TBBT has massive broad based appeal and is accessible to a lot of people. It's rating more than prove that. But that should not be a verdict on its quality. Lets keep in mind Baywatch was one of the most watched shows in the world during its heyday.
I love Community but it is very niche humor so let’s not be daft and pretend otherwise. Part of why we love it is because its niche.
I love niche shows. I enjoy it when Archer says Rien Poortvliet just called and he wants you to pose for him. When Herny Winkler jumps over a small shark on the dock in an episode of Arrested D I giggle. When a niche is done well it makes one think back to some morsel of pop culture (obscure of not) from the past. When its done poorly the audience just ends up googling or asking someone. That can be off putting to a lot of people.
-MD
TBBT has massive broad based appeal and is accessible to a lot of people. It's rating more than prove that. But that should not be a verdict on its quality.
An excellent, fair point - just because lots of people like something doesn't mean it's of "high quality." If we're going to debate the "quality" of a show, though, we need to agree on a set of criteria for judgement first. So what criteria should we use to evaluate a television sitcom?
Quality as defined on wikipedia in context of business and engineering is: Simply put, a quality item (an item that has quality) has the ability to perform satisfactorily in service and is suitable for its intended purpose.
So before you can define it's quality by that reference you need to define what the purpose of the show is. Is it's purpose to be funny and amusing? - to win awards? - to get high ratings? - or to get advertising dollars?
By purely business metrics alone, the 'quality' of the Big Bang Theory is high, as it has very high ratings - especially among the lucrative 19-39 target demographic.
But that isn't necessarily a good thing. Specifically using business metrics - Keeping up with the Kardashians is a high 'quality' show.
By purely artistic merits, the 'quality' of the Big Bang Theory is highly subjective, but this thread demonstrates that there is a very wide variance in what people think. It also shows that there is a significant portion of our demographic (as in, people who post on Paizo) that would rate it average or poor.
So within our frame of reference, the artistic 'quality' of the show would have be be mixed to poor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And here I sit, after poring through 10 pages of discourse, looking for a post that makes me want to give BBT another shot... And after these 10 pages... I think I'm leaning towards watching The Human Centipede instead.
Because watching BBT makes me feel like my mouth has been stapled to someone else's [redacted]
So within our frame of reference, the artistic 'quality' of the show would have be be mixed to poor.
That is probably true, but misses one key point; these forums are not the target market so our determination of what counts as "quality" is already secondary. Amongst it's target audience, it clearly ranks as mixed to very good, otherwise it wouldn't still be producing new seasons and winning numerous awards.
Yes and no - target markets are generally segmented by age - and I'm sure a significant proportion of Paizo posters would fall in the 19-39 age bracket. It would be a 'subset' of the whole, and you could argue a biased subset - but still within the target market.
I dislike the use of producing new seasons and winning industry awards as a sign of artistic 'quality' as those measures are biased in their own way.
Using a similar but different rebuttal - in 1941 a movie called 'How Green was My Valley' won the Best Picture oscar... does that mean it's a better 'quality' movie than 'Citizen Kane'?
It's not a perfect measure, but it's the most objective measure you're going to get. Using the oscars is a bad example because most people figured out a long time ago that the oscar voters have a distinctly different view of "quality" than the box office. TV ratings, being renewed for more seasons, and winning a variety of awards from a variety of people, on the other hand, tend to be very common and accepted measures of "quality" for TV shows. I would like to note that I don't bother watch TV anymore for that reason, but that doesn't change the fact that having a discussion on the "quality" of a particular show, and ignoring the common accepted benchmarks is a good way to make yourself look like a fool. You don't have to agree with the benchmarks, but you can't just ignore them either.
It's 'a' measure, which is objective in certain ways... but I wouldn't call it the 'most objective'. Besides, BBT actually hasn't won that many awards in comparison to other shows. Reference.
Compare that list to another comedy show that's been on the air for fewer years - Modern Family - with four times as many awards.
Community - has a quarter of the number of awards.
And a show like Fawlty Towers.
