An Un-unravelable Web?

[Louise]

Boo, hiss. You don't need permanent girlfriends to show the characters' humanity and depth. Any of the dating-related storylines could've been done with minor characters like Leslie. I don't think having a girlfriend is what "brings out Howard's human side"; it was always there. I'm not opposed to seeing him be tender or emotional, but you don't need additions to the main cast, for that.

I'm sure any actor wants the opportunity to explore a broader and deeper emotional range, but the way all these people just repeat the party line makes me think they don't know what they're talking about, as presumptuous as that might sound...

If adding new characters is the only way the writers know how to create a more challenging/emotional/serious moment for the characters, that shows a severe lack of creativity and effort.

1. IMO there is a limit to the amount of "depth" or character-development that is appropriate or feasible for the sitcom format.

2. Howard was always a multi-dimensional character.

3. A character whose only purpose is to provoke reactions from the other characters is not a real character, they're just a plot device. They need to have some type of substance and purpose, of their own.

4. You can't say these things without people accusing you of wanting nothing but Eyepatch!Howard being wacky and hitting on chicks for ten seasons.

[Idle Miscreant]

They're also not more realistic now. They're more cartoonish. I had no trouble seeing Sheldon's "humanity" before. He was a highly sensitive character. Anyone who thought he was an "emotionless robotic asshole" (direct quote there) was evidently missing every third interaction or so, and is probably better off reading Mills & Boon, if they only think emotion relates to romance, sex and babies...
Vintage Sheldon was, if anything, MORE strung out by his emotions than any of the others, because he didn't understand their chaotic place in his universe. He was proud, hysterical, generous, possessive, passionate, inspired, brilliant....he's just a large cranky infant now, with learning difficulties...An infant who is somehow also supposed to have sex shortly, despite everything in his previous existence being above such concepts.
That conversation between Sheldon and Leonard whilst holding their girlfriend's purses (FFS) over "how difficult he is" was preposterously false and pantomime. Nobody talks like that, particularly not Sheldon.
He went from one of the most subtle and brilliantly scripted fictional beings to a slap-dash, ersatz mockery of this previous self, and it's heartbreaking.

[devilbk]

What they did was take characters that were two-three dimensional and make them all one-dimensional. That's not growth. It's flattening.

[Louise]

They're also not more realistic now. They're more cartoonish.

Yes, very much so. "The characters used to be one-dimensional, now they've been fleshed-out." is one of my least-favorite, most rage-inducing Canon statements.

A good actor always brings something more to the character; brings something special. I'd almost argue that a good actor is not capable of playing a character in a one-dimensional manner. In many cases, a good actor can rise above a silly situation or mediocre writing.

JP's performance was full of nuance, as you said. And like I've said before, IMO in a sitcom, the depth and the character-development comes from reading between the lines. It's less about *what* the characters do, than *how* they do it, and less about *what* they say, than how they say it. It's in their facial expressions and the look in their eyes. It's not character-driven writing if you have to introduce these contrived situations for the characters to react to, instead of letting the emotions arise naturally from the characters' everyday lives.

It's because the Canon types are so literal-minded that they consider the classic characters one-dimensional. They look at the classic characters' most extreme, quirky, or bizarre traits and they take them at face value. It's a very "surface" interpretation. If you're not sensitive to nuance, if you're not able to "read" these actors' performances, if you need everything spelled-out for you in "big moments" full of hugging and crying, that's the problem.

Anyone who thinks Sheldon was just a collection of quirks and he was just being stubborn and obstinate for no reason, is not very observant at all.

Likewise, the number of people who don't understand that H. wasn't *really* seductive and promiscuous, he was just trying to be, shows how dumb people are.

Plus, it's OKAY for sitcom characters to be sort of exagerrated, grotesque, larger-than-life, whimsical, fantastical. It's a *comedy.* It's okay for them to engage in behaviors that would be unacceptable in real life, because *they're fictional and their actions have no consequences.* Those behaviors just need to be consistent.

He was proud, hysterical, generous, possessive, passionate, inspired, brilliant....

Maybe this should be added to that "Testimony" thread....

[Tuesday Pajamas]

Reading this thread just proves how they all sold out for loads and loads of hard cash. They had the right idea in the beginning and knew how to protect their vision.

[wellplayedpenny]

TVFanatic Kunal Nayyar February 17 2011

http://www.tvfanatic.com/2011/02/exclusi...y-renewal/

Memorable Lines:
The writers often toss out a lot of un-PC, stereotypical jokes regarding Raj's racial heritage. Is there ever any concern or trepidation over how these jokes come off?
[KN]: ... There’s never a moment where things have crossed the line, everything is done tastefully. Raj makes fun of America, too, if you remember. He talks about the morbid obesity, so it goes both ways. We make fun of a lot of things, women and men, geeks and beautiful people. It never crosses the line in my opinion.

[KN]: I enjoy having the obstacle of not being able to find love. I think in playing those obstacles I discover a lot of comedy. I find if a character begins to succeed at something that was an obstacle, than that character can become less funny, because then what are they fighting against?

