My point is you don't need the context on the quotes. The laugh track explicitly states what the writers 'think' is funny. In this case they are:
- Comic books are for 12 year olds - hilarious!
- Geeks and nerds stare at women - guffaws aplenty!
If you want to see an episode of a TV show that actually treaks geeks and nerds with a great deal of respect and plays off what makes them cool as well as their quirks - go and watch The Phineas and Ferb Episode - Nerds of a Feather.
Really Phineas and Ferb? Where the "differnt nerdy guy" is in constant torment by the white bully? And BBT is offensive?
Just to be clear, I love Phneas and Ferb, and I like BBT. It just find the hypocracy funny. BBT is mainstream and someone said "we should be offended!" and everyone went all "Nerd Rage!". And yet Phineas and Ferb are cartoons, not really mainsteam for adults, so even though the premise is MUCH more offensive, nerdom at large accepts it, and even lauds it.
If you pay attention to the context of the entire episode, the picture becomes clearer. Taking individual, isolated jokes and using that to form a judgement of the show is going to overlook how all of the components fit together to create a more complex narrative.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'.
I didn't say "complex," I said "more complex," as in, "An entire episode presents a more complex idea than a two-line joke."
But frankly, it doesn't seem like you give much thought to your television shows - which is fine, there's several programs that I watch to "switch off" - so it's not surprising that you don't want to have to work to see the more complex stuff going on.
My point is you don't need the context on the quotes. The laugh track explicitly states what the writers 'think' is funny. In this case they are:
- Comic books are for 12 year olds - hilarious!
- Geeks and nerds stare at women - guffaws aplenty!
If you want to see an episode of a TV show that actually treaks geeks and nerds with a great deal of respect and plays off what makes them cool as well as their quirks - go and watch The Phineas and Ferb Episode - Nerds of a Feather.
Really Phineas and Ferb? Where the "differnt nerdy guy" is in constant torment by the white bully? And BBT is offensive?
Just to be clear, I love Phneas and Ferb, and I like BBT. It just find the hypocracy funny. BBT is mainstream and someone said "we should be offended!" and everyone went all "Nerd Rage!". And yet Phineas and Ferb are cartoons, not really mainsteam for adults, so even though the premise is MUCH more offensive, nerdom at large accepts it, and even lauds it.
I'm going to check out this episode of PnF when I get some time tonight (never seen the show before), but here's what I'm guessing - there's no parts of the episode that force nerds to admit that we might have a few foibles of our own, just like everyone else; instead, it will be a complete affirmation that everything we do is special/wonderful/better than what other people do.
Ah, I see where it's devolved to.. and yes I admit that I had a part in said devolution. I'm not going to respond on the intentional twisting of my words to mean something I didn't say.. and am similarly not going to twist your own words in response.
I'll just sidle slowly out the side door... and leave you to it.
The Big Bang Theory in yo' face, fool!
In both big bang and community the DM is the only one who roles dice? Does anyone else play that way? I dont think i could
In both big bang and community the DM is the only one who roles dice? Does anyone else play that way? I dont think i could
They appear to play "video game style." Basically all hack and slash with no character development. That doesn't sound like much fun to me, but some people enjoy it. To each their own.
I enjoyed the impressions though.
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.
If you pay attention to the context of the entire episode, the picture becomes clearer. Taking individual, isolated jokes and using that to form a judgement of the show is going to overlook how all of the components fit together to create a more complex narrative.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'.I didn't say "complex," I said "more complex," as in, "An entire episode presents a more complex idea than a two-line joke."
But frankly, it doesn't seem like you give much thought to your television shows, so it's not surprising that you don't want to have to work to see the more complex stuff going on.
Yep, obviously since he doesn't like Big Bang he doesn't give any thought to TV shows.
:eye-roll:
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.
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.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.
