Beloved scientist and goofy TV host Bill Nye’s new Netflix series, Bill Nye Saves the World, isn’t going down well with both old and new fans.
Following the show’s release on Friday, the internet has become a beehive of activity, with insults and outright dismissals of America’s favorite scientist flying left and right. The insults vary, with some people upset that Nye didn’t go more in-depth with the topics he has chosen to include in the series. Others, many of whom live in various continents around the world and didn’t grow up with Nye, called out the show for being lame, corny and trying too hard to fit in.
This tweet perhaps sums up the resentment toward Nye’s show best:
Between Crazy Ex-Girlfriend’s Rachel Bloom performing a song about gender to Nye’s “preachy” stance on anti-vaxxers, there are no shortage of reasons people have given for being upset about the new direction of Nye’s series.
Except that everything Nye is being criticized for isn’t really new — and it’s why he developed an audience to begin in. But as the haze of nostalgia disappears, it can be hard to remember that Nye was always the goofy, dad-like figure in the science community.
People have voiced their frustrations with the series, but one of the top rated answers seems to get at the heart of what the majority of viewers took issue with. It also echoes the joke made in the tweet above, essentially asking why Nye was given a series on an internet network like Netflix if the show makes the scientist feel out of touch with the world he now belongs to?
Making jokes about not understanding the internet is stupid. Making Bill Nye the Science Guy make jokes about not understanding the internet should be a good first step towards a career change for every single member of the production staff. It's absurd.
Bill then introduces a bunch of correspondents, who will do the segments instead of Bill. Your major asset is Bill, and pretty much nothing else, he should be ever present.
Bill is not, and has never been, a talkshow host, he's bad at it. He's good at talking directly to the camera, he should be doing that. The format doesn't work.
Bill continues with an experiment demonstrating thermal expansion, and then says that's why ocean levels are rising. This is misleading at best, while thermal expansion is one of the two primary causes of rising sea levels, it is not the most important one. Melting glaciers, ice sheets, and sea ice is the much more important primary factor.
Pretty much every production decision past casting Bill Nye was a mistake. The show is bad at best, and damaging to the conversation at worst.
Bill doesn’t understand the internet
Let’s take a moment and address some of these complaints. Complaining that Nye doesn’t understand the internet, or at the very least puts on a facade about his lack of knowledge surrounding its culture, is insulting. Along with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Nye is one of the most popular scientists who has found an entire audience based on his online persona.
The scientist has turned himself into a meme, joked about being photobombed and has done countless AMA sessions on various websites, including Reddit. He’s appeared on almost every late night show, he’s given multiple lectures and he’s become an iconic figure in his own right. There are people who are just discovering the show now and who live in other countries because of his presence online and just how much he’s talked about.
But for some people, his adorable persona online isn’t enough to save the series. Especially for those who didn’t grow up with the series. Coming to the show now in part because of the legacy Nye has created for himself, multiple people have written about how obnoxious they find Nye’s overall gusto.
“This show is terrible,” one commenter wrote. “I come from the UK, so I never grew up with Bill Nye. Does the guy always shout this much? He was also trying WAY too fucking hard to be 'cool'.”
Part of Nye’s charm was the he’s always been awkward. His humor consists of “dad jokes,” and when the internet came around, that didn’t change. Nye is awkward online, but he understands what he’s doing and how to reach an audience on the internet better than most. He takes part in debates on Twitter, publishes a number of YouTube videos and is active on Snapchat. The man recently just won a Shorty Award for a short video he made on climate change. To say that Nye doesn’t understand the internet is just factually incorrect.
Nye knows how to play a role and he’s aware of why people like him so much. He plays into that, and while it can be lost on new audiences or seem overplayed in 2017, he remains true to his persona from the ‘90s. Our nostalgia wants us to believe that he was much cooler than he was, but it blinds us.
With Nye moving to Netflix, he also has the ability to get away with being more direct. He’s taking that opportunity to be more upfront with topics that are important to him and trend online. There’s a reason he chose topics like sexuality, climate change and vaccinations. These are subjects that he deeply believes in talking about — and part of that comes from talking to fans and critics online about it. He’s talked about how social media changes our lives and how it should be used, as seen in the video below. It seems unfair to criticize Nye for not understanding the internet when he’s proven time and time again that he does.
Bill’s correspondents shouldn’t be there
To some extent, the complaint about correspondents taking away time from Nye is understandable, but it’s important to remember that Bill has always had correspondents ... they just weren’t supermodels, comedians and actors. They were kids, and part of what Nye’s new show is missing is those lovable bunch of science-enthused kids who were excited by what Nye was teaching. Bill Nye the Science Guy has always been a series geared toward children, but the original ‘90s series made that much more apparent than the new version does.
