The Big Bang Theory

superdoug wrote:Secondly, I could give a tin shit about what you and Knize think about anything I enjoy, because it's precisely that: something that I enjoy.

Then obviously I wasn't talking to you. However, there are those who seem to be beside themselves with frustration that anyone dare to find this show unfunny.

And no, it's not unfair not to enjoy a t.v. show after only a couple of episodes, for the reasons I already cited. A sitcom is supposed to be able to hook a view in one episode, not half a dozen, because in general, a casual viewer will not continue to watch a show they don't enjoy.

Joshua wrote:

superdoug wrote:Secondly, I could give a tin shit about what you and Knize think about anything I enjoy, because it's precisely that: something that I enjoy.

Then obviously I wasn't talking to you. However, there are those who seem to be beside themselves with frustration that anyone dare to find this show unfunny.

And no, it's not unfair not to enjoy a t.v. show after only a couple of episodes, for the reasons I already cited. A sitcom is supposed to be able to hook a view in one episode, not half a dozen, because in general, a casual viewer will not continue to watch a show they don't enjoy.

This is why, technically, Joss Whedon sucks as a tv show creator.

Heytherejeffro wrote:
This is why, technically, Joss Whedon sucks as a tv show creator.

Or why Fox sucks as a network for not showing the pilot to Firefly first. Buffy and Firefly were each able to hook me with one episode, whereas one episode of Dollhouse was enough to keep me from ever caring about it again.

Joshua wrote:

Heytherejeffro wrote:
This is why, technically, Joss Whedon sucks as a tv show creator.

Or why Fox sucks as a network for not showing the pilot to Firefly first. Buffy and Firefly were each able to hook me with one episode, whereas one episode of Dollhouse was enough to keep me from ever caring about it again.

I should have highlighted "casual viewer" (or anything, really).
Fox does suck as a network, though for that. I doubt Firefly really would have been a popular show among the general population, though.
And yes, that does make me sad.

Joss Whedon makes things for himself. That's why he always fails.

Buffy does rule however.

I wouldn't say always. Buffy lasted 7 seasons and wasn't ended abruptly. It also spawned a successful spin-off series (Angel) that lasted 5 seasons.

Firefly may have flopped but he generated enough momentum from the 1 season show to make a feature film.

Dr. Horrible has been wildly* successful.

But I agree, he does make things with more "what can we do that's cool" rather than "what can we do that the studios will support" mentality.


*"wildly" being that at around a cost of $200,000 paid out of pocket for filming and not paying any of the actors, the DVD sales recouped that in one month, along with paychecks for all involved. That compounded by the fact that it was available for free on the internet at initial release for a limited time.

superdoug wrote:

Joshua wrote:I'm sorry your taste in television is so threatened by one guy who happens to not like a mediocre show you do like, but you really need to get over it. It's not the big deal you're making it out to be. I know you think Sheldon is the end-all, be-all geek you strive to become, but quit acting like him become someone doesn't agree with your opinion.

First of all, you need to get over yourself and stop putting words in people's mouths/minds. No one here (that I can tell) is lifting Sheldon to Geek-Icon status. We just find him and the premise of the show very funny. Secondly, I could give a tin shit about what you and Knize think about anything I enjoy, because it's precisely that: something that I enjoy. I just think that it's unfair to watch not even a full two episodes of something and say unequivocally that it's complete garbage. Even reviewers are provided with four to six episodes of a TV season in order to write about it.

I think I'm done, SD said exactly what I was thinking.

I'm not even discussing studios. I'm talking about non nerds. The majority of people I know have never probably seen one thing he's ever done.

Silent K wrote:

The_Donster wrote:SK I'd recommend against the BLARGH!! on BBT because of lack of credibility. How can you form an opinion on anything, let alone a series, on 2 episodes alone? Unless you are just raging against the masses to save face at this point?

"Lack of credibility."? Since when is the internet concerned with that?

