Patton Oswalt's "Wake up, Geek Culture. Time to die."

Is it really necessary for us to identify as geeks or nerds? I mean, I don't feel some sort of proprietary ownership over Lord of the Rings just because I was reading it long before it was a hit movie. I like the books because I like the books, not because of the badge of "geek" that goes along with it. So what if it's ubiquitous?

I find it ironic that 99% of the time I was entrenched in "Geek Culture" I was desperately wishing I could be popular and people would like me. Now that Geek culture is coming into the mainstream and being accepted, everybody is whining about how much fun it was.

Lemme tell you something about geek culture: Shit sucked.

I do wonder if Tron: Legacy might be, if not the death knell, then at least the turning point for the rise of geek culture. The entire marketing campaign -- if not the very existence of the film itself -- seemed to rest on nothing but the fact that the first film had become this major geek touchstone, that there were millions of us out there pining away for a second film. And Legacy debuted to a massive shrug from all but the most devout Tron fanboys. It's sort of like what happened with Snakes on a Plane -- we don't want to be told what to embrace, we want to find it for ourselves.

I think it would have been much different if Tron:Legacy was actually a good film. I mean, it wasn't unwatchable, but it's not exactly raising the bar. If Tron turned out really good I think it would only support the "rise" of geek culture.

I say bring it on. The reason us 'nerds' felt good about ourselves wasn't the rarity of our subjects of interest in itself. It was (we vainly assumed) the fact that we were that much smarter than the common rabble, that we could identify the really cool stuff that went above their heads. And as for his intermingling of otaku and nerd, I must offer my nerdy objection.

I still love him like a brother, but he sounds like an old nerd who's tired of trying to stay in front of the - now much faster running - general population.

Yeah, but to me the most interesting crux of the piece is about the inspiration to create based off things you miss or can't exactly get anymore. That's far more interesting to consider than just "well what if my geekiness isn't rare anymore?"

I'm confused... did we want everyone to like Scott Pilgrim or not?

Yes, but what is the basis for this concern. I don't see a lack of things being created for niche interests.

He sounds like an old geek who misses the feeling of ownership over his interests. Kind of disappointing coming from one of my favorite comedians. I'd think he'd have learned to let go by this point.

Hey Patton. Welcome to middle age.

The new otaku will be meatspace. Facebook and much of what Oswalt touches on in the article will see to that. Going outside, that cool new trail, park, etc will be the new geek.

Those geeks already exist, though. Burning Man is their Comic-Con.

I meant more for people who bathe.

As long as "Dwarf Fortress" remains obscure, Geek Culture is not dead.

Yes, great insight indeed.

I disagree with the text in the sense that those reviews/lists or whatever could make you more confident to buy something if you really have not enough money to consume all the pop culture you want (thinking of myself years ago).
What is more, the fact it's no more niche stuff makes it cheaper in some cases (again, perhaps a local biased vision from where I live).

Also, I don't agree knowing there's tons of stuff out here makes you less efficient digesting what you have right know.

Ripoll, care to expand?

Just a strong sense that this is the nerdiest mid-life crisis ever experienced.

It kind of sounds like he's railing against 'those dern kids!' They didn't know what it was like in the old times. The way people are, if Patton had had the internet back when Star Trek was first airing its reruns, you can bet he would have been downloading that stuff. Technology is changing the game and giving us what we always wanted.

And I'm all for striking geek or nerd from the record. It's another in a long line of 'us vs them' paradigsms, where they don't accept us because we do or like x, and we don't like them because they're so mainstream and are beautiful or popular or whatever. Maybe if 'geek' or 'nerd' dies, or at least loses its negative connotations, people will start liking stuff worth liking. Maybe True Grit could be the most successful Jeff Bridges film of the year if that were the case.

Just because you listened to a band before they made it on the radio doesn't make you better than the person who heard the song in a fucking Apple commercial and thought 'Hey! I like that, I think I'll listen to more.'

Yeah, there is a very strong stench of "kids today have it so easy!!!" all over the piece. I love Patton, but giving laymen easy access to information previously restricted to specialists is one of the main benefits of the digital age, not a drawback. If that means trivia specialists start feeling less special, well, that tragedy is roughly on par with the clog in my shower drain.

It's like film fans my age who harp on how they had to drive four hours to see a year-old print of some obscure film that nowadays is on Instant Watch on Netflix anytime you want. It's not enough to appreciate the film, you had to have gone to some great effort to see it.

I'll admit to some guilt regarding expressing this sentiment. But not out of begrudging those that have it easy. More out of expressing anger at how difficult we had it.

People who still clutch at labels like geek or nerd unironically are like people who claim to be goth or Twitards (whatever they're called). Just weird and kind of off-putting. You're an adult now, your hobbies shouldn't be the thing that defines you.

Like the Star Wars fans who waited in line for the prequels. On purpose.