The correspondents hung around with Nye during the episode and acted as his assistants. They would point out interesting things that were happening and ask questions to allow Nye to get to his next point with an easier transition, but they were essentially there to do the same thing.
Here’s an episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy from the show’s fourth season. There are a number of kids whom Nye refers to as his correspondents. They don’t actually report on anything scientific, but for those who have seen the new series, their role isn’t that much different.
One of the biggest differences, of course, is the quality of entertainment. The new correspondents are professional actors or comedians who have experience being in front of a camera. They can deliver jokes or make a piece into their own. It’s a much different type of correspondent then we’re used to.
What’s important to remember is that this isn’t Bill Nye the Science Guy. This is Bill Nye Saves the World. It’s a new show with a similar, but different format than his former program. That’s also why Nye has adopted a talk-show host persona. It might not work for the scientist, and based on the criticism Nye has received it’s apparent that it’s not, but if you go in wanting a total revamp of Bill Nye the Science Guy, you’re going to be disappointed.
Bill’s science is wrong
Disclosure: I’m not a scientist and while I have an avid interest in science, I’m not going to take Nye’s claims to court.
One of the complaints that has come up repeatedly on Reddit, Twitter and in YouTube videos is that Nye has become preachy about a couple of subjects: Climate change and taking on those who are against vaccinations for children. Nye has been called an SJW and frustrating to watch because he doesn’t let the other side get a word in edgewise.
The millions of hours spent looking into the benefits of vaccinations and the unwavering evidence proving that man-made climate change is happening and getting worse every year is indisputable. As a scientist, and a man who has led a charge in Washington trying to combat political decisions that directly oppose addressing climate change.
This isn’t the first time that Nye has been called out for talking about climate change. It’s such a common occurrence that he decided to do a “Mean Tweets” video, based on the popular segment that appears on Jimmy Kimmel Live!.
Nye has said before he’s using his new Netflix series to inform people about changes in the world and how science affects our daily lives. It shouldn’t be too surprising that he’s going to advocate for climate change, a subject he’s passionate about, when given an audience of millions.
It doesn’t seem likely that Nye is going to change the format of his show if he decides to return for a second season and it seems odd to criticize Nye for the same aspects that made him popular in the first place.
There are some glaring issues with the show that can’t be ignored — like Rachel Bloom’s strange performance that feels entirely out of place. Nye isn’t immune to criticism. There are some areas of his series that don’t work as well for a streaming audience, like the performance segments. Still, the point is the series isn’t irredeemable. In fact, quite a few people actually enjoy it.
Nye’s new series if the perfect example of how nostalgia can lead us astray. We go in expecting the same experience we got when we were kids and when it doesn’t hold up, we’re more disappointed than we would be if it was an entirely new series.
For those curious, Bill Nye Saves the World is available to stream right now on Netflix.
Comments
Quite frankly, fuck off with this "two sides" nonsense. There is no "side" when it comes to vaccinations. There is the side that works, and saves millions of lives, and the other side, that causes outbreaks of diseases that shouldn’t be around anymore. One works, one doesn’t. One is right, one is wrong. There are no "opinions" here.
Funny how the rest of the modern world has accepted that vaccinations are good and global warming exists, but for some reason it’s America that’s still trying to put on its shoes when it comes to public understanding of science. Showing "two sides", one of which is absolutely wrong, would only further reduce America’s already lacking science literacy.
By AlonzoMcGonzo on 04.26.17 10:43am
Amen
By Warfric on 04.26.17 10:46am
Portugal has had a mild outbreak of measles this last few weeks. Portugal is one of the leading countries when it comes to vaccionation. But because of this, an unvaccinated 17-year old girl has died. Her sister, also not vaccinated, is showing symptons as well.
Seriously, vaccinate your kids. You’re only harming them and the people who has contact with them. It’s a question of public health, not of beliefs…
By Setnom on 04.26.17 10:47am
What some people see as "preachy" is actually just him stating facts. Facts that conflict with certain people’s world views.
By OrdoXenos on 04.26.17 10:49am
Best part about facts is they don’t give a fuck about your world view. The "world view" of facts is that they are the truth.
By B-Radicate on 04.26.17 10:59am
The only time felt Bill was a little harsh on something on the show was when he brought out an Astrologer. Kind of felt bad for the guy since he specifically said that his job isn’t to tell people the future, but tell stories around astrology figures and Bill comes around hitting the guy pretty hard.
It also didn’t help the guy wasn’t really articulate with the words he was trying to express.
