How 'The Big Bang Theory' Normalized Nerd Culture (newyorker.com) 375
Last week, the last episode of the final season of "The Big Bang Theory" was broadcasted on CBS. Say what you will about the show, but one thing is clear: it was popular. While the average episode in Season 11 received over 18.6 million views, the season finale ended its run with an audience of 23.44 million viewers. The New Yorker's Neima Jahromi reflects on the show and how it "normalized nerd culture": On Thursday night, "The Big Bang Theory" closed out its run with an audience of eighteen million viewers. Despite all the cast changes, Sheldon remained emphatically misanthropic, self-centered, and alienated. In the end, the reason he became a kind of dweeby Fonz has to do with the structural tendencies of the oft-dismissed multi-camera sitcom. Such shows extract empathy in real time. With a live audience, silence is not an option: if a joke or a scene doesn't land, if real people aren't feeling it, then the writers storm the soundstage and change it. Alienated characters, who are the least likely to garner empathy, require extra attention from writers, and therefore often gravitate toward the center of a show. As a result, viewers come halfway, too. It's unlikely that a curmudgeonly Archie Bunker on "All in the Family" or an uptight Alex P. Keaton on "Family Ties" will remain detestable for long, even if their creators did set them up to be antagonists. Eventually, audiences saw that Sheldon was as befuddled by the world as they were uncomprehending of his intellectual pursuits. They also learned that he hated change as much as they did. In this way, an outmoded form of television cushioned the anxiety of the brave new tech culture for a generation. How do you feel about the ending of The Big Bang Theory?
Normalize (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't normalize anything. It stereotyped nerd culture as people who have absolutely no social skills, and then profited off of it. All they did was make fun of people who were not "normal" by their very narrow and limited definition.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If they had no social skills, how come the whole show was about them socializing with friends, coworkers, lovers, and family, and there was very little to no actual technical content?
Re:Normalize (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Normalize (Score:5, Insightful)
It was definitely not appealing to me. Agreed. There is a right way to do a show like this and a wrong way. Young Sheldon is funny. The Big Bang Theory is offensive.
Re: Normalize (Score:2)
Re:Freaks and Geeks... (Score:5, Informative)
in Michigan no less. (Original home of Dungeons and Dragons for those not in the know.)
Dungeonds and Dragons started in Wisconsin
Re: (Score:2)
Never saw it.
Not a show. Gamma World is a TSR RPG.
Re:Freaks and Geeks... (Score:5, Interesting)
The people I would classify as nerds for example would not need live-studio audience to tell them when they are supposed to laugh or being 'infected' by laughter. Because let's be honest, that's what studio audience or laugh tracks are for, reducing the threshold for laughter in the consumer. After all laughter appears to be contagious for most people with even the least bit of "social competence" according to science.
At least to this 'nerd' that is a pretty clear indicator that they targeted the general public, with a focus maybe on the lower half.
Although I have to admit to have found it somewhat funny in the first couple of seasons. But maybe that was because my engineering classmates told me about that amazing "new" comedy show about nerds and peer pressure somehow compelled me to watch it.
Anyway they quickly suffered the fate of many comedy shows that have to produce a lot of episodes in rapid succession and the quality declined rapidly as the characters had to become stronger and stronger caricatures of themselves. Hence I stopped watching some time ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Having a live studio audience can be for one of two reasons:
1. Give the actors some feedback, e.g. Fawlty Towers is a magnificent example.
2. Make up for bad writing and lazy jokes by telling you when to laugh.
Re:Freaks and Geeks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't think of any more recent examples, but I'm sure they exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't think of any more recent examples, but I'm sure they exist.
Silicon Valley
Re:Normalize (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't help us nerds to have a show about us, watched by millions, if the objective of that show is just to mock us. If anything, that just makes things even worse for us.
Being a nerd all life... (Score:2)
...I guess there is a reason SJW never picked up nerd stereotyping. Most end up quite well with happy families and children, wife, homes to go back to and more often then not making decent money.
Re: Normalize (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because every nerd wishes he could find his own dumb blonde to make him feel smarter. Needless to say I loved the show, I however didn't like how they made penny out to be dumber than a box of rocks. somehow able to live next to a pair of scientists on a waitress salary. Completely falsifying real life there.
