G4 has just announced that their longest running shows, X-Play and Attack of the Show will end at the end of this year. Both shows will include original episodes, memorable moments from the history of both shows, and rotating guests from both to lead up to their final episodes.
G4's two longest-running and defining series, Attack of the Show! and X-Play, will be ending their run at the end of 2012. Both shows will include original episodes through the end of the year, and will look back at theirmost memorable moments as we lead up to their final episodes. A rotating lineup of guest co-hosts including John Barrowman, Michael Ian Black, Josh Myers, Paul Scheer, Rob Huebel and Horatio Sanz will join AOTS hosts Candace Bailey and Sara Underwood, and X-Play hosts Morgan Webb and Blair Herter as part of the farewell shows.
With well over a thousand episodes each, Attack of the Show! and X-Play have defined gamer culture for a generation, serving as the launch pad for prominent personalities including Kevin Pereira, Olivia Munn, Chris Hardwick and Adam Sessler. Attack of the Show! debuted March 28, 2005 and from the start was the ultimate guide to everything cool and new in the world of technology, web culture, gaming and pop culture. X-Play made its debut almost two years earlier, on April 28, 2003 (on G4ís previous incarnation: TechTV), and immediately became the go-to destination for young men seeking the latest video game news, honest reviews, hands-on demos and exclusive video game trailers and footage. The year-end celebration will take you back through highlights of these landmark shows' history, including its exclusive live-from-the-floor coverage of San Diego Comic-Con and E3.
Both long-running shows helped define, as well as expand, the pop culture and gaming TV experience for a generation. We hope you've had as much fun watching them as we have had making them, and sincerely hope you join us in bidding a fond farewell to Attack of the Show and X-Play's as we look back over the next two months and head towards each series' finale.
@kriswright I guess? But a lot of the nerds / geeks I knew were into the nerdy / geeky girls. Sure every once in awhile one of them wanted a cheerleader or something, but not very often.
...although, a lot of the nerds / geeks I knew were also the punks / indies / um... skas? whatever else was big in the music subculture back then. So you may have a point.
Hmm. This changes my entire outlook on life. One thing I should point out though... I look / dress / act the way I do by choice, because I think it is awesome and attractive, and it just naturally made sense for me to be into girls of a similar vein. I honestly was never the nerd / geek secretly wishing the popular girls would pay me more attention. I was the nerd / geek secretly wishing the nerdy / geeky girls would pay me attention. And they never really did either.
With your friends, it might have just been a case of guys punching their own weight. I mean, an average looking dude in a ratty T-shirt is going to go out with an average looking girl in a ratty T-shirt, most of the time. Some geeky dude isn't going to score the cheerleader. That doesn't mean he doesn't want her, though.
Before anyone misunderstands me, I'm saying all this with a bit of knowing irony. Surely everyone's a little different and their ideas of beauty are different. But if the question's going to be raised, I can say I never sensed any kind of noble feminist undercurrent out of geek culture. It strikes me as just as shallow as anything else. To me, attractive female co-hosts that the fanboys can slobber over seems as inevitable for geek shows as it is for any other form of media.
Now, the more interesting question to me is whether female gamers ever liked Morgan Webb or Olivia Munn. Were they identification figures for girl gamers, or were their careers really nothing more than a cheap, cynical move to add eye-candy for horny male gamers?
@kriswright Yeah but I'm not talking about who the guys were going out with or even trying to go out with, I'm talking about who they thought was attractive in general. But then gaming... gaming forums betrayed me. At some point. But I always wondered if it was more the DUDEBRO gamers and not everyone? I dunno. I certainly can't relate to that stuff much.
I never thought of it as noble and feminist though, just as... different? Like, it was a totally natural thing to me and was happening way back in 4th grade or whatever before I even had real belief systems. ALTHOUGH... I do think attraction and belief systems / etc. are kind of inter-related in most people. Some people? Like, I don't think it's a coincidence that I'm not really attracted to fake-looking Hollywood starlets blah blah blah blah blah. Attraction for me is a complicated thing, I guess, even visual attraction by itself. If there is a such thing as visual attraction by itself.
I want to see more fat girls, or women with uneven skin or something. Give me some cross-eyed girl on TV who is 300 pounds and hasn't seen the sun since the John Kerry campaign. I'm not even joking. That's who I want to see reviewing X-Com. She's gonna know what she's talking about.
Woah there, let's be careful not to be prejudiced against the classically attractive geeky girls, either! I know you're not saying that pretty girls can't know what they're talking about, but when you're saying ugly girls do, it's kind of the corollary.
I don't really know Morgan Webb, but I've seen Olivia Munn on the Daily Show a few times and she was painfully unfunny there.
One thing I do have to say about this topic of "beauty" is that the "lack" of beauty doesn't necessarily indicate that a person will always know more about what they're talking about. A "cross-eyed girl on TV who is 300 pounds and hasn't seen the sun since the John Kerry campaign" isn't necessarily going to be more or less trustworthy about games than a "hot" girl would. I don't know what you'd call that... "reverse objectification"? I don't feel it's a great thing to do either though. Ideally someone's looks shouldn't play any role in their ability to discuss or review games, but unfortunately there are people who consider that an important aspect to one's career.
I don't necessarily agree with Kris' tongue-in-cheek commment, but I certainly would be more interested in a video game show that had hosts that look like people I have and do play video games with instead of models.
But really, that is an issue with all of TV. You an only be a non-pretty if your role calls for a non-pretty. I mean, for women.
...which was my point. Obviously, I don't think an unattractive person would automatically be good at video games. What I'm saying is that an unattractive person - specifically a woman, because television execs act like unattractive women only exist on reality shows about weight loss - who could get on TV doing a job like that would probably have to be exceptionally qualified. I mean, probably heroically qualified. That's the plexiglass ceiling that you just can't break.
So... I think people were confusing the "cause and effect" of my statement.
But I really would like to see more unattractive people on TV. On that, I wasn't joking.
Good Riddance.... someone should make a video Nintendo killed the video game stars to the song video killed the radio star
If g4 wanted to fill the gap of HD Net(girls nude or in bikinis!! lol) being gone I'd gladly support them....otherwise they should go back to being tech tv. One or the other....not some watered down crap like spike tv
@kriswright I kind of agree, although I think "unattractive" isn't even the term I'm looking for. Just more variety, which, among what would generally be considered "unattractive" people, would also involve a bunch of plain old normally attractive people as well as what would generally be considered "attractive" people but of a different variety than the type usually seen?
I dunno. I grew up surrounded by a lot of people who I thought were attractive that would never fit the Hollywood standard, but I don't think that means they should be dubbed unattractive either. I know a lot of this is relative, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is this whole range of people that probably 50-80% of those around them would consider attractive, but still aren't the "right" kind of attractive for big-time TV. Especially big-time TV primarily aimed at a male audience.
Does this make sense? I guess ultimately I'm saying TV needs to expand its definition of "attractive" because I don't think it even matches some general society view, let alone a varied view. I think TV shoots for what society considers like MEGA BABES or something, and ignores everyone else.
So yeah, basically I'm saying just have a bit of everyone. I mean generally. But if you're doing a video game show, find some hardcore video gamers and get them on there. Chances are they won't be babes, but they will be good at their job, so...
Of course, if we're honest with ourselves, we would probably end up tanking these TV studios with our terrible idea of putting normal looking people on TV.