I am not saying every joke ends well... this is the only episode of the show I don't like so far. Whoever wrote that episode made it TOO much about them not acting like grown ups and too little affirming. It was an episode in poor taste. But every series fails at some point and I take this one episode as an exception that proves the rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently, a discussion in the Ask James Jacobs thread seemed to indicate that a significant portion of the Paizo staff and the audience here are not fond of CBS's The Big Bang Theory. Some folks, including James, said they found it downright offensive.
I'm curious as to why. While I readily admit that the writing is no better than any other sitcom and the show does tend to stereotype intelligent people unfairly, I still get a couple of good belly laughs out of each episode.
I gather that, if one believes that Sheldon actually does have some sort of autism-spectrum disorder, people may be uncomfortable with that, and the jokes about Indian and Jewish culture with regard to Raj and Howard may rub some people the wrong way. (I'm not that sensitive to such humor, so I don't sympathize, but I can see how others might.)
So, what's everyone's take? Do you like the show or hate it? And if you're someone who's offended by it, why do you feel that way?
I hate it for being, consistently, the least funny sitcom I have ever seen. I'm not offended by it at all - it just isn't funny to me.
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.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.
I am not saying every joke ends well... this is the only episode of the show I don't like so far. Whoever wrote that episode made it TOO much about them not acting like grown ups and too little affirming. It was an episode in poor taste. But every series fails at some point and I take this one episode as an exception that proves the rule.
Have you seen the show? Remove episode specifics and it follows the same pattern as every episode I have seen, and I haven't seen many.
Supposed geniuses do something monumentally dumb (again). Then they have to deal with normal people, and fail misserably, reaffirming everyone's negative oppinion about them by simultaneously being collosal jerks and doing more dumb things.
I hate it for being, consistently, the least funny sitcom I have ever seen. I'm not offended by it at all - it just isn't funny to me.
And I think that's completely legitimate. I may not have been clear in some of my earlier posts, but I really don't take issue with someone not finding it funny/not enjoying it. That's all a matter of personal taste, after all. I do object to people saying "it's bad" or "it's offensive" because those are evaluative statements that require specific criteria and evidence to back them up.
I am not saying every joke ends well... this is the only episode of the show I don't like so far. Whoever wrote that episode made it TOO much about them not acting like grown ups and too little affirming. It was an episode in poor taste. But every series fails at some point and I take this one episode as an exception that proves the rule.
It's been a little while since I saw that episode, so I don't recall it too clearly, but I think I was a little disappointed in that segment of the episode (the other half, featuring the girls and comics, I enjoyed). I think at the time I found it a little mean-spirited, though - I'll cop to that.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The existence of a 9 page thread, filled with Very Serious Reasons to like/hate BBT is itself a hilarious commentary on us as nerds/geeks/etc.
I hope someday science will provide an objective determination of the quality of BBT.
In the meantime...
The existence of a 9 page thread, filled with Very Serious Reasons to like/hate BBT is itself a hilarious commentary on us as nerds/geeks/etc.
I hope someday science will provide an objective determination of the quality of BBT.
In the meantime...
Have you seen the show? Remove episode specifics and it follows the same pattern as every episode I have seen, and I haven't seen many.
If you remove the specifics, EVERY sitcom follows the same pattern, because they all follow the same narrative formula - it's the details that make them different and provide the necessary variety.
Supposed geniuses do something monumentally dumb (again). Then they have to deal with normal people, and fail misserably, reaffirming everyone's negative oppinion about them by simultaneously being collosal jerks and doing more dumb things.
1) Being a genius in math and science does not make one socially adept - there are many different kinds of intelligence. Furthermore, one can be brilliant and still make poor decisions.
2) I think your description of the plot structure is generally incorrect - not the least of which because there are a number of episodes that are more Penny-centric. I'd ask you to point me to several episodes that support your claim, but I expect that people are going to give the "why would I go back and watch something I hate" excuse.
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.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.
