Tim Drake's coming out: Why it matters for some fans and why it shouldn't matter for others.

 

This week, Tim Drake/Robin was confirmed as bisexual in an issue of Batman: Urban Legends. The move was widely praised by most, however, some fans have been more critical. I thought I would spend some time discussing why this matters so much to some fans and why it really shouldn't for others. Much of the issue has to do with the ongoing conflict between "curative" and "transformative" fandoms. These two categories were first described by an individual known only as lordbyronic in a 2015 reddit post and, while both contain some broad generalizations they are useful for discussing certain attitudes among fans. In short, transformative fans seek to make their favorite fictional worlds more inclusive and push for more characters from underrepresented groups. Curative fans are the historians. And, while they are not inherently opposed to more diversity and inclusiveness, they are primarily concerned with preserving what has come before and, generally speaking, are opposed to changing previously established characters or stories. 

So, why does Tim Drake's coming out matter for the transformative fan? As I mentioned before, those on the curative side aren't opposed to diversity and so they might argue that, rather than 'changing' Tim, DC should have put more effort into promoting characters who had already been established as LGBTQ+. They might argue: "Instead of making Robin gay, why not focus on Apollo and Midnighter?" The problem with this? Apollo and Midnighter aren't ROBIN. Even if he isn't the original, Tim Drake is still a major, longtime supporting character in what is, arguably, DC's biggest franchise (Batman). This alone gives him far more visibility than characters like Apollo and  Midnighter who are probably unknown to many casual fans. Another problem with characters like Apollo and Midnighter, and even Batwoman/Kate Kane, who are introduced as gay characters is that, unfortunately, it becomes a defining characteristic. It is part of their description. Try explaining Apollo and Midnighter to someone without basically saying, "they're Superman and Batman analogues only they are also a gay couple." Even a character as well done and nuanced as Kate Kane will generally have their sexuality mentioned sooner rather than later in describing them. In Kate's case, her sexuality plays a crucial role in her origin story. As you can see, having a character who is both well known and established has advantages. They not only have greater visibility but, because they are already established, their sexuality becomes part of the character rather than a defining characteristic.

And why shouldn't this matter this matter to the curative fan? First off, I'm a big fan of Tim Drake. He's my favorite Robin and the one that held the mantle when I began actively reading comics as a kid. He's often referred to as "the smart one" amongst the Robins. I like to think of Batman's various sidekicks over the years as being reflections of certain aspects of the Dark Knight himself. If the original Robin, Dick Grayson, is Batman's kindness and Jason Todd, Tim's immediate predecessor, is his anger, then Tim is his brains. After all, his origin story is that he was smart enough to deduce the identities of Batman and Robin. It is often suggested in the comics that Tim will one day (and may even already be) a better detective than Batman. While he isn't the natural leader that Dick Grayson is, he has shown himself to be a brilliant tactician and fully capable of taking a leadership role when necessary.  Also, as he is (at least not initially) orphaned by criminals, he tends to be a bit more well adjusted than his predecessors. These are the traits that truly define the character..... and none of them are in any way contingent on his sexuality.

Unlike Dick Grayson, who has long history as a bit of a "Ladies Man" or womanizer (something he was recently called out for), Tim's sexual orientation is not an intrinsic part of his character. Many disgruntled fans are asking, "why did they make Robin bi?" when the better question would be, "Is there any reason he can't  be?" Yes, his depicted romances up until this point have always been with women but is there any reason he might not also be attracted to men? Since he is bisexual, none of this undoes previously established stories. Tim can still have dated Stephanie Brown (Spoiler), it's just that we now know he may have also been checking out Connor Kent (Superboy). So, nothing, in fact, has actually changed about the character, another dimension has simply been added. It's like finding out an old friend you've known for years has a hobby or interest that you didn't know about before; they're still the same person, you just know a little more about them. If you feel you are no longer able to "identify" with the character because he is no longer the same sexuality as you, that probably says a lot more about you than it does the character (also, do you think LGBTQ+ fans only 'relate' to LGBTQ+ characters? Can you imagine not being able to 'relate' to 99% of the characters in comics? Do you honestly think they are like, "Peter Parker is cool and all but, since he's straight, I can't relate to him as a character"). 

