80

Probably about two or three months ago I brought that movie, The Pianist, as part of the Oscar watching list I have been going through. However, I could not tolerate any more of that like fiction Holocaust drama showing and returned the movie after viewing only a portion of it. I would not have reacted that way had I seen a scientific or proof directed discussion toward the reality of the matter instead of all that emphasizing on mere drama.    

79

Continued from the preceding post:

The addiction of the main character in that show House to a soap opera also did not fit someone at the thinking level capable of reaching all the connections and discovery that character was supposedly making. However, unlike here, that same unfitting can make things more interesting. The difference is that the addiction to soap opera there was not suggested as an extension or general side effect to having the qualities mentioned above.  

78

Continued from the preceding post:

The writers of that show seem to confuse two kinds of what people may call "nerds", those who isolate themselves in the world of comic books and science fiction and those who acquire such description because of how their focus on their field of science isolate them from the outside. Contrary to what the show suggests, the latter type of "nerds" are even less than the average person ready to allow themselves to accept science fiction beyond being a fantasy, if at all. Their involvement in their science and its rules would feel like a wall preventing them from attaching themselves to such shows like it is shown there. Take for example that space guy who appears on public TV. What happened after he saw the movie Gravity? I don't remember that he expressed fantasizing about it. Instead I remember that he objected to things in it because of his view that things would be different in real world. Same thing could easily be anticipated if you take an expert paleontologist to see Jurassic Park (even though there is much bigger room for the unknown here than in the physics and space sciences). The comedy aspect would have been much better served with showing the nerds being annoying to the average person with their constant pointing to how a science fiction show does not fit scientifically rather than making them themselves involved in those shows.

I remember how I saw things were far from fitting the behaviour of a psychologist in that show Frasier. But one could easily argue back that a comedic aspect of the show there was based on that contradiction or conflict. Here on the other hand I cant find any connection to a comedy except through the exaggerated stereotype which failed very miserably because it was not based on stereotype beyond that resulting from failing to distinguish between the two types of "nerds" mentioned above.   

77

I was looking at those other versions of the show Law and Order and thought thank God this action is not replicated as much elsewhere. Imagine if a restaurant expects you not to recognize the difference in taste in something other than what you ordered just because it copies and arranges the table the same way like it is expected from you not to sense quality writing here. Much of the original sears was high quality from all sides, drama, mystery, investigation, dialogue and I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the best ever in at least the legal complication and arguing aspect. 

Speaking about quality writings, or the lack of it, I cant let this pass without mentioning this. In the past I thought that the writers of that show Lost should be sued. Following that I thought that no one could cause me to top such feeling until I saw the show The Big Bang Theory and started feeling its writers should be criminally prosecuted. If not, then, I don't know, probably outsource show writing to China or some other place. Just save the world. Even though the main idea of the show is okay, the writing is so bad as if it was intentionally intended to be so. This is not how "nerds" act. In order to make your exaggeration funny, shouldn't it be based on the typical or stereotype behaviour? Instead of the mess of making the nerds read Batman and watch Star Trek the comedy could have been instead focused on their rigid thinking as physicists and their agitation to hear things like flying faster than light and other things that do not fit their science knowledge. Also, that character, Sheldon, gets changed to the level that makes one sick in his stomach. He also has deep knowledge in other social fields and history despite being a Physicist "nerd". Where is the funny stereotype exaggeration here? If that is not enough, science sophistication was mixed with sense sophistication combining the character of the scientist that is supposed to be a nerd one with that of an artist which conflict with that. Also that same character was shown to severely changes its views from one episode to another and contradict itself according to what suit its situation. That fits a very much morally deprived person not a nerd.