The Geek Beat: Defining the Geek Genre
Filed under: The Geek Beat
When I was given the task of outlining the geek year ahead of us, I thought it was a relatively easy task. Watchmen, check. Wolverine, check. Star Trek, check. Hmmm, nothing in June, gratuitous Harry Potter reference for July, does G.I. Joe count because of the Marvel comics ... and so on. Erik Davis suggested Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Avatar and Terminator: Salvation – I included the first two, then promptly fell asleep before adding the third. (I had been up all night. I live like a bat.)
Privately (and now publicly, ha ha) I wasn't sure G.I. Joe, Transformers 2, Terminator: Salvation or Avatar counted as geek films. But as one commenter astutely pointed out, "geek" isn't exactly an official genre, so who is to say what is a geek film and what isn't? Well, what better place to debate this than The Geek Beat – and what better time to define it than in the first installment of 2009?
To me, a geek film is something that mainstream audiences don't necessarily embrace, something they may even snigger at. That's why I restricted "geek films" to be movies based on (or accompanied by) graphic novels and comic books. (I also had to loosen the definition in order to pad it out a bit with selections like Sherlock Holmes and GI Joe because hey, there's not that many comic/superhero films this year.) But it's also why I included Star Trek, which falls out of comic territory, but invented geekdom. Trekkers/Trekkies flew the flag when no one else did. So did Star Wars fans and if there had been some kind of Star Wars film on the 2009 slate, I would have included it too.
Privately (and now publicly, ha ha) I wasn't sure G.I. Joe, Transformers 2, Terminator: Salvation or Avatar counted as geek films. But as one commenter astutely pointed out, "geek" isn't exactly an official genre, so who is to say what is a geek film and what isn't? Well, what better place to debate this than The Geek Beat – and what better time to define it than in the first installment of 2009?
To me, a geek film is something that mainstream audiences don't necessarily embrace, something they may even snigger at. That's why I restricted "geek films" to be movies based on (or accompanied by) graphic novels and comic books. (I also had to loosen the definition in order to pad it out a bit with selections like Sherlock Holmes and GI Joe because hey, there's not that many comic/superhero films this year.) But it's also why I included Star Trek, which falls out of comic territory, but invented geekdom. Trekkers/Trekkies flew the flag when no one else did. So did Star Wars fans and if there had been some kind of Star Wars film on the 2009 slate, I would have included it too.
But the definition is really problematic these days. One of my earliest columns was on the idea of "geek chic" or "fan glam," the belief that it was so cool to be a geek that the lines were blurring or vanishing completely. I dismissed it at the time based on my own personal experiences of wearing Wolverine hoodies at Heathrow, and not being able to find XS comic t-shirts. That was before Iron Man and The Dark Knight hit theaters, before I found an XS Jayne Cobb shirt at ComicCon, and before friends and family started ransacking my comic shelf, and e-mails from strangers poured in demanding my Queen Gorgo dress. It does seem like prior to summer 2008, comics and conventions were for geeks, and only a maladjusted adult would be into seeing The Avengers. Now, everyone wants to know who the heck is playing Catwoman. Casting and continuity debates once reserved for my comic book shop are now heard everywhere, and the trailer to X-Men Origins: Wolverine is one of the most viewed as per IMDB. Maybe this stuff isn't that weird anymore – maybe geek is chic.
Of course, I'm focusing mainly on comic movies as an example. There's plenty of other movies that I consider to be 100% geeky, like Star Trek, and Star Wars. If a Doctor Who movie came out tomorrow, I'd slap the nerd label on it. Yet, I'm not convinced that anything sci-fi or futuristic can be labeled as "geeky." I don't consider most of James Cameron's filmography to be "geeky" even if it is science fiction, it's all too slickly mainstream. (That's not a bad thing.) Nor do I consider Terminator: Salvation to be particularly nerdy -- I'd put the entire Terminator saga firmly into the mainstream action category. Same with Transformers, which appeals not to geeks, but to childhood nostalgia. Many people who flock to see those movies will sniff at Star Trek, no matter how glamorous J.J. Abrams makes it.
I think the lines blur not because of the new popularity of superheroes and sci-fi, but because of the Internet. The first three Terminator films didn't inspire a lot of pre-release obsession, whereas Terminator: Salvation has been discussed down to the fine points since the day it was announced. Film fandom is becoming synonymous with geekdom because of the intense discussion inspired by a single poster, photograph, or trailer. Fandom itself has taken on a dimension that cinema has never before experienced – if The Man with No Name trilogy was released today, Jack Sparrow costumers would be competing with squinting boys in serapes. NECA would have an 18 inch tall talking Blondie action figure. And we'd be debating whether The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was a geek film for 2009.