I am not saying every joke ends well... this is the only episode of the show I don't like so far. Whoever wrote that episode made it TOO much about them not acting like grown ups and too little affirming. It was an episode in poor taste. But every series fails at some point and I take this one episode as an exception that proves the rule.
Have you seen the show? Remove episode specifics and it follows the same pattern as every episode I have seen, and I haven't seen many.
Supposed geniuses do something monumentally dumb (again). Then they have to deal with normal people, and fail misserably, reaffirming everyone's negative oppinion about them by simultaneously being collosal jerks and doing more dumb things.
I have watched all of the shows. The part where they were basically told by the people in the diner that they were being childish wasn't what bothered me, that happens all the time to me. What bothered me was that they were ready to give up and go home. Not a funny attitude at all. I would have done that part SO differently. It was somewhat redeemed by the girls comic debate. BUT It was still overall a bad episode.
Since you don't watch the show I can tell you most of the anti-geek stuff ends up either geek affirming or treated as a work in progress. Don't let one depressing moment ruin the whole series. I have to admit if THIS episode had been the first one I saw I might not have watched it either and ranked it poorly too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you do not like BBT after watching one show then you need to watch more because one episode is not enough to get a real feel for it.
What, you watched 4 or so shows? Well that was first season right? First season needed time to find its footing so watch more from season 2.
What you say? They were random episodes from several seasons? Well if you don't watch them in order you lose context, no wonder you did not enjoy them.
You really need to watch EVERY episode otherwise you are missing out on the subtle nuances of Bazanga.
I demand specifics of why you don't like this show and since you have not watched enough episodes (from season 2) and beyond to provide those specifics your opinion of the show is rendered invalid.
Booo Ya, in your face! I just won an argument on a forum. <flex>
-MD
Booo Ya, in your face! I just won an argument on a forum. <flex>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBBT is a sit-com. It is a half-hour show that derives its profitability on its ability to attract and retain a large enough audience to convince advertisers to pay for commercial time between show segments.
That's all it is. No more. No less.
Sit-coms in general have severe limitations around character development, plot intricacy, sophistication and targets of humor.
Most sit-coms are built around the premise of a group of individuals who share some particular trait or circumstance and how that plays off against the rest of the sit-com's "world."
The vast, vast majority of sit-coms are vapid, mindless, predictable, formulaic regurgitations of previously successful sit-coms.
Every now and then, usually about once or twice a decade, a sit-com will transcend these limitations and become something unique and memorable. Usually that is entirely due to the characters in the show and their interactions which the audience finds engaging and inviting.
The Big Bang Theory is successful because it has clever writing, a unique "hook", some of the best acting in sit-coms in decades and a genuine sense of goodwill among the leading characters.
Sheldon Cooper is perhaps the single most compelling sit-com character to emerge on the scene since Barney Fife. The overriding achievement of the show is how it has managed to turn such an unlikeable personality into an extremely sympathetic character portrait. Again, much like Barney Fife. There is a pronounced lack of opportunity for subtlety in the sit-com format, but the show manages to exhibit a great deal of subtlety in most, if not all, of the relationships involved.
The fact that the show remains fresh and funny to this day instead of devolving into misplaced attempts to become social commentary is one of its greatest sources of appeal to me. The vast, vast majority of sit-coms from Hollywood get a fatal case of self-importance if they do well enough to get renewed for more than a few years. Then every other episode becomes a "special episode" where the writers attempt (usually very badly) to deal with some supposedly compelling social issue by twisting the story, plot and characterization of the show's characters around to provide some sort of social commentary that is believed by the writers and their Hollywood sycophants to "validate" the purpose of the show.
As long as TBBT continues to stay true to its concept and allow its characters to develop naturally, it will probably remain fresh and funny. When they start using their "platform" to promote the writers' and producers' personal ideological pet projects, it will fall apart like most other sit-coms do.
So far they have managed to avoid that. And that's a major reason I still watch the show.
The fact that the show remains fresh and funny to this day...YMMV. Mine certainly does.
