Slashdot Mirror
The Fall Geek TV Lineup
An anonymous reader writes "Wired has an article looking at this Fall's bumper crop of geek TV. McG, who directed the pilot for the show Chuck, opines that the appearance of nerd culture on network television is a long-overdue reflection of real life. From the article: 'Hollywood, he said, is playing catch-up with IT culture. "The classic shape of the computer geek is over when Bill Gates became the (richest), most aspirational, coolest guy in the world," he said. "He is the original thick-glasses, pocket-protector guy. Now who doesn't want to be like Bill Gates?"' They have reviews of the lengthy list of shows, for clues as to what to watch and what to miss."
I just want his money.
I'm really having a hard time seeing how Bill Gates being nominated for president is a relevant story to nerd tv shows... unless its going to be the premise of a new bad comedy?
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
For those of us in the UK, there's always the IT Crowd. It's a bit hit and miss, but the second season seems to be hitting the spot more often compared to the first.
He may be a skinny Dilbert but Gates is also Narcessisstic and dull. There has to be a better geek poster child? Yes everyone wants the money but the point is who wants to be Bill Gates without the money? Hes a pain in the ass and people put up with him because he has money. Take away the money and all you are left with is the pain in the ass.
This is geek culture? And goes it appeal to geeks? I suppose it could be that I don't understand the difference between IT culture and geek culture, but that would be a crime that all of network TV is guilty of, too. I'd much prefer if those slots were filled with good Science Fiction or good educational TV, as I'm sure is true with most others in the geek community. A show about a guy with a pocket protector doesn't qualify automatically as about, or appealing to, geeks.
Actually, they still call techies 'nerds' because that's the word to describe the type of people that techies are. However, the meaning of the word has changed. Well, rather, those of us in the know call us 'geeks'. Difference? A geek knows the difference between geek and nerd, a nerd doesn't. :P It used to be that 'geek' meant 'reject', now it means 'smart, technically inclined person who is likely to be rich and/or interesting'. Or maybe it's different in the US...
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
No, it's "The Fall Geek," a remake of an 80s stunt man show.
I'll bet all these shows will just ooze cool sophistication. I mean, why didn't we start getting shows geared toward us fifteen years ago when everyone saw how awesome Unix was when they watched Jurassic Park?
Seriously, I hate to be cynical, but as much as Battlestar Galactica is the coolest show I've seen in years, most of Hollywood's understanding of biological science seems to be some variation on Frankenstein, their physical science based on Looney Tunes, and their concept of computer science is best left unmentioned. I'll bet they're making the same mistakes they've always made: thinking good shows can be about some World's Fair technology show and the World of Tomorrow when they should be about the story and the people.
I watched a few of the leaked shows that they reviewed (don't you love the Internets?) so I'll comment on them.
Chuck: Fun like Burn Notice and Psych but not very nerdy. It's got the nerd culture in it, the socially inept folks and close friendships get good grades from me. However, some parts are very poorly executed: magical images that contain steganography that the brain decodes, an HD explodes from a 4' drop inside the case and a few others that fell flat to me. Oh, it's got Jayne so that's a plus.
Big Bang Theory: Imagine, as someone one EZTV said, Revenge of the Nerds written by mindless jocks. It's crap, crap, crap, so much crap that I was insulted by it.
Journeyman: I thought it was an interesting story, maybe we've seen it before (Quantum Leap) but we haven't as he's not leaping into other people nor is he shifting into the distant past so I think it'll have mainstream appeal (for a few episodes at least). Disclaimer though, I like Kevin McKidd, for a guy in his early 30's he had a lot of heart in his Vorenus character.
The IT Crowd (UK): I watch the show and I have a lot of laughs with it but I'm a sucker for UK comedies. As for geek culture, I have to say it's not perfect but it comes close. In case you've never watched it, the references are the stickers in the office, Roy's t-shirts and Moss' and Roy's personalities (they're socially challenged). I guess that it does come close as, being a practicing nerd, I'm not always talking about gadgets and geeky sites nor am I obsessed with computers and science so I guess it's more organic.
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Personally, I find the fall line-up to be particularly insulting - especially the new show, "Chuck." The guy is obviously extremely socially awkward, portrayed as being exceptionally smart, yet they say, "saving the world at $11/hr." in the advertisements. I'm failing to see the up side of Chuck's life. He's not athletic, he's only funny in the sense that you can laugh at him, his career is non-existant, but hey! He has smarts that you don't! Let's point and laugh at his situation because that thing I'm jealous of isn't as great as I secretly think it is!
