into the Doctor sorting it out in the next episode and oh noes! The Daily Mail strikes. Too adult, not suitable for children, someone think of the children! Looking back I can remember moments in family shows that has filthy moments in it, but I didn’t notice at the time. My dad would giggle, my mum would look embarrassed and I’d be confused. Whats new there?

They also dubbed the monsters too scary. For the Daily Mail, the solution was to praise the Davies era for replacing scare with drama, and bashing the Moffat era for digging out the old Doctor Who tricks.

I don’t get the complaint. Mainly as I watch Doctor Who every week with two kids aged four and seven, and neither of them feel the fear. Neither of them thought “Amy wants to pump the Doctor!” There was no stripping of their innocence or filth in their minds, they saw the simplest thing – so whats wrong with that?

Another thing to consider is the audience. The show was initially written for kids, but as the audience and fanbase grew, it became a more family orientated show with something for everyone. In it’s 2005 return it seemed ot have that same theme, but delved into more of a high octane adventure for kids with the cheery antics of Tennant’s incarnation of the Doctor. The problem is that even since its return, that audience has grown up five years and although it’s still marketed towards kids, Moffat is obviously being more aware that there are more than ten year olds in the audience.

So in short – The Daily Mail are still idiots. Anyone who pays money for the shambles of a newspaper deserve shooting.

I’ve noticed a lot of debate on reality versus fantasy recently and with SyFy promoting Caprica as more accessible by hiding the fact it’s a science fiction show, it prompted me to ask a question when Majik made a comment to the Galaxy Quest post.

With the theme of the Geeky List thing here, it’s no great secret that these days I’m all about the drama aspect of science fiction. Watching Ben Sisko struggle with a controversial decision, Adama giving Tigh chance after chance despite his mistakes and addiction, Sam Tyler (good name) trying to understand if he’s time travelling or going insane… or even a more mainstream idea of Marty McFly going back in time and trying to make sure his parents kiss on that dance floor…

But what about the science element of science fiction? Lost was officially bundled into the science fiction category once the survivors began to shift throughout time. When Desmond shifted there was a ‘sort of’ explanation. When they began jumping through time at random intervals, there was no explanation whatsoever. Is just having a time travel element enough? Or should there be a more logical explanation to it for it to be properly science fiction?

The thing that turns me off Science Fiction is the fiction element. I’m one of the seeming minority that just can’t watch Dr Who without wanting to chew the power cable of the TV in the hope that silence and death arrive at the same time to save me from evil Wheelie bins, Daleks that weigh just over 30 lbs and a screwdriver that seems to have inherited the “Superman effect”. Give me something based on science boundaries being pushed, and I’m fascinated – the moment reality is a dot on the horizon, I’m lost…
-Majik

And I see where he’s coming from entirely. Me, I’m more interested in the dramatic opportunities. Voyager had a character that was a hologram. There was a technical explanation and often technical episodes where there was a problem to be fixed which would give a more in depth look at how this sophisticated piece of science theory would come together… but the key t the episodes would be heavily based on ‘how does this effect the character’? Which is a valid point thats been around in sci fi for ages.

Is the machine alive? Can a machine have consciousness? The Next Generation really hit home on this with Measure of a Man – an episode which questioned the very being of a machine – but has there been too much focus on the emotional elements and not enough on the hard science?

The science was in part what dragged me into Trek in the first place. The technomagic was often unobtainable bullshit but it was all based on actual theory that people were either working on, or have worked on since. I’m still amazed they’ve came up with Geordies Visor and the Tricorder – even though both are extremely low tech in comparison.

Unfortunately they went too far by the time of Voyager and it was swaying to the side of bullshit more than theory and ‘Borg Nanoprobes’ became the same magic wand the sonic screwdriver had when RTD was writing Who. That made me appreciate the Who-isms more, I suddenly loved the anti-technobabble that some shows had user as overkill and dealing with transdimensional residue by calling it ’stuff’ and the ‘timey wimey detector, goes ding when there’s stuff’ type lines just began to amuse me.

When I’m writing it I have my own limited knowledge and reference books from some brilliant authors and scientists, one of whom does Trek science books which is brilliant for my time killing hobby, but I always try and put that in a realistic setting. In Next Gen, LeVar Burton tried to make the technobabble realistic by saying it as fast as he possibly could, as if he was speeding through the thoughts in his mind instead of making the words sound complex and awe inspiring. I like to remind myself of an engineer I know… he doesn’t spout off technobabble or lose you in thought, he knows what he’s doing… and thats all that matters to him.