The only thing I can say is that there is a reason the show remains at the top of the ratings year after year.
I used to run a magazine and we would get letters from our subscribers. After reading through reams and reams of commentary about our product, my main QA person and I came up with a mantra that went something like this:
"There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere won't think our magazine is better.
"There is nothing so bad that someone, somewhere won't think our magazine is worse."
Individual reaction is merely anecdote. Validation of the quality of mass-marketed products is generally affirmed through overall popular reaction.
As it should be.
Validation of the quality of mass-marketed products is generally affirmed through overall popular reaction.
Correction: "Validation of the popularity of mass-marketed products is generally affirmed through overall popular reaction."
Watches are mass-marketed products. A Rolex is objectively a higher-quality product than the brand X "wristwatch" off the cheapo rack in Target. It is more accurate, is constructed of more durable materials, and has a far wider range of ambient consitions under which it remains operational. These can all be numerically tested. But I'd wager that vastly more brand X Target watches are sold than Rolexes. The cheapo watches are vastly more popular (in this case due to cost differential and availability, but still), but that popularity in no way affirms that the Rolex is a lower-quality product.
As another example nearer to my heart, George Dickels #12 brand Tennessee whiskey is a far superior product to its only direct competetor, Jack Daniel's black label (the former is still bottled at 90 proof, vs. JD's 80 proof since 2004, and yet the Dickel's is smoother and less harsh on the throat and taste buds). Price is comparable. Daniels wins the popularity contest hands-down not because it's a better product, but because it has better name recognition ("Jack-and-Coke") and because it became a staple of the biker crowd and then, by extension, by every redneck idiot in the world who wanted to be a biker but couldn't afford a Harley.
Kirth, "quality" is a very ambiguous term. There have been many, many deep philosophical treatises written on what "quality" means. Henri Poincare spent a lot of time on this.
In the main the general, popularly accepted understanding of what "quality" means could be written as "performs its intended function."
If the goal of the show is to appeal to a mass audience, then its "quality" is self-evident.
To address your Rolex analogy. Rolex watches are an over-engineered product that relies on marketing and elite appeal for its sales, not its "quality." I've seen many comparisons of relatively cheap watches that are every bit as accurate and rugged as Rolex watches. I would suggest that spending that much money on such a trivial purpose is an exercise in elitism, not "quality."
I demand specifics of why you don't like this show and since you have not watched enough episodes (from season 2) and beyond to provide those specifics your opinion of the show is rendered invalid.
Booo Ya, in your face! I just won an argument on a forum. <flex>
-MD
Did they not teach your the difference between making an evaluative claim and stating an opinion? Here, let me see if I can spell it out for you:
Opinion: something that is not based on any particular criteria, indicating a matter of personal taste. Example: I like/dislike TBBT.
Evaluative Claim: A judgement of quality, based upon specific criteria/evidence. Example: TBBT is a bad/offensive show.
As I said earlier, I have no beef with people who say they hate the show. I take issue with people saying the show is offensive but refuse to provide adequate evidence to support that claim beyond "I watched four episodes and didn't like them."
I give you points for relying on mockery instead of reasoned, evidence-based debate, though. It's a good way to deflect attention from the fact that you can't argue in a rational way.
To address your Rolex analogy. Rolex watches are an over-engineered product that relies on marketing and elite appeal for its sales, not its "quality." I've seen many comparisons of relatively cheap watches that are every bit as accurate and rugged as Rolex watches. I would suggest that spending that much money on such a trivial purpose is an exercise in elitism, not "quality."
I picked that analogy because it's one in which I'd been led to believe the opposite is true (the cheaper ones did not perform nearly as well); if I was misled in that regard, so be it... and I provided a second example for that contingency (I wouldn't buy a Rolex anyway, even if I had the money, so it's a moot point in a sense). Still, we accept that there are some measures of quality that are indeed objective. In performing arts, those measures do tend to be subjective at this time, if only because our ability to parse what makes "good" literature or a "moving" work of art is still in the stone age compared to our ability to, say, determine if diamond is harder than corundum, when it comes to drill bits being resistant to scratching and mechanical marring of the cutting faces (and, yes, it is).