By Dr. Panda on 05.04.17 9:28am
Absolutely. The American response to being intellectually cornered is always the same — "yeah, well I can believe what I want."
Nobody questions that we have the right to believe what we want. That is enshrined and important for very good reason. But that doesn’t exempt us from the intellectual responsibility to believe what is true. And this is where we are losing our way.
Our sense of individual pride has become malignant. We are so obsessed with our personal right to say, do, and believe stupid shit that we react violently when told that we should stop. We actually become more likely to persist in these wrong-headed beliefs because we view them as symbols of our freedom, and resent having them threatened in any way.
It’s insane. And unchecked in the long run, it will be terminal.
By Razieluigi on 04.26.17 11:34am
I don’t disagree but framing the "there are no two sides" in relation to this show is misleading. Anti-vaxxers are idiots and that’s not out for dispute but often Bill is talking to other scientists and because their science doesn’t jive with his science he dismisses them. Now, I’m not talking about creationists or Avacado flavoured psudo-scientists but actual people who are subject matter experts. For example the "I hate nuclear" conversation that he had with Richard Martin and Mark Jacobson. This isn’t scientific in the least, dismissing nuclear is not wise but the conversation that could have sprung up between those two would have been very interesting if it hadn’t been hamstrung by the format.
There are two sides in a conversation, just some times one side are blithering idiots (Anti-vaxxers) and other times they are scientists who have differing opinions on data and how to use it. Let’s not let our rage against anti-science condone an equally as unscientific and reactionary behaviour.
By thecommonperson on 04.26.17 11:40am
Absolutely. But here’s the thing: There ARE 2 sides – One of them is just wrong. By not addressing points made by the wrong side, you give them an excuse to not listen to your correct side.
IE, anti-vac is a hoax rumor. It needs to be debunked or stupid people will continue believing it.
By SuperMaxZero on 04.26.17 11:43am
Also, when you decide that "Anti-vaccine" people are stupid or are anti-science then you’re never going to convince anyone that your argument is valid.
People being "anti-vaccine" is a wide range of people. It can go from those that are 100% against any kind of medication period. Those that completely mistrust any government recommendations. And those that are simply cautious and hesitate to put something in their body until they are sure its safe.
Is there a good reason for people to mistrust government recommended programs and medical treatments? Absolutely yes – the Tuskagee Experiment was simply evil and was a complete failure of the scientific community and government, where even a recommendation in 1966 to the CDC stating that the program was completely unethical went ignored as the CDC insisted the "study" must continue.
Or the actual case of the live polio vaccine becoming reactivated leading to the deaths of 2 children and paralysis of 21 others in the dominican republic and Haiti.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5566/356
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/11/10/455348658/the-oral-polio-vaccine-can-go-feral-but-who-vows-to-tame-it
Many live vaccines are also not recommended for use in immunocompromised patients(those with AIDS for example) for good reason.
My point isn’t that vaccines are all bad or something like that; but that to begin constructive conversation – one has to actually look and see what the other sides reasons are. Is the "other side" just one opinion? Or is there more behind it?
The broad brush that’s painted on this subject is simply "You are anti-science or pro-science"; which is just a way to call people idiots so you can feel better about how smart you are and not actually have to bother with understanding another point of view.
By NYCman100 on 04.26.17 12:31pm
Most thoughtful comment I’ve seen on Polygon in some time.
For the record, I’m firmly "pro-vaccine."
By Spurriest on 04.26.17 2:20pm
The Tuskagee Experiment has nothing to do with whether or not vaccines are good, people thought they were being treated with antibiotics, not receiving vaccinations.
Reactivation of polio in the DR was only an issue BECAUSE the immunization rates against polio were so low, it even says so in the NPR article.
A doctor would know whether or not somebody was immunocompromised and whether or not to vaccinate them. Some people are allergic to penicillin, that’s not a valid argument against the usage of penicillin.
I have yet to be presented with anything resembling a good reason against the usage of vaccination, ever. They all range from conspiratorial (vaccines are just making us sicker because Big Pharma) to misinformed (the examples you brought up) to just plain fabricated (vaccines cause autism). In order for constructive dialogue to be had both sides need to know what the hell they’re talking about, and the anti-vaxxer side simply doesn’t.
By AlonzoMcGonzo on 04.26.17 3:05pm
NYCman never implied that the Tuskagee Experiment had to do with vaccines…
Whatever, it’s not worth engaging you. Such anger.
By Spurriest on 04.26.17 4:17pm
Goodbye then.
By AlonzoMcGonzo on 04.26.17 5:00pm
So much for trying to understand the other side, eh? You gave that up pretty quick. (And this is coming from someone who agrees with the overall sentiment that understanding where they’re coming from is how you start convincing them.)