This isn't the first time DC or even the Batman franchise, has revealed characters to be bisexual. The on-again-off again relationship of Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy has been an established part of the characters for over twenty years. Both characters had previously been depicted in heterosexual relationships. Hell, Ivy's whole thing from her inception was as a seductress of men. So, remember, today's retcon is tomorrow's canon. It is also worth noting that, many of those grumbling about Tim Drake (largely straight males), were far more accepting of the Harley/Ivy reveal. So, maybe they're only able to accept changes in characters when the results are appealing to their personal fantasies. 

Some Thoughts on The Last Jedi...

First of all, I absolutely loved The Last Jedi--- I have seen it 3 times and it keeps getting better with each subsequent viewing. So, I think what I'll do is address some of the most common complaints from the 'haters' out there.

1. The film drags in the middle

This is probably the most legitimate complaint; at a full two and a half hours, this is the longest Star Wars movie ever--- and it feels like it. And, in all honesty, some fat could have been trimmed. Unlike others, I do not think entire sequences or plotlines should be cut, it's more a matter of a few minutes here and there--- 15 minutes could have made a significant difference. This complaint is usually coupled with ....

2. The Canto Bight storyline is pointless

True. The reasoning for going requires a diagram BUT that's not important; this is a 'McGuffin'--- it is just an excuse to do a few other things:

1. Give us another fun, new locale to explore--- as the best Star Wars movies have always done.
2. Give Finn the opportunity to interact with characters other than Rey or Poe
3. Give Finn an opportunity to further develop (more on this later)
4. Allow us to learn more about Rose's character
5. To learn more about the universe outside of the war between the First Order and the Resistance
6. To introduce DJ--- which leads to ...

3. DJ is pointless...

Nope. He plays a key role in Finn's evolution as a character. Finn's temptation is not 'to join the darkside' but to just stay out of the fray altogether. DJ embodies that .

4. Finn doesn't grow as a character.

Yes, he does.  At the beginning of the film, Finn is still running away. He fights for the resistance not because he believes in their cause because they are convenient for him. He is willing to fight for Rey, his friend, but is not willing to sacrifice for a larger cause. After his Canto Bight adventure with Rose, he sees more of what the First Order has done and who the resistance is fighting for so, by the end, he is willing to sacrifice (until Rose stops him) himself for the larger cause.

5. Plot lines don't from The Force Awakens don't pay off

No, they just don't pay off in ways that we were expecting--- which I personally find refreshing.  Think about the alternative theories that were bandied about regarding Rey's parentage:

• She is Luke's daughter (boring and predictable)
• Han and Leia's daughter who was somehow forgotten/hidden (still kinda predictable)
• Luke's clone (from his severed hand)--- kinda dumb
• a clone of the Palpatine or Anakin --- silly.
• A Kenobi --- One of the more interesting ideas but one that would require far too much explanation. 

Also, I urge you to re-watch The Force Awakens; knowing what we know now about Rey's parents, what we learn in The Last Jedi is the only thing that makes sense. There were as many, if not more, clues to her parents being nobody than to them being somebody.  It also gives new meaning to certain moments--- when Han offers her a job he, he doesn't do it because of who she is but rather what she is capable of.... He is legitimately impressed with her abilities as a pilot/mechanic, not to mention being pretty good in a fight.  His respect from him is earned based on merit--- not given because of heritage. Also, it's still possible that Kylo Ren was lying and there is a truth still hidden somewhere... we didn't know about Luke & Leia (or even for certain the Vader was Luke's father) until Return of the Jedi. 

As for those complaining about Snoke not being explained/fleshed out; how much did we know about the Emperor in Return of the Jedi? Was learning about his rise to power in the prequels really crucial? Did it make his role in the original trilogy any more important? If you're really curious, you can buy the book/comic/whatever that ultimately explains his origin. 