Awards =/= a quantitative measure of 'quality'.
And awards aren't the only benchmark most people are using. On the whole, against the most common comparisons made in this thread, BBT wins all of them save for personal taste. No one has managed to show anything substantially offensive about the material as a whole or how BBT is substantially worse than sitcoms in general. To be honest, I am quite amazed that this thread is still going; I can understand not liking the show, but the amount of people here who seem to be taking the show personally is surprising.
Sigh... that is all.
So lets compare more shows...
~30 Rock =66 awards
~Modern Family =56 awards
~Arrested Development =26 awards
~Big Bang Theory =13 awards
~Parks & Rec =8 awards
~Community =4 awards
~Happy Endings =0 awards
By this expanded view this places BBT firmly middle of the pack in quality. BUT BBT scored 6th most watched show of the year back in 2012, while lower quality shows like the much praised (at least on this thread) Community placed 144th calling in to question if it should be canceled.
So while it's quality isn't superior to those top quality shows like 30 Rock it does have a very large number of people that think it's funny. And for a comedy that is what is most important.
I don't dispute anything to do with the fact that lots of people watch it... but then again huge numbers of people watch 'Two and a Half Men' too...
Sigh... that is all.
I've seen a lot of people gripe about their personal tastes not being met, and in that subjective measure, their gripes are legitimate. However, as an objective complaint that the show is somehow more offensive than other sitcoms, I haven't seen anything that would convince me. It does tend to be more polarizing than many sitcoms, but beyond that, it all basically boils down to personal preference.
Explicitly, the issues that many people take with the program is that it mercilessly reinforces every single negative stereotype about gamers / comic book readers. Plus the fact that the show's creators and enjoyers seem to think that it's somehow 'funny' to do so.
They don't make complicated jokes, they don't layer nuance, they don't make clever references - they just make observational and stereotyped statements and the laugh track responds with laughter.
There - clearly and objectively stated.
Go back and look at the previous posts. As far as I can tell there is NO MIDDLE GROUND in the dislike. There's people that hate it to pieces, there's people that like it, and there's people that want to talk about Community for some reason. Those are the three main CAPS (implying more than one person).
I don't like the show but it's not like I'm accusing TBBT of setting my dog on fire.
But, ignoring that, the only thing I'm really protesting is that you seem to divide these camps into "irrational hatemongers" and "reasonable, well-spoken fans" where it's my impression of this thread that both outliers are equally extreme.
There are people that hate it to pieces. There are people who think your opinion is invalid unless you write a 2,000 word essay explaining why you don't think it's fantastic. I'm sure there are also lots of people who are a good deal less extreme in their like/dislike of the show.
My angle (and the reason I'm even watching this thread) is more one of curiosity. TBBT is a show that, on the surface, seems to be tailored specifically to appeal to me. And yet I really don't like it. That's odd and I have been wondering howcome (especially considering how my mom looooves the show and assume that I do too).
This thread started out being pretty interesting. People gave their reasons for liking the show. People gave their reasons for disliking the show. I found it pretty interesting, and it gave me stuff to think about when wondering why I found the show off-putting.
More recently, we seem to be dipping into the "well you're stupid for having a different opinion than me" territory (arguably we've been there all along, but now we're getting to the point where it's suffocating all semblance of reasonable discourse). And that's growing increasingly pointless.
Explicitly, the issues that many people take with the program is that it mercilessly reinforces every single negative stereotype about gamers / comic book readers. Plus the fact that the show's creators and enjoyers seem to think that it's somehow 'funny' to do so.
They don't make complicated jokes, they don't layer nuance, they don't make clever references - they just make observational and stereotyped statements and the laugh track responds with laughter.
There - clearly and objectively stated.
Objectively, no, subjectively stated.
And that's the point, some of those people that don't like it, don't like it because they subjectively perceive that it is "merciless" , that it reinforces " every single negative stereotype" etc ( where are the overweight bearded gamers dammit?!)
this is not my perception
Explicitly, the issues that many people take with the program is that it mercilessly reinforces every single negative stereotype about gamers / comic book readers. Plus the fact that the show's creators and enjoyers seem to think that it's somehow 'funny' to do so.