In any event, regardless of whatever denotation you want to assign to it, the term "quality" carries connotations of superiority in some intinsic aspect, not simply in terms of popularity.
Kirth, while I concur that "quality" in the performing arts is pretty much by definition a subjective measure, the philosophical inquiry into the concept of "quality" tends to end up with the conclusion that "quality" is purely subjective in EVERY instance.
Sticking with Rolex watches as an example...
There are fundamental design limitations to the Rolex watch that restrict accuracy to a measurable quantity. That accuracy is not nearly sufficient for any truly scientific purpose, where accuracy to micro, pico or even femto seconds are required. From that perspective as a time-measuring device a Rolex watch is like a stone club compared to a jewelers hammer. It's rather humorous to even consider a Rolex watch to be a device that would be used to measure time.
However, in the sense of normal human time needs, Rolex watches do provide accuracy that is more than sufficient to allow for day-to-day activities. But so does that $5 Timex I can pick up at Wal-Mart. The difference in accuracy between a $5 digital Timex and a $50,000 precision Rolex is generally well below any margin of error needed by human schedules.
In other words, it's a level of "accuracy" that is unnecessary. Or to use another word, it is a level of accuracy that is wasted. And not merely wasted in comparison to other watches, but wasted at GREAT expense. So when you measure "quality" as pure accuracy, perhaps (and I stress the "perhaps") a Rolex is a smidgeon better than a dime-store Timex, but if you measure "quality" as "performs the service needed at the least investment of resources" then that Timex is light-years ahead of the Rolex in terms of actual quality.
There is a reason that engineers coined the term "over-engineering." In the end the goal is to provide the necessary functionality at the most reasonable cost, and in general that is a better measure of "quality" than focusing purely on how well the functionality is achieved. Over-engineering is a bad thing because it wastes time and resources which could be better utilized improving "quality" of life somewhere else.
Now, if you instead measure the "quality" of a watch by how much it makes people recognize how elite and wealthy you are, then that Rolex is definitely the highest "quality" watch on the planet.
It's all in what you decide "quality" means.
The difference in accuracy between a $5 digital Timex and a $50,000 precision Rolex is generally well below any margin of error needed by human schedules.
At the time of purchase, this is no doubt correct, but part of measure of a watch's accuracy is whether the watch retains that accuracy. If Richy Van Snobhead's Rolex loses 1 second per 10,000 years, and your Timex loses 1 second per day, then next year you're running late for appointments and Richy isn't. That means that your watch is NOT serving its intended function unless you reset it constantly. But now pretend that all other means of timekeeping are being compared, which means you can't just consult your cel phone or town hall clock or dial up the Atomic Clock for the official time (as tempting as it is for everyone to compare all sitcoms to Seinfeld, I don't accept that as an objective yardstick, even if Time magazine disagrees with me). If they're ALL being assessed independently, then the ones that lose the least amount of time are inherently more fit for their purpose (and therefore of higher "quality") than the ones that slow down a lot faster.
But the function of sitcoms isn't simply longevity, or else "MASH" would be WAY "better" than BBT. If their function is to make us laugh, we could potentially measure that with % of viewers, volume, duration, and frequency... and see if it consistently outperforms "Family Guy" or "30 Rock." (On the other hand, if the function is to raise advertising revenue, then the Superbowl is a much higher-quality sitcom by that rubric, which seems like it ought to be a logical fail of some kind).
Kirth, if my Timex loses accuracy, I can reset it to the correct time. If that takes me a minute to do once per month, then for a 12 minute investment in time I get the same practical accuracy from my $5 Timex as Van Snobhead does from his $50K Rolex.