6. Admiral Holdo is unneccessary

In hindsight, it would be easy to say it would have been better to have Leia fill this role and thus give Carrie Fisher a fitting exit to the franchise, however, they didn't know she was going to die when they were making the movie.  And, presumably, they had plans to use the character prominently in Episode IX (in fact, if this had been the plan, each of the original three would have been the most prominent 'elder' character in the reverse of the order they were introduced in the original Star Wars). 

However, as the film stands, she is a crucial plot of Poe's storyline.  When Leia is incapacitated, Poe seems to be under the impression that he will take over leadership of the resistance--- so it is an affront to him that Holdo is chosen to lead instead. Some have said a 'known' character like Admiral Ackbar would have been better used in this capacity rather than introducing a new character but, remember, to most movie goers, Admiral Ackbar isn't really that well known--- or, even worse, he's a meme. It would be harder to take his sacrifice seriously... or it would at least lack the weight that it needed.

7. Rey doesn't really grow as a character

True, but, to an extent, her own story kind of takes a backseat to Luke's in this film. Also, most of her story this time around is her search for answers about her parents. When the truth is finally revealed (or, rather, when she finally accepts the truth), she doesn't have time to process this yet and we will only see how this will ultimately affect her in the final film.

8. The humor feels 'out of place' for a Star Wars film

Usually the complaint isn't that the jokes aren't funny but that they are too 'meta' and thus do not fit with the tone of a Star Wars movie.  Maybe, but the prequels already burst that bubble.  Phantom Menance had fart jokes and Jar Jar Binks.  Oh, and let's not forget Greg Proop's announcer for the Pod Race; nothing has ever ruined the tone of a Star Wars film more than this. Attack of the Clones funniest moment was Obi-Wan's abuse of the 'Jedi Mind Trick' ("You don't want to sell me death sticks"). If that wasn't a 'meta' joke I don't know what is. And, if given the choice between farts and Jar Jar and things being a bit meta, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the latter.

Look, there are now two whole generations that grew up with this movies. We watched them over and over and these jokes are not all that different than the jokes we came up with ourselves --- many times bringing levity to subjects that the movies themselves were a bit too precious with.  This is, I think, one of the more positive developments in the latest evolution of the franchise.  

8. They 'ruined' Luke Skywalker

I think this complaint mostly relies on those who have either built up the stature of Luke Skywalker in their own minds or who have read the continued adventures of the character in various spin-off media where he, presumably, becomes the bravest, wisest, most powerful Jedi ever--- to paraphrase Mark Hamill, "that was never my Luke Skywalker."  For many of us who wanted to be Luke Skywalker when we were kids, there came a point were  we sort of... well.... we outgrew the character. We decided Han Solo was cooler. Luke became a whiny douche who, granted, whined a lot less in Return of the Jedi but, by no means was he what one of my students would refer to as 'a typical badass'. So, for me, it isn't a stretch that he might be living as a hermit who has walked away from the world.  Also, it's important to point out, just for the sake of storytelling, Luke needs to be reluctant to train Rey. It's far more interesting than: "Please train me" "Ok, I will train you." 

As for those who say Luke would never be tempted to murder his own nephew in his sleep--- on the one hand, perhaps you're right; the Luke Skywalker from dozens of books and comics over the years may have developed into a perfect zen person who never has a bad thought.  The Luke of the films is a little more flawed than that.  His entire story arc through Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi deals, at least in part, with his own temptations to join the dark side. 

Another argument I heard was that Luke was the one man who believed that Darth Vader, the worst person in the galaxy, could be returned to the light and he never gave up on him and, ultimately, redeemed him would never be tempted to murder someone--- even to save others. Once again, go back and watch Return of the Jedi; sure, he believed his father could be redeemed but, as soon as his father threatened his sister, he goes at him lightsaber  blazing and doesn't let up until Vader is down a hand. Sure, he ultimately spares his life... but he shows that he is just as capable of taking it.