You know your sense of nostalgia has gotten out of control when you romanticize that time you waited in a line.

From Patton's article:
Too true. I saw Tad live twice, never saw Nirvana.

Harry @ AICN has a lengthy response to the former Neil Cumpston
And don't forget that Patton has a book (and audiobook, essentially making this his next album) coming out in January. Any chatter he can get among geeks/nerds is good for sales.

Interesting article but, yeah, I think it's cool that more people accept and love things like Lord of the Rings, Doctor Who etc

BUT, I will say I see a certain point: in an "Existentialist" kind of way I can see where one could feel nostalgia for hunting up weird stuff. Stephen King once wrote about how a friend told him about this "Xtreme!!" film he just had to see. They could only find it in some dingy porno theater in 1970's new York City, in a really seedy dangerous part of town (probably Times Square). The film? Assault on Precinct 13! That experience of daring physical harm (however unreal) to be rewarded with a unique, "extreme" experience, that's something I will never have, since I just rented (later bought) a VHS Cassette of that same movie in a store and watched it at home.

But I also think that once you separate that experience of hearing about/seeking/finding/bonding with like minds over a film, book, band whatever, you then have to evaluate it. And maybe that's where you realize that hey, 1978 Battlestar Galactica really sucked, despite being almost like Star Wars, while the 2000's version was uneven but provocative. Oh and Tron in 80's was pretty bland as is the new film....but the new film is being pushed at all the Hoi Polloi, not the Nerd Elite.

While there is a distinct odor of "Get off my lawn!" in the article, I think he makes a pretty great point regarding geek culture: the period for creating roughly 90% of what today's geeks obsess over stopped happening about 20 years ago. Think about it. We're still trading on the same monsters, villains, and franchises from the 80s, with precious little new material coming into the stream. I can relate to finding that irritating, even a little sad. We all carry a memory of loving a particular show or film into adulthood, but it seems now we also carry the whole franchise kicking and screaming by the hair with us. Nowadays, if someone was a fan of Buck Rodgers, they'd just get the box set off Amazon and show it to their pals.

Put it this way: If geek culture permeated pop culture like it does today versus 30 years ago, we wouldn't have Indiana Jones, we'd have a direct or kind-of-but-not-really sequel to one of the serials from the 50s that Spielberg and Lucas loved as a kid. That dearth in creativity and imagination should be lamented.

I think the difference is that my generation grew up on things like Star Wars and Star Trek, while this generation has been weaned on the memory of such properties. We got to benefit from the initial impact on pop culture, while they are living in the aftershocks, the weaker rumblings that are a pale echo of the seismic shift we experienced. And to be honest, there really hasn't been a geek property that's had the impact Wars and Trek had; even LOTR was trading in the reputation of the books. And I think today's geeks are so heavily latching on to the past because there's no ubiquitous geek touchstone for them to call their own. And rather than assimilating it and using it to create something new yet familiar, they're content with pale imitation.

Or worse, we're trying to build up stuff like Thundercats and Pokemon as the heirs apparent to geek culture, when at best that stuff should've been left in the same wormhole that My Pet Monster and pet rocks fell into. I mean, hell, we're mythologizing Mortal Kombat now. I think that more than the "ease of getting whatever whenever" is what's wrong with the output of pop culture nowadays.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "geek property". Harry Potter and Twilight have had significant impact on pop culture, although the latter gets poohed-poohed in that context since it's for girls.

I never really felt any kind of cultural identification as a "geek". Perhaps sometimes a "nerd", but I'm not really sure about that either because I have at times in my life been considered cool as well. I more broadly identify as a film lover, which I think allows me plenty of room to take pleasure in different films that different sub cultures may have also latched on to. I can love the THING without feeling that I am a horror geek of any stripe because it's a damn fine movie. I am not sure that being a "geek" really ever had meaning for people of my generation (I am age 24). What Patton is writing about already happened. I fell in love with CYF and 80s HK cinema as a teenager, long after such things were readily available on NETFLIX. It wasn't that they were hard to get or particularly obscure once you became aware of their existence, it's that they were cool

That's timeless and will never change IMHO

As for the idea that there are no new geek properties worth obsessing about and that people my age were just trading on the memories of pop culture trends that hit 30 years back? Not true. There was a huge ammount of excitement in 2003 for THE MATRIX RELOADED. Many people were hyped up beyond belief for that one. LOTR had been out of favor in pop culture for the most part, and was thought of as uncool. STAR WARS really never went away, but the LOTR films are what really started that moment in pop culture, not residual love of the books. Most of my friends were only reading the books by the time TWO TOWERS had left theaters. I am no longer really connected to whats going on in youth culture, but I doubt it's all STAR WARS and STAR TREK. There has to be new stuff (besides TWILIGHT) they're excited about

The Internet has made child/teenhood nostalgia far too easily accessible. Combine that with this quarterlife crisis nonsense and you have 25-30 year olds re-living their 'youth' with a click of the mouse while wearing with the blinders of 1) confusing nostalgia with quality and 2) not looking to the present.

