08-13-2015, 01:16 PM
Just responded to a comment I found in another forum. After writing my response, though, it felt like it could be better served here, as it's mostly about the genesis of the show and the character development the creators seemed to have in mind at that time. I'm copying and pasting the original comment (in italics) with my response underneath. The original thread was about the misunderstandings present between fans/ships when it comes to fanfiction and their reviews. Cited is a quote from someone defending canon in their review of a fanfiction that was written by an author who misses original Sheldon, before all the changes to his character that have taken place over recent seasons. Following that is the opinion of someone here arguing for just the opposite. This is just my take on what I think is at the root of these misunderstandings that lead to arguments between the fans devoted to canon stories as opposed to those interested in alternate universes/stories..why we're pulling in these opposite directions:
"I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer the emotionally/socially handicapped Sheldon but some do, I guess."
Odd, but I never saw Sheldon as being 'handicapped'. Eccentric, yes. Naive, in some respects. But he had a job, loved his Meemaw and Mother, had a best friend, etc. A lot of the time Sheldon wasn't 'in the know' of something social because, frankly, he didn't give a shit about it and so wouldn't waste his time learning about it and going through the hoops. What describes Sheldon to a 'T' is the 'non-optional social convention'. He's more aware of things than the canons give him credit for--he just chooses to avoid things as much as possible as they are not important in his world. BUT even he is aware that there are some social responsibilities that cannot be dismissed, and, when he is confronted with them, acts accordingly.
Perhaps the problem is that the canons don't like Sheldon not giving a damn about what's important to them and see his independent actions/opinions as a direct assault on [what they feel comfortable with]. Who knew someone could march to his own drummer and be happy and successful without submitting to (often) trite social convention and opinion?
I think my response to [that person] would be: "I find it hard to believe that anyone could overlook the multifaceted and multi-layered brilliance of the early seasons Sheldon and prefer the emotionally/socially/intellectually handicapped Sheldon in the later ones. But some do, I guess."
Howdy, I'm totally new here, but am loving reading the threads. This last comment, in particular, is especially interesting to me. Because I agree. I don't see early Sheldon as "emotionally/socially handicapped", he just wasn't naturally interested in such things. He had other values. What's wrong with that?
See, one of the things I love about this show is that the characters/writing inspired me to really dig deep into personality studies. It's fascinating, actually, especially observing characters like these as individuals, seeing how their different personalities interact with each other, based on their individual traits. Sheldon, for example. He was just such a unique character that I found him immediately interesting. He made me want to understand him. As he is, and not how I or anyone else want him to be. So..I got a few books from the library, about developmental psychology. One in particular really seemed to resonate with my interest in the characters of this new show, in that it in large part examined personality differences based on a theory developed by psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, called Male Brain Theory. Individuals are evaluated on an E-S (Empathy-Systematic) scale, with those scoring on the far right/systematic generally considered to be Aspergers or Autistic. They think more in systems as opposed to empathy/feelings. Therefore, they can be super-literal, like Sheldon. So they lack tact, say whatever's on their mind, because they're not capable of realizing that their words may be hurtful. Yeah, a lot of these people can't/don't drive, either, because they're so aware of every possibility, of everything that can go wrong. This could account for Sheldon's germ phobia, as well.
There's so much more to be said here, about the importance of feelings/emotions in making decisions. You must have an emotional investment in outcomes in order to make decisions. So I can see Sheldon agonizing over courses of action in many instances, 'cos maybe he doesn't have so much of an emotional investment, and is mainly plagued with the multitude of probabilities/consequences in how a decision could play out. Also, it makes total sense in considering the hierarchy among the guys within the group in this show. First we have Sheldon, with the most degrees and achievements, then down the line with Leonard, Raj, and then Howard, who has just the Masters. Flipping it over, Howard is the most social of them all, the one that's been MOST interested in women and sex. And it goes down the line back to Sheldon. Which just proves how much research and work went into the development of these characters. Something so explored and written about in psychology would not be stumbled upon by accident.