That's actually part of the quality discusion. Unless your time is worth $250,000 an hour, then you're wasting money on the Rolex, which is a low-quality decision.
The only time the improved accuracy of a Rolex would actually come into play is for someone who has no other means to validate and reset their time, and NEEDS TO do so. Right now I would say that describes exactly ZERO PERCENT of the human population.
Back to sit-coms, we've already decided that "quality" is subjective in that realm. In terms of taste, I know what I like, and I like TBBT. Which is more or less the beginning and end of discussing how "good" the show is, if you aren't going to accept general popular acclaim.
Kirth, if my Timex loses accuracy, I can reset it to the correct time. The only time the improved accuracy of a Rolex would actually come into play is for someone who has no other means to validate and reset their time, and NEEDS TO do so.
I seem to recall addressing exactly this point at some length in that same post...
I give you points for relying on mockery instead of reasoned, evidence-based debate, though. It's a good way to deflect attention from the fact that you can't argue in a rational way.
Take pride Prince that none may rival your vast debating skills. Your reasoned defense of TBBT will be the talk of all our legal institutions for years to come.
I sit humbled, unable to move or form thoughts. And yet even in this horrid state of physical and mental paralyzation I can't bring myself to watching TBBT.
Kirth, if my Timex loses accuracy, I can reset it to the correct time. The only time the improved accuracy of a Rolex would actually come into play is for someone who has no other means to validate and reset their time, and NEEDS TO do so.Just as we have no other means to validate the "quality" of a sitcom... I seem to recall addressing exactly this point at some length.
But we DO have another means to validate the "quality" of a sit-com, and that is "how well does it allow advertisers to reach their target demographics?"
And in that measure, TBBT is a very, very high quality sit-com indeed.
Back to sit-coms, we've already decided that "quality" is subjective in that realm.
I've more tried to suggest that "quality" is an inappropriate term. Just as one does not talk about the "hardness" of air or the "durability" of talcum powder. The word "quality" carries connotations that don't (or at least currently cannot be) apply to sitcoms.
But we DO have another means to validate the "quality" of a sit-com, and that is "how well does it allow advertisers to reach their target demographics?"
Don't forget that Stuffy Grammarian is one of my aliases! I prefer appropriate terms -- especially when communicating in English, which has so many to choose from. I would say that you've validated the effectiveness of the sitcom in that regard, as opposed to its "quality." Just as, if my cat jumps to the top of the refrigerator, I might consider that as evidence of his "athletic prowess" as opposed to his "celestial awesomeness." (He has both, of course, but that's a separate discussion.)
Back to sit-coms, we've already decided that "quality" is subjective in that realm.I've more tried to suggest that "quality" is an inappropriate term. Just as one does not talk about the "hardness" of air or the "durability" of talcum powder. The word "quality" carries connotations that don't (or at least currently cannot be) apply to sitcoms.
Interestingly, in many of the philosophical dissertations on the subject of "quality" as a fundamental concept, they reach the same conclusion for ALL uses of "quality". In the end "quality" is ineffable. It means nothing in general since you can't get everyone to agree what the appropriate measures are.
Obviously this subject fascinates me. It was a prominent element in the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." Many, if not most, of the great philosophers eventually delved into the question of what constitutes "quality", and in the end nothing has ever really been settled. It remains in the realm of "I know it when I see it, but I can't really define it" and is different for everyone.
For example, I consider my Toyota Yaris to be an extremely high quality automobile. I base that on the fact that it does the job I need from it with less time and money invested into accomplishing that goal than just about any other vehicle on earth. In that sense I take a John Stuart Mill approach to "quality". Other people might take a more Platonic view, where "quality" is some mystical attribute that truly exists within the item being examined, even if there is no current means to measure it.
Heh... probably lost the rest of the audience. But I enjoyed it.