Re: Normalize (Score:2)
She's hot. She makes bank on tips, for sure. A good, hot waitress in an urban center can easily outearn a scientist working at a university.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that hard to believe, granted i have nfi what a university scientist would make. However they are portrayed as top of their field scientists.. So i dontnthink the average income would count there.
Re: (Score:3)
You might be right that as top researchers they are also at the top of their salary potential. I've only seen a couple of episodes, but two dudes living together in an apartment does not scream "top dog" to me.
But a really good waitress working in the right spot can make almost $100k, while the average research scientist makes about $50k - $75k. One telling stat is waitresses in Minnesota make $15/hr before tips. Pulling in $10/hr in tips in most place is not hard, and that puts you over the bottom end o
Re: (Score:3)
Only two of the actors had any real comedy skills, and both got nerfed by having bad characters and bad writers. Howard is one, there was plenty to explore there but most of the early seasons were just wasted with him been a creep. I suppose his lechery was supposed to be "cute" or something.
Re:Normalize (Score:4, Insightful)
Howard being a creep is what made him funny. He had no give a fuck, he saw what he wanted and he tried. Real ambition if you ask me. A little off putting to some but real ambition.
Re:Normalize (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've only seen the first couple of episodes, I can see why you'd say that; I basically felt the same way. But as the show progresses, each of the characters becomes more like a real person; and more an object of empathy. As the summary points out, this is probably in part because of the effect of filming in front of a live audience -- obnoxious unlikable people can only really be tolerated for so long.
What the show does do is show lots of previously-reviled things in a very positive light. Scientific knowledge, esoteric knowlegde of comics or sci-fi, solving problems with technical solutions, are all portrayed as cool and enjoyable.
In fact, the transition is best captured in one of the episodes where Penny, after having broken up with Leonard, brings one of her "normal", dumb boyfriends around, and realizes that she just can't stand dating dumb guys anymore.
Are the characters still portrayed as a bit "weird"? Yes -- but that's kind of the point: We're all weird in our own ways, and that's OK. Generally speaking, the closer we are to someone, the more we see their "weird" side; as C.S. Lewis said, "No people find each other more absurd than lovers." Finding someone "weird" and having affection and respect for them are not mutually exclusive.
The show's not perfect, by any means, but I certainly see myself and my friends represented in it, and represented in a positive light. I think that's a big step forward.
Re: (Score:3)
The amount of growth was very, very small. For example Sheldon basically stayed the same until the very last episode, with Amy merely telling him when he was being an arse rather than him coming to understand it or develop real empathy. Raj was even worse, as he seemed to get slightly better with women but then reverted to type right at the end.
It's interesting that you cite Penny as an example of a positive change. Thing is, she never really comes to appreciate Leonard for who he really is. She patronises
Re: Normalize (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad indictment of our society that Penny's relationship with a highly intelligent man was "dating down".
Re: (Score:2)
Then how did House [wikipedia.org] last for 8 seasons?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
EXACTLY. The portrayal of Sheldon rubbed me wrong from day one, as someone very close to a person with Asperger's. I felt the show was not trying to normalize anything, but rather profit off of parading non-normalcy around with a laugh track.
I am very glad to see this show off the air,
Re: (Score:2)
Its a good thing nobody cares what you think. /s
or is it O.o
Re:Normalize (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw it as Nerd Blackface comedy.
The whole show is about socialization (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't normalize anything. It stereotyped nerd culture as people who have absolutely no social skills
The ENTIRE point of the show was the main characters social skills and growth. You seem to have completely missed the point. Subcultures interacting with mainstream cultures is the premise of countless shows. And yes TBBT did introduce a lot of people in a gentle way to aspects of "nerd culture" that they probably would never have come across otherwise.
And frankly a lot of people in "nerd culture" (your term, not mine) demonstrably DO have poor and/or limited social skills. That stereotype exists for a reason. No stereotype applies to everyone but I can introduce you to people I personally know who would fit in nicely in the world of TBBT. Heck I see bits of myself there and I think it's funny. If you see some of yourself in the characters and can't handle it being made fun of, that says more about you than it does about anyone else.
and then profited off of it.
As if nerds aren't busy profiting off the social interactions of other people. I direct your attention to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. Nerds are making untold billions off the social interactions of "normals" so spare me the righteous indignation of nerds being presented unfairly.
ll they did was make fun of people who were not "normal" by their very narrow and limited definition.