They don't make complicated jokes, they don't layer nuance, they don't make clever references - they just make observational and stereotyped statements and the laugh track responds with laughter.
There - clearly and objectively stated.
Objectively, no, subjectively stated.
And that's the point, some of those people that don't like it, don't like it because they subjectively perceive that it is "merciless" , that it reinforces " every single negative stereotype" etc ( where are the overweight bearded gamers dammit?!)
this is not my perception
It's Hollywood, there aren't any over-weigh gamers. Well apart from the Hacker who stole Sheldon's stuff (& the Bat'leth).
Another way to approach it's attitudes to geeks could be through the minor characters. Sheldon, Leonard, Raj & Howard are all meant to be liked/sympathised with despite their foibles. But what about the other 'geeks' like - Barry "We're all sad pathetic losers" Kripke, Stuart & Captain Sweatpants.
Another way to approach it's attitudes to geeks could be through the minor characters. Sheldon, Leonard, Raj & Howard are all meant to be liked/sympathised with despite their foibles. But what about the other 'geeks' like - Barry "We're all sad pathetic losers" Kripke, Stuart & Captain Sweatpants.
In other words, the show gives us a pretty full spectrum of the nerd community, instead of the same caricatures over and over?
Yep, "sad pathetic loser scientist", poor loser shop-keeper, and lazy comic-shop user.
But seriously, the characters tend to be stereotypes until they are shown more on screen. Then they become slightly more developed or greater caricatures, like with any popular US sit-com (IE Friends, Scrubs, etc).
Explicitly, the issues that many people take with the program is that it mercilessly reinforces every single negative stereotype about gamers / comic book readers. Plus the fact that the show's creators and enjoyers seem to think that it's somehow 'funny' to do so.
They don't make complicated jokes, they don't layer nuance, they don't make clever references - they just make observational and stereotyped statements and the laugh track responds with laughter.
There - clearly and objectively stated.
Right, you've made some claims (as have others):
1) They don't make complicated jokes,
2) they don't layer nuance
3) they don't make clever references
4) they just make observational and stereotyped statements
However, in meaningful debate, you have to cite specific examples to back this up (particularly because many of us disagree with you about #4). You have to do this because otherwise people who disagree with you will basically say, "That's not true!" And you'll say "Is so!" and they'll say "Is not!" on and on ad infinitum.
In earlier posts, I've linked to a pair of specific clips and analyzed the humor, revealing that the jokes are actually a bit more complex than how many people had been "reading" them at first. Naturally, these were ignored completely - no one responded to my analysis of specifics jokes/scenes by explaining how my analysis was flawed, or pointing to a broader pattern that overrode it.
The general response has instead been "Why should we have to watch lots of episodes of a show we don't like and do lots of analysis to prove that we don't like it?" The answer is: you don't... but that's the wrong question, because you're conflating your personal taste with factual claims about the content and quality of the program.
In your specific case, MS, you DID cite a couple of isolated jokes from one episode, but then I explained how, when you look at the arc of the entire episode, the joke about comic books gets turned on its head - the girls end up getting really into the books and start arguing about the sorts of silly trivia that comic book geeks often do. I also cited several pieces of evidence to show that the "comic book enthusiasts have awkward attitude towards women" jokes were not entirely unfounded. Your reply to my substantive analysis and evidence was:
I have nothing more to say if you think that episodes of the Big Bang Theory actually contain a complex narrative. Kudos to you if you think that... I've seen many episodes of the show... and I'm yet to see anything that resembles a 'complex narrative'.
In short, you declined to respond to me with your own evidence and analysis, preferring instead to make a dismissive comment that was unsubstantiated by specific evidence.
It's not enough to make a claim, you have to back it up with something. Watch:
"People who hate the Big Bang Theory love potato chips."
That is a clear, objective claim, but unless I back it up with some kind of specific evidence, it's meaningless.
