Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 4056306" data-attributes="member: 8158">Seems to me that when a thoroughly uninspired and formulaic show with by-the-numbers characters and tired, repetitive jokes and dumbed-down plots being kept around, it is bad news for everyone. It means the audience hasn't become nearly as savvy as we'd like to think. :\ Maybe there's something I'm missing. Help me over the first obvious hurdle: what makes Chuck a believable nerd? He's good-looking. He's in good shape. He's tall (or at least not short). He's not an unhygenic slob or anything. He's mildly awkward in social situations but he's not anti-social. Do people find Chuck a believable nerd just because he's presented as such by the premise of the show?Or maybe the bar is just real low at the moment. If one is looking for something new to glom on to, Chuck is probably about as good as it gets.All this love for Chuck makes my brain feel unclean. I think I'll go jump back in the Dexter thread.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />Man, just last week, you were giving Xena a hard time for its sporadic sillyness. The only remotely entertaining quality that can be ascribed to Chuck is "sillyness". What gives?</blockquote>