Show's about boring "normal" people are by definition not interesting and nobody would watch them. Things are funny when they are exaggerated. And exaggerations only are relevant when they are based in truth, even if only loosely. Lighten up. It's a funny show and if it offends you then you need to seriously take your ego down a few notches.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed 100%.
The number of people positively butthurt over this show is astounding. Just get over yourselves already.
Who knew? - nerds and geeks have egos just as big and touchy as jocks do.
BB wasn't a nerd docu-drama, it was a comedy, where often the difference between character and caricature is a fine line. How many complaints have there been about Penny's jock boyfriends prior to Leonard, all of whom were portrayed as imbeciles? I'd wager few here found that offensive.
In any case, I stopped watching a
Re: (Score:2)
This. It wasn't laughing WITH us. It was laughing AT us.
Baby Steps (Score:3)
I do not disagree with your assessments. However it is better portrayal of nerds then they had before. Think of Movies like Revenge of the Nerds, or sitcoms like Family matters. Where the Nerds are hopelessly out of touch with humanity. Big Bang Theory, actually shows these people interacting with normal people, and for the most part being rather successful. They feel the pain from being bullied in school, and they often have that chip on their shoulder from it, while still very stereotyped, at least they
Re:Normalize (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Only in the first season, though.
Re: (Score:2)
i recommend 'silicon valley' from HBO, great show.
Re:Normalize (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the cleverest things about The IT Crowd was how Jen, the supposedly normal one, was actually just as flawed as the other two but even more desperate to cover it up. Moss in particular was comfortable being a nerd and unconcerned by being seen that way, in stark contrast to Jen who from the very start was blagging her way through everything.
The Big Bang theory could have done a lot with that, but completely missed the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the shows like big bang need to have a non geeky nerd, I identify as a nerd, but not a geeky nerd. I don't like scifi or comic books or any of that. I like nerd things, computers, science and the like. That's one of the things I feel have been missing from every nerd show I have seen.
Re: (Score:2)
I was the cool nerd, but never a geek so i really dont understand what you're trying to say here.
Re: (Score:3)
I've never even heard of that show. Is it really worth watching? I used to watch the british comedy's in the 90's with my grandmother on saturday nights. Is it the same kind of dry humor? I like the shit that makes you think..
Re:Normalize (Score:5, Insightful)
I liked the show. It had the stereotypical nerd classes, and I had friends growing up that fit nicely in to these stereotypes. It was like any other sitcom, it has it high points and low points.
But unlike most sitcoms The Big Bang Theory had character growth in it. None of the characters where the same from season to season. It also had kind of a story arc from season to season.
It also had some of the most touching moments on TV. When Carol Ann Susi, who played Howards mother, passed away in RL instead of recasting the character they made it apart of the show in tribute to Carol Susi. And ending scene where Sheldon gave his speech showed was also very touching.
So yeah, it was a good show with its good moments and bad ones. Try it. You might like it.
make fun of (Score:2)
It's ok, I don't really want non-nerds empathizing with me. They can stay with their boring pursuits like sex and beer.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a nerd, always have been, since kindergarten. But I have actually never been anti-social or asocial, although I got sometimes a bit bullied. Never liked soccer, and there was an in-crowd which couldn't stand that.
However, I am married and have a daughter, and I brew my own beer. Brewing is something that can become quite nerdy when you go down the depths of chemistry, biology, thermodynamics and process control in order to deliver a nice product.
Terrible show, making fun of people not cool (Score:2, Interesting)
The show it abusive and outright insulting. You wouldn't do this to black people. No. It's not OK to make fun of people like this. I don't take issue with the spin off Young Sheldon, and am not against having fun with certain characteristics of those who fall toward one direction or another on the "spectrum", but it's not OK to make it socially acceptable to make fun of them/us. I'm nowhere near this, but certainly know people who are. I can also understand why a parent of a kid would find a show like Young
Re:Terrible show, making fun of people not cool (Score:5, Funny)
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?
