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.
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.
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.
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.