I can, have, and will form an opinion whenever I like. When you hate something, do you like to punish yourself with it? I don't. In two episodes, I can tell you unequivocally that I do not find Big Bang Theory funny or entertaining, and I feel strongly that it's offensive to the geek community as a whole. However, in the interest of journalism, I've been given a handful of recommendations in regards to the cream of the crop of BBT episodes, and I will watch them in order to express a more learned opinion for the article.

Raging against the masses? No. That was my LOST BLAARGH!

As for "saving face", I have plenty to go around.

You aren't a journalist.

And what the fuck? He needs to watch more than two episodes? I know if I dislike something within ten minutes of it being on. Should professional reviewers watch a whole film, or more than two episodes of something when they review it? Fuck yeah. Does an average person need to? Fuck no.

Thundermatts wrote:The majority of people I know have never probably seen one thing he's ever done.

Yes, but I bet every single one of them recognize 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and know that Sarah Michelle Gellar starred in the show, whether they've seen it or not. They're probably aware of Dr. Horrible and Firefly, despite having not seen them. Everyone knows about Alien: Resurrection, even though it's the worst in the franchise. They probably also know (and probably saw) Toy Story, whether they're aware he was involved in writing the screenplay or not.

Like him or not, Whedon has had an enormous impact on pop-culture and enjoyed more than a little success.

I don't dislike the guy, he seems cool.

Also, I'm not talking about things he helped write. I'm talking about things he created.

superdoug wrote:

Thundermatts wrote:The majority of people I know have never probably seen one thing he's ever done.

Yes, but I bet every single one of them recognize 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and know that Sarah Michelle Gellar starred in the show, whether they've seen it or not. They're probably aware of Dr. Horrible and Firefly, despite having not seen them. Everyone knows about Alien: Resurrection, even though it's the worst in the franchise. They probably also know (and probably saw) Toy Story, whether they're aware he was involved in writing the screenplay or not.

Like him or not, Whedon has had an enormous impact on pop-culture and enjoyed more than a little success.

Way less people are familiar with Firefly and Dr. Horrible than you think, Doug.
I know that most of us are around people that like the majority of the same thing, but the masses still maintain ignorance on a lot of the stuff geeks like.
Pointing back to the thread, this might be why a lot of geeks have a problem with BBT; it's geek-culture through the mainstream's filter.
Did you find Will and Grace to be an accurate and honest portrayal of gay culture?

I love Joss Whedon and I love Firefly, but if I polled people in my workplace, I'd be lucky to find one person who is familiar with it.

Heytherejeffro wrote:Did you find Will and Grace to be an accurate and honest portrayal of gay culture?

Not as I know it, no. You can look in my Ask A Gay Guy thread to see my actual thoughts on Will and Grace. However, despite my objections to much of W&G's approach, it was still a show that treated its characters with a certain amount of dignity. For every five episodes of over-the-top gay/alcoholic/neurotic shenanigans, there was one that really delved into what drove the characters.

I don't think that BBT falls into the same traps as W&G, mostly because I find character development to be an ongoing process on that show, instead of the 'here's an episode designed to tug at your heartstrings and make you love the characters' approach. Yes, the nerds make vicious fun of themselves, but as I said before, it's nothing compared to the way we talk to each other (just read through this message board. We've ragged on everything from Knize being fat to Chris not sealing the deal).

I don't think it's fair that the nerds are so socially damaged; not everyone who grew up with a staggering intellect was brutalized by their home life, but I also understand that this show isn't about ALL geeks -- it's about these four geeks, who have their own histories and damages. Is it a little cliche? Yeah. But that can open the door for all kinds of stories where the cliche is broken open...like the episode where Leonard is threatened by his academic hero (and man-crush), who is a motorcycle-riding hunk that immediately catches Penny's eye.

It's all subjective, like any humor. I just fail to see where it's this big offensive piece of garbage.

