Well, I think the implication in the paper is that our entire conception of what constitutes genius is based not on the quality of the ideas but on the characteristics of the person. Otherwise, “geniuses” are just run-of-the-mill intelligent or talented people. We attribute a special caliber of ‘genius’ quality to otherwise ‘good’ ideas because of the unusual psychic or physical makeup of the person who came up with them.
I couldn’t name a single protagonist from any movie, regardless of his IQ, who wasn’t troubled in some way.
Okay, how about Reed Richards from the Fantastic Four franchise? Aside from being a bit oblivious to the needs of hot chicks, that is.
I’ll buy that. I would add ethnic to the mix. Asians and Jews, IMO, get the “genius” label much more often because of the cultural traits we attach to them.
The entire cast of Baby Geniuses? Admittedly some of them displayed unusual levels of childishness and immaturity 
In the crappy TV series he was. I agree about the serials, though.
And I came in here to mention Real Genius also. Val Kilmer, damaged? Never! The young kid wasn’t, though the girl was (but not unrealistically.)
My favorite lines:
Girl: You never took me to meet your parents. Are you ashamed of me?
Kid: No, of them.
I love that movie, even though it is set in a trade school.
[quote=“Cagey_Drifter, post:1, topic:546096”]
[li] Bones, who has some kind of personality disorder that make it hard for her to communicate in a normal fashion[/li][/QUOTE]
The in-show explanation may be different, but her behavior and mannerisms are textbook Asperger’s.
In Undercover Blues, the main protagonist is a strategic genius who lays out a complex, successful plan for capturing the villain. He’s also more charming and capable than James Bond, without any of Bond’s hangups, including being a loving father and husband. Granted, it’s a comedy movie, so it’s not taken too seriously, but that’s the best example I can think of.
Really, I think being damaged in some way and genius-level intellect do go hand in hand. There really does seem to be a trend to balance exceptional gifts with exceptional drawbacks, even if it’s something so simple as the person spending most of their life studying one field with a laser-like intensity such that they neglect to develop other aspects of their life.
It’s not always so – I wouldn’t hesitate to call Neil DeGrasse Tyson a genius, and he certainly seems well adjusted – but it does correlate strongly.
[quote=“Cagey_Drifter, post:1, topic:546096”]
[li] House, whose character inexplicably has a cane and limps around with it.[/li][/QUOTE]
I find it amusing that you mention his limp instead of House’s more obvious anti-social personality.
Speaking of “Bones”, Hodgkins on Bones is normal aside from being a genius in his field.
I concur that Leonard on “Big Bang Theory” is normal.
Then we have the Professor on “Gilligan’s Island.” The man could craft a two-way radio out of a coconut husk! Yet aside from his glaring lack of sex drive, he was a regular guy.
McDreamy on “Gray’s Anatomy” is supposed to be so brilliant that he’s broken ground in neuro-surgery, but he’s so normal that he’s boring. Maybe they should invent a limp for him.
I can’t get past
“Is that liquid nitrogen?”
said “liquid nitrogen” proceeds to go clunk on the table
Other than that, good flick, and it fits.
We must have watched different versions of WarGames then, as Falken was SO bitter and damaged (over the death of his son Joshua) that he was actually looking forward to the complete nuclear distruction of all mankind, so the earth could reboot itself and start form scratch.
Finally, he saw the hope and youthful love between Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy and decided to give humanity another crack at it, in the end helping Boy Genius (MB) to destroy the WOPR system…
I don’t watch it enough to cite anything but my wife is a nut for the show and when I asked her if Bones was autistic or something, she said it was heavily hinted at in (a couple of?) an episode(s) that she has Asperger’s.
It’s been a long time, I’ll grant you.
No but, really, I’m not sure I could name a single movie that has any character that is not depicted as being damaged in some way and have them still be interesting. That’s the very nature of drama.
Well, if we can consider TV series:
Mathematician George Eppes in Numb3rs is not visibly “damaged” in any way. In fact, he is probably the mentally healthiest character in the show.
The psychiatrist Dr. George Wong in L&O:SVU is clearly a genius. His only eccentricity is that he is gay.
The only reason I know this is because I just saw WarGames last week (for the first time in over 20 years) when on here at 2am on a local broadcast station—It was enjoyable to see again, in that it was SO dated and has aged SO poorly…
What’s funny is that I thought it was SUCH a great movie when I watched it as a kid. (Ally Sheedy was a cutie back then for sure, though ;))
Being gay is eccentric?
Wilson on House seems to be brilliant, but his only “eccentricity” is his relationships with woman.
Wilson on Home Improvement seemed to know everything, but did have that face hiding thing.
Hodgins used to be more screwed up, though - he was a super-wacky conspiracy nut and pretty unpleasant to be around. He’s gotten normal over the seasons.
But yeah, pretty much - any normal person in real life would think every single person in that lab was super crazy smart, but on TV to be a “genius” as opposed to “smart” the difference is that you’re fucked up.
Gayness in this context isn’t so much an eccentricity - it’s more like an ethnicity.
It’s understandable that there are gay geniuses for the same reasons as there are Asian (Wong?) or Jewish geniuses - it’s an outsider culture with different values. They’re already weird enough that they don’t need to be eccentric.
Depends on what you mean by “damaged” – Ozymandias in Watchmen is ruthless and scheming and a megalomaniac, but not damaged. He is an entirely personable person, no Asperger’s or anything like that, and his judgments are clear and cold and rational.
Of course, maybe he just looks like the saner sort of Well Intentioned Extremist because we have Rorschach to compare him to.
Infinity, based on Richard Feynman’s essays/diaries, is a very honest presentation and doesn’t rewrite him as an Acadamy-award-pandering damaged genius. A very good underrated movie.
Well, actually it’s a psychotic perversion and an abominable sin against God and nature, but I’m trying to be PC here.