As for him being a badass, that final stand off is the most badass thing any Jedi has done in an Star Wars movie as far as I'm concerned.  That completely and fully redeems him and shows his total transformation from the whiny kid who just wanted "to go into Toshi station to pick up some power converters".

Spider-Man: Homecoming does everything a Spider-Man movie can....

There's a very small moment about one hour into Spider-Man: Homecoming where Peter Parker, about to swing off in pursuit of the Vulture, gazes longingly through a skylight at Liz, the girl of his dreams, and the rest of his school's academic decathlon team as they sneak a dip in the the hotel's pool the night before the next day's competition. This moment perfectly encapsulates what is at the heart of the best Spider-Man stories:  Peter Parker's desire to just be another guy, to pursue his own happiness, clashing with what he feels is a moral obligation to be Spider-Man and save the day. No retelling of the origin and speeches extolling "power and responsibility" are necessary; the look on Peter's face in this scene as he sighs, puts on his mask, and swings off into the night tell us all we need to know.

In fact, Homecoming dispenses with a lot of the material that has been tread and retread in previous Spider-Man movies. The result is a Spider-Man movie that is neither an origin story nor follow-up to a previous installment.  We simply get to see Spider-Man being Spider-man and doing Spider-Man things.  The filmmakers are banking on the fact that, like Superman or Batman, Spider-Man is a character whose origin is already known to the vast majority of the audience: boy bitten by spider  gets spider powers, uses them for his own gain, refuses to stop a thief, thief murders his beloved Uncle Ben,  "With great  power yada yada yada".  The result is a film that joins our hero's tale in medias res.  We don't know exactly how events unfolded for this version of the character, whether the Spider that bit him was radioactive or genetically modified or how directly responsible he is for the death of his Uncle Ben (In fact, Ben's role in Peter's origin is so understood that he isn't even mentioned in the film). Instead, we hit the ground running with Spider-Man's pursuit of a group of crooks selling hi-tech, alien hybrid weapons.

The main goal with Homecoming then becomes introducing this specific iteration of Spider-Man to the world of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  The title Homecoming is itself a reference to the character finally joining the MCU after having his rights tied up at Sony (a deal was worked out where Marvel Studios will produce future Spidey films and Sony will retain distribution for the character's solo outings). Some might quibble that Spider-Man doesn't get his own first installment to himself; Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark not only designs the 'smart' spidey suit that Peter sports for most of the film but he shows up no less than 3 times to rescue, lecture, and, finally, congratulate Spider-Man. Oddly, this interaction with the larger marvel world is not something unusual to Spider-Man stories. After all, Amazing Spider-Man 1 (the character's second appearance after his debut in Amazing Fantasy 15) features Peter's unsuccessful attempt to join the Fantastic Four (not unlike his aspirations to become an Avenger in Homecoming).

Also, since the filmmakers decided to avoid doing an 'origin' story, Homecoming becomes much more like the second installments of the various sub-franchises of the MCU.  Iron Man 2 featured Nick Fury more prominently and introduced Black Widow and War Machine, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is just as much about Nick Fury, Black Widow, and SHIELD as it is about the titular character (and it also introduces the Falcon). Cap and Iron Man needed their first installments to themselves; they're less familiar to an audience unfamiliar with comics. They need a proper introduction before they begin interacting with the larger MCU.  Spider-Man, as I have already mentioned, needs no introduction so he gets to dive right in and establish where he stands in the MCU.

