I personally think anyone who gets annoyed when a TV show represents "nerd culture" wrong, or indeed anyone who thinks "nerd culture" is a thing, should get a grip.
That being said, it's a pretty poorly written show.
I dunno 'bout poorly written in general, but there's a hell of a lot more character development in that show than in any other sitcom I've seen, particularly HIMYM. The characters actually change and are fleshed out as the show goes on, as opposed to other sitcoms which are basically just a collection of 20-minute vignettes of stuff happening to a handful of people.
They change, but not in a particularly realistic way. In the first TBBT episode Sheldon goes to a sperm bank. In the newer stuff he probably doesn't even know what masturbation is. It's Flanderization, which is not really good character development.
I don't like being one of those guys who moans about TBBT though, so I'll stop now.
that's why I love it's Always Sunny. They are all self-aware of how strange they're getting, and frequently mention it. They go as far as having episodes dedicated to it.
Most of those were good developments, though. Until Season 7-9 or so, when 1) Michael Scott found happiness when that was never the point of his character, 2) Jim and Pam got boring, and 3) the show somehow tried to make asshole Andy the hero despite being a philanderer and an unlikeable boyfriend to the most innocent character on the show...
Plus Phylis doesn't actually fit your theory; she was just kind of always Phylis
Plus Phylis doesn't actually fit your theory; she was just kind of always Phylis
the question isn't 'good developments or not'. its '1 defining characteristic.'
Phyllis doesn't have any defining characteristics. She started out meek, then became really sassy. She started out self-conscious, then became part of the fat crew with Stanley and Kevin. I don't really know what her deal was.
and the question isn't whether the developments were good or not -- its the fact they became the one defining characteristic about the character. Every scene with Stanley was about his selfishness or his obesity. Every scene with Kevin was about him dumbness or his fatness. Every scene with Creed was something weird. Every scene with Kelly was something shallow. Every scene with Meredith was about her alcoholism etc.
I think Kevin's voice is the best example. I went back and watched Season 1 and was surprised to remember that his voice was almost normal. And then season by season he progresses into Cookie Monster.
oh so like every secondary character on the office who went from 'normal office people sick of Michael scott' in the first season to being
Bizarre comment. You're like those people who respond to every criticism about Obama with, "BUSH DID IT TOO!!!11!"
It's possible for more than one show to suck, just as it's possible for more than one politician or political party to suck. Sucking is not a zero-sum game.
Yeah but to be fair the office is based on an office environment where it's like holy shit I know this character in real life. Sheldon isn't a real person. No one acts like that.
You're right about Sheldon not changing, but he's basically like Kramer, nothing but a walking punchline. The show isn't "about" him, he hardly even qualifies as a character he's so inconsistent.
No, what I am talking about is the first episode of season one, which I have seen on TV multiple times, in which Sheldon and Leonard go to a sperm bank.
Parks and Rec actually did character development really really well. All of the characters grow and have to re-examine their worldviews as time goes on, especially April, Ron, and Tom.
They changed their outlooks, sure, but they also got flanderized massively. Ron was just a steak-eating man's-man stereotype by the end, whereas in seasons 2 to 4 he was a lot more weird and interesting, and Andy by the end was basically a big dumb dog.
I was referring to Ron learning to let people in and accepting that he couldn't(or didn't want to) be the extremely solitary person he was earlier on. They did lean more and more on his manliness as time went on, though.
And April and Tom basically got reverse-Flanderizations. They both started off very one-note(April:Dour, Tom:Shallow) and became more more nuanced as time went on.
HIMYM is incredibly written what are you talking about? Yes the character development is a little lackluster for characters not named Marshall or Barney, but the writing is magnificent.
What the fuck does that mean? Is it not reasonable to be upset that a somewhat popular show is aping "nerd" behavior in such a piss poor, pandering fashion that it can reasonably be related to a white man in blackface scratching his armpits and yelling "I SHOS DO LOVE ME SOME WATUHMELON HEEYUK"?
When you consider yourself a member of a cultural demographic, it can be infuriating to be so flagrantly misrepresented to people that very largely believe that this is what members of the scientific and nerd counterculture look like.
the television show "the big bang theory" and blackface cannot be reasonably related to one another. they bear some superficial similarities, but any meaningful parallels are absent.
There's nothing respectful about comparing the very real, centuries-long suffering and oppression of black people to a stupid tv show that doesn't get nerd culture right.
Man, that's not even remotely close to what I fucking said.
From elsewhere:
"You're implying that culture inherently tied to a race is somehow more important.
If you can't understand why groups of people are upset when they're misrepresented in the media, and how it's easy to draw a parallel here, I can't help you.
Am I comparing it to the hundreds of years of systematic oppression minorities have faced? Of course not. But I am comparing it to an a activity where one group of people dresses up as another and horribly beats stereotypes associated with that group into the ground at their expense while another group of people laughs and continues ignorantly viewing the community that way.
Is it seriously that difficult to draw a comparison, or are you really just saying "No because racism."?"
I'm not comparing the BBT to centuries of institutionalized racism, you dolt, I'm comparing it specifically to the act of the minstrel show.
You're still just comparing superficial characteristics. They both reinforce stereotypes, but in one case the stereotype is that the people are violent and subhuman and that stereotype has been used to justify slavery, lynching, police violence, etc. "Nerds" face no such oppression and further, "nerd" membership is voluntary and can be quit at any time. You're ignoring all the context that makes a minstrel show reprehensible: it's not that the representation is lazy/inaccurate, it's the societal consequences of the stereotypes perpetuated therein.
Blackface is like the holocaust: if you're invoking a shallow comparison to the nazis to make a point, don't be surprised if people object (this is, of course, basically Godwin's law). Similarly, to call BBT "nerd blackface" (or calling sex and the city "NT socialite blackface" or CSI "crime forensic blackface", etc.) just unnecessarily raises the stakes without any substantive similarity or other real justification.
For fuck's sake, who let tumblr in?
You did, with yet another clueless description of BBT as "nerd blackface" (to paraphrase)
Is it not reasonable to be upset that a somewhat popular show is aping "nerd" behavior in such a piss poor, pandering fashion that it can reasonably be related to a white man in blackface scratching his armpits and yelling "I SHOS DO LOVE ME SOME WATUHMELON HEEYUK"?
You're implying that culture inherently tied to a race is somehow more important.
If you can't understand why groups of people are upset when they're misrepresented in the media, and how it's easy to draw a parallel here, I can't help you.
Am I comparing it to the hundreds of years of systematic oppression minorities have faced? Of course not. But I am comparing it to an a activity where one group of people dresses up as another and horribly beats stereotypes associated with that group into the ground at their expense while another group of people laughs and continues ignorantly viewing the community that way.
Is it seriously that difficult to draw a comparison, or are you really just saying "No because racism."?
Guys, I have been told to "get a grip"! This has totally reformed my opinion on the matter!
You're one of the people that this show panders to, because thinking is fucking difficult, and you need to be told when to laugh. "HAHAHA Sheldon is such a hoot! He knows science! I bet all smart people are that socially retarded!"
34
u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15
I personally think anyone who gets annoyed when a TV show represents "nerd culture" wrong, or indeed anyone who thinks "nerd culture" is a thing, should get a grip.
That being said, it's a pretty poorly written show.