I think theres room for both hard science and magical fantasy in sci fi – but more recently I’ve been interested in story and character more than challenging concepts. They’re good for the odd film or episode – Se7en was a good film, for example, but not every production could be like that and the less there are, the more special the film is – but overkill on something that’ll make you think is not enough to keep the audience emotionally interested, which is the main key to the current generation of TV – which is somewhat a sad thing to say.

Life on Mars is a good example. There was a sci fi element, but it wasn’t obvious… the story was more about the man and his struggle with the changes around him. BSG was less about the science and more about the personal struggles and overall story of being the last of humanity on the run. So I think I’m leaning towards the SF Drama more than anything these days…

But again, what about the science? Is it important to a story how the Doctor manages to regenerate? Or how the warp drive works? Does it really matter to the plot? Not often.

But how much bullshit can you spout before science fiction becomes science fantasy? Is the concept of time travel or the setting of a space ship enough to carry the science element, or is it important for the writers to know, or at least convey some sense of knowledge of how these things work and make us open our mind and question it – as Star Trek has done to many kids who are now scientists – or wave a magic screwdriver and just say ‘it works because it does’.

Arthur C Clarke said you can’t write science fiction without knowing anything about science. More recently shows have focused on personal elements and our own lead sci fi, Doctor Who, often see’s it’s science as magic that will be dull if delved into.

I know there’s a lot of you out there who are sci fi fans, have wonderful minds better than my own when it comes to how things work (like Maj) and those of you who just love to be entertained. And I’m in the middle of fantasy versus reality, so…

Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Does it even matter anymore? What do you think?

I haven’t done a retro-review type thing in a while and so I’m going to focus on a film that’s probably one of the best Star Trek movies made, this one features Tim Allen in the captains chair as he finds himself in the middle of an intergalactic incident. Yes, Tim Allen. No, not really Star Trek.

The film is based around a group of actors from a dead TV Show. Much like the real stars of sci fi television they’re doing the convention circuits and just like the Shatners and Hamils couldn’t escape their cult fame, neither can this fictional cast who are ever to be known as the guys in funny suits on that space ship from that TV show people used to watch and now laugh at.

Problem is, not everyone knows their stories are works of fiction and some nearby aliens in distress have come to Earth to search for the crew believing that their TV show was reality. So they head to a convention to take the captain to a replica of his ship they’ve built for him so that he’ll speak to their enemies and end a brutal war on them.

With only a superfan to help guide them from the ground, the actors muddle through their mission and try to save the day – this time for real.

The casting for this was brilliant. Despite me not being a fan of his comedic endeavers most of the time, Allen nailed this role taking the piss out of William Shatner, who mentioned years later on Raw Nerve that he loved the parody. And he’s he full parody. The character he plays, Captain Taggart, is a womaniser who’s shirt will fall off with the slghtest scrape and he immerses himself in his fans who see him as a joke of his former self.

Alien star Sigourney Weaver joined the fun as the fictional shows Uhural but for me the standout performance is Alan Rickman’s portrayal of Sir Alexander Dane/Dr. Lazerus, the Spock of the show. A classically trained actor who resents his television role and how it’s typecast him since the show was cancelled.

Like most other Rickman role’s he’s just absolutely wonderful at the comedic and witty bitterness and steals any scene he’s in. But considering the Shatner-Nimoy rivalry, I’m not entirely sure that’s an accident.

The film was one of the best parodies I’ve ever seen. Not only that, it was just plain fun. But let’s look at the opinions of the objects of the affectionate humour…

I had originally not wanted to see Galaxy Quest because I heard that it was making fun of Star Trek and then Jonathan Frakes rang me up and said “You must not miss this movie! See it on a Saturday night in a full theatre”. And I did and of course I found it was brilliant. Brilliant. No one laughed louder or longer in the cinema than I did, but the idea that the ship was saved and all of our heroes in that movie were saved simply by the fact that there were fans who did understand the scientific principles on which the ship worked was absolutely wonderful. And it was both funny and also touching in that it paid tribute to the dedication of these fans
-Patrick Stewart

