Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont get me started on felecia day, her characters are what is wrong with geek TV today.

I would think one of the problems would be having a term like 'geek tv' to begin with.

I don't know. She's at least integrated enough into the "culture". Or the "culture" is integrated enough into her. She's overrated, but not terrible, much like Fillion. I find Big Bang Theory by far more obnoxious, and have yet to see any downside to universally hating it.

What I mean is the Character She plays is utterly the same. A Hyper intelligent super nerd girl who is into all the things the guys are into but is also smoking hot. She seems like she is made for geeks to drool over. Her character in Supernatural was worse, a Mary Sue but a lesbian, nothing about that adding to the character nothing but for he guys t lear at the sexy nerd girl lesbian.

 Ahtman wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont get me started on felecia day, her characters are what is wrong with geek TV today.

I would think one of the problems would be having a term like 'geek tv' to begin with.

Also, more importantly, this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What I mean is the Character She plays is utterly the same. A Hyper intelligent super nerd girl who is into all the things the guys are into but is also smoking hot. She seems like she is made for geeks to drool over. Her character in Supernatural was worse, a Mary Sue but a lesbian, nothing about that adding to the character nothing but for he guys t lear at the sexy nerd girl lesbian.

Are you saying such a person doesn't exist? Cause, like, I know one of those. If that's not what you're saying, so she plays the same character every time. So do Ben Stiller, the guy from the office where every joke is "Look at me I'm the awkward.guy", Will Ferrell, Keanu Reeves, Drew Barrymore, Nicholas Cage, Tom Cruise, ad nauseum.

Also, you're trying to hard to find things to be critical of Supernatural of. Trust me, the tiny handful of episodes that had Day in them were not the problem with Supernatural.

Im not saying they dont exist, I know people like Sheldon and I hate Sheldon as a character. I hate how she is used. Her characters seem Mary sueish. Able to solve anything. She is just annoying to me.

 Ahtman wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
The popularity of Nathan Fillion on the other hand is completely unexplainable. He's an OK TV actor.

He is very personable and friendly, I suppose.

Fair enough...he has an inoffensive everyman aura without any obvious d-bag qualities. You can't discount that. Actors like Tom Hanks and Jimmy Stewart became icons *in part* because of that, although those two clearly had a lot more going on in terms of acting ability.

As a heterosexual male, I probably am not the best judge of the guy's looks. But his popularity also seems FAR out of proportion to his attractiveness, which doesn't seem to be *that* special for a Hollywood actor. Just like Felicia Day is obviously a highly attractive woman but really not upper-echelon for a TV/movie actress.

They both seem to have caught some kind of nerd lightning in a bottle where they're almost universally loved by a segment of the population with a high capacity for hate.

 daedalus wrote:
I don't know. She's at least integrated enough into the "culture". Or the "culture" is integrated enough into her. She's overrated, but not terrible, much like Fillion. I find Big Bang Theory by far more obnoxious, and have yet to see any downside to universally hating it.

I utterly despise the Big Bang Theory show. Utterly despise.

I like Felicia Day though, mainly as I've only seen her on the youtube Tabletop videos.

There is this weird hate a lot of times for well known women that like video games/rpgs/board games. They are often accused of being fake or pandering.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I don't know. She's at least integrated enough into the "culture". Or the "culture" is integrated enough into her. She's overrated, but not terrible, much like Fillion. I find Big Bang Theory by far more obnoxious, and have yet to see any downside to universally hating it.

I utterly despise the Big Bang Theory show. Utterly despise.

I like Felicia Day though, mainly as I've only seen her on the youtube Tabletop videos.

I love her on table top, I just really dont like here characters she plays.

Why do you people hate BBT?

I love it, but I hate Sheldon. He is a Whiny entitled baby I dont get why they put up with him.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Why do you people hate BBT?

Because it is a comedy that isn't very funny, well acted, or believable. It is well produced, though, I suppose.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I love it, but I hate Sheldon.

He is obnoxious. That is what is funny.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont get why they put up with him.

Because else, without him, it would not be as funny for the viewer, of course!

 Ahtman wrote:
Because it is a comedy that isn't very funny, well acted, or believable. It is well produced, though, I suppose.

I find it funny. Not believable is not really a problem for me, else I would not play 40k .

Ahtman wrote:There is this weird hate a lot of times for well known women that like video games/rpgs/board games. They are often accused of being fake or pandering.

There are even sad little memes about it. Why aren't women allowed to game too?!

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I love her on table top, I just really dont like here characters she plays.

Having seen none of them (I'll be honest, I didn't even know she had done any), what is it you hate? I've seen tabletop as you know, we both like her there, I also watched some of the short videos she does with her brother where they play co-op games (the mechwarrior one was amazing).

The Marvel universe continues to expand. How long before it implodes under the weight of its own cinematic cash-grabbery?

I don't understand Fillion or Day's appeal, but I'm not too bothered about it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I find it funny. Not believable is not really a problem for me, else I would not play 40k .

And you more than welcome to like it. I also play 40k, but that doesn't mean that I can't find something lacking in credibility or verisimilitude.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Why do you people hate BBT?

It takes some overblown stereotype of these nerdy guys that completely smashes the suppression of disbelief to the point that it just becomes painful. I've only seen a few episodes, but it's every trite sitcom situation with the punchline rewritten to "because Star Wars! (laugh track)". Really, I guess every sitcom punchline is "becasue x! (laugh track)", so maybe it's more of an issue with sitcoms. I can't really think of a sitcom I've ever seen that wasn't nails on a chalkboard. Doesn't make it any less repulsive though.

