• MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    The big bang theory was not for geeks or nerds. It was pure shit.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      It had a good few first episodes with fun geeky jokes, but it quickly turned to bad jokes and lazy stereotypes and relied loosely on stereotypes to contain the geekyness.

    • ZeffSyde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      I always felt like it was a show for moms of geeks and nerds that missed their kids once they moved out.

      • NickwithaC@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        Hush you! Can’t have people not joining in the dogpile on a TV show that ended 6 years ago…

    • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      I believe this is what happened to Dr Who. When it started it was for science and history nerds, science sounding gobble-de-gook, cos play outfits, very low production values (the infamous duct tape boots). All just good fun.
      When it was rebooted the focus had shifted. The Doctor as the cool guy, a Jesus figure, became more and more pronounced. They started to make fun of nerds on a regular bases. Amazing writing and production values, but at some point during the Tennant era I stopped watching in disgust.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        The original Doctor Who was an educational show mostly aimed at school aged children that used a sci-fi gimmick to teach history lessons (much of which are a bit outdated now). They would alternate storylines between future and past settings through most of William Hartnell’s run.

        Towards the end of classic Who it was already much more like modern Who than those first seasons.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 days ago

        I only started with NuWho, watching it as it came out in 2005.

        I found it magnificent, exactly because it shied away from glorifying violence, made emotions be the focus of things and there was clearly some large over-arching thing with “Bad Wolf”, but it wasn’t like in the American shows, where if there’s a clue to be seen, the camera zooms in on it, making sure you can’t miss it.

        I gather you are right, and NuWho is way more American and hero-centric than Classic Who — but because it was and I was a teenager enjoying shows like Prison Break at the time — I got into Who, and then into better British shows, better shows in general, chasing that sort or good pacifist writing. Star Trek is ofc prolly the best franchise when it comes to actual philosophy. Doctor Who elicits emotions more than thought when compared to the Star Trek Ethos, albeit in a more profoundly British way.

        Uuh there’s actually a new episode of Dr Who tonight that reminded me.

        Oooh, it’s out already. And I have a few glasses of rum left. And a steak. And a pint of red. Ooooooh. This is turning out to be a nice day.

        Anyway tldr completely agree with you, but I think going a bit American with NuWho was a crucial step in luring in more watchers to start appreciating the good things. Kinda how for a kid, it’s easier to learn to eat a new dish when you introduce it bit by bit or with copious amounts of ketchup or something — slowly teaching them that the bitterness is what makes it tasty.

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    6 days ago

    In my mind, I still picture this as the archetype of an office’s boss inside a boss’s office. If it doesn’t have the 4th breaking wall picture, then it’s a fake boss

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    I’ve watched IT Crowd half a dozen times.

    I haven’t managed to finish an episode of BBT before I switch it off in disgust.

      • mechoman444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        It is amazing to me how people believe their subjective experiences automatically qualify for criticism.

        • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          I mean this is Lemmy. 98% of the people here believe that anyone who downvotes them is a Nazi and a fascist, plus whatever negative adjective you could think about

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    No no IT Crowd is a show about sysadmins, not geeks lol. There’s a very clear difference.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 days ago

      And Moss was a nerd not a geek. He wasn’t obsessing about comics, videogames etc. like the characters in BBT.

      • Camelbeard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        I also think this is a cultural difference. The comic book obsession seems more like an american thing. In the Netherlands and Belgium there is also a big comic book appreciation, but it’s much less about heroism and more humorous.

        • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          Okay but he didn’t obsess about the British equivalent of comic books either. Geeks obsess about consumerist pop culture whether it’s comics, LEGO or Harry Potter. And Moss did non of that.

      • frazorth@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah, it’s an interesting difference.

        There was a lot of pop culture references in IT Crowd, all the music posters, the retro computers, etc. but the cast didn’t even acknowledge it.

  • MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    If BBT was made today it would be accused of being written by AI. Fully flanderised characters, and endless filler episodes.

  • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    I watched one random episode of BBT after it was recommended to me by a few people. That one episode was enough for me to decide that I never want to see that show again, and also that I should disregard all recommendations from the people who said I should watch it.

    • BlueFootedPetey@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Most humor is funnier than a laugh track sitcom. But humor being regional is … an interesting phenomenon if nothing else. Like yea I enjoyed the hell out of Monty Python as a kid and even now. But ill take the office from Scranton ober the og any day of the week. But I also wouldnt expect peeps from across the pond to feel that way.

      Is their anything from that late 90s era early 00s British tv had to compare the chapelle show? Honestly curious, I only have so much knowledge of British humor.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 days ago

        I don’t think laugh track is inherently bad.

        But I watched the Big Bang Theory for like the first 3 years, and it just kept devolving into shittier and simpler humour, and like really begging for the laughs with the puns, whereas in Britain it’s genuinely considered somewhat important to keep it organic.

        Like unfiltered BBC panel shows are just so much more hilarious than an episode of “hey come share laughs over archaic and super over-blown stereotypes”.

        Whatever cheap shit they’ve made over at the BBC is usually funnier than overproduced hyper-supervised multi-writer numbers-pleasing BS. I know that’s subjective, and I won’t die on a hill of “who’s the funniest”, because that’s subjective, but that’s my opinion on it.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          It’s interesting when America tries to make British panel shows (like the recent HIGNFY one). The competition aspect and the points, which are only a conceit in the British version, start having importance. They care who wins and it destroys the comedy. The right answer becomes more important than the funny answer.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Some particular shows are better as Americans versions, I’ll not deny that.

        I haven’t watched either of the Offices, but I have watched the entire American “Shameless” and that was glorious and fitting. The British version I glanced at was really meh. And whilst British comedy in general might be better, good comedy in a bad show is less valuable than mediocre comedy in a good show.

        It’s like good food. Good side dishes won’t completely cover for a bad main dish, but if the main dish is really moorish, you won’t care about the side dishes being so-and-so.

        Edit also do you like to think your username is pronounced “rhee-ri”, or “rhow-eh-ri”. People ask me about the pronunciation of mine sometimes and just made me question how you think yours…?

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            do you like to think your username is pronounced “rhee-ri”, or “rhow-eh-reh”. People ask me about the pronunciation of mine sometimes and just made me question how you think yours…?

            • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              It’s “Rory,” but I’d never thought it could be pronounced any other way until now. Lol.

              I’d imagine yours is pronounced: “Dah-suse”?

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 days ago

                “Rory"

                Yeah okay that’s a simpler way of writing the latter way, then way I thought it probably would be.

                Dah-sus is more or less how I imagined it originally yes. Like the “da” from “da man” as in “the” and the “sus” not from the phenomena a few years ago where everything was “sus”, but from the Finnish word for wolf, “susi”.

                I know it’s cringe but it was like 2002 when I came up with it.

                And I’ve had friends go “deyh-sus” “deissus”, sort of, and I’m comfortable with it, but it’s not like how I meant it.

                Rory… Amy relation? (Pun intended.) (so bad-ass btw)

                • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Love Doctor Who, love Rory, but no. No relation. It’s just a name. Boring, but the truth.

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    People be forgetting that the first season or two of the big bang theory was legitimately very good.

    The first season or two of the IT crowd was… oh yeah, the whole show.

    IT crowd’s best episodes were best-in-class. tnetennba. But it had a lot of meh too.