Nerdsploitation

This is a guest post by Sam

There are two shows that seem to reign supreme in the province of geek comedy: Futurama and The Big Bang Theory. They’re the ones with the jokes for comp sci guys, physics guys, chemistry guys, and the seven women who have overcome their inborn inferiority in the sciences to be able to understand astrophysics jokes .[really Sam, REALLY?-whaler] I should point out right away the following: first, I’m no expert in either show. I’ve watched a bunch of late night Futurama re-runs, and I pick up on some of the self-referential humor and running gags, but my level of knowledge of the inner workings of the show pales in comparison to my knowledge of, say, Arrested Development, pre-cancellation Family Guy, or expert methods for picking up women (alcohol is involved). I know even less about The Big Bang Theory, for reasons that will become clear. In short, don’t crucify me for my inaccuracies, everything I say here I’m reasonably confident I read about on the internet at some point. That being said, I can without a doubt say that Futurama is objectively a far funnier show. Some people think that humor is subjective, that hey, they might even like The Big Bang Theory more; they are wrong. The difference lies in the way both shows approach their geek humor.

The key to a geek comedy is that it must appeal to both geeks and non-geeks alike. At the very least, it has to appeal to geeks in different fields. It can’t be so dense and undecipherable that only PhD candidates can get the jokes, it has to be broad enough for the 50% of America that is by definition below average can get it. This means that the plot can’t rely on an understanding of science to make sense, and that a percentage of jokes need to have broad appeal as well. Here is where the first difference between the shows appears.

Futurama is descended from the Simpsons, which, before the Y2K bug destroyed the world’s computers by forcing web 2.0 on us, was the funniest show of all time. Back before Homer and Marge just had random bizarre things happen to them before a celebrity guest star intervened, The Simpsons had strong plots, superb sight gags, and some of the best 22 minutes episodes of comedy known to man (see: King-Size Homer, Marge vs. The Monorail, Homer at the Bat, etc. etc.). Futurama carried on this tradition, creating robust characters that weren’t just stereotypes (it would be hard to cite precedent for drunken robots and lobster doctors), stories that explored an imaginative non-utopian, not quite dystopian future, and quick witted humor that functions across demographics, thanks to fish-half-out-of-water everyman Fry. The writers were able to create believable characters in a somewhat believable universe, and were able to coax real drama out of them (perhaps the best illustration of this is the episode “Jurassic Bark,” which has pretty much the saddest ending ever since Old Yeller).

The Big Bang Theory has none of this. It’s created by Chuck Lorre, who, instead of pulling a Groening and creating The Simpsons first before making a geek classic, chose to create Two and a Half Men first, commonly regarded as the lowest common denominator of TV sitcoms in the history of the medium. Groening is a geek at heart, and Futurama is his homage to sci-fi. Lorre is a hack first, and The Big Bang Theory is his way of making fun of geeks by making a bad TV show starring that guy from Rosanne. The problem with The Big Bang Theory is, well, everything. The plots are fairly standard sitcom plots, the characters are about as stereotypical as is possible, and it seems that every joke follows the standard setup-punch line-topper format. If Chuck Lorre had made The Wire, it would have just been black people eating fried chicken in front of a live studio audience. I wish I could cite extensive specific examples, but I just can’t seem to sit through an entire episode. I’ve tried. I want to be able to like this show. I like the idea of shows that are “smart” and “geeky.” But this one just isn’t. In my head, it’s always playing like this , and you can imagine how that feels.

Which brings us to the one specific difference in how the two shows treat their audience. Both make strong claims about being scientifically accurate, but it seems that the big joke in The Big Bang is that these guys are nerds. They talk funny, they cite random science facts, and the way the show glosses over the less than well written jokes is by making them too dense for the average viewer, who just picks up on Sheldon-citing-an-obscure-statistic-because-he’s-a-nerd. Here’s a sample from the show’s pilot:

Penny: I'm a Sagittarius, which probably tells you way more than you need to know...

Sheldon:Yes... it tells us that you participate in the mass cultural delusion that the sun's apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality.

Penny: Participate in the what?

The joke seems to be that she doesn’t understand what he’s saying. There’s nothing actually funny in what he says, it’s factually correct, there’s no joke in there. If you strip out the fancy talk, it can be re-written as:

Penny: I'm a Sagittarius, which probably tells you way more than you need to know...

Sheldon:Yes... it tells us that you believe in astrology, which makes you stupid.

Penny: I am stupid!

More examples glommed from the show’s quotes page on Wikipedia? Sure!

Sheldon: I'm a physicist. I have a working knowledge of the entire universe and everything it contains.

Penny: Who's Radiohead?

Sheldon: [after twitching for a minute] I have a working knowledge of the important things.

That one is apparently implying that geeks and nerds don’t listen to perhaps the geekiest, nerdiest band on the planet. How about:

Penny: What about Howard and Raj, how did [Sheldon] become friends with them?

Leonard: I don't know...how do carbon atoms form a benzene ring? Proximity and valence electrons.

Penny: Well yeah sure, when you put it that way.

Let’s just be clear what’s happening here: Leonard is apparently comparing social interactions to chemical processes, because he is autistic and doesn’t know how to relate to people. If he’s implying that proximity and electricity (maybe a spark of it?) are what bring friends together, ok, I’ll half buy that. But the joke once again shows through in Penny’s line, when she subtly informs the audience that you don’t really know what was said, just that it was super nerdy and she is stupid. The secret to all of this is that what Leonard says isn’t funny. He’s just stating a fact. The joke is that it’s got science words in it, not that it’s actually a funny comparison.

A final note before we move on from the land of autistics hanging out with dumb blondes: there’s a blog written by one of the science consultants on the show that explains some of the theory behind what you see on TV. This is all well and good, and they do have some science in there, a positive. But, the science is in there as science, not as humor. The most recent post points out that their whiteboard has chemical reactions for rocket fuel written on it, foreshadowing Sheldon playing with rocket fuel. That’s a neat little easter egg, but it’s not funny, it’s just… equations in the background. And it seems a lot of their science is treated this way: it’s not a science punch line per se, it’s just there as a side note to lend credibility.

On the other hand, Futurama, rather than bludgeoning you with nerdiness, weaves both broad jokes and geek jokes in seamlessly. The little nuggets in the background are funny little commentaries or asides, not just references to science. For example, Cartridge Unit, Cymbal-Banging Monkey, Sinclair 2K and Lisa are all obsolete robots. They’re all funny as characters, but their names also reference actual obsolete computers (or, in the case of Cymbal-Banging Monkey, toys), so unpacking the geek parts yields to a bonus joke, not just random equations. Soylent Cola “varies from person to person.” Bender has nightmares about the number 2. There are countless little flourishes like these that are actually jokes, not just science for science’s sake, and I’m sure the die-hard fans can single out the best of them far better than I can.

In the end, it comes down to Futurama actually being made for its audience, respecting their intelligence, and giving them something for it, while the Big Bang Theory just has a bunch of unfunny science in it to give it “geek appeal.” Of course, the unwashed masses will always trend towards “smart shows” that make them feel more comfortable in not knowing things, and shows like Futurama will bounce from time slot to time slot, network to network, trying the patience of those who love it. But I suppose we true geeks can take quiet comfort in knowing that we’re secretly right, our show really is better, and that those moron geek fans of Big Bang are laughing at a show that’s just blatantly making fun of them.