I realize now that I'm making it sound like that's a bad thing, and that I'm feeling defensive over a label, or desperately clinging to social ostracism. I'm not at all. I've always firmly believed that you can be a geek about anything – from Sergio Leone, to U2, to football stats. Geekdom isn't confined to Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek conventions, or comic books. And I'm loving every moment "geekdom" has in the sun because people like talking about it, and movies and television in general.
So, I'll put the question to you – is there such a thing as the geek genre? How would you define it? Is it now an obsolete label thanks to people's enthusiasm everything once confined to conventions, dingy comic shops, and secret clubs? I'm honestly leaning towards "obsolete" myself ... except that I still can't buy a Wolverine t-shirt in a girl size, and until I can (and at someplace like Target instead of convention stalls), I won't be convinced that the lines of geekdom have vanished.
Girls on Film: Domestic Violence and Media
'Spider-Man 4' Villain Rumor: Rachel McAdams as Black Cat
Original A-Team Making Cameos in New Movie?
Is the 'Avatar' Budget Approaching $500 Million?_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive: Poster Premiere for 'Extraordinary Measures'
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1-06-2009 @ 2:21PM
Astin said...
Is this where geek becomes fragmented? I shudder to think so. Sure there's always been sub-genres of geekdom, but on the whole, "geek" is a pretty embracing area. Remember, before it became cool, geekdom took in anybody who wasn't a jock or popular "kid". Except that freaky smelly guy who wore his underwear on the outside... he was just weird.
I had to blink a couple times when you said you didn't consider James Cameron films as geek. That you questioned G.I. Joe, Transformers, and Terminator also amazes me.
Just because something is mainstream or appeals to nostalgia doesn't discredit it from being geek. The problem is that your viewpoint is generally from that of a comic geek. Nothing wrong with that, but it does narrow your focus and keeps you from being objective when classifying the genre. Just because it doesn't match with your definition doesn't mean it isn't qualified.
James Cameron, for all his slick, big-budget action, is a geek made good. This is someone who INVENTS new technology so his vision can be realized. If that isn't just a hacker with money, I don't know what is.
Is Voltron geeky enough? Macross? Robotech? If so, why not Transformers? Not Japanese enough? They're giant transforming ROBOTS, I don't know what else you need to qualify.
Claiming something is mainstream action or too slick to be geek just reeks of geek elitism. Suddenly something isn't good enough to be geeky? Let's not forget our humble roots.
Besides, if we start excluding obviously geeky things from geekdom, how can we create that look of shock when we reveal to people they have stepped over to the dark side because they're talking endlessly about Batman, or own all the Buffy seasons, or ask if they can borrow that Appleseed DVD on your shelf?
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 2:25PM
LordPaul said...
I suppose it depends on what type of geek you're refering to:
Film geek: Anything goes
Comic geek: as you defined, but didn't specify originally as your intention
standard geek: anything techy/comic-y/video game-y/sci-fi/music-y
I am called a geek by some of my friends because I work with computers & always have the latest gadgets & toys. I've never been a comic fan but usually like comic book movies & for the movies which pushed my geek button in the past I'd probably go for stuff like Transformers, V for Vendetta, the first Matrix film, Terminator, BTTF, etc.
I don't think Pirates is a geek movie, and neither are Westerns (but I dig both sets of films)
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 2:35PM
Brian said...
Go see The Good, The Bad, The Weird. It's Korean, and it's a geeky weastern, well Korean/Chinese Weastern.
1-06-2009 @ 2:45PM
Kevin said...
What Geek phenomenon hasn't gone mainstream? From what I recall, Superman was a comic book movie that made huge money 30 years ago, and Tim Burtons Batman movies didn't do so poorly themselves. Star Wars was one of the biggest grossing movies of all time, and you didn't have to dress up like a Klingon to like Star Trek. Its always seemed so odd to me that "geeks" say they're outcasts and ostracized. "Geek groups" are probably the 2nd easiest thing to find huge groups of people to hang out with in the country, with the only thing more popular being Sports. Dungeons and Dragons has millions of players across the country, Sci Fi and Fantasy books are wildly popular, and RPG's on video games are consistently top sellers ever since FFVII came out. So something going mainstream and being wildly popular seems more like evidence that something is Geeky then if its not popular and relegated to the sidelines.
