ugo.com— If you've ever been pissed off that The Big Bang Theory didn't get something geek culture-related right, you're not alone. Plenty of people hate the hit sitcom's take on the world of nerdery. Let's find out why.
Jan 12, 2012View in Crawl 4
As a geek I'm rather impressed with TBBT. They brought in a physicist, David Saltzberg, to help assist in the science part of the jokes. Geeks generally LOOK for things such as this (for example often times Sheldon's whiteboard math is ACTUALLY correct or has a hidden joke in it).
TBBT isn't also directed 100% at geeks either. There is a reason TBBT ranks among the highest of sitcoms and that is BECAUSE they make it accessible to normal people. All in all most of the issues this article addresses should be forgiven because when it comes down to the nitty gritty "geeky" stuff (like the math and science) TBBT produces bring in people who DO know what the science/math is and help to write it into the story.
Star Trek could be criticized because there is no such thing as "subspace" and it is used as a plot device.
She's not well written, not that plausible, too much of "loser", and I'd have to rewatch the series to figure out which season she put on too much weight while filming.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I asked myself what is the most mind-numbing, pedestrian job conceivable and three answers came to mind: a toll booth employees, an Apple store genius, and what penny does. Because I don't like touch other peoples' coins and I refuse to contribute to the devaluation of the word genius, here I am
"my computer came with windows 7"
"windows 7 is much more user friendly than windows vista"
"i dont like that"
Huge geek here. B.S. in Physics, work as a Systems Engineer, Love Star Wars, anime, video games and all things *nerd*. And I have to say I LOVE this show. It's a slightly zanier version of what it really was like while I was in my physics program. They do a surprising amount of things right, and I don't get angry but actually shout for joy when I catch Sheldon saying something wrong, because of how often he is actually right (about ranom trivia.) And the non-nerds (like my wife) love it as well, so it's fun for the whole family.
This show is just fine. No one forces you to like it. I get a kick out of it; and to me that's all that matters. Its nice to see a sitcom that is not the normal bulls**t that they pump out on a weekly basis.
No kidding, lordzupka...it's a damn TV show. If it got to 'deep' in physics (I'm a metallurgical engineer) 95% of the viewing public wouldn't watch it. Probably more than that. It's tv, for chrissakes, it's about making money for the network and sponsors...what's so tough to figure out? I hope it at least gets some people to take a look at their surroundings.
And regarding Wil Wheaton.... If you've listened to or read anything he's produced you'll see that even he was not a fan of Wesley Crusher. Lets cut the guy some slack. If he's manged to stay in the public eye this long, then clearly, he's doing it right. Oh, and to the author of the above article, don't be a dick.
TBBT has fallen from great to what? After Leslie it became something else. They do have some real scientific research references in the show but I also wonder how many people really read comics. I guess they call me a Geek/Nerd or whet ever people are calling it when I show my intelligence but I would never read a comic. It's just not that intellectually stimulating however this Digg does amuse me.
I dont think Ive ever seen a full episode, but I enjoyed what I saw of the Lord of the Rings episode and I have been made aware of many Firefly/Serenity shout out and easter eggs. I have to think there are many more shows deserving of your "hate".
I watched half of an episode of this, and I just couldn't get what people saw in it. Then I was forced to watch another episodes of it while I was at a Gamestop midnight launch for something and it was playing on all the TVs in the store.
But nothing in the show qualifies as "geek humor". There's one episode where they're apparently trying to create 3 player chess, and the ubernerd says he's finally solved the mystery of what to do when the boards meet in the center. His solution is "quadrilateral to triangular tessellation". The mouth-breathers all laugh because he said something nerdy.
However, anyone who is capable of understanding English words knows that ubernerd said that he "FINALLY" solved the problem of the board by turning the squares into triangles, which is the first freaking thing you'd think of, which means that there's no actual joke there. That's the entirety of the show.
What you've written there agrees with what I'm saying. The purpose is make the original claim look absurd, and doing that isn't a fallacy. It can involve showing that the claim that's being reduced to absurdity is based on a fallacy, but that's not the same as being a fallacy itself.