Mood of the Masses: No Comments.

---

Examinercom TBBT vs TAAHM March 23 2011

http://www.examiner.com/article/step-asi...ng-through

**Note: I'm counting this review of the show as a 'Mood of the Masses'.

Memorable Lines:
The concept is much more original than Two and a Half Men. Yes, there are geeks on this show too. And yes, it's funny. But it's not funny because someone is mocking them. It's funny because they work it. They own it. They celebrate it. They're not interested in becoming anything other than what they are. And, imagine this: they still get pretty women. Who are, guess what: also intelligent! And not trying to change them! On The Big Bang Theory, the characters have more depth than anything we've been presented with on Two and a Half Men. The laughs come after a well crafted, intelligent line is delivered with the perfect mix of believability and comedic timing...there's nothing slap stick about it. The Big Bang Theory is one of those rare sitcoms on air today that holds its viewers in high esteem. The show assumes its viewers are intelligent, which is why It allows itself to be smart and funny at the same time. For this, it should be celebrated.

---

TVLine Lenny et al June 20 2011

http://tvline.com/2011/06/20/big-bang-th...nny-priya/

Memorable Lines:
“We’re going to put Leonard in a long distance relationship with Priya — and we made that good and messy, too,” says Prady. Couple that set-up with the fact that Penny (Kaley Cuoco) still has feelings for her brainy ex, and the result is “Leonard with two women and no sex,” Prady chuckles.

“It winds up putting romantic things on hold for a while, and gives us a chance to get back to some good, nerdy storytelling,” says Prady. “We can get silly again.”

---

CelebBuzz Kunal Nayyar June 2011

http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-06-22/big-b...oosebumps/

Memorable Lines:
[KN]: I think the five of them—and now even adding Mayim as Amy and Melissa Rauch—are good people. When you watch the show, when you watch these people, it’s funny and you laugh and stuff but you love these people. These are good people. There’s no malice. They’re horrible liars. They don’t do anything intentionally to hurt each other. It’s not that sort of gossip-mongering, mean people to each other. They’re genuinely nice. I think that’s a big reason of success for the show because people like them. If you like someone, you’re going to invite them to your home, right? So, I think that’s been one of the reasons of our success because they are really likable characters.

Mood of the Masses: No Comments.

[ricardo shillyshally]

In reality, a relationship is a compromise, both 'round off the edges', of the other's personality, the less sociable extremes. There are two distinct shows; the initial one, for the aficianados, who get the references, understand the values, know the theories, and most importantly, enjoy unique TV characters. There aren't many as memorable and unique, as Sheldon and Howard. Enjoyed the original dynamic between all the characters. This was the core audience. Unfortunately most media companies only see from financial angle; syndication(it's got biggest audience in world for sitcom), box sets, merch,etc. Opening the show up also meant changing these characters for mass appeal. Hence the two character assassins, A and B, are activated, 'not to round off edges', but to hack them into something acceptable to the mediocrity of mass appeal. We need to seperate creativity from financial imperative.

[Idle Miscreant]

You are a wise fellow Ricardo. I say this here because you are also a flighty bastard who rarely flits through the grumblebox.
I still maintain you and Pajamas and Space and that mad git Witchdoctor should endeavour to struggle through some Grasshoppers at some skeevy London dive some day...

Hats off to you sir.

[Louise]

In reality, a relationship is a compromise, both 'round off the edges', of the other's personality, the less sociable extremes. There are two distinct shows; the initial one, for the aficianados, who get the references, understand the values, know the theories, and most importantly, enjoy unique TV characters. There aren't many as memorable and unique, as Sheldon and Howard. Enjoyed the original dynamic between all the characters. This was the core audience. Unfortunately most media companies only see from financial angle; syndication(it's got biggest audience in world for sitcom), box sets, merch,etc. Opening the show up also meant changing these characters for mass appeal. Hence the two character assassins, A and B, are activated, 'not to round off edges', but to hack them into something acceptable to the mediocrity of mass appeal. We need to seperate creativity from financial imperative.

Yes, you have a good way of summarizing things, Ricardo. I always think so.

Personally, I have no difficulty at all in accepting that these are two different shows, for two different audiences, with two different philosophies. What we're looking at now is a reboot/remake, just as surely as there are radically different versions of Batman or Sherlock Holmes or Dr.Who or James Bond.

What happens in the new eps still has the power to upset me, a lot, but it can't change what I, personally, feel and believe about the characters. Like I said recently, what bothers me *now* is that I don't want the show and the characters to be remembered *this* way. I don't want the new stuff to override or taint the old stuff. It's like hearing someone talk sh*t about a friend of yours.

[SpaceAnJL]

I still maintain you and Pajamas and Space and that mad git Witchdoctor should endeavour to struggle through some Grasshoppers at some skeevy London dive some day...

I don't struggle through grasshoppers. Minty-fresh goodness...

I'm afraid I would probably be a sad disappointment in the flesh. Best that I remain a sardonic net presence. (That way I can delude myself into still thinking I'm young and thin, and not be deeply depressed by that pesky reality business.)