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 2:55PM
Clark Parker said...
I think it's gone... Geekdom that is. I mean, I have no qualms with calling myself a geek, I love every single one of these over-the-top action, fantasy, sci-fi epic adventures that comes out. Hell, I'm a grown man, married with kids and yet I'm building a model city, for my collection of Marvel Action Figures, in my Basement. But really, does that make me a geek? I don't know. I like to think of myself as a fairly well adjusted person. I just happen to think Tony Stark is the man. But then... He IS the man. So where is the harm?
I agree that the Internet did it... I think before this, many of us were ever so slightly (or even glaringly) ashamed of our so-called "Geeky" interests... We thought all those serious minded people who we imagined only read important literature or saw important art films would scoff at us. We'd be ashamed that the sporty kid who got all the girls in high school would laugh that we had a highscore on our favorite video game. But it's just not true... I mean, sure, the jock would probably still laugh but you can't tell me he doesn't play Madden now and then. With the explosion of communication that came with the Internet I think the blinders have come off a bit and we realized that everyone is a geek about something. Take for example this stone faced and ashen haired older man I work with... I didn't think he had an ounce of fun in his body, until the day I found him dancing around in the lunchroom, listening to Elvis on his damn I-Pod. Turns out he has a whole museum of The King's memorabilia. Nerdiest damn thing I ever saw. Also, I took this night class a few months back and there was a gaggle of tween girls, of the type I remember having no interest in anything remotely geeky and yet there they were, going nuts over The Dark Knight, talking about how it was their favorite film, period. But more to the point, I've poked around various Internet forums for years now and the one thing I noticed is that there are millions of us. Perfectly normal, intelligent people who just so happen to be passionate about some fictional character and his/her adventures in a fictional reality.
So I think this whole World Wide Web thing was one big coming out party. When a comic book about a man in rubber is the hottest film of last year and an upcoming flick based on a Hugo Award winning comic book and is the most anticipated film of this year, when 45 year old women are playing the Wii and actually clocking in more hours then their kids, when bands like Weezer or countless others are rocking their nerdy passions for the world to see and embrace, when a toy commercial about robots in disguise and a book about boy wizards are likely to smash box office records again, well then I think it’s time to admit we are all geeks… And if we are all geeks… Well then, none of us are.
We just have really good taste… And hungry imaginations.
Oh, and about that model city I mentioned…. No, seriously...
http://www.freewebs.com/clark-parker/
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 3:20PM
Kevin said...
Sir, I wish that you had posted your comment before mine. You just said exactly what I was trying to say, only the way you said it actually had a point and you got that point across much more eloquently than I did.
1-06-2009 @ 3:29PM
Clark Parker said...
Well, sir, for what it's worth, I wish I had managed to squeeze in a few of your points, such as enjoying Star Trek without dressing up like a Klingon... So it all balances out in the end.
1-06-2009 @ 4:07PM
Ashley said...
You said what I wanted to say in that I think being a "geek" about something would be if you are slightly ashamed of admitting that you like, or have, or do something as related to that media (whether they be books, video games, comics, music, etc.). The thing is, it's becoming a lot easier to admit to loving those things without shame because you know someone out there is the same way (because of the internet). I would never have dressed up to a movie premiere once upon a time in my younger years... But I've now dressed up for Harry Potter, Pirates, Dark Knight, X-Files... And it's cool, because someone else is being just as geeky with me. I'm no longer ashamed to admit that sort of thing.
1-06-2009 @ 3:08PM
Kelly said...
I definitely think the Internet has helped create this "geek genre." In my opinion, it does exist. It may be a more mainstream geekdom, but it's geekdom none-the-less. Sure, there will always be subgenres that may never see any kind of mainstream attention and support, but for now, it isn't all that bad to be a geek.
- Kelly
http://conventionfans.today.com
The Convention Fans Blog
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 3:36PM
Paul Nicholson said...
You're confusing "Geek" and "nerd"
Geek: obsessive, beyond normal interest in a given topic. knowledge hungry analytical thinkers that take a given topic very seriously
Nerd: Socially inept, outcasts that have trouble relating to society.
You can be a nerd and a geek - many are - but they are not interchangeable terms in my mind (i am quite possibly both...not saying i'm not)
Thus, "geek movies" would be any movie that has a geek following. "Nerd movies" are those for outcasts.