So yeah, my whole point..I think the people who miss the original characterizations on the show can really appreciate this stuff. Like, we were drawn to the series BECAUSE of the complexities, their unusual ways of thinking. How the boys processed everyday social problems in the ways that only systematic/scientific minds CAN. The problem with the fans that want to do away with these intricacies in the characters--who seem to be so laser-focused on and devoted to the romantic relationships alone--is the fact that they seem to have no understanding or appreciation for what the creators of this series originally set out to do. In my mind at least, the original concept for a show counts for something. Those of us that miss the remarkable aspects of the characters seem to me to be the ones that really "got" what Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady were going for with this new series. So where it did it get away from them? Where did the brilliance and extraordinary singularity of their original concept go? The only reason I can account for this baffling turn of direction leads me directly to showrunner, Steve Molaro. And no, he doesn't get "it". He never did. And what I can't "get" is why Chuck and Bill handed the reins over to him in the first place, as he very openly demonstrated his main interest in 'evolving of the characters', focusing on relationships and emotions, which seems to be just so diametrically opposed to the original idea. Remember Baron-Cohen's findings on empathetic vs. systematic minds? These are SCIENTISTS. Scientists score lower on empathy and higher on systems. Hence why Penny stumbled upon these brilliant 'misfits' in the first place! The creators made us love science--love these "beautiful minds". So why put a guy in charge that has no understanding, appreciation, or interest in following those kind of storylines (and there would be PLENTY--as even Jim Parsons admitted in one of his early interviews with PBS talk show host, Tavis Smiley)??
Molaro has screwed us all. Or more probably Chuck and Bill have, by putting someone like Molaro in charge of such an important production, dealing with subject matter he understands so very little about.
The most precious part of this whole thing? And why many of us have been reeling by this loss of direction? That they wrote a show where intellectuals REACHED a tv audience. Made a connection. The writing was STELLAR. It showed great intelligence, ingenuity. It didn't dumb itself down for the possible limitations of it's audience. They took a big risk, and it WORKED. It made people want to take out their dictionaries, open up their search engines, just to keep up with what the characters were talking about. It raised the bar. It raised the standards for television. It inspired a secretary to go out and read up on psychological development, just to learn how to best appreciate these characters that made her openly laugh (and laugh HARD) on every showing, and the writers who actually showed respect to a viewing audience by expecting something more from them.
So yeah, the Molaro factor.. But somewhere along the line, too..did it become too hard to sustain? They got the syndication, that big money rolling in. That made a big difference. And if you want to understand anything about television, understand this: when a series goes into syndication, they're set for life. Guaranteed royalties from then on for everyone. But the writing. I'll give them this, the standard they were writing at the first three seasons..you try to uphold this kind of gold standard on a weekly basis.. Well, I wouldn't blame someone for burning out. But that's why they add new writers each year. But my guess is..if Steve Molaro is the showrunner, he's probably in charge of hiring the writers as well. So of course he's going to bring on people who share his vision. That's his job. Too bad his vision has so little to do with the original concept of the show..
So my take on it? Syndication brought new viewers. And so many came on under the Molaro administration. They had no real idea of the origin of the show. His vision appeals, I'm afraid, to the lowest common denominator. Romance, relationships. This kind of stuff is easy to write compared to the brilliance of what Chuck and Bill were writing in the beginning. Why bother pushing for excellence when writing "just good enough" is pleasing audiences enough to keep them high in the ratings? The money keeps rolling in, no matter what. So, art becomes a commodity. Happens all the time in television and other media. But why does it have to be with a great show like Big Bang Theory?
Which brings us to our dilemma: those of us who are heartbroken at the loss of the early great characterizations we came to love, trying to coexist with the newer fans, those that boarded the ship when the command changed. What gets at us who miss the vision of the original series..we IDENTIFIED with these guys. We related to them somehow, in that we "got" them, despite the fact they were geniuses. I think they kinda made us want to be geniuses, too. The beginnings of this show were not rooted in mediocrity, as I believe it's sadly devolved to today. The general audience now is eating table scraps. And are loving it 'cos they see no reason not to. They don't know that there was, at one time, steak and lobster on the menu.