And where does he stand?  Kind of near the bottom as it turns out.  Tom Holland's Peter Parker is younger than previous versions (15 years old). As a result, he is an inexperienced and imperfect hero. He makes mistakes.  He can be impulsive and his tendency to rush in can sometimes end up creating a bigger mess than if he had simply not gotten involved.  At one point, Tony Stark effectively 'grounds' him.  While, in the public conscious, Spider-Man looms larger than the Avengers; in the MCU he isn't quite in the same league as the Avengers ( actually, this is also true for much of the character's history in the comics--- he didn't become a full-fledged Avenger until 2002 or so).  He's not the strongest or most skilled character in the MCU, but he fights harder than anyone to stop the bad guy when he must. It's the character's vulnerability that makes him the most relatable in the Marvel (or any other) Universe.  It's not that he never gets beaten, it's the fact that he never gives up.  Homecoming  perfectly captures this and, in one of the film's most moving sequences, pays homage to this classic moment from Amazing Spider-Man 33 (perhaps one of the most noteworthy examples of Peter's perseverance when the odds are against him):

As a stand alone film, Homecoming might not work quite as well as, say, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. The movie depends a bit too much on MCU continuity and the audience's previous familiarity with Spider-Man.  HOWEVER, the film has given us the best on-screen iteration of the character of Peter Parker/Spider-Man.  Now that the character has been fully integrated into the MCU, future installments can, hopefully, dispense with the guest appearances and crossovers and give us a movie that is all Spider-Man all the time.

Wonder Woman is Good... Very Good....

While Wonder Woman is not exactly a cinematic masterpiece, nor does it manage to transcend the superhero genre as The Dark Knight or the even more transcendent, barely-a-superhero-movie-at-all Logan, it does stand head and shoulders above all of the so-called 'DC Expanded Universe' movies (if you haven't been keeping track: Man of Steel, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, and (Academy Award Winning!) Suicide Squad ).  Not only that, after Batman (1989), Christopher Reeve's first two Superman outings, and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, it is the best offering from DC to date (granted, after those films, the standards are pretty low).

Full disclosure: I've never been a big Wonder Woman fan. Apart from watching the Linda Carter show as a very young child, I've never really had all that much interest in the character. In fact, I was more eagerly anticipating Marvel's first female led entry, Captain Marvel (featuring the wonderful Brie Larson in the titular role). However, as Wonder Woman is THE female superhero (she's not quite the first as there are a couple of other much more obscure characters that can claim that title), it is only fitting that she got there first.  And, get there she did!

Granted, the bar has been set pretty low for the DCEU movies and my own expectations for the movie were quite low but Wonder Woman is exactly what it needs to be: good 'ol fashioned summer blockbuster fun.  Of course, in terms of the action, Zack Snyder is still producing, so there's a lot of slow motion, 3D ready posing; however, Patty Jenkins keeps it to a minimum and it isn't quite as fatiguing as it has been in many recent films. It also keeps a lighter tone in contrast to the dreariness of Snyder's entries in the series and, in fact, is the most hopeful and optimistic of the films (something which all superhero fare should strive for; superheroes are about aspiration, not grim realism).

Most importantly, unlike Snyder's Ayn Randian Superman and alcoholic Batman who uses guns (even if it's only in dreams), Wonder Woman is absolutely true to the ethos of the character.  Wonder Woman goes back to many of Charles Moulton Marston's original ideas for the character (while, thankfully, avoiding the creepy, bondage/S &M overtones):  she is a warrior for peace who seeks to teach mankind to love instead of hate (Marston was a feminist who believed the world would be a better place if women were in charge).

Gal Gadot is perfect in the role.  In addition to the  more superficial qualities of simply looking the part, she achieves the ideal combination of compassion and fierceness that the character needs to work.  Chris Pine, meanwhile, is clearly content to sit back and be the eye candy for the audience.

Wonder Woman takes it cues from the best in terms of superheroic origin stories; both Superman: The Movie and Batman Begins were clear influences.  Those films take their time to build their characters, waiting until about an hour into the film before we get to see the hero finally don their iconic costume and leap into action, so does Wonder Woman (in fact, one could argue that it is kind of slow, but only in terms of the breakneck pace established by most recent action films. So, in this case, that isn't exactly a bad thing).