For example, I consider my Toyota Yaris to be an extremely high quality automobile. I base that on the fact that it does the job I need from it with less time and money invested into accomplishing that goal than just about any other vehicle on earth. In that sense I take a John Stuart Mill approach to "quality". Other people might take a more Platonic view, where "quality" is some mystical attribute that truly exists within the item being examined, even if there is no current means to measure it.
Yes, you can set your own denotation* for what "quality" means in a philosophical sense. But most people would consider things like how often it breaks down ("reliability," to be more exact) as the measure of the "quality" of an automobile -- that's the connotation* that you keep trying to ignore. It makes your earlier statemet (to which I initially replied) either meaningless (giving you the benefit of the doubt, which I most assuredly do) or intentionally misleading (if you were a slimier sort than I think you are). Either way, it's an inappropriate term to be applied in this situation.
I don't care about the show, just clear communication in the English language!
My Toyota Yaris has 200,000 miles on it and has not broken down once. That's part of why I think it's a high quality automobile.
I don't ignore connotations of the word "quality" I simply assert that connotations don't matter when the attribute is unmeasurable. Then it just becomes word games.
Hmmm... back that up and strike it out.
I concur with your comment about connotation vs denotation. And I even agree that in the main the connotations of the word "quality" are fairly commonly applied.
You still can't measure it though.
I've seen a few camps so far: The "It's a decent show, I think it's funny" camp, the "BBT is everything that is wrong with TV" camp, and the "Community is a work of art" camp.Funny how the camps you agree with are all clever and level headed, while the camps you disagree with are silly extremists.
I think you missed the "if you don't like the show it's because you're not smart enough to get it" camp, as well as the "TBBT isn't a particular clever nerd-humour show" camp which, I suppose, is your second camp if you really want to twist everything you disagree with into an extreme negative.
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).
Yes there have been some scattered outliers of reasonable dislikers and unreasonable watchers, bu they're not the majority falling into these categories.
Like PsychoticWarrior. He seems to get that "I don't like it, and I don't find it funny." is wildly different from "It's terrible and offends my very being!".
The problem is I haven't seen many of those people in here.
Rynjin, you don't see many "in-the-middle" folks posting because this is the internets and extremism is the whole point of debate. Apparently.
Back on topic (and I may have said this like 20 pages ago), I mildly dislike BBT because I can't seem to identify with any of the characters (I find them whiny and don't really care about their problems), and because it isn't really my type of humor. But that's along the same lines as my mild dislike for dub-step, which Mrs. Gersen is obsessed with and plays all the time. I don't tell her to turn it off unless it's actively preventing me from getting to sleep. Oh, yeah, and I still have no idea what "Community" is, assuming people don't mean the brand of coffee.
4 episodes out of what, 5 seasons? Pretty small sample size you've got there.
So what is the number required to form an opinion of the quality of a tv show?
When reintroducing yourself to a tv show, how many episodes need to be watched to form an opinion of its quality?
Concerning each episode, how much of the episode do you discard as not truly representative of the show and how much do you keep?
I've never heard of responsible, accomplished men being personally reprehensible...
Quality in a performance is often measured in the acclaim it receives.
BBT has won 13 awards and been nominated more times than I care to count. This makes it very high quality in the views of it's audience and the members of the industry.
Quality in a performance is often measured in the acclaim it receives. BBT has won 13 awards and been nominated more times than I care to count. This makes it very high quality in the views of it's audience and the members of the industry.
That's at least a more objective measure -- we can count awards and nominations, especially if we track where they're coming from (I've received 20,000,000 awards for Best Game Designer, but they're all from me, so they don't count).
Of course, "30 Rock" blows BBT out of the water using that rubric, but that's a topic for another thread...
Quality in a performance is often measured in the acclaim it receives. BBT has won 13 awards and been nominated more times than I care to count. This makes it very high quality in the views of it's audience and the members of the industry.That's at least a more objective measure -- we can count awards and nominations, especially if we track where they're coming from (I've received 20,000,000 awards for Best Game Designer, but they're all from me, so they don't count).