It didn't normalise nerd culture. It mocked it. (Score:5, Interesting)
There was never much emphasis on what made them great. There was never an attempt to connect with the real Leonards and Sheldons amongst their viewers. They were seen as exhibits not to celebrate but to jeer at.
watch it without the laugh track (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Killed what little it had for me
NaN (Score:2, Interesting)
(Not about Nerds)
It wasn't a show about nerds. It was a show making jokes about what dumb people think smart people are like. I'm a scientist and I don't know a single scientist who watches that show. I'm also from the South and I know a ton of rednecks back home who absolutely love it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my feeling too.
I've spent far too much of my life in college and around academics. I'm a huge nerd. And I didn't see the people I know represented in the show. It really was a bunch of caricatures of what normal people think nerds are.
Bernadette killed it for me (Score:5, Insightful)
The later seasons of the series have shifted from having the nerds as the main characters to showcasing various relationships. The addition of female characters may have broadened the audience, but the addition of the Bernadette character combined with the constant humiliation of the Howard character made the episodes rather annoying to watch.
Also, the almost complete elimination of any references to science just to emphasize the relationships took most of the original fun out of the series.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Started out as a very stereotyped show, but for a comedy that is fine. Was it realistic? Nah. But who cares? It's not like Iron Man is realistic, or Star Trek. Or the typical RomCom.
It was fine that some of the cast actually got girls. You can only play the "sorry failure" joke so often, and especially Penny really added to the show. Quite a few of the girls Raj had flings with were also very interesting characters and I would've loved to see more of them.
But Bernadette and Amy didn't add anything for
Re:Bernadette killed it for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Bernadette is pretty much the most accurate character. Howard lived with his mom and basically not only moved in with someone who could be his mom but basically their relationship moved there because she had to treat him like he was a kid because he acted like one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. As soon as the characters all had to pair up it went from being a decent comedy show with nerdy references to "Friends, but with science!". The focus of the stories stopped being about nerd culture and started being about dating and then marriage. With making fun of nerds thrown in.
Funny but not realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit that I enjoy the show (which I only watch on airline flights) but its about as realistic a depiction of nerds as James Bond is of intelligence agents. It adds to a whole bunch of inaccurate stereotypes.
That said, I don't really care. I'm a nerd, my friends are nerds. We really don't care a lot about what the rest of the public thinks of us. If they want to believe that computer scientists, engineers, and physicists are socially inept, physically incompetent, and are generally unable to deal with daily life based on a TV show, then so be it. We are too busy climbing mountains, flying airplanes, driving race cars, running ultras, traveling all over the word, and socializing with our friends to really worry about it.
A realistic show about what nerds lives are like would be really dull - as it would be for any profession.
Re: (Score:2)
A realistic show about what nerds lives are like would be really dull - as it would be for any profession.
I don't mind if they manufacture complete bullshit to make the lives of people on TV far more exciting for the sake of entertainment.
I just want to slap the shit out of the moron who called that "Reality" TV.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that if shows depicting the science lab for the hot bed that it is, we would hav a lot more people pursuing science.
Re: (Score:2)
>
A realistic show about what nerds lives are like would be really dull - as it would be for any profession.
This is exactly the same I get from friends who are doctors. Medical Dramas/shows are generally way more interesting than actual work they do. very few doctors are like the characters in those shows. Some doctors like the shows most don't as it gives the patients unrealistic expectations about them. The same for BBT. If you actually made a TV show that was real and based on real people the show would be boring. For that reason shows have writers and essentially condense weeks and months into 20 minutes. Wha
Re: (Score:3)
If you find you are always the smartest person in the room, maybe you are in the wrong room? My comment was that since I mostly hang out with other nerds, I'm not the smartest in the room, and I'm not an outsider.
If you do find yourself hanging out with "normals", its easy to act like a normal person, and avoid sounding like you are bragging about your awesomeness.
That said, I can see the problems with the stereotypes. It can have social effects: people who decide they won't date "nerds" without having met
Re: (Score:3)
If you put me in a room of people there's very good odds I'm the smartest one there.
If you generally find that, maybe there's a chance that you're not actually smart enough to realize that you're not always the smartest person in the room?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Farewell to Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
What the show portrayed was that guys with an interesting job and fun hobbies got dragged into a world of boredom by appeasing the whims of the women around them. It was a warning to all nerds to not budge to social pressure. At the same rate the guys gave up their hobbies and interests, the show got more and more boring and went into (awkward) romcom territory. It finally jumped the shark when the three most unlikely people, Penny, Amy and whatshername were hanging around with each other, without sharing a single interest, except for "we (have to) like the guys across the hall".