Yep, "sad pathetic loser scientist", poor loser shop-keeper, and lazy comic-shop user.
But seriously, the characters tend to be stereotypes until they are shown more on screen. Then they become slightly more developed or greater caricatures, like with any popular US sit-com (IE Friends, Scrubs, etc).
You know, on the subject of Stuart (the comic shop owner) his character has actually gone kind of backwards in terms of development. When he first showed up on the show, he was very comfortable around Penny, flirted with her effectively, and confidently asked her out on a date. He got sabotaged by Leonard, of course, but the initial presentation of him was as a nerd who thoroughly embraced his interests but still maintained enough social wherewithal and self-confidence to get a date with a very attractive "party girl."
Explicitly, the issues that many people take with the program is that it mercilessly reinforces every single negative stereotype about gamers / comic book readers. Plus the fact that the show's creators and enjoyers seem to think that it's somehow 'funny' to do so.
There - clearly and objectively stated.
If you want to prove this in a way that will convince others, you will need to link to/cite several specific examples. What stereotypes are presented, and in which scenes/episodes?
Yep, "sad pathetic loser scientist", poor loser shop-keeper, and lazy comic-shop user.
But seriously, the characters tend to be stereotypes until they are shown more on screen. Then they become slightly more developed or greater caricatures, like with any popular US sit-com (IE Friends, Scrubs, etc).
Agreed, BBT uses stereotypes like any sitcom.
Quality as defined on wikipedia in context of business and engineering is: Simply put, a quality item (an item that has quality) has the ability to perform satisfactorily in service and is suitable for its intended purpose.
So before you can define it's quality by that reference you need to define what the purpose of the show is. Is it's purpose to be funny and amusing? - to win awards? - to get high ratings? - or to get advertising dollars?
See, now we're thinking in the same way. This is exactly the line of reasoning I take when I get into these discussions with my friends - we have to know our goal before we can evaluate how well we're achieving it, after all. I think all of those factors play some kind of role in evaluating the quality of a commercial television program, though probably to different degrees.
By purely business metrics alone, the 'quality' of the Big Bang Theory is high, as it has very high ratings - especially among the lucrative 19-39 target demographic.
But that isn't necessarily a good thing. Specifically using business metrics - Keeping up with the Kardashians is a high 'quality' show.By purely artistic merits, the 'quality' of the Big Bang Theory is highly subjective, but this thread demonstrates that there is a very wide variance in what people think. It also shows that there is a significant portion of our demographic (as in, people who post on Paizo) that would rate it average or poor.
So within our frame of reference, the artistic 'quality' of the show would have be be mixed to poor.
"People who post on Paizo" is not a statistically significant sample size, nor is it the target demographic for the show.
To move back to discussions of criteria, though, maybe it would help if sideline the conversation about "quality"and focus our debate around the charge that it is "offensive." What criteria could we use to establish whether or not a program is offensive?
Explicitly, the issues that many people take with the program is that it mercilessly reinforces every single negative stereotype about gamers / comic book readers. Plus the fact that the show's creators and enjoyers seem to think that it's somehow 'funny' to do so.
They don't make complicated jokes, they don't layer nuance, they don't make clever references - they just make observational and stereotyped statements and the laugh track responds with laughter.
There - clearly and objectively stated.
And how is that different from the majority of comedy based sitcoms? I'm not saying your points are invalid, simply that they could be applied rather broadly to most 30 minutes sitcoms to some degree or another, and to comedic sitcoms in particular to a very high degree. Singling out BBT seems to be more because of your personal affiliation with the subject matter than because of any unique characteristics that BBT has and other sitcoms in the same genre don't. BBT may highlight the characteristics a bit more, but it isn't really all that unique.
Man that was rough. So I did it. I went and watched the Human Centipede. It has to have been one of the nastiest crappiest movies I've ever seen, and that includes Crash with James Spader.
And yet...
And yet if I only had two choices... knowing what I know now... of either watching another episode of BBT or the Human Centipede...