I think that show in particular is quite anti-nerd, anti-IT, anti-intellectual, etc. I've certainly met people like Chuck - not very good at what they do, but they're damn sure extremely awkward, but the majority of IT folks I've met are insanely happy, always joking, and do stuff like ride their motorcycles or go mountain climbing on the weekends, they don't sit in their mother's basement playing DnD and fixing people's computers for almost no money.
I think it was already mentioned above, but if you want a truly great show for geeks/nerds/whatever you should check out House. The main character is a Doctor that is insanely intelligent and in a position of power. He's not socially awkward at all and quite funny even to a general audience. The only sense that he's "awkward" is just that he doesn't like dealing with morons and shows it every 10 seconds with hilarious insults by anyone's standards.
So who would you side with? The not-socially-awkward Doctor in a position of power or the "let's all point and laugh at the Nerd Herd!" show?
But speaking of house, the new season is on tomorrow night - check it out if you haven't already.
Geek Action TOYS! Only instead of kung-fu grips they'll have carpal tunnel syndromes.
OK, then don't worry. Popular and geek are mutually exclusive. Even if something is popular, the geek approach to it will be
Now we must distinguish between shows for geeks, and shows about geeks. Any show with an elaborate fantasy component can be a show for a geek. Shows about geeks are necessarily comedies. Because geeks are supposed to be losers, it is natural to laugh at them.
This doesn't mean the show has to be stupid or offensive, it just means that a show with little ambition or talent can go for cheap laughs.
Frasier, was hands down the most artistically and economically successful show about geeks ever. The Crane brothers are not tech geeks, but they are undeniably geeks: they seek to boost their status and importance by their command of intellectual arcana. What's more, because they are geeks they are losers. Everything we see them attempt ends in frustration. However they are more than caricatures. There isn't a word I can think of for what they are: they are neither admirable nor really contemptible; they are neither unlikable nor truly likable. Somehow, you want them to win but you enjoy watching them lose.
I think the secret of that show is that while the writers give us very broad caricatures, they then proceed to write against the stereotype. The Crane brothers are arrogant and self important, but they also demonstrate an underlying sweetness and goodness in every episode. Although this always serves only to deepen their humiliation, they somehow manage to exceed expectations while they lose. They're the plucky team of losers that doesn't pull an offset against overwhelming odds (which we know in our hearts that movies that tell that story are lies), but surprises everyone by scoring at all.
What makes a show an enduring success are interesting characters, written about in a compelling way. Geeks, with their enthusiasms that often border on mania, their propensity to march to a different drummer, their tendency to be the proverbial square pegs in a round hole, are usually the most interesting people in any group. The trick is writing about them in a way that gets underneath the surface to something anybody can identify with.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Please do not watch this show. It is utter crap. I'm a grad student in physics, and am offended by the stereotypes it portrays. Sure, I'm a geek, as evidenced by me posting here. But I also like to have fun, know how to socialize, have had many many relationships with the opposite sex that for the most part have been positive, and basically am known for my personality rather than my career choice, JUST LIKE MOST NORMAL PEOPLE. Oh, and I really hate most Star Trek related things. I did enjoy (but am not a psychotic fan of) the original series (more for its campiness and originality), as well as the 2nd-4th movies. And I like Star Wars, just like any other red-blooded American male who was a little kid in the early 1980's. But that's it. Also, I love sports. Especially baseball, which for some reason seems to be common among physicists (maybe it's all those statistics). Put me in a bar on a fall Saturday or Sunday with football on the TV and I'm happy. Why can't physicists be portrayed for what we really are, which is normal people who happen to do physics? Look at Einstein! Witty, charismatic, and womanizer! Now that's a physicist!
Chuck and Big Bang Theory had free previews on Yahoo! So what the heck, I watched them.
I work in the IT department of a major insurance company, so I think I qualify as a geek.... plus I read Slashdot, and if THAT doesn't seal the deal, what can?
Chuck -- okay, if you're going to make a show about a geek/nerd/whatever, would it kill you to run the script past one? The premise: a guy is running from people with guns! And they're firing at him! If only... he... can... finish writing a quick email to his friend he hasn't seen since college. Hey guys, could you quit it with the guns? I'm writing an email here.