I think it’s a chillingly realistic documentary ! The details in it, I recognized every one of them. It is a powerful piece of documentary filmmaking. And I do believe that when we get kidnapped by aliens, it’s going to be the genuine, true Star Trek fans who will save the day. … I was rolling in the aisles. And Tim Allen had that Shatner-esque swagger down pat. And I roared when the shirt came off, and Sigourney rolls her eyes and says, ‘There goes that shirt again.’ … How often did we hear that on the set?
-George Takei

If you’re a fan of Star Trek – or sci fi in general – whether you’re a convention goer or a casual watcher, or are even caught up in the nostalgic novelty of old productions, you’ll get the inside gags. If not, you’ll be entertained by it all anyway.

So go watch it…

…or I’ll send Worf out to eat you.

In a recent blog that upset many, and had quite a few comments I deleted to save some people the sheer embarrassment of airing their self loathing to the world, I had a dig at some of the extremes of Fandom that were spoiling it for the sane members of the audience.

But there’s another group of self loathing and shameful people that get on my nerves. Those who fear their tastes and the source of their enjoyment fear that’s the reason they don’t have a girlfriend.

It’s something that often pops up on places like wrestling fan forum UKFF. Usually it’s a small comment along the same tired theme. A proclamation that a new wrestling shirt issued by WWE’s merchandise department is nice, but they wouldn’t wear it in public as the world would then know they watch wrestling.

Oh noes!

In fact, it’s generally said the only wrestling shirts they’d wear are the ones n which it doesn’t necessarily look like a wrestling shirt. Just something they might buy out of TK Maxx, Topman or any other retailer I never visit.

On TrekBBS I read something similar over the holidays with some proclaiming that their geeky passtimes are the reason they’re single. Things crossed over on UKFF when a thread on geeky things we own became filled with comments pointing out that the reason they never took a girl back home was because they’d be mocked for having a DVD with a wrestler on the front and other silly things.

When are people going to learn, it’s not the passtimes, possessions, TV habits or anything like that that’s preventing these people from having a life. It’s them. Their self loathing, charisma vaccum personalities.

In my line of vision I can see two Enterprise’s, a set of sonic and laser screwdrivers, Star Trek cologne, geeky box sets, wrestling figures and more. The house I love in also has signed autographs on the walls from sci fi and fantasy actors, as well as wrestlers, and I even own costumes. Yes, I own some. I openly discuss my interests and hobbies, everyone and their targ knows I’m a Star Trek fan and I watch wrestling. I don’t include it in an introduction, but I don’t go out of my way to hide it. I wear a wrestling hat almost every time I go outside! Not geeky enough? Look around this site.

Yet I’m someone who’s barely been single for a few weeks since high school and I’m reasonably well liked, well I better be otherwise I’m going to do some leg breaking.

One of the guys who trained me in pro wrestling, Conscience… he’s a former Scottish and British Heavyweight Champion. He likes setting people on fire for fun. He’s seen as a big scary monster, both when he gets into character and when he’s out on the piss. He’s an authoritive and respected figure who some genuinely do fear as he can beat the shit out of you with ease. He’s a biker and he fits that stereotype to some extent.

He’s also got a cast photo from Star Trek VI on his wall with him superimposed beside Dr McCoy and quotes Star Trek and Red Dwarf on a regular basis. His catchphrase before he retired was a line from Red Dwarf and he not only has a Dalek keyring, he made himself a key with a perception filter from Last of the Time Lords!

Surely by the standards set from some people on the internet, he and I should be living in my mums spare room, weigh 320lbs and I should destined to be alone and crying myself to sleep every night dreaming of the day Tricia Helfer would agree to bear my child.

As much as I can’t understand the severe obsession some have when it comes to their fandom, I don’t get the shame some have. Is you’re life so empty that you’ll live in severe denial of yourself in order to impress other people? Or are you afraid of the old high school bullying or stereotyping for being a geek? If thats the case, you’re only helping to enforce the stereotype.

I’ll echo my previous sentiments. Whats wrong with just enjoying what you enjoy? Or does knowing what a reverse ratcheting router is severely hold you back in your life enough that you have to pretend to be something else?

Explain this to me, because I just don’t get it.

I’ve mentioned this before, what with the backlash some extreme Star Trek fans had for a new movie before it had even been released, but considering recent events where some feel the need to stalk me on twitter to prove they’re not mental, their failed efforts have encouraged me to post what I see the difference is between being a fan… and being completely barking mental.

