Mister Peejay: eddievercetti: So a channel made for geeks, killed almost all geek programmingThe "geek programming" was unwatchable. They kept bringing in these talking heads who hyped things up a lot.Sorry, I'm a geek. I can't stand the sound of people talking unless they are actually saying something. Get your Baywatch rejects out of here.
Old Smokie: I like some of the articles in GQ, but I never got these magazines. Can there really be that many straight men that like to play dress up at enormous personal expense?
eddievercetti: So a channel made for geeks, killed almost all geek programming, stop caring about their core audience, lost ratings, got brought by douches and now the channel will be made for douches.
Mentalpatient87: I wanted to like the shows on G4, but I couldn't get past the grating, horrible personalities they had hosting those shows. It is insane how annoying Adam Sessler and the Attack of the Show nerds were..
nickp91: X-Play was the only good thing about G4
DerpHerder: Mentalpatient87: I wanted to like the shows on G4, but I couldn't get past the grating, horrible personalities they had hosting those shows. It is insane how annoying Adam Sessler and the Attack of the Show nerds were..You don't like Adam Sessler? I always enjoyed him all the way back when X-Play was known as extended play. He made some great skits and was a harsh critics of the games he reviewed. To each his own I guess.The combination of G4 and Tech TV took a network for people with some level of intelligence (TechTV/ZDTV) and bastardized it with the farked up lowlife channel designed for people who were flipping the channel while Spike had commercials on (G4). Anyone whoever told me they liked G4 was someone who had no real interest in technology. Attack of the Show just became a way for the idiot male hosts to sexually harass the female hosts. AKA douche bag central.
Klippoklondike: They should bring back Kate Botello
Killer Cars: How many "geeks" (at least those who would happily self-identify as such) watched G4 even when it arguably didn't suck? While I do play video games and do other geeky things, I'm not terribly nerdy about techy stuff in general, and even I thought what I saw on stuff like "Attack of the Show" to be rather low-brow in terms of "geekness".Shows like that would have their humorous moments, but all in all I don't think its content would go over the head of anyone under 30, regardless of their hobbies and interests. Perhaps it's just because of the internet age, something that 10-15 years ago would be considered a "geek" hobby is just pervasive now across a more base demographic.
bbfreak: [www.vgcats.com image 692x754]
Gosling: Why does this network still get carried? Or is it just one of those they have to bundle with the channels you actually want now?
FirstNationalBastard: maverickzy: Since when is the History Channel "adrenaline heavy"?Since Hystyry became the Pawn Shop Truckers wielding Axes who pick alien cable guys for Jesus network, and left all that nasty history behind.
Foxxinnia: BumpInTheNight: eddievercetti: So a channel made for geeks, killed almost all geek programming, stop caring about their core audience, lost ratings, got brought by douches and now the channel will be made for douches.Geeks use netflix and torrents, this channel and the old syfy never stood a chance.That's why I figured G4 never had a chance. Their target demographic was the first that started shunning television in preference of the internet.
maverickzy: Since when is the History Channel "adrenaline heavy"?
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 20 2018 18:56:41
Runtime: 0.267 sec (267 ms)