Cut to Chuck, who staffs a kiosk called "The Nerd Herd" in some anonymous warehouse store. If they were meaning to riff off Best Buy's "Geek Squad", then instead of Chuck showing his fellow employees about a porn star virus which effects a certain kind of laptop that can't possibly be important later in the show, he would be showing them how to pack it up to send it to the third-party repair folks who really fix the laptops for Best Buy.
Chuck's sister plans a disastrous birthday party meant to introduce him to real girls, but of course it goes wrong, so Chuck silently escapes, turns his TV on and look, there's an email... on his TV... and it has a password based on Zork. Supposedly. Now, every single oldschool game-loving geek would cheer if they read "You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a mailbox here." with Chuck. And they would scream, "OPEN THE MAILBOX!". But no. Calm down. It's not that.
So anyway he types in the answer, "use nasty knife on troll" (huh), and then that quick email turns out to be a montage of NBC's fall lineup in black and white.
But no! It's ALL NSA's and CIA's secrets! And since CHUCK has them, the NSA and the CIA no longer have any record of them whatsoever! In fact, the CIA (or the NSA, whatever) forgot that some general who was to address a conference in a hotel minutes from Chuck's place, was to be blown up by a terrorist.
See, they researched this out, spied everywhere, found out what, where, who, and when, and then this guy emailed the details to Chuck and then they ALL FORGOT.
So anyway, Chuck, Jayne^WAlec Baldwin, and the girl who was sleeping with his best friend from college whom he hadn't heard from since until he destructively emailed Chuck all the nation's secrets from his smartphone and then died^KChuck's future love interest saves the day by finding the bomb, getting to the DOS prompt (well, he says he does, but he doesn't actually), and setting off that porn star virus which stops the bomb... WITH OMG JUST ONE SECOND TO GO! PHEW!
So anyway. All the nation's secrets are now in Chuck's head, and the nation doesn't have them anymore. Somehow. Won't these secrets kinda get stale? Sure, he knew the date & location of this one general's assassination, but new secrets are going to be happening from this point on that he will know nothing about, right?
Anyway, the show is for idiots, about idiots.
Big Bang Theory -- a pair of repellant, smelly losers and their idiot friends, and the porn star next door who undresses in their apartment. Nothing to see here.
The IT Crowd (American) -- Moss (Richard Ayoade) will join Joel McHale (The Soup) on the American adaptation of the British series in February. I thought the first season of the British series was brilliant (or should I say, Brie-illiant), and the second season, without the IT focus, a little less funny... Dunno how the American one will go. I expect disaster.
BRING ON THE NEW SEASON OF DEXTER!
Seriously. One of the greatest shows on TV.
Living With a Nerd
They all apply to Mother Teresa.
Susan Shields was one of her sisters for 9 1/2 years and writes "Three of Mother Teresa's teachings that are fundamental to her religious congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a sister obeys she is doing God's will. Another is the belief that the sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. The efforts to prevent any attachments cause continual chaos and confusion, movement and change in the congregation. Mother Teresa did not invent these beliefs - they were prevalent in religious congregations before Vatican II - but she did everything in her power (which was great) to enforce them. Once a sister has accepted these fallacies she will do almost anything. She can allow her health to be destroyed, neglect those she vowed to serve, and switch off her feelings and independent thought. She can turn a blind eye to suffering, inform on her fellow sisters, tell lies with ease, and ignore public laws and regulations. "
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html
From Wikipedia: The Telegraph, an Indian daily, has referred to her as "the Saint of the Gutters", also mentioning calls for "Rome to investigate whether she did anything to alleviate the condition of the poor or just took care of the sick and dying and needed them to further a sentimentally-moral cause".
"In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Monica Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband insist that conventional medical treatment eradicated the tumor."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/05/wteres05.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/05/ixworld.html
Dr. Aroup Chatterjee is the author of the book Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict. http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/index1.htm
http://www.meteorbooks.com/
Letters written my Mother Teresa doubting the existence of God: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119059822005736983.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Many attempts have been made to get information about how and where money is spent to CURE people of various diseases or just WHERE it all goes. Tell me, why would an organization that accepts so much in donations not want to proudly show how it's being used to do 'good work'?
I tried to think, but nothin' happened!