I see nothing wrong with being a fan of anyone, or anything. For example, I’m a fan of people. It’s well known I’m a big fan of pro wrestler Raven, I even nicked his pose. I’ve met Raven at one of his seminars and talked to him about this very subject. Do I hold that moment close to me, assume he’d remember me and hope that he’ll read this and mark out over me? No. Do I hope that we can be life long friends, that he’ll share with me the love I have for him? No. Do I love him? Again, no. I’m not a mental.

Katee Sackhoff or Nicole deBoer? Yes, I’m a fan of their work. I’d even go as far to say I’m a fan of their hotness. Do I love them and wish I could get close with them, we’ll have a special relationship and be special to each other? No. If I’m bored, I’ll have a special moment with myself and Google image search and get on with the rest of my day.

Being a fan of something, or someone, is a nod of appreciation. You like them, they’ve done a good job. Well done. Nathan Fillion. I’d say he’s a pretty good actor. I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve seen him in and if I see his face in an ad or name in the credits. I’ll watch it. If he’s going to be at a con, I’ll consider going over and saying hello. Share a joke, have a giggle, take the piss then I’ll go eat a burger.

I did that with Casey Biggs. I’m a big fan of his role in Deep Space Nine. I met hm, had a chat, went for a smoke and a burger. I even had a photo taken with him. And was geeked up. Will he remember me? No. Should I expect him to? No.

Being a fan isn’t a bad thing. Meeting someone who’s work you admire or respect, also, not a bad thing. Outside of geekdom, the average Joe does it all the time with footballers. It’s when they expect more from their fandom they cross the line from average geek, to insanity.

If I were Nathan Fillion and I came cross a fan site, I’d be flattered. I might even have a little giggle. If I read on and read comments about loving me, having deep desires for me and other bizarre things. I’d be terrified. If that person said it to my face, and I’d never met them. I’d smile, nod and hope never to cross their path again and possibly have a restraining order put against them.

It’s not healthy. And it’s often a substitute for having a life so ordinary, so mundane and so unfulfilling that they try and fill that void with something else. Something pathetic. In a way I feel sorry for them, but at the same time, they’re scary, scary beasts.

In the big picture, I’m no one. At all. In the slightest. I’ve had fans who come to a show, ask for an autograph, aprecate the work. Some who comment positively and negatively on forums and in person. I apreciate every one of them for coming along and I’m glad they had fun.

Then I’ve had those types of fans. The crazies. I’ve had a fan who created a little fantasy world around me, told everyone that I was her lover, posted on my company’s forum telling everyone about our imagined illicit affair and she even claimed to be carrying my baby. Is that normal? No, it is fucking not.

The other type of fan I hate are the superfan elitists. These come in subtle forms, and extreme forms of superiority complex idiocy.

The subtle forms are easy to spot, and make you roll your eyes immediatly. “I’ve been a fan of Doctor Who for years, and I think it sucked so I must be right.” As if their longevity of a fan overrules your opinion. This came into play a lot when Star Trek was released last year. All sorts came out of the woodwork to declare they were fans since the 60′s, that they’de seen every episode and this was a horrible, horrible movie.

Of course, that was before anyone had even seen the movie and there are still those type of people posting online that still haven’t seen the movie and are trying to tear it apart. Because they know better.

The more extreme fanatics will of course make no qualms about pointing out they know better. That their opinion rules above all. They’ll tell you this directly, bash everything about you, try to tear you apart because you dared to like something they didn’t. They don’t care about being in the minority, they only care about being right.

That too, is not healthy. Not just from a debate standpoint, but it’s just psychotic the level of ‘devotion’ these people give to a TV show. It’s a TV show! You’re the ones William Shatner were talking about when he said his immortal line ‘Get a life’.

Those types of fans rip the fun out of everything. They turn a piece of entertainment, regardless of it’s content, into the word of God. Those are the types that alienated the Star Trek fanbase into the basement dwelling geek stereotypes while the less anal Star Wars fans ruled.

I’ll use recent commenter and master of the geeky top ten, Marty Michaels as an example. He hates Dark Knight. I like Dark Knight. I prefer Deep Space Nine, he prefers Voyager. I like the Tenth Doctor, he doesn’t. I like Star Trek 11 and think it gets better every time. He thought it was alright and that it doesn’t stand up to multiple viewings. I dislike Star Wars. He likes Star Wars.