Actually, it was better than the actual pilot.
Granted, the show dynamics now are way better with Koothrapali, Wolowitz, and wow, whoda thunk Blossom would nail her comic role as Amy Fowler.
mlw4428Jan 13, 2012
As a geek I'm rather impressed with TBBT. They brought in a physicist, David Saltzberg, to help assist in the science part of the jokes. Geeks generally LOOK for things such as this (for example often times Sheldon's whiteboard math is ACTUALLY correct or has a hidden joke in it).
TBBT isn't also directed 100% at geeks either. There is a reason TBBT ranks among the highest of sitcoms and that is BECAUSE they make it accessible to normal people. All in all most of the issues this article addresses should be forgiven because when it comes down to the nitty gritty "geeky" stuff (like the math and science) TBBT produces bring in people who DO know what the science/math is and help to write it into the story.
Star Trek could be criticized because there is no such thing as "subspace" and it is used as a plot device.
casspaJan 13, 2012Submitter
12 upvotes and only one downvote. You sir won the nerdgument.
lookieJan 13, 2012
One reason for Geeks to like it regardless.
Kaley Cuoco.
netantJan 13, 2012
She's not well written, not that plausible, too much of "loser", and I'd have to rewatch the series to figure out which season she put on too much weight while filming.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
UncleRuckuJan 13, 2012
I asked myself what is the most mind-numbing, pedestrian job conceivable and three answers came to mind: a toll booth employees, an Apple store genius, and what penny does. Because I don't like touch other peoples' coins and I refuse to contribute to the devaluation of the word genius, here I am
"my computer came with windows 7"
"windows 7 is much more user friendly than windows vista"
"i dont like that"
cb810Jan 12, 2012
Do geeks like sitcoms?
emfkJan 12, 2012
Does porn count?
senoramorJan 13, 2012
This is more of a "Why I hate Chuck Lorre" article than a "Reasons Geeks Hate BBT" article.
alphaaaaaaJan 13, 2012
I dugg this article SO hard, I think I broke the button for everyone else.
asrrin29Jan 13, 2012
Huge geek here. B.S. in Physics, work as a Systems Engineer, Love Star Wars, anime, video games and all things *nerd*. And I have to say I LOVE this show. It's a slightly zanier version of what it really was like while I was in my physics program. They do a surprising amount of things right, and I don't get angry but actually shout for joy when I catch Sheldon saying something wrong, because of how often he is actually right (about ranom trivia.) And the non-nerds (like my wife) love it as well, so it's fun for the whole family.
UncleRuckuJan 13, 2012
Jim Parsons, AKA Sheldon Cooper form the Big Bang Theory is actually 38 years old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIjzQV8DbE
lordzupkaJan 13, 2012
This show is just fine. No one forces you to like it. I get a kick out of it; and to me that's all that matters. Its nice to see a sitcom that is not the normal bulls**t that they pump out on a weekly basis.
blean1Jan 13, 2012
No kidding, lordzupka...it's a damn TV show. If it got to 'deep' in physics (I'm a metallurgical engineer) 95% of the viewing public wouldn't watch it. Probably more than that. It's tv, for chrissakes, it's about making money for the network and sponsors...what's so tough to figure out? I hope it at least gets some people to take a look at their surroundings.
nickchopperJan 12, 2012
Oh. When I first read the headline, I though that geeks were mad at the way the universe was founded.
HoopDoctorsJan 12, 2012
They find faults in the jokes, prob.
biofriendlyblogJan 12, 2012
I must not be a geek then... ;)
misteratozJan 13, 2012
Screw those geeks. BBT is a great show.
lordzupkaJan 14, 2012
And regarding Wil Wheaton.... If you've listened to or read anything he's produced you'll see that even he was not a fan of Wesley Crusher. Lets cut the guy some slack. If he's manged to stay in the public eye this long, then clearly, he's doing it right. Oh, and to the author of the above article, don't be a dick.
screwkevinJan 13, 2012
Bazinga!
edeboltJan 13, 2012
The geeks are just real cranky about their debt crisis and currency problems.
