FolkLorre

[devilbk]

I'd like to hope that JP wakes up at some point and figures out what's been happening to his iconic creation but I fear that he is as dim as Sheldumb.

[ricardo shillyshally]

[ricardo shillyshally]

'Many of the songs Lorre wrote were dark-edged, purposefully comic “story” songs. “I was enamored of Randy Newman,” he told me, especially the persona songs in which Newman sang in the voice of an ugly, unlikable person.' 'By whatever name, the sitcom is an oddly purgatorial form of entertainment. The same characters appear week after week, displaying the same tics, and having the same arguments, in the same rooms, hallways, stairwells, and offices. Within the traditional sitcom, there are complications but rarely solutions; challenges but rarely triumphs. Indeed, when sitcoms attempt to do more dramatic stories, a show can come unmoored'. ' Lorre believes that the “magic trick” of the traditional sitcom is that “the characters make very small, incremental progress without ever really changing.”' 'If any single mode predominates among the more than three hundred cards Lorre has written, it is probably the rant, and it is hard not to see these compressed, intense utterances as a rebellion against the constraints of TV writing—moments of id, on the run from the superego of network programming.' >Interesting CL describes sit coms as a form of hell. About characters never really changing. And I can see that writing and testing it with a real audience is exciting, and how the scenes with dialogue, that we admire, probably took hours of fine crafting. I think CL is an auteur, but the power of the industry that surrounds him is restricting his creativity.(quoted before) from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/1...ple-medium

[ricardo shillyshally]

One of the ideas I don't believe, is the extinction of the auteur. We need creative autocrats who aren't swayed by suits representing investors.(check out net worth of CBS owner). I can't imagine what would have happened if Picasso or Truffaut had had a hundred suits looking over their shoulder. CL has written a lot about his creative stifling, and of course it's all been censored.

[Nutz]

'Many of the songs Lorre wrote were dark-edged, purposefully comic “story” songs. “I was enamored of Randy Newman,” he told me, especially the persona songs in which Newman sang in the voice of an ugly, unlikable person.' 'By whatever name, the sitcom is an oddly purgatorial form of entertainment. The same characters appear week after week, displaying the same tics, and having the same arguments, in the same rooms, hallways, stairwells, and offices. Within the traditional sitcom, there are complications but rarely solutions; challenges but rarely triumphs. Indeed, when sitcoms attempt to do more dramatic stories, a show can come unmoored'. ' Lorre believes that the “magic trick” of the traditional sitcom is that “the characters make very small, incremental progress without ever really changing.”' 'If any single mode predominates among the more than three hundred cards Lorre has written, it is probably the rant, and it is hard not to see these compressed, intense utterances as a rebellion against the constraints of TV writing—moments of id, on the run from the superego of network programming.' >Interesting CL describes sit coms as a form of hell. About characters never really changing. And I can see that writing and testing it with a real audience is exciting, and how the scenes with dialogue, that we admire, probably took hours of fine crafting. I think CL is an auteur, but the power of the industry that surrounds him is restricting his creativity.(quoted before) from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/1...ple-medium

Hard to believe this is really Lorres view of sitcoms considering how Penny, Sheldon, and Howard are almost unrecongnizable from their characters in season 3. Hell, technically you can add Raj into that mix since being able to talk in front of women is a HUGE change.

[Louise]

Hard to believe this is really Lorres view of sitcoms considering how Penny, Sheldon, and Howard are almost unrecongnizable from their characters in season 3. Hell, technically you can add Raj into that mix since being able to talk in front of women is a HUGE change.

Additionally, who decided that "progress" is the primary theme of a comedy??? Progressing towards what, exactly?

[Louise]

Hard to believe this is really Lorres view of sitcoms considering how Penny, Sheldon, and Howard are almost unrecongnizable from their characters in season 3. Hell, technically you can add Raj into that mix since being able to talk in front of women is a HUGE change.

Y'know, I've been thinking about these issues and I'll try very hard to articulate what I mean, because this is difficult to describe:

We've all been noticing the contradiction or the dissonance between what Lorre and the other PTBs *tell* us about their philosophy of show-making, and what we actually see on the screen.

TPTB want us to believe that this show's central theme is "growth" or "progress", in the sense of "moving from an inferior state of being to a better state of being."

I've come to the conclusion that TPTB's *assumptions* are at the root of the clash between Nostalgic-minded people and Canon-minded people.

TPTB (and those who agree with them, aka Canons) *assume* that the correct and expected subject-matter of any story is "growth" and "progress." This, in itself, is a huge assumption. When you look at the Swamp, you'll see so many people who have so thoroughly swallowed and internalized this assumption that they never question it, because they can't even conceive of something different.

The party line is that TV shows (or any story, really), are about "growing up, maturing, and becoming a better person." Well, there are several problems with that. First of all, that is NOT the only type of story that can be told. It is only one option, out of many. Secondly, who gets to define what makes a "better person"?

I've recently reached the conclusion that a truly funny comedy is *amoral.* Not immoral, but amoral. I think this might be one of the key differences between British humor and American humor, and one of the reasons why some Americans admire British humor so much.

If the writers and show-makers say to themselves, "this show is about being a good person", that immediately creates several problems: first of all, their definition of a "good person" might be very warped. Secondly, they have erred because the main goal of a comedy is *to be funny.* If you start prioritizing other things above *being funny*, I'd say the show has ceased to be a pure comedy and has become some other type of creature. "This show is about growing up, maturing, becoming a better person...oh, and being funny." is not a good recipe.