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 4:09PM
Clark Parker said...
I think you have it backwards, in as much as you could, given that I disagree that they are all that different these days.
But if I had to separate the definition of a Geek and a Nerd as you have, I'd switch them. I'd suggest a Nerd is the analytical one, focusing on hyper intelligent or overly obsessive hobbies, while a Geek is the social outcast who simply doesn't belong with anyone but other geeks.
Classically, I'd say the image is of Nerds wearing glasses and pocket protectors while Geeks could be found in the circus.
That said though, it only adheres to your individual interpretation of them as now, both are more or less the same thing and neither fits that classic mold any longer. If there is a difference, it’s a blurry one, more difficult to define then this topic about what is geeky and what is not... Even when and if such definitions did apply, they were largely incorrect stereotypes that pigeonholed anyone who did not the trends of the time.
So for the purpose of this debate, I’d call them interchangeable phrases rather then trying to pick at the semantics of it all.
1-07-2009 @ 11:06AM
Paul Nicholson said...
I get what you're saying about the historical use of the terms. But i think the modern use is clearly different. People self-identify as Geeks, but i don't know anyone that self identifies as a Nerd - that's the easiest way that i know of to differentiate the terms.
1-07-2009 @ 11:13AM
Paul Nicholson said...
I also bothered to actually look them up on m-w.com
GEEK:
1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disliked
3 : an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity
NERD:
An unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person ; especially : one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits
In Webster's style, the last definition is the most current. Also, no definition of Geek includes descriptions of social ineptitude or being unstylish (except perhaps implied for the circus performer...), while the Nerd does.
1-06-2009 @ 3:49PM
Andrew said...
My thoughts: http://jeditrilobite.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/the-geek-demog…hat-to-call-itthe-geek-demographic-or-what-to-call-it/
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 3:57PM
Eric H said...
I have worked with cons in the past and we have used 1 rule to define if something is geek. The Rule: Something is geek if has at least five fan fiction stories related to it. Works well for us.
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 4:28PM
Clark Parker said...
Agreed, Ashley. Hell, our own Ms. Rappe here dressed up as Lara Croft at the last Comic Con and looked smokin' hot, if she doesn't mind my saying... What's more I don't think it did a lick of damage to her credibility. We live in an age were it's just ok to embrace these things; we don't need to be ashamed anymore.
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 7:19PM
Moo said...
Great topic! I love discussions like this because it's so in the eye of the beholder. I remember a long-running argument on an internet forum I frequent about what classifies a films as "epic".
I tend to track Elisabeth's definition. To me Terminator isn't "geek" per se. It's Sci-Fi, certainly, but at it's heart, it's action. Or at least it has been. It's really pretty much Die Hard with a cyborg...or sorta.
I tend to agree about Transformers too. I have tons of friends who would never be caught dead going to Watchmen or watching old eps of X-Files, but they'll see Transformers for two reasons: 1) they played with the toys when they were kids, and 2) big boomy explosions!!1! Same can be said of GI Joe. But they'd NEVER go see Robotech. Explosions, maybe, but not enough nostalgia factor.
But then, that's just me!
One thing we can all agree on, Clark's point, the Lara Croft outfit was pretty kick-ass.
Reply
1-07-2009 @ 5:11AM
Ben said...
The "geek" genre? - How many movies of the past decade have involved a wild man biting the head off a live chicken?
Reply
1-07-2009 @ 4:24PM
wolverbunny said...
i play dungeons and dragons,read comic books,and love star trek... does that make me a geek?
oh yeah,and by teh way,i'm a FEMALE!!!!!
I AM A SHE-GEEK!!!! lol...
but seriously,geekiness is braod nowadays... ya have yer scifi geeks,comic geeks,anime geeks,brainy geeks,techy geeks,etc...
Reply
1-07-2009 @ 10:26AM
ML said...
I don't think there's really a "geek genre," although you might call a number of genres (or sub-genres) "geek genres": comic book, anime, science fiction, vampire movies, zombie movies, giant robot movies (get where I'm going with "sub-genres"?) etc, etc. Some of these movies (& other things) are awfully popular and transcend the traditional definition of "outside the mainstream" as far as popularity, but retain the quality of extreme interest for a smaller segment of their audience. Does this allow them to maintain their "geek cred"? (How about Speed Racer, though, a little too geek?)
Reply