I'd watch the Human Centipede again!!!
I may just take you up on that... I remember Bob Dylan got so sick of literary professors and arthouse critics delving into the hidden meaning of his songs that he made a song whose lyrics were essentially an acid trip of babble. Like making a song using words that came up in your spoon while eating alphabet soup... Or like he made a song up by going to a bar at closing time and surveyed the entire severly drunk room to fill out a page of mad libs that was entirely blank with no filled in words in the first place to extablish context.
Then I saw the movie 21 grams... It had no involvement from quentin tarantino, but it was so bad I thought i kind of felt like what would be the result of quentin tarantino catching a bunch of crap for all the movies that he made in 'jumbled time' so he pulls a Bob Dylan and he decides to make a movie so bad and such crap on purpose as to make even his critics go 'Geez. I'm not even SURE what that crap was all about... Thats how 21 grams felt. Like a movie that punishes the viewer for no other reason than flipping the watcher a giant 2 hour bird of sensory garbage. Like saying 'hey movie reviewer.. I know its your job to watch this and tell people what you think. So watch this incoherent garbage and try to form a cohesive thought about it.
So now... A new horizon... Human Centipede 2 eh? Will it be bad enough to make me pine for a little BBT?
Stay tuned!
I'm glad I haven't eaten yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll stick with "Naked Lunch."
Robocop will never seem the same again.
jEEZUS that was bad. Man. I think we have a new winner. JEEZUS.
That is significantly, measurably, fantastically more messed up than the first one.
I may be in the mood for some BBT after that...
JEEZUS... Holy crap. Like 90 solid minutes of the YNC. Wow.
jEEZUS that was bad. Man. I think we have a new winner. JEEZUS.
That is significantly, measurably, fantastically more messed up than the first one.
I may be in the mood for some BBT after that...
JEEZUS... Holy crap. Like 90 solid minutes of the YNC. Wow.
Wow you had to watch the Human Centipede one and 2 to want to watch BBT..... And you willingly self inflicted mental trauma in the name of pop science.... My hat is off to you, you are a scholar and a jellybean dude!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poor Mark Sweetman didn't understand the humor when he watched the girls comic book episode. So I will attempt to explain it.
The girls start out the episode with the popular misconception that comics are just for 12 year olds... which is an amusing and perhaps aggravating real world misconception. But despite their words they end up nerding out just like the boys when they attempt to understand these comic books. Making the joke ultimately ON the girls not on the boys. The episode actually affirms a part of comics appeal and makes the joke at the expense of the popular misconception.
Whilst the lads go off to the desert (well Con#132) and are too enthsiastic to remember to lock their car. Then a car-jacker steals it, with all the non-cosplay clothes inside. Thus they end up at a diner where everyone thinks they are 15 (or nerds) & need their mothers calling - because they are so stupid. To which Howard affirms they are, as he asks for them to call his Mommy.
I just finished watching this episode--I laughed my ass off.
I now realize my superpower: the ability to interact with both nerd-geeks and everyone else.
|
Poor Mark Sweetman didn't understand the humor when he watched the girls comic book episode. So I will attempt to explain it.
The girls start out the episode with the popular misconception that comics are just for 12 year olds... which is an amusing and perhaps aggravating real world misconception. But despite their words they end up nerding out just like the boys when they attempt to understand these comic books. Making the joke ultimately ON the girls not on the boys. The episode actually affirms a part of comics appeal and makes the joke at the expense of the popular misconception.
Whilst the lads go off to the desert (well Con#132) and are too enthsiastic to remember to lock their car. Then a car-jacker steals it, with all the non-cosplay clothes inside. Thus they end up at a diner where everyone thinks they are 15 (or nerds) & need their mothers calling - because they are so stupid. To which Howard affirms they are, as he asks for them to call his Mommy.
I just finished watching this episode--I laughed my ass off.
I now realize my superpower: the ability to interact with both nerd-geeks and everyone else.
You are feisty this week. Trying to get another post removed by the Mods?