I don't watch a sitcom in order to watch the characters make some linear progression from Point A to Point B. That's simply not what I expect from a sitcom.

Now, let me clarify: I'm not saying that I want to watch characters being horrible to each other for no reason. I don't enjoy cruelty or mean-spiritedness, and I'll admit to being a bit wimpy about some forms of dark comedy or black comedy. But comedy is not about "being a good person" or "becoming a better person." It's simply not.

That's why I used the word "amoral" instead of "immoral."

I like Original Howard because I like mischievous characters, characters who are sort of Chaotic Neutral. When a mischievous character is in a position of power, that ceases to be fun, because then they're just victimizing other people. But when the mischievous character is also an underdog, then you can root for them.

The problem is two-fold: one, Canon-minded people think that every story is about "progress", and they can't conceive of any other type of storyline. Either the characters are "growing and changing", or the show is flat and static and repetitive. Those are the only two options.

Two, this show's definition of a mature person or a "good" person or a functional, mentally and emotionally well-developed person is f*cked.
"Growth" is not inherently a bad theme at all, but this show has perverted the meaning of that word to the point where Nostalgics and Purists are sick of hearing it.

This show's definition of growth, maturity, and progress is to become less individual and more conventional. Less adventurous and more willing to settle for mediocrity. Instead of becoming *more* confident and independent, which would be real growth, the characters have become less so.

As Toad pointed out in a recent post, Nostalgics don't view the Vintage guys as pathetic, pitiable losers. But now, it seems that we *were* supposed to view them as pitiable, dysfunctional, unreconstructed losers. And why? Because they have phobias and flaws and weaknesses?

I keep emphasizing this again and again: nobody has a problem-free life. Nobody. Everybody has fears, hangups, personal problems and areas of weakness. And yet the guys are losers because they haven't attained a state of flaw-free perfection by the age of 26? A state of perfection as defined by the lowest common denominator? Look at how accomplished they are! Look how hard-working and dedicated and brilliant and creative and prestidigious. They should be telling the rest of the world to kiss their ass.

People are scared of chaos. They don't want Sheldon or Howard to be funny, they want them to be "nice", when the definition of "nice" is that nothing surprising or challenging or different ever happens. Unimaginative people love this theme of becoming more conventional, because they're frightened, confused, and insulted by anything outside their own experience. It's probably the same reason why they dislike sci-fi and fantasy. They want things to be safe and predictable. They feel relief when the "icky stuff" starts to go away and is replaced by weddings and shopping. And yet, ironically, if the characters stayed true to themselves, the Canons insist that this would be too much "sameness", too stagnant.

Therefore, it's okay for Amy or Bernadette to be not-nice, in the sense of being unkind or aggressive or deceitful, *as long as they are acting as enforcers of this conventionality.* Canon-type viewers don't want to feel challenged or threatened by anything. So, being "nice" doesn't actually mean being *kind* or honest or possessing actual virtues, it just means you don't do anything the Canons find scary or confusing or difficult to understand--like being smarter than them, or being too sexual or not sexual enough, or having a better job than them. It's okay for characters to behave badly as long as they are making things safer for the timid and unimaginative viewer by stamping-out the things which make the challenge-averse viewer uncomfortable. The ends justify the means.

"I want the characters to grow and change" means "I want the characters to stop behaving in ways that don't match my personal morality or my personal experiences. I want them to progress towards **being more like me, and preferably even worse-off than me so that I can feel better about my own choices.**"

Bottom line: a truly funny comedy is not about "becoming a better person", because "a better person" is then defined to mean "that which will never offend or confuse anyone, so that we can have the largest number of viewers and make the most money." Meanwhile, it's okay for certain characters to be cruel or hypocritical or dishonest, as long as they are reinforcing the values of the viewer. You don't actually have to be good, you just have to be "nice."

[FlyingMonkey]

Bottom line: a truly funny comedy is not about "becoming a better person", because "a better person" is then defined to mean "that which will never offend or confuse anyone, so that we can have the largest number of viewers and make the most money." Meanwhile, it's okay for certain characters to be cruel or hypocritical or dishonest, as long as they are reinforcing the values of the viewer. You don't actually have to be good, you just have to be "nice."

There was no "growth" on Seinfeld. No one became a "better person". The characters were exactly the same at the end as they were at the beginning. The only concern of TPTB was to be funny. They mocked the "better person" approach in the bizarro world episode with the sickeningly sweet versions of the characters. That's what TBBT is becoming - a bizarro world where all the original characters are totally different from the way they started.

[devilbk]

I just don't understand why you would create such marvelous characters in order to deconstruct and destroy them. It makes no sense to me.

[lewstonewar]

People are scared of chaos. They don't want Sheldon or Howard to be funny, they want them to be "nice", when the definition of "nice" is that nothing surprising or challenging or different ever happens. Unimaginative people love this theme of becoming more conventional, because they're frightened, confused, and insulted by anything outside their own experience....(snip) They feel relief when the "icky stuff" starts to go away and is replaced by weddings and shopping.

This is kind of illustrated by the first season of American Big Brother.

Originally it was identical to the various European versions with the audience voting people out. The flaw was American viewers were voting off all the irritating(read: entertaining) people, so that by the end of the first season only the most boring uncontroversial people remained. It made for bad television.

For the second season they had to revamp the format to included that head of household nonsense to counteract that.

Also it shows what people think and say they want and what they actually want may be two different things.