Another reason, I believe, the newer folks (who prefer the current canon) feel defensive toward those of us who are more rooted in the past seasons (and therefore open to alternate universe stories in fanfiction) is because the things we suggest and long for are outside of their comprehension. They are one kind of fan, and we are another. It's like there's two BBT's, as after Molaro took over, the show changed so drastically, focusing on interpersonal relationships rather than on humor found in the intellect. Someone else here suggested they crave security, and that's why they can't entertain different ideas, different ways of thinking. As we thrive on possibilities (which, now that I think of it, is exactly how scientists think--hence why we love the original series, so!), they prefer hedging things in. They want/need their characters to make sense to them where they are--which, in actuality--is a sort of 'projecting their own limitations' on characters trying to be so much more. Those of us that love the original concept..because the writing then was so stellar, them striving so hard to impress us/make us feel like we're 'smart enough' to understand and appreciate the characters..it makes sense. I could be totally baffled as to why people not interested in things of the intellect could be drawn to a show like this, but well, I think I've answered my own question. A big part of it, too, goes back to the introduction of the female characters/permanent love interests. And the character of Amy, most especially. But that's another discussion.
In a nutshell, those that focus on the romances don't want a Leonard that processes the complexities of relationships by applying the principles of how light behaves. They want it in plain English because they're disinterested in trying to grasp abstract or unfamiliar avenues of thought. Which I admit is daunting, and can take some work. But the beauty of the show--they made us WANT to do that work. Which now that I think of it, the fault lies in the writing, and of course, back to the vision of the head writer, Molaro. We who want to rise to meet the challenges of the original vision..well, we like puzzles and trying to wrap our minds around new concepts--(something not generally found in sitcoms, so all the more precious)--we got that from the original writers. But those who want to just feel nice, go with the flow, because it's secure and it's easy--they've been influenced by the later vision--and are it's casualties. This is why our two groups will never be on the same page.
A quote that comes to mind that PERFECTLY illustrates the whole problem..in the words of actor John Larroquette: "In drama, ordinary people are put in extraordinary situations. But in comedy, it's the exact opposite." And it's no more true than in BBT. Except it seems that there's a third idea, which those of us who uphold the excellence of the original concept of BBT find unthinkable--It starts at the top with TPTB/Molaro, and trickles dangerously down to the fandoms: wanting to make our EXTRAORDINARY characters ORDINARY. Scientists, capable of all these great things, fresh and unusual storylines, taking us in exciting and hysterically funny new directions, and not weighted down by the demands of these tiresome and routine relationships. The guys love Star Trek, right? "To boldly go where no man has gone before!" BBT had this chance (and still does, 'cos it ain't over yet!) Take these scientists, these comedic geniuses, boldly where no sitcom has gone before. They started out that way, why restrain them by tying them down to the mundane that surrounds the rest of us, the rest of everybody else in SitcomLand? Let other people get married and have babies and all that. But let our guys explore their greatest potentials. People like them, they're meant for something more. That's why they are so smart, why they have such unique passions and perspectives!
What we're feeling from the fandoms that embrace canon, is that we who think differently are being run out of town on a rail. I could understand it in just about any other sitcom. But Big Bang Theory? It just doesn't add up. Picture Kirk and Spock tied down to Earth. Who would go on the adventures? Someone's gotta go on the adventures, right? And if you don't "get" that, than I have to seriously question if you really "get" The Big Bang Theory at all. I mean, it's not called "The Big Nag Theory", yet you wouldn't know it by looking at it these days. PEOPLE, don't let Steve Molaro win--make him do these characters (and the rest of us who are tethered to the ground) the justice they and we deserve. Chuck and Bill need to take the reins back, or at least give them to someone who understands Smart People with Big Potential. (And yes, that includes Penny!)