Poor Mark Sweetman didn't understand the humor when he watched the girls comic book episode. So I will attempt to explain it.
The girls start out the episode with the popular misconception that comics are just for 12 year olds... which is an amusing and perhaps aggravating real world misconception. But despite their words they end up nerding out just like the boys when they attempt to understand these comic books. Making the joke ultimately ON the girls not on the boys. The episode actually affirms a part of comics appeal and makes the joke at the expense of the popular misconception.
Whilst the lads go off to the desert (well Con#132) and are too enthsiastic to remember to lock their car. Then a car-jacker steals it, with all the non-cosplay clothes inside. Thus they end up at a diner where everyone thinks they are 15 (or nerds) & need their mothers calling - because they are so stupid. To which Howard affirms they are, as he asks for them to call his Mommy.
I just finished watching this episode--I laughed my ass off.
I now realize my superpower: the ability to interact with both nerd-geeks and everyone else.
You are feisty this week. Trying to get another post removed by the Mods?
Isn't it just a little weird that you're having a conversation with your self...?
|
|
Poor Mark Sweetman didn't understand the humor when he watched the girls comic book episode. So I will attempt to explain it.
The girls start out the episode with the popular misconception that comics are just for 12 year olds... which is an amusing and perhaps aggravating real world misconception. But despite their words they end up nerding out just like the boys when they attempt to understand these comic books. Making the joke ultimately ON the girls not on the boys. The episode actually affirms a part of comics appeal and makes the joke at the expense of the popular misconception.
Whilst the lads go off to the desert (well Con#132) and are too enthsiastic to remember to lock their car. Then a car-jacker steals it, with all the non-cosplay clothes inside. Thus they end up at a diner where everyone thinks they are 15 (or nerds) & need their mothers calling - because they are so stupid. To which Howard affirms they are, as he asks for them to call his Mommy.
I just finished watching this episode--I laughed my ass off.
I now realize my superpower: the ability to interact with both nerd-geeks and everyone else.
You are feisty this week. Trying to get another post removed by the Mods?
Isn't just a little weird that you're having a conversation with your self...?
Quiet, you!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and so it begins.
Fixed it for you
and Yes if have never watched Bab5 you do not understand, but you will .
You Have a Question? Is BBT good? NO!.
Why!
This!
You Have Forgotten Something. Big bang theory sans laugh modification/tuning .
Did Derp Farce 9 rip off Bab 5?
Why didn't JMS sue Parramount?
...and so it begins.Fixed it for you
and Yes if have never watched Bab5 you do not understand, but you will .
You Have a Question? Is BBT good? NO!.
Why!
This!
You Have Forgotten Something. Big bang theory sans laugh modification/tuning .
Did Derp Farce 9 rip off Bab 5?
Why didn't JMS sue Parramount?
I got to say: I agree with Sheldon (and Tim) here: Babylon 5 is a big pile of [REDACTED]. DS9 might have ripped of the basic idea, but the execution was better.
That doesn't make me like BBT, however.
Poor Mark Sweetman didn't understand the humor when he watched the girls comic book episode. So I will attempt to explain it.
The girls start out the episode with the popular misconception that comics are just for 12 year olds... which is an amusing and perhaps aggravating real world misconception. But despite their words they end up nerding out just like the boys when they attempt to understand these comic books. Making the joke ultimately ON the girls not on the boys. The episode actually affirms a part of comics appeal and makes the joke at the expense of the popular misconception.
Whilst the lads go off to the desert (well Con#132) and are too enthsiastic to remember to lock their car. Then a car-jacker steals it, with all the non-cosplay clothes inside. Thus they end up at a diner where everyone thinks they are 15 (or nerds) & need their mothers calling - because they are so stupid. To which Howard affirms they are, as he asks for them to call his Mommy.
I just finished watching this episode--I laughed my ass off.
I now realize my superpower: the ability to interact with both nerd-geeks and everyone else.
Favoriting your own posts again, eh? You do know we're all on to you, doc?
You Have Forgotten Something. Big bang theory sans laugh modification/tuning .