rabbitsinblackJan 13, 2012
TBBT has fallen from great to what? After Leslie it became something else. They do have some real scientific research references in the show but I also wonder how many people really read comics. I guess they call me a Geek/Nerd or whet ever people are calling it when I show my intelligence but I would never read a comic. It's just not that intellectually stimulating however this Digg does amuse me.
igorunchainedJan 13, 2012
I dont think Ive ever seen a full episode, but I enjoyed what I saw of the Lord of the Rings episode and I have been made aware of many Firefly/Serenity shout out and easter eggs. I have to think there are many more shows deserving of your "hate".
jhourcleJan 13, 2012
The big problem is I saw The IT Crowd first, so I know what good geek comedy can be ... I'd rather Moss get his own show than watch Big Bang Theory.
(although, my boss loves it though ... and he's actually a PhD scientist, while I'm doing IT)
The other damned funny show w/ geeky scientists was Better Off Ted -- Phil and Lem were damned funny.
FearTheTachikomaJan 13, 2012
I watched half of an episode of this, and I just couldn't get what people saw in it. Then I was forced to watch another episodes of it while I was at a Gamestop midnight launch for something and it was playing on all the TVs in the store.
But nothing in the show qualifies as "geek humor". There's one episode where they're apparently trying to create 3 player chess, and the ubernerd says he's finally solved the mystery of what to do when the boards meet in the center. His solution is "quadrilateral to triangular tessellation". The mouth-breathers all laugh because he said something nerdy.
However, anyone who is capable of understanding English words knows that ubernerd said that he "FINALLY" solved the problem of the board by turning the squares into triangles, which is the first freaking thing you'd think of, which means that there's no actual joke there. That's the entirety of the show.
screwkevinJan 13, 2012
"which means that there's no actual joke there"
That actually IS a joke.
On the other hand if he proposed a real solution, why would that be a joke?
rajj007Jan 13, 2012
i love watching tbbt.. simply cool
specimen7Jan 13, 2012
You can't call yourself a geek unless you've written a text adventure in malbolge.
The show is funny and the author messed up.
Reductio ad absurdum is a classic logical fallacy. See skeptoid podcast - A magical journey through logical fallacies.
pinkfish411Jan 13, 2012
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy, it's a form of counter-argument meant to show the fallacy of the argument it's countering.
specimen7Jan 13, 2012
I think you might have it backwards.
The counter is reducing the original premise to an absurd logical fallacy.
For example:
Butch Deadlift: I think the big bang theory is great and should remain on air.
Bolt Vanderhuge: If TBT remains on air, it will set the standard for all future geek shows and ruin TV.
Bolts assertion is a reductio ad absurdum.
Anselm of Canterbury also used reductio ad absurdum in an attempt to prove the existence of god using the ontological argument
pinkfish411Jan 13, 2012
What you've written there agrees with what I'm saying. The purpose is make the original claim look absurd, and doing that isn't a fallacy. It can involve showing that the claim that's being reduced to absurdity is based on a fallacy, but that's not the same as being a fallacy itself.
specimen7Jan 13, 2012
Okay so I was thinking of the excluded middle.
jerkJan 14, 2012
Dugg for the MST3k reference.
koushiroJan 13, 2012
Wait, was that a slam against TMBG? >:/
kaiserarnyJan 13, 2012
There's one huge hole in the plot: How can they be supposedly so intelligent and be so dumb at the same time?
mogwuyJan 13, 2012
I consider myself a geek and I hate this show with a passion. Its just not funny at all.
protogenxlJan 13, 2012
My sense of this show is screwed up because I have seen the unaired pilot that is infinitely worse than the current show.
http://videosift.com/video/The-Big-Bang-Theory-00x00-Unaired-Test-Pilot
netantJan 13, 2012
Actually, it was better than the actual pilot.
Granted, the show dynamics now are way better with Koothrapali, Wolowitz, and wow, whoda thunk Blossom would nail her comic role as Amy Fowler.
dedtargetJan 13, 2012
I've read better articles trying to sound cool from my toilet paper after I wiped. And it actually made sense.