Wil Wheaton

[Tuesday Pajamas]

I know he has a thread with old arch enemy Sheldon for the onscreen interpretation of err, ....himself but I thought he should have his own Thespian thread.

After watching Wil in the Comic Con videos, I have come around to the general consensus here on HQ that he's a throughly lovely chap. And today is his birthday so...

Happy Birthday Wil Wheaton!


Ah damn it!! his birthday was two days ago.... 29th July.

Better late than never!

[ricardo shillyshally]

I'm glad Wil has his own thread. Now I know where to post this. I know very little about him, except obvious! From what he's said, he found it difficult after being a child star. I hope TBBT gave him back his mojo! Looks like it!!! Two of my favourite actresses, for their individual and quirky characterizations.

[ricardo shillyshally]

"But season four was also Wheaton's last as a regular cast member of the show and it's something he's still a bit upset about when you talk to him. Hearing it in his voice, it doesn't sound as though he's upset with malice, but frustration. "By the time the fourth season rolls around in a large ensemble show, the writers have generally settled on who they're going to write for, and it wasn't me," he told me. "And that's cool I get it, in retrospect I totally get it. I mean, you've got the robot is really interesting, you've got the relationship between Picard and Dr. Crusher is really interesting, Riker is really great, and there's this kid that nobody really knows what to do with because he's never been allowed to develop beyond being more than an idea."(from Bryan Young interview). That last line makes me wonder if the writers had the same problem with Sheldon!

[SpaceAnJL]

I think it was more that the writers had a choice whether to go with a Data/Spock type, and chose instead to go for idiot cartoon, with Sheldon. Dignity was the first casualty, and JP was keen to embrace dropping his trousers for a huge paycheck, rather than creating an actual character.

Kiddie characters, particularly ubergenius ones, are generally a pain in the ass Mary Sue/Gary Stu type, by their very nature. Wesley was meant to be obnoxious and need of a reality check, but that doesn't make for a character that anyone likes or wants to watch, unless it is to see them brought down/broken. (Which, again, Sheldon.)

[ricardo shillyshally]

Heard Daniel Radcliffe talking today, saying he finds it hard to watch his early films, as they are him learning to act. I suppose same could be said of Wil. I would have thought writing for him easy, as a sort of protagonist between Picard, and his mother, (although I also read alot of fans were against him!). But it still leaves me wondering how they develop a character like Sheldon. Do they pander to audience feedback, and lack of ideas; and let him wallow in cliches, and catch phrases(and even catch scenes like Soft Kitty), or just as unimaginative, pair him up with someone who believes she can make him something. Can characters on TV shows, grow and develop, or are they stuck as sort of sit com cliche, which they created.

[wellplayedpenny]

I think this all boils down to the willingness of the writers to stretch themselves. Characters can't grow unless there are interactions for them to react to and as it's the writer that initiates these interactions it's up to him/her to keep in mind the realistic reaction of the character. This is then pressed into the sit-com joke format and, at least for me, this is where the creativity and work ethic of the writer comes into play. It's quite easy to make jarring OOC moments that play on the juxtaposition of Sheldon's character, for example, just like it's easy to make the humour malicious and petty in order to get an immediate reaction. But that's the point--it's the easy way out and as we've seen in subsequent seasons, narrowing the field of subjects into a single rom-com format has also diminished the quality of the story telling, humour, as well as the characters themselves. They are putting all their eggs in one basket.

Sheldon is the canary in the mine because he is such a cerebral character. Once the writers narrowed their scope Sheldon had no choice but to 'go along with it' although in order for him to do so a lot of fundamental qualities had to be ditched. In order to 'convince' the viewers that this is, indeed, Sheldon the writers throw in an occasional 'bazinga' or 'quirk' as needed. They rely on them to 'anchor' the character so they can manipulate the rest the way they see fit in order to fit their new direction for the show thus effectively 'hollowing out' the character. Personally, this makes me more aware that 'Sheldon' is merely a prop on a sit-com rather than a well-rounded character as he was in the early seasons. But that's not his fault. It's lazy writing that's to blame.