Regarding the "watch it without the laugh track, it's not funny" claim (which I have seen many times before) - if you watch ANY laugh-tracked/audience laughter sitcom without the laughter, it's going to come off weird, because the dialog and acting is arranged with pauses to allow for the laughter. The shows sound weird without it because there are long, empty pauses where there would normally be laughter.
For Example:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well truth be told none of those shows really are funny laugh track or not.
Maybe I just hate all sitcoms...
That cant be true..
I liked family ties...
I liked happy days...
Heck I liked all in the family...
Wow. I am old.
Using a similar but different rebuttal - in 1941 a movie called 'How Green was My Valley' won the Best Picture oscar... does that mean it's a better 'quality' movie than 'Citizen Kane'?
Comrades, we either strike or expatriate! To America, where we'll probably end up working for that plutocrat, Charles Foster Kane!
Strike! Strike! Strike!
(No, it's not a better film--imho--but it's pretty good and, unlike CK, it didn't go out of its way to piss off multiple plutocrats with connections to the entertainment industry. Hee hee, Orson, you're such a troll.)
Well truth be told none of those shows really are funny laugh track or not.
Maybe I just hate all sitcoms...
That cant be true..
I liked family ties...
I liked happy days...
Heck I liked all in the family...Wow. I am old.
I'm not old, but my family is (and has TV Land ;)).
I never watched Family Ties, however I really enjoyed All in the Family and Happy Days.
And I also still like Friends, Big Bang Theory, Seinfeld (kinda, I guess, moreso now that I'm a bit older), How I Met Your Mother, and so on.
However, this clip is all that needs to be said about Everybody Loves Raymond.
I got to say: I agree with Sheldon (and Tim) here: Babylon 5 is a big pile of [REDACTED]. DS9 might have ripped of the basic idea, but the execution was better.
That doesn't make me like BBT, however.
I disagree with Sheldon and Tim (Tim only said that to get sacked) on Bab 5 but I do agree with Tim on the Phantom Menace.
However, this clip is all that needs to be said about Everybody Loves Raymond.
Indeed. I haven't seen much of either show, really, but Everybody Loves Raymond seems much worse than Big Bang Theory.
In other news, earlier today I watched the episode where they play D&D with the girls. I thought, overall, in its portrayal of D&D playing was rather cute and even a little touching at the end.
But when Howard tried to force a clearly uncomfortable Amy and Sheldon into roleplaying hawt sexytime, I thought to myself, clearly, he needs to read more Paizo threads.
I thought most of the D&D stuff was pretty funny, but, overall, many of the show's jokes were pretty terrible. [Shrugs] It's prime time American network television. What do you want?
I disagree with Sheldon and Tim (Tim only said that to get sacked) on Bab 5 but I do agree with Tim on the Phantom Menace.I got to say: I agree with Sheldon (and Tim) here: Babylon 5 is a big pile of [REDACTED]. DS9 might have ripped of the basic idea, but the execution was better.
That doesn't make me like BBT, however.
Who doesn't? (Although I wouldn't want to make children cry.)
Crying's a great way to clean the old peepers.
In other news, earlier today I watched the episode where they play D&D with the girls. I thought, overall, in its portrayal of D&D playing was rather cute and even a little touching at the end.But when Howard tried to force a clearly uncomfortable Amy and Sheldon into roleplaying hawt sexytime, I thought to myself, clearly, he needs to read more Paizo threads.
I thought most of the D&D stuff was pretty funny, but, overall, many of the show's jokes were pretty terrible. [Shrugs] It's prime time American network television. What do you want?
I just watched this same episode and I enjoyed it. The "let's make Amy/Sheldon do it in character" seemed like exactly what would happen with a few tipsy, first-time roleplayers (i.e. making an IC joke at the expense of other players they were teasing).
What really struck me about the episode was how much fun they made the whole experience seem (not unlike one episode of the IT crowd) - a bunch of people who never roleplayed before got really into the activity. That's a really positive depiction, I think.