As Diana, Princess of Themyscira, has a lot more in common with  the Man of Steel than the Dark Knight, it's fitting that some of the most blatant homages are to the former rather than the latter. Note the similarity of the following two scenes in which Clark Kent catches a bullet before it can hit Lois Lane from Superman: The Movie and Diana, wearing an outfit not dissimilar from Clark's---complete with glasses, deflects a bullet from Steve Trevor.

Superman: The Movie

Wonder Woman

It may have taken her 75 years to get there, but Wonder Woman finally has a big screen adaptation that is worthy of the iconic character. It may not have been the first female lead superhero movie, but it is clearly the best.

X-men movies: worst to best

10. X-men Origins: Wolverine 

Dead last.  Just a terrible, terrible mess of a movie.  It can't seem to make up its mind what it is; it's supposed to be a solo outing for Wolverine, but feels the need to surround him with a substitute team of X-men. On top of that, it has an overstuffed storyline with plot holes you can drive a truck through.

9. X-men: The Last Stand 

I actually didn't think this one was all that bad when it first came out.  However, the last time I watched it, I just found it boring more than anything. Not bad. Not good. It's just mediocre.

8. The Wolverine 

This movie isn't half bad; it's 25% bad, 50% decent, and 25% pretty good.  It has a solid first act, a pretty good second act, but falls apart and becomes bloated in its finale.  James Mangold manages to create at least a couple of pretty creative action sequences but it doesn't save the film from a lack of meaningful plot and character development.

7. X-Men: Apocalypse

I don't understand the hate for this movie.  Sure, there were some missed opportunities to give Storm a stronger presence and to have Jubilee do.... well... anything (at least she has lines this time)! But, overall, I found it to be pretty enjoyable.  The best part of the movie might have been a 'bigger and better' reprise of the Quicksilver slow-mo scene from Days of Future Past but, while it loses some of its impact for being a retread, it's still a pretty fun scene.

6. X-men

To some, putting the original this far down on the list is blasphemous but, quite frankly, it hasn't aged that well. It was great at the time seeing the characters brought to life on the big screen, however, the story's main plot device, Magneto's 'Mutant Making Machine', always felt a little too silly and 'Dr. Evil' for me.

5. X2: X-men United

Again, another outrageous choice, X2 is clearly the best of 'the original trilogy' but, for me, it is narrowly edged out by...

4. X-men: First Class

First Class is probably the most tightly plotted of the X-men movies.  By the time of it's production, X-men movies were no longer the sure fire hits they once were.  As a result, the budget was significantly smaller than the previous entries.  This resulted in a much more streamlined story and a focus on character development.  McAvoy and Fassbender nail their performances as young Charles Xavier and Magneto.


3. Deadpool 

Any criticism of Deadpool can easily be brushed aside because.... well....  IT"S DEADPOOL! A friend complained that the presence of Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead was unnecessary--- my response was, "Dude, have you ever read a Deadpool comic? It's filled with pointless cameos and guest appearances." The presence of unnecessary characters actually just makes the movie that much more Deadpool! Deadpool manages to both satirize the franchise it sprung from and work as a standalone film. Ryan Reynolds was always perfectly cast as the 'Merc With a Mouth' and this almost redeems X-men Origins: Wolverine (almost).  Of all the X-movies, this one is the truest to its source material.

2. Logan

Logan is so good it not only transcends the franchise but the very genre of superhero movies.  Jackman and Stewart give Oscar caliber performances and Mangold draws more from westerns and Mad Max than the previous X-movies for inspiration.  It is probably the best movie on this list and, yet, it can't be the best "X-men" movie because....

1. X-men: Days of Future Past 

This is it; this is the X-men movie that I had wanted to see since I was 13 years old.  It's all there:  post-apocalyptic futures, time travel, mutants as metaphor for the oppressed, the dueling morals of Xavier and Magneto.... Sentinels! All of this and that Quicksilver scene!  The actions sequences are top notch throughout.  The future battles with the Sentinels are particularly noteworthy because, for the first time, we see a group of X-men working together and using their powers in tandem to fight against a foe.  This is something that, thus far, even the Avengers movies haven't quite managed to pull off.  Logan is the better film; THIS is the better X-Men movie.