Are we going to fall out over it? Do we put each other down, or think of ourselves as better than each other for our different views? No, we’re not idiots. We talk about what we like and dislike, sometimes at great length and my phone bill will sky rocket with texts flying back and force about new BSG versus old BSG. But we’re not moronic enough to think that our views rule above all.

Those who do, well… it’s insanity. Why do these people hold up a TV show as gospel? Who is arrogant enough to believe his opinion is the only one that matters?

What about the rest? Who would say their in love with an actor and not realise they are absolutely bonkers? Who devotes their life to someone instead of living their own?

I’m a geek, a terrible geek, and I extend my old job of dressing up like a prick as an excuse to create costumes and dress up as a prick alongside many others dressing up as pricks. Occasionally they’ll be a Princess Liea costume and life suddenly makes so much sense. I enjoy certain sci fi shows, wrestling and more…

But I have my limits. Being a fan of someone, something, is not a bad thing. The superfans and the crazies go beyond those limits.

Time for a bitch. Right, I’ve been made aware of some idiots leaving comments on another site. It isn’t my site. I have nothing to do with it. But I do host it through Coma White and I’m getting rather annoyed with it. So, here’s my thoughts on the matter…

The Eye of Raven collects and re-posts science fiction news. This is a non profit site and is a hobby to the owner. Some people appreciate the effort to read all the news in one go, Phoenix Rising and GBBS users especially love it, some people take issue with it. It’s the people who are pitching a fit that are the ones who have recently got under my skin.

This started when Raven re-posted screen caps that someone else had posted on a respected and revered news source. Livejournal. The post was basically from someone who said “I have something I’m not supposed to show anyone, I’m going to show off screen caps and I’m not showing off the video, phnar!”

Raven re-posted, some girl (and I use that term loosely, she looks like a deformed, retarded swamp creature) got their granny panties in a twist. Apparently she didn’t have the original posters permission, who posted some stuff that they didn’t have the right to post in the first place? What? Those images belong to SyFy and just for they very fact they changed their name to SyFy… they can go fuck themelves.

More importantly, like anything on that site, it’s from open public places who merrily share their stuff, most encourage it, and the vital thing – everything’s fully credited. Despite this she’s been called all sorts of things, the most prominent being ‘plagiarist’.

Plagiarism is basically passing someone elses work off as your own. If someone did that to me, I’d break their fucking legs. Plagarism is not “I found this post at http://somecuntssite.com, have a look.” which is what Raven does. So… frak up.

Secondly, not one author has specifically asked her to stop or take anything down. And these people are very much aware of her re-posting. Like I said, most encourage the sharing. If reposting news was a criminal offense, 95% of wrestling news sites would go under.

The only people who are complaining are the fan girls. Sorry, Fan Monsters. Yes, the fat lonely pathetic girls online who gush at the very thought of James Callis looking in their general direction and believe, with all their hearts, that he wants to marry them and have little swamp babies. Worse than having nothing to do with it and getting on their soapbox? Bitching about something they do on their very own sites. And even worse than that? Writing their name as ‘pissed off’ and their address ‘john.smith@hotmail.com.

If you’re going to bitch, have the guts to do it openly little Miss Queensland.

Whats more important to me is this… those of you who read this site, some of whom have taken me aside to have a little girly cry about things I’ve posted, will know full well that I post what I want because this is my site, I can do what the fuck I like with it and if you don’t like it you can Fuck a Jesus.

Ravens site is her site. She can do what she wants with it. Also, it’s my server. She’s not breaking any laws, etiquette or server rules (I know, I made the rules) and she’s not even hotlinking. I know this because, again, my server… I see what she’s doing.

So for those of you this rant is targeted at, read carefully.

1) James Callis doesn’t love you. He won’t remember you. I’ve signed a fraction of the autographs he has in a day and I don’t remember anyones faces. Him remembering someone? No chance. Plus, I’ve seen your faces, it’s probably best he forget.

2) My server, my rules. No rules or laws have been broken. Shut it.

3) Whatever issue you have, you’re clearly good at eating through your pain. Stop wasting my bandwidth with your stalking to bitch attitudes and go eat a donut.

4) Fuck a Jesus.