Contrast that with Silicon Valley though. That show is genius. I think I've had some of the conversations before on that show, and that's what makes it funny.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Having seen none of them (I'll be honest, I didn't even know she had done any), what is it you hate? I've seen tabletop as you know, we both like her there, I also watched some of the short videos she does with her brother where they play co-op games (the mechwarrior one was amazing).

Her Characters are nerd sex bait there to lear over and are Mary Sues. Eureka she can solve most problems, Supernatural she is a genius hacker who is a lesbian.
Let me pitch you this Character "She is this smoking hot Nerd girl. She can hack her way into ANY system and LARPS and plays DND. She is also a lesbian"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Her Characters are nerd sex bait there to lear over and are Mary Sues. Eureka she can solve most problems, Supernatural she is a genius hacker who is a lesbian.
Let me pitch you this Character "She is this smoking hot Nerd girl. She can hack her way into ANY system and LARPS and plays DND. She is also a lesbian"

She was pretty mundane in Dr. Horrible.

I hope she also hacks by typing furiously at the keyboard.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Her Characters are nerd sex bait there to lear over

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
and are Mary Sues.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Eureka she can solve most problems

It is a show about super geniuses that solve problems. Usually they also cause them. It seems an odd complaint.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Supernatural she is a genius hacker who is a lesbian.

Becuase there are lots of stupid hackers on TV? And who cares if she is a lesbian? How does this play into the dislike?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Let me pitch you this Character "She is this smoking hot Nerd girl. She can hack her way into ANY system and LARPS and plays DND. She is also a lesbian"

On a show like Dallas it wouldn't make any sense, but you could put her on 24, Supernatural, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, ect ect and she would fit right in.

 daedalus wrote:
It takes some overblown stereotype of these nerdy guys that completely smashes the suppression of disbelief to the point that it just becomes painful.

The stereotypes are the point. They are the jokes.

 daedalus wrote:
Contrast that with Silicon Valley though. That show is genius. I think I've had some of the conversations before on that show, and that's what makes it funny.

Maybe I should try it. What is it about?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I hope she also hacks by typing furiously at the keyboard.

Woah, that was… epic. Anyway, expecting any kind of realism about hacking on TV seems an exercise in futility. The truth is way too boring.
I mean, people just typing stuff? No blink, no moving images, no way for the public to have any idea what is happening? Not going to happen any time soon, I am afraid. Especially not since very few people would understand even the most basic security stuff like what is a buffer overflow, what a firewall actually does, … And magical techno-bumble to justify just anything is such a convenient plot device.
But if any show actually do research at some real computer attack and attempts to reproduce it, it would be quite interesting to see the result.

Felicia day is hot? That's news. Oh wait! It's a girl, among nerds.

Anyway, never liked the guild (so fething cheesy).

And let's be honest, we all know Gus Sorola is the hottest internet nerd celeb anyway.

I would do that in a heartbeat.

 Medium of Death wrote:
The Marvel universe continues to expand. How long before it implodes under the weight of its own cinematic cash-grabbery?

Well, I think it's fair to question whether Marvel is becoming too focused on the *next* film. I get how the intertextuality stuff helped them build up The Avengers. It was obviously a huge success -- you have to give them credit for that. But now that the MCU seems pretty well built, does every new film have to have a certain number of references to future films, use certain existing characters, etc.? Reports suggested that it was that kind of stuff that helped drive Wright away from Ant-Man.

I get that it lays a marketing foundation of sorts for future films, and might even boost interest for those wanting to see the next "installment" even if they aren't particularly interested in a given character (I think many people went to see Cap 2 based on the idea that it was an Avengers 1.5 of sorts). But yeah, this approach might have its limits.

I think it was the guy on Batman on Film who commented that while Marvel Studios is in the business of making films using Marvel characters, WB is more simply in the business of making films. I think it's an interesting point, and suggests to me that Marvel's approach doesn't have to be followed and maybe *shouldn't* be followed since Marvel is such a unique case.

TBH I think Guardians or Antman will be defining for the MCU if it succeeds or explodes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Her Characters are nerd sex bait there to lear over

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
and are Mary Sues.

Huh?

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Ahtman wrote:There is this weird hate a lot of times for well known women that like video games/rpgs/board games. They are often accused of being fake or pandering.

There are even sad little memes about it. Why aren't women allowed to game too?!

Because men get hungry apparently.

for the record im not hating on gamer girls. Im hating on felecia day. I love geek girls and have quite a bit of friends of them

 gorgon wrote:
Reports suggested that it was that kind of stuff that helped drive Wright away from Ant-Man.

From what I've heard the reason for the split was after Shane Black took certain liberties with Iron Man 3 the MCU Overseer, whose name I forget, stepped in to say there are certain things you either a) have to put in b)just can't do. Joss Whedon has already confirmed that Stark will be getting his Arc Reactor back in some fashion- but that's screen time and studio money being used to actively undo something they already used studio time and money on. I can wholly see why they'd want to exert a degree of control when building an interconnected setting.

As to the BBT, the show was entertaining at first but has long since lost its way. It now spends far too much time on the relationship rubbish you can find in any show.

Its a parodox I heard, the reasons some movies get made that are great is freedom from control, so when other producers see them suceed and pour money into similiar projects the exert more control because so much was poured into it.