Of course, "30 Rock" blows BBT out of the water using that rubric, but that's a topic for another thread...
Certainly by the industry standards of measuring quality 30 Rock is better than Big Bang Theory which in turn is better than Community...
In terms of PURE popularity Big Bang Theory is a top ten show.
Certainly by the industry standards of measuring quality 30 Rock is better than Big Bang Theory which in turn is better than Community...
Certainly by the industry standards of measuring quality 30 Rock is better than Big Bang Theory which in turn is better than Community...
I thought you didn't like Laugh Tracks Sebastian?
Isn't it painful to you to have to pretend to be one?
4 episodes out of what, 5 seasons? Pretty small sample size you've got there.So what is the number required to form an opinion of the quality of a tv show?
When reintroducing yourself to a tv show, how many episodes need to be watched to form an opinion of its quality?
Concerning each episode, how much of the episode do you discard as not truly representative of the show and how much do you keep?
I've never heard of responsible, accomplished men being personally reprehensible...
All fair, good questions that I will try to answer.
1&2) I think only a handful of episodes are needed to form an opinion of whether or not one LIKES a tv show, but that is not what most people here are discussing. We're discussing whether or not it's a show that primarily derives its humor from making fun of geeks. I'd say one would have to watch a solid season (or a substantial portion of it) to begin to make a reasoned judgement about it... but then we're left with the problem that it's a six-season show (so far). Would it be fair to characterize it as "mean" if it pokes fun at the main characters in season one, but then presents them sympathetically for the next five seasons? You can see the problem here.
In terms of "quality" (which, as Kirth and AD are demonstrating, is a hard thing to pin down in the arts), it's pointless to merely claim "it's a bad show" without establishing specific criteria (e.g. do the characters develop, are the jokes original, etc). However, in order to
To reiterate an earlier point - I myself wouldn't keep watching a show that I didn't enjoy, regardless of the reasons. But if you're going to make a broad claim that a program is offensive to a certain demographic, or of low "quality" you need to do the research to back that up... which requires watching a lot of the episodes. That's just how critical thinking works.
No one's saying that you have to watch an entire series to determine whether or not you like a program; what we're saying is that you cannot make *qualitative judgements* of an entire series unless you've actually watched the entire series. If I stopped reading the Wheel of Time after book 4 and said it was the best series ever, I would be flatly wrong, because there is significant material after that which shows otherwise.
3) In this case, you have to apply some literary/film analysis and make some judgement calls about what the director/producer is emphasizing in terms of plot, characterization, etc. I'd like to think that most of us can recognize the difference between throwaway jokes and jokes that are derived from key elements of characterization. For example, Sheldon acting woozy/crazy from the sleep medication that Wolowitz gives him to shut him up - that behavior isn't a core, recurring element of the character, so all of the jokes centered around him being silly in that sequence are "throw-away" jokes. Jokes about how obnoxious Sheldon is are derived from his obvious lack of social niceties, a defining and recurring character trait.
This is admittedly a bit imprecise, but nobody said analysis of the arts was easy.
4) I'm surprised that you find the idea that people can be both virtuous and sinful/wise and foolish to be so incomprehensible. You have people like Thomas Jefferson, for example, who, despite being wealthy, brilliant, and of high ideals, failed to live within his considerable means, died in massive debt, and took sexual advantages of his slaves. Alexander the Great was a brilliant, courageous leader who thoroughly alienated his once-utterly-loyal soldiers and drank himself into an early grave. Woodrow Wilson was both very progressive and deeply racist at the same time, etc.
It's tempting to conflate intelligence with wisdom; it is also easy to assume that simply because we are capable of identifying good decisions that we will always make good decisions. History (and our own experience, if we are honest) is replete with examples to the contrary.
This thread is glorious.... I am supporting, team Sebastian and team Kirth. I would say "rooting for" but that's kind of a very rude phrase in Australia.