The latter gets poo-poo'd because it's made of hardened, sparkling, glowering shit.

Books tend to be different beasts. And even with their popularity, Potter and Twilight aren't anywhere near the merchandising juggernaut that Star Wars was at its height. Their soundtrack albums didn't chart in the Top Ten, for example.

I don't disagree. But I'm talking about the nature of its popularity, not its quality. It's a phenomenon on par with any number of male-oriented "geek properties" but rarely gets that same recognition.

Take the last Star Trek movie. It was very well received, but there's no denying it was a pretty stupid movie. But most of us geeks were willing to overlook that stupidity because it delivered on the things we respond to and look for in our geek properties.

It could be argued that Twilight as a geek property serves as the same type of delivery device for girls.

Granted, but I would argue that makes Star Wars less a geek property since it's not as niche as either Harry Potter or Twilight.

But last year's Star Trek doesn't represent an entire property. Only time and context will tell you if Twilight comes close to that level of geek property.

Patton made a ton of valid points. You fucking kids don't even realize!

I wasn't making a direct comparison, only pointing out our willingness to overlook stupidity in our own cherished franchises while spewing venom upon others.

Patton is getting old and expressing anxiety about a world with which he's beginning to lose touch. I personally think it's been at least a decade since anything approaching decent rock n' roll has been produced. I can't possibly be right.

One thing in particular I found interesting about the article was Patton's wish for his daughter as filtered through his own childhood experiences:
The real question is whether that's what she is going to want.

In the 70s and 80s, the pop culture landscape and the way we related to it changed in ways our parents never could have imagined. I would have hated to have been forced to experience my youth in the same way they experienced theirs.

I'm sure people said the same thing when home video was first introduced. Before that, rep theaters and television were the only way to see old films. And they had a point as well. I have no doubt that I don't appreciate getting a Marx Brothers film in the mail via Netflix nearly as much as Scorsese did catching it randomly on television some Sunday afternoon. But I'd still say it's a net gain.

And his points about culture eating itself alive are points I definitely agree with. But the general thrust of the piece feels a little too "kids these days!" for my tastes.

The relative availability is actually a boon, because it means that with all the clutter, only people who care find things.

Lost and Y the last man might want to have a chat with you.

He has a valid point but culture has been eating itself for centuries it's only a matter of the rate it recycles boring stuff.

It's this right here, except probably in the near future. Most people know either only know the clutter and not the actual pleasure of seeking stuff for your own, or have some memory of the times nostalgized to death now.

I think a problem is, though many of us drawn to certain interests and genres did it out of pursuits of quality or interesting things or perhaps certain genres specifically connected with us in ways mainstream culture didn't, there are people drawn to them precisely out of a deep desire of being superior/knowing more than others who know feel a bit threatened/lost because the very thing they used to out-do others has been co-opted. I don't think what's happening to geek culture is essentially different from say the steps between Skinny Puppy, Nine Inch Nails, NIN-influenced numetal and Hot Topic goth electro stuff now and the people that genuinely liked that kind of music has either to make excuses for the good examples now or migrated to other places, and the ones that went industrial to feel "outsider", see everything as commercialized now. I'm not entirely sure this is either remotely new, seems like the standard narrative for just about every genre or cultural movement, its just that its happening simultaneously for a wide range of interests that 10 years ago were so "rare" in "real life" that many of us were actually drawn to online communities to discuss them.

Sure, but the majority disdain for the prequels, and the way TNG wasn't embraced in film the same way TOS was, makes it harder to say that's 100% the case.

I know. I was just making a joke about being from the same generation as him.

One thing this thread doesn't mention enough though, is that it's a pretty funny really well-written piece. I mean

come on.

"Geekdom" will never die just like being in the "In Crowd" will never die.

The Star Wars Prequels are hatred by Internet Film Geeks, most of whom grew up with the OT. Kids whose first exposure to Star Wars like the Prequels (that's right) and go on to Clone Wars, the EU etc. Their Fandom is different from OT Fandom. It has to be.

And I suspect that kids in their teens and twenties have plenty of new "franchises" (God how I hate that term). Here's some current Geek stuff that all came about in the late 90's at the earliest:

Hellboy

Harry Potter

The Matrix (though the sequels really shat over the first one)

Firefly/Serenity

Buffy

Sean of the Dead/Hot Fuzz/Scott Pilgrim AKA the Edgar Wright Multiverse

Farscape

Stargate (God help us all)

Babylon 5

Pixar Films (almost a genre unto themselves at this point, both for select film geeks and parents)

Twilight

All of these are niche properties with their own fanbase. Many of whom stay with their chosen franchise.