Clearly you weren't there in 2007. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because clearly you weren't a nerd in 2007. Being a nerd in 2007 was a pretty bad thing, still looked upon extremely negatively. This show indeed normalised being a nerd, it was a pretty good thing for me, it made me proud to be who I was.
If you are sitting here in 2019 criticising it, the show did its job. Being a nerd is cool now.
Re:Clearly you weren't there in 2007. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I tend to agree. It normalised the idea of grown men enjoying D&D, comics, action figures, Star Wars, LoTR, etc.
A lot of people here are complaining that it made smart people the butt of jokes. To me, that just shows how fragile they are; that they can take jokes at other people's expense but not their own. How much do you want to bet that none of them ever complained about Homer Simpson making dumb people the butt of jokes?
Re: (Score:2)
In 2007 it was already not so bad anymore. Try a decade earlier. The show was successful largely because it was at the front of this trend of normalisation. It didn't break any barriers, but it helped pushing them and things might have moved slower without it.
Re: (Score:2)
Try a few more. I was at college in 1987, and I'm pretty sure I was a nerd in school. Maybe they were just called swots then.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I see. You are calling my own personal experience about the show wrong.
I'm very sure that anything I write about my personal experience with the show is 100% correct without a doubt.
Re: (Score:3)
You said "This show indeed normalised [sic] being a nerd." That is a statement about the state of society. (in the country where the show is produced)
Maybe you feel this way, but it doesn't make it true for all of society. TBBT became a successful show because this normalization happened a decade before it aired.
Your feelings don't make things real. Your personal experience does not inform all of society.
Nobel? (Score:2)
I was laid up for a while and watched far too much TV. Saw some episodes of the show, which looked, to me, like the "popular kids" (producers/writers/...) making fun of "nerds".
Just so I don't have to watch any more of it, did Amy and Sheldon get their Nobel?
You are such a nerd! (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
How do I feel? (Score:2)
I never watched ever any episode of it, even if I'm a nerd/geek.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how I feel, too. I saw it on TV once while flipping channels in a hotel room (I can't get broadcast TV at home) and I tried to watch it, but it just wasn't funny. Maybe I caught a slow spot, or maybe it just wasn't worth watching on any level. That describes most shows on TV, so that's the safe way to bet.
The last fiction show I cared even slightly about was dark matter, Syfy murdered it just as it was gaining viewers and now they are dead to me. Before that I haven't cared about a show since Babylon
Science geeks vs. comic book fans (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing that constantly annoys me about TBBT and many other portrayals of geeks, is that scholars/makers/creators are conflated with fans/collectors. You can never just have a brilliant scientist, you always have to add some infantile consumer interest in things like Star Wars. Sure, there's something "geeky" about both, an obsessive interest, but it doesn't mean that every scientist out there is a comic book fan.
I guess the idea is to make the person seem more balanced -- we can't just have somebody who is simply smarter than others. But there are more realistic aspects to that, for example social awkwardness and isolation. Some books and movies get this right.
Normalize? (Score:2)
That's like saying Monk normalized OCD.
What we got with BBT was putting nerds on display for the "normies" to laugh about. That's basically all there was. Look, he's so smart and so bright and all but can't even drive a car or get the simplest of jokes. Haha. What a weenie.
Here's a different reason to hate it (Score:3)
I was on a cruise a few years ago, and one of the in-room TV channels showed TV shows, and would have an intro screen before each one played showing the show title, a plot summary, and a runtime(without commercials). Most of the shows had a 21-23 minute runtime to account for commercials in a 30 minute timeslot. The Big Bang Theory episodes had runtimes of about 17-18 minutes. So if you take into account the intro and the closing credits, the amount of time dedicated to airing actual show content was barely half of an allotted 30 minute timeslot. To me that was ridiculous. Although, I guess when you are paying actors millions of dollars per episode the only way to make it work is to load it full of commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
funniest thing on tv (Score:2)
I was mostly disappointed in the final episode, but I will continue to watch the reruns; there's nothing else as interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
hmm... (Score:2)
Some other influences: (Score:3)
2. The rise of video games as an activity not just for young people. People talking about World of Warcraft at the water cooler.