"I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer the emotionally/socially handicapped Sheldon but some do, I guess."
Odd, but I never saw Sheldon as being 'handicapped'. Eccentric, yes. Naive, in some respects. But he had a job, loved his Meemaw and Mother, had a best friend, etc. A lot of the time Sheldon wasn't 'in the know' of something social because, frankly, he didn't give a shit about it and so wouldn't waste his time learning about it and going through the hoops. What describes Sheldon to a 'T' is the 'non-optional social convention'. He's more aware of things than the canons give him credit for--he just chooses to avoid things as much as possible as they are not important in his world. BUT even he is aware that there are some social responsibilities that cannot be dismissed, and, when he is confronted with them, acts accordingly.
Perhaps the problem is that the canons don't like Sheldon not giving a damn about what's important to them and see his independent actions/opinions as a direct assault on [what they feel comfortable with]. Who knew someone could march to his own drummer and be happy and successful without submitting to (often) trite social convention and opinion?
I think my response to [that person] would be: "I find it hard to believe that anyone could overlook the multifaceted and multi-layered brilliance of the early seasons Sheldon and prefer the emotionally/socially/intellectually handicapped Sheldon in the later ones. But some do, I guess."
Howdy, I'm totally new here, but am loving reading the threads. This last comment, in particular, is especially interesting to me. Because I agree. I don't see early Sheldon as "emotionally/socially handicapped", he just wasn't naturally interested in such things. He had other values. What's wrong with that?
See, one of the things I love about this show is that the characters/writing inspired me to really dig deep into personality studies. It's fascinating, actually, especially observing characters like these as individuals, seeing how their different personalities interact with each other, based on their individual traits. Sheldon, for example. He was just such a unique character that I found him immediately interesting. He made me want to understand him. As he is, and not how I or anyone else want him to be. So..I got a few books from the library, about developmental psychology. One in particular really seemed to resonate with my interest in the characters of this new show, in that it in large part examined personality differences based on a theory developed by psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, called Male Brain Theory. Individuals are evaluated on an E-S (Empathy-Systematic) scale, with those scoring on the far right/systematic generally considered to be Aspergers or Autistic. They think more in systems as opposed to empathy/feelings. Therefore, they can be super-literal, like Sheldon. So they lack tact, say whatever's on their mind, because they're not capable of realizing that their words may be hurtful. Yeah, a lot of these people can't/don't drive, either, because they're so aware of every possibility, of everything that can go wrong. This could account for Sheldon's germ phobia, as well.
There's so much more to be said here, about the importance of feelings/emotions in making decisions. You must have an emotional investment in outcomes in order to make decisions. So I can see Sheldon agonizing over courses of action in many instances, 'cos maybe he doesn't have so much of an emotional investment, and is mainly plagued with the multitude of probabilities/consequences in how a decision could play out. Also, it makes total sense in considering the hierarchy among the guys within the group in this show. First we have Sheldon, with the most degrees and achievements, then down the line with Leonard, Raj, and then Howard, who has just the Masters. Flipping it over, Howard is the most social of them all, the one that's been MOST interested in women and sex. And it goes down the line back to Sheldon. Which just proves how much research and work went into the development of these characters. Something so explored and written about in psychology would not be stumbled upon by accident.