Here’s my attempt: Anti-vacciners threaten to bring back the epidemics of old, causing untold suffering. That the cause of "such anger".
By Dark Jaguar on 04.27.17 2:21am
The anger stems from a dereliction of duty to protect your fellow man from unintentional harm. Its not murder to not vaccinate, but if someone who is immuno-compromised dies due to your choice, I would say its manslaughter. That’s why people are angry. If I was to go out and punch a baby, I would be rightfully vilified for it.
By nim411 on 04.27.17 12:55pm
To make the analogy more apt, if you left a baby in a car with the windows rolled up and that baby died because of it, you would be vilified for it, because even though you had no intent of letting your baby die, you did something that utterly no one has any reason to be ignorant about. There’s not an excuse for not knowing how dangerous that is, or for deciding that you know better than all those medical experts what amount of heat is right for YOUR baby.
By Dark Jaguar on 04.27.17 5:06pm
Except for the fact that you did.
By Disdain on 04.27.17 12:55pm
I brought up the Tuskagee experiment because that’s a case of the medical/scientific community and government completely betraying people’s trust; I didn’t say it was an experiment to do with vaccines; anyone can look up what happened there. The point is that it goes beyond just mistrusting vaccines but mistrusting physicians and their advice in general. There’s no "misinformation" here.
It was an issue because the virus became reactivated. Its why the Oral polio vaccine isn’t used in the US. Low immunization rates doesn’t mean the virus is supposed to reactivate; that’s a failure of the product. I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here.
Correct. Are you arguing against a ghost? I’m not saying we should phase out vaccines, or that they have no use, or anything like that- I’m just letting you know there are a variety of reasons people do not take them. The reasons you listed which are popular in the media aren’t the only ones.
You’re using a label called "Anti-vaxxer" that doesn’t represent the feelings and thoughts of actual people. If people are not taking vaccines when they should; this is the failure of the medical community to properly communicate to patients.
"Just take the medicine you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!" isn’t the way to do it.
By NYCman100 on 04.27.17 12:29pm
That is literally exactly the way it is done. 99% of people do not know anything about pharmacology in general or specifically about the medications a doctor prescribes them. The doctor says take these pills and call me if it doesn’t work.
By Higher_Ground on 04.28.17 12:08pm
Actually its not. Patient autonomy is very important; and if the patient is unwilling to take medicine or undergo any sort of treatment they have to be persuaded to by the physician. This is why people get second opinions.
Its the physician’s job to ensure the patient feels comfortable and understands the treatment and all risks associated with it, even if the risk is minute. I’m in medical school now and its always reinforced to do it his way.
Granted the world isn’t perfect and that doesn’t always happen; but that’s the way physicians are trained in medical school. A physician I used to work with always used to tell me "Even if the risk of an adverse side effect for a drug is 1 in a million, for every patient you see you should look at it as a 50/50 possibility and always be prepared for the worst."
By NYCman100 on 04.28.17 5:26pm
Yeah, I see your point.
I’m very pro vaccine, but Sweden had an incident with one or two batches of a swine flu vaccine a couple of years ago.
Some teenagers, yes only teenagers, who took the vaccine got affected with narcolepsy. At first, the authorities denied this, but after a while more and more confirmed cases came up, which could be correlated to them being vaccinated. There are now around 150 cases. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/tragisk-slump-kan-ha-gjort-unga-sjuka-av-influensavaccinet/ (google translate is your friend)
Some anti-vaxxers of course leaped at this and said "see see, we told you so!" And now many don’t want to vaccinate their kids, because a few batches in one vaccine.
By Father Jack on 04.27.17 10:02am
Right, I think people who decide they’re part of a "movement"(anti-vax movement against all treatment of any kind for example) of any kind can crowd out legitimate voices.
But those few batches did affect 150 people as you said. If no one was against taking the vaccine there’d be no reason for manufacturers to really care why their product caused narcolepsy in those teenagers.
Nothing in medicine is ever completely safe, rare allergic reactions or complications arise in all sorts of therapeutic treatment; and if people want to be cautious until there’s more research or until they can be sure that the products are safe well then that’s what needs to happen.
By NYCman100 on 04.27.17 12:36pm
Right, but meanwhile you have a chance to infect other folks, that’s the difference. If I choose not to drink milk because I’m lactose intolerant, that doesn’t effect you. Not getting vaccinated does effect others. And there’s a chance of contamination in plenty of non-medical produced stuff. That chance always exists, why are vaccines a snowflake when it comes to this mentality.
By nim411 on 04.27.17 12:58pm