3. Game of Thrones TV series. Way, way more people than would *ever* have considered reading the books ended up watching the show.
4. Rise of "startup culture" in aftermath of dot-com boom. Suddenly it's cool to be a "tech entrepreneur".
Nerd culture? (Score:2)
I stopped watching years ago (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Substitution (Score:2)
An inexplicably racist show with little content (Score:2)
There are two reasons I think the show is awful:
1) Any joke I saw that involved the Indian guy was always about how "funny" his accent sounded, or how his skin was coloured differently to the others. It was a lower level of comedy than Mind Your Language. The only example my Indian mates could think of that was more offensive was Short Circuit, and that's only because the guy playing the "Indian" guy was white, and just putting on his "funny" accent.
2) As mentioned by others, once the ad breaks and scene tr
Delusions of grandeur (Score:2)
At no point in its excessive run did the Big Bang Theory ever have anything to do with nerd culture, whatever that even means.
huh? (Score:2)
Later, it was just like any other ... (Score:2)
Personal Fallout - show victim sort-of. (Score:3)
I got married during the height of this show. I saw a few episodes here and there, mostly from visiting my parents, but I never got into the show.
I quit watching TV in the normal sense a long time ago - when I got married I was down to watching South Park and only South Park, which I watched online. My wife has talked me into watching TV with her since then, but at that time I had parted ways with the boob-tube.
It was very difficult for my in-laws to grasp the fact I didn't watch TV. They were at a loss when visiting since the TV played video games and movies off of a media server, but didn't have anything else.
I got lumped in with this show in their minds because I fit some of the stereotypes. I've been frequently compared to both Sheldon for my aspie ways, and Leonard since despite the obvious hangups I'm still sort of cool and can relate to people. A former coworker used to call me Sheldon all the time.
I got a soft-kitty T-Shirt from my in-laws for Christmas. I had no idea what it meant. On top of that, I have a problem with cats. I'm very allergic to them and have developed a bit of an aversion overall because of it. I actually had to have the meaning of that shirt described to me. My wife has taken it over and I haven't seen it in a couple of years. I got some sort of rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock dice game the same year. I have no idea where that's at.
This show plagues me wherever I go, I'm expected to be an expert on it. I enjoyed what few episodes I have seen - but I just can't bring myself to watch normal sitcoms anymore. Good riddance to this show. Maybe after it's gone long enough from the public consciousness I'll no longer have to piece together pop-references and try to frame them during random conversations.
It was a tv show (Score:3)
The Only Thing Normalizing Nerd/Geekdom is... (Score:3)
The profitability of serving nerds and geeks as consumers. From comic/anime/sci-fi-cons to showing up en masse at every MCU/DC/etc. release, to continuing to buy and play video games well into their careers, and (most importantly) becoming really rich (think tech companies).
In essence, being a large market well into career life has forced companies to support nerd/geekdom. With a financial value behind it, it's somewhat validated in social culture.
Of course, it's still 100% OK in most forms of modern western society to mock or deride nerds, so it's still not "normal". It's still "other". It's still the default refuge of social rejects and everyone knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
AC is right though. They had all the unflattering tropes, and two of the guys (Howard and Raj) were just outright creepy. Penny ended up being patronising and they never managed to develop her 2D character very much. Amy was probably the most likeable and had some genuinely funny moments and lines, but her utter devotion to Sheldon sometimes ruined it.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked Bernadette in her early stages... They just ruined her later on.
Re: (Score:2)
The writers really don't seem to know what to do with the women on that show. It's the Troi effect.
I think Mayim Bialik managed to salvage Amy because she has some genuine comedy skills, but the other two ran out of ideas after about 5 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernadette was a great character when she was introduced. But then the writers changed her character to be Howard's mom for cheap laughs and it ruined her.
Re: (Score:2)
Name a single British TV series that ran longer (Dr. Who doesn't count).
Yes ITC was certainly closer to the nerd stereotype. AND closer to reality in a corporation, too. You often feel like yesterday's jam.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be honest, nerd culture is not only very bland and unfunny to an onlooker (like, well, pretty much every subculture to be honest). I mean, seriously, do you want to watch 4 people playing AD&D for days, only interrupted by them squabbling over what's gonna be on the pizza?