The_Donster wrote:

Superdoug wrote:
First of all, you need to get over yourself and stop putting words in people's mouths/minds. No one here (that I can tell) is lifting Sheldon to Geek-Icon status. We just find him and the premise of the show very funny. Secondly, I could give a tin shit about what you and Knize think about anything I enjoy, because it's precisely that: something that I enjoy. I just think that it's unfair to watch not even a full two episodes of something and say unequivocally that it's complete garbage. Even reviewers are provided with four to six episodes of a TV season in order to write about it.

I think I'm done, SD said exactly what I was thinking.

Really? Because you sure seem to be harping on Knize about something you, as Doug put it, give a "tin shit" over.

Thundermatts wrote:Should professional reviewers watch a whole film, or more than two episodes of something when they review it? Fuck yeah. Does an average person need to? Fuck no.

If said average person wants to enter a debate as to what makes a good or bad show, or that Show X is good or bad, then yes, they need to watch more than 10 minutes of one episode of a television show.

I didn't see anyone entering a debate. Hey I love the show, but I'm not going to get worked up if someone else doesn't. They're loss man. If they simply say "hey, this sucks." That's fine. If they try to argue repeatedly with weak arguments (Like Knize does with the current season of Lost) that's a problem, or wants to argue specifics without having seen them. But Knize can write an article about what he thinks sucks, the same as I can ignore it.

Joshua wrote:

The_Donster wrote:

Superdoug wrote:
First of all, you need to get over yourself and stop putting words in people's mouths/minds. No one here (that I can tell) is lifting Sheldon to Geek-Icon status. We just find him and the premise of the show very funny. Secondly, I could give a tin shit about what you and Knize think about anything I enjoy, because it's precisely that: something that I enjoy. I just think that it's unfair to watch not even a full two episodes of something and say unequivocally that it's complete garbage. Even reviewers are provided with four to six episodes of a TV season in order to write about it.

I think I'm done, SD said exactly what I was thinking.

Really? Because you sure seem to be harping on Knize about something you, as Doug put it, give a "tin shit" over.

Joshua, my problem isn't that SK dislikes the show. My problem is he went in already disliking the show, watched 2 episodes and then decided to write an article about it. To me that lacks an integrity that all journalists, whether professional or amatuer, national publication or the internet should have. His approach wasn't I'll keep an open mind and see what all the hubbub is about. No, he went in with his "I hate sitcoms blinders" on and based the show on his preconception of what he feels is a outdated concept. Trust me, my problem isn't just with him. I have a problem with the recent write up in Entertainment Weekly on the show. Why? Because it didn't even seem like the person had watched the show, they just wrote a review. They claimed that the show was being diluted by the 4 friends interaction instead of certaining on Leonard and Sheldon. Anyone who's watched the show knows it's turned into everyone reacting to Sheldon. This if anything takes away from the group dynamics the show originally had. Now I don't know what episodes SK watched, I would have just had more respect for his opinion if he had watched more.

Thundermatts wrote:

Silent K wrote:However, in the interest of journalism, I've been given a handful of recommendations in regards to the cream of the crop of BBT episodes, and I will watch them in order to express a more learned opinion for the article.

You aren't a journalist.

The italics on "journalism" implied it was tongue-in-cheek.

The_Donster wrote:
Joshua, my problem isn't that SK dislikes the show. My problem is he went in already disliking the show, watched 2 episodes and then decided to write an article about it. To me that lacks an integrity that all journalists, whether professional or amatuer, national publication or the internet should have. His approach wasn't I'll keep an open mind and see what all the hubbub is about. No, he went in with his "I hate sitcoms blinders" on and based the show on his preconception of what he feels is a outdated concept.

You're wrong. I watched the show THEN disliked it.

Ohhhhhhh. Well then.

Just watched these two clips on YouTube.





Hmmmmmm..... No, Sir. I don't like it.

Spoiler:

krpykrwly wrote:

Spoiler:

QFT.

So what may I ask is the point of an article if not to sway people?

Silent K wrote:

krpykrwly wrote:

Spoiler:

QFT.

No, if Krpy doesn't like it, then I don't like it. In fact, I hate everything.

Just like Ron Swanson with no bacon.

I hate what Darlene's boyfriend does with his voice on this show...