I'd almost count the new BSG, Clone Wars and even the LOTR films, because while they've turned off many of the original fanboys, they've picked up newer, younger (dare I say, hipper?) fans. And they're all re-imaginings (to one degree or another) that go beyond the originals.

This article kind of disappointed me, but I still have love for The Oswalt.

The whole thing is just elitism. Back in the 80's (30 years ago? Damn it.) the people who liked stuff like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars minutiae weren't included in the "cool kids" category, so they made their own pecking order. Now that pecking order has been destroyed, because the counterculture has been assimilated into mainstream society, like what happens to every counterculture, eventually.

I don't know, to me it's just a big "meh." Whether the things I like are "cool" isn't a big issue anymore. I mean, it was when I was a kid, but I'm not in high school anymore. I love Blade Runner because it's a kick ass film, not because it's some kind of geek status symbol that's inaccessable to the normals. Actually, I love that more people are getting into this stuff, because now I actually have some fracking people to talk to about the stuff I like.

It's a well written article, more wistful than bitter. But it kind of lost me...around the second sentence.

What did being a nerd mean 30 (well, the 90s for me, anyway) years ago, anyway? It wasn't a title that I sought out, a badge to be worn proudly. It was something used to separate people from what was considered 'normal', and magic the gathering, dungeon and dragons, all that hooey, getting into all of that wasn't some self-conscious act. It was just what I did, without thinking too much about it, hanging with my friends to the confusion and sometimes consternation of people older than me who just didn't get it. And honestly, I'm getting a whiff of that squinty eyed disapproval, born from ignorance and the times just moving on, wafting off this piece.

Come on. Just because people younger than us don't love the things we do in the way we used to doesn't mean creativity is dead. It would be dead if kids were lining up for the umpteenth iteration of the Indiana Jones template. This is something people perennially never get: people younger than you will never be exactly the way you were at their age. Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Batman, and Predator, the things we gab about everyday here, THAT'S the new mean for normality for our generation. What kids are into today veers sharply away from that. As to what that is exactly, I'm too much of a doddering old dude to know, I think.

It's all relative. Big, fancy cartoon spawning figures and other products? That can be Transformers yesterday as well as Pokemon today. The shows like that are sacred to us because we grew up with them, just as I dunno, Wizards of Waverly Place will be important to this generation as they grow up. Hell, when kids these days(!) start filtering into the Hollywood system, I'm sure we'll start to see their beloved shows remade and reimagined because those kids who grew up with it will have money.

Reading these responses has given me a warm fuzzy, because CHUD isn't a community of elitist "film geeks," it's a community of people who love film. I guess that distinction ends up being pretty important in the quality of discussion and thought.

OK, you just blew my mind right there. I mean sure, I knew on some subconscious level that this kind of thing will probably happen, but to see it spelled out for me was a little unnerving. In 20 years time, my daughter will be watching some Oscar-nominated drama, and she'll say, "Hey, that's the vampire girlfriend of the guy from Wizards of Waverly Place! You know! Then she had that show that was about her baby sister and she was making a video diary for her! What the hell was her name?" with the same dogged determination that drove me to find out where I knew Dexter's new nanny from (It turns out that she was one of the Commitments).

Whoah. I'm feeling my hair getting grayer just thinking about it.

This sort of sounds like, "I used to love that band until everybody started listening to them."

I've been wondering about this as well. Over the last couple of years there have been a whole bunch of big budget movies aimed right at the 80's pop culture-obsessed sensibilities of the generation described by Oswalt here and by Harry and co in those the misty-eyed nostalgic wankathons up at AICN at the moment, but none of them really crossed over. After Tron's lukewarm response I have to wonder if we're not reaching the end of a brief period where mainstream Hollywood thought this self-proclaimed 'geek' demographic was really one worth chasing.

What with Oswalt's rant, Knowles lecturing his readers for not liking his famous friends' shit, Nick's recent woe-is-me-the-world-has-changed main page rant, can't help wondering if the "Seeing Star Wars back in '77 made me the man I am today" generation isn't having some kind of collective mid-life crisis as they inch towards middle age and face the dawning realisation that the zeitgeist, even within their own geek niche, may be moving on without them.

Can't help thinking of Scott Pilgrim again. So many mid-to-late 30's geek critics hailed it as the perfect movie for todays youth, and seemed confused and angry when youth culture barely gave it a second glance. Maybe it eventually will eventually find a youth audience. But my suspicion was always that it, being totally drenched in 80's and 90's pop culture references, was the perfect movie for people (like those critics) who were young back then, more than for people who are young now. We might be starting to see a geek generation gap.

I hope Ghostbusters 3 is the end of the whole mess. Like there's an actual doomsday machine that is wired to all the prints and triggered when the theme song starts playing.