That's why it's so irritating to see quick fixes and hastily done patchwork on what was an exceptionally well-written show. Our list of things that writers just made up on the spot, like Penny's Box of Memories, to shore up weak development shows this as does the character of Amy who has demonstrated more personalities than Sybil as the plots demanded and thus never had a chance to stabilize. Instead, she's become a template for the writers to fracture the other characters; after all, if they can get the viewers to accept that someone who thought that romantic relationships were 'an unnecessary cultural construct that add[ed] no value to human relationships' would end up licking staplers in an effort to 'keep her man' then what's the stretch that someone who's mysophobic and uncomfortable with touching will suddenly shake off his compulsions?

[ricardo shillyshally]

I'm trying to imagine which options are available to show character growth, mainly because that would keep the role challenging, and keep us interested, and entertained. In reality people don't change much after their twenties. I think Sheldon could become more oblique, and devise more complicated strategies to shield himself from the world, and change. His OCD and phobias could increase and change. I'm not sure if sitcom characters do grow or just compromise(when their so called 'love interest' is introduced).

[wellplayedpenny]

This might not make sense since I've been up for a ridiculous amount of hours. TBBT characters don't exist in reality but in 'tv time' which can stop, accelerate and be stretched every which way. When I wrote my current story I noticed a whack-load of episodes occur between the Halloween episode and the Christmas one to the point where in reality episode plots would be virtually tripping on each other. So either they had an eventful November/December or else something kinda warped time for them to allow the other episodes in. It's through the episodes that we can see character growth, particularly when a character continuity log is adhered to by the writer. When you look at Sheldon in the 'two months' there is a lot of character development which occurs as he interacts with and reacts to the various plots. Therefore it's up to the writer to keep the interesting plots a flowin' so the character can be fleshed out and flourish. In a way, characters can get 'bored' too with stale plots as there's nothing to make them 'pop', nothing to alert the writer that, 'hey, here's something different. I wonder how Sheldon would react if...?' and then add this reaction to the continuity log to fall back on as new episodes are written.

The 'growth' we're seeing in the later seasons doesn't follow this model as instead character continuity is tossed out the window to make room for rom-com plot ideas. What's being pushed forward into episodes are agendas, not characters, which is why the characters have been warped as much as they have--Shamy is a central idea and Sheldon will lose his life-long compulsions to fulfill his role as Amy's love-mate, for example. Ditto Penny's deterioration that's oblivious to her friends and yet the Lenny progresses to an engagement.

What this all boils down to is that the writers are writing an agenda and the plot is just the means of advancing it as opposed to the plot advancing the characters in the pursuit of entertaining the audience. As the episode tournament is showing, people value the strong laughs over the relationship 'aww' moments; we know that the majority of the laughter has come in Shenny moments in early seasons and what makes them shine is the strength of the plots and dialogue that the actors had to rise to the challenge to bring alive. The characters are 'brought to life' and it's their dynamic that entertains as we watch them 'grow'.

...There's something else I was gonna say but all that's coming out now is 'something, something, something, dark side' so I guess I'll leave it at that!

[ricardo shillyshally]

Yes, I am getting obsessed by Wil Wheaton. I'd love to know more about the writing process of TBBT,(like a hidden camera in room). I saw a programme about the Family Guy, writing room, fascinating! There does seem to have been that L and P trajectory. But writers long for two characters that really click. Yes I think Sheldon and Penny changed through their interactions. I think it would be better if writers and actors co-wrote, Jim is Sheldon. I hate the sort of schmaltzy romantic happy endings, it's too boring!

[ricardo shillyshally]

The thing about Wil Wheaton is, he's the real deal! His reality is so close to his character's, that if you ask him about; learning to act with Patrick Stewart, or sci fi, tech stuff, he knows. He could improvise, write lines,etc. I think Jim connected with the psychological side of Sheldon. Shouldn't some actors have an interest in their character's interests! Maths geniuses have been played by Jim Parsons, Russell Crowe(A Beautiful Mind),Matt Damon(Good Will) and Gwyneth Paltrow(Proof). I wonder what real maths geniuses look like!