Ranking Star Wars

It gets a bit tricky once you get into books, videogames, etc. so, for the sake of simplicity, I decided to stick with movies and TV....

1. The Empire Strikes Back

2. Star Wars (aka A New Hope... I'm OG so it's just Star Wars to me)

3. The Force Awakens

These are all very close--- Empire has always been my favorite and the original is the original and, in some ways, The Force Awakens is actually superior to both… however, it  still stands on the shoulders of its predecessors.

4. Rogue One

5. Return of the Jedi (original edition)

6. Revenge of the Sith

7. Return of the Jedi (special edition)

 Rogue One is definitely the boldest thing that has ever been attempted with a major Star Wars theatrical release so I gotta  give it props over the weakest of the originals. Sith is the only one of the prequels worthy of standing among the originals and it is, by far, the best of that lot.  It beats out the special edition of Jedi because of the CG musical number in Jabba’s palace…. Just awful….

8. Genndy Tartakovsky’s  Clone Wars shorts.

9. Rebels

10. Clone Wars

11. The Boba Fett animated sequence from the Star Wars Holiday Special

12. Episode II (its title isn’t even worthy of being spoken)

13. Clone Wars (theatrical release)

14. Droids Cartoon

15. Mark Hammill hosting the Muppet Show

16. Episode I

17. Ewoks Cartoon

18. Those Made for TV Ewok Movies

19. The rest of the Star Wars Holiday Special

2016 Favorites: TV

10. Lady Dynamite- Maria Bamford delivers an offbeat metatextual exploration of mental illness... and it's a comedy! Bold move. Also, it has pugs.

9. Star Wars: Rebels - The second season surpasses the first in overall quality and the finale delivered on every level for a fan of both the original Star Wars films and the Filoni-verse of Rebels and Clone Wars. The return of Captain Rex and a Chopper-centric episode were just icing on the cake.

8. Love- I've always felt Judd Apatow's movies were about 30 minutes too long, turns out his pacing works much better in the serialized format of a TV series.

7. Better Call Saul - While the overall quality of writing, directing and acting remains the same, the second season seems to lack direction and meanders a bit in terms of plot. Not nearly as tight as the first season and, as much as we all love Jonathan Banks, his storyarc this season seemed forced and unnecessary.

6. Unbreakable Kimmie Schmidt- While I don't find myself quoting this season as much as the first, this is, most likely, because I haven't watched it as many times (yet!). Still my favorite current comedy and Tina Fey should have gotten an Emmy for her guest performance this season (ok, she won one with Amy for hosting SNL--- probably why she wasn't nominated for this one--- but it should have been for THIS one).

5. Daredevil - While Daredevil is the weakest of Marvel's Netflix offerings thus far, it is still very good. The second season was, overall, stronger than the first and Bernthal's Punisher and Elodie Jung's Elektra were spot on.

4. The Get Down- Baz Luhrman dials back his stylistic tendencies just enough to give this tale of the origins of hip-hop as hero's quest the mythic quality it needs.

3. Game of Thrones- the fifth season makes up for the lack of direction of the fourth with a much tighter overall narrative and a one, two punch in the last two episodes that sets the important pieces in place for the series' endgame.

2. Luke Cage - Stylistically, this might be the best Netflix show; the soundtrack, the cinematography and the reinvention of blaxploitation tropes are all top notch.  Additionally, a series about a bulletproof black man whose costume is a bullet-riddled hoodie might be the most aggressively political thing done with a mass media interpretation of a Superhero.

1. Stranger Things- Ok, liking this show is in my DNA. However, this show is more than a nostalgia trip that pays homage to the beloved 'PG Horror/Sci-Fi' films of my youth. It uses those Spielberg-Carpenter-King texts as inspiration to tell a tale that is brilliant in its own right.  Also, it reminds us why we all love Winona Ryder.