So yeah, my whole point..I think the people who miss the original characterizations on the show can really appreciate this stuff. Like, we were drawn to the series BECAUSE of the complexities, their unusual ways of thinking. How the boys processed everyday social problems in the ways that only systematic/scientific minds CAN. The problem with the fans that want to do away with these intricacies in the characters--who seem to be so laser-focused on and devoted to the romantic relationships alone--is the fact that they seem to have no understanding or appreciation for what the creators of this series originally set out to do. In my mind at least, the original concept for a show counts for something. Those of us that miss the remarkable aspects of the characters seem to me to be the ones that really "got" what Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady were going for with this new series. So where it did it get away from them? Where did the brilliance and extraordinary singularity of their original concept go? The only reason I can account for this baffling turn of direction leads me directly to showrunner, Steve Molaro. And no, he doesn't get "it". He never did. And what I can't "get" is why Chuck and Bill handed the reins over to him in the first place, as he very openly demonstrated his main interest in 'evolving of the characters', focusing on relationships and emotions, which seems to be just so diametrically opposed to the original idea. Remember Baron-Cohen's findings on empathetic vs. systematic minds? These are SCIENTISTS. Scientists score lower on empathy and higher on systems. Hence why Penny stumbled upon these brilliant 'misfits' in the first place! The creators made us love science--love these "beautiful minds". So why put a guy in charge that has no understanding, appreciation, or interest in following those kind of storylines (and there would be PLENTY--as even Jim Parsons admitted in one of his early interviews with PBS talk show host, Tavis Smiley)??
Molaro has screwed us all. Or more probably Chuck and Bill have, by putting someone like Molaro in charge of such an important production, dealing with subject matter he understands so very little about.
The most precious part of this whole thing? And why many of us have been reeling by this loss of direction? That they wrote a show where intellectuals REACHED a tv audience. Made a connection. The writing was STELLAR. It showed great intelligence, ingenuity. It didn't dumb itself down for the possible limitations of it's audience. They took a big risk, and it WORKED. It made people want to take out their dictionaries, open up their search engines, just to keep up with what the characters were talking about. It raised the bar. It raised the standards for television. It inspired a secretary to go out and read up on psychological development, just to learn how to best appreciate these characters that made her openly laugh (and laugh HARD) on every showing, and the writers who actually showed respect to a viewing audience by expecting something more from them.
So yeah, the Molaro factor.. But somewhere along the line, too..did it become too hard to sustain? They got the syndication, that big money rolling in. That made a big difference. And if you want to understand anything about television, understand this: when a series goes into syndication, they're set for life. Guaranteed royalties from then on for everyone. But the writing. I'll give them this, the standard they were writing at the first three seasons..you try to uphold this kind of gold standard on a weekly basis.. Well, I wouldn't blame someone for burning out. But that's why they add new writers each year. But my guess is..if Steve Molaro is the showrunner, he's probably in charge of hiring the writers as well. So of course he's going to bring on people who share his vision. That's his job. Too bad his vision has so little to do with the original concept of the show..
So my take on it? Syndication brought new viewers. And so many came on under the Molaro administration. They had no real idea of the origin of the show. His vision appeals, I'm afraid, to the lowest common denominator. Romance, relationships. This kind of stuff is easy to write compared to the brilliance of what Chuck and Bill were writing in the beginning. Why bother pushing for excellence when writing "just good enough" is pleasing audiences enough to keep them high in the ratings? The money keeps rolling in, no matter what. So, art becomes a commodity. Happens all the time in television and other media. But why does it have to be with a great show like Big Bang Theory?
Which brings us to our dilemma: those of us who are heartbroken at the loss of the early great characterizations we came to love, trying to coexist with the newer fans, those that boarded the ship when the command changed. What gets at us who miss the vision of the original series..we IDENTIFIED with these guys. We related to them somehow, in that we "got" them, despite the fact they were geniuses. I think they kinda made us want to be geniuses, too. The beginnings of this show were not rooted in mediocrity, as I believe it's sadly devolved to today. The general audience now is eating table scraps. And are loving it 'cos they see no reason not to. They don't know that there was, at one time, steak and lobster on the menu.
Another reason, I believe, the newer folks (who prefer the current canon) feel defensive toward those of us who are more rooted in the past seasons (and therefore open to alternate universe stories in fanfiction) is because the things we suggest and long for are outside of their comprehension. They are one kind of fan, and we are another. It's like there's two BBT's, as after Molaro took over, the show changed so drastically, focusing on interpersonal relationships rather than on humor found in the intellect. Someone else here suggested they crave security, and that's why they can't entertain different ideas, different ways of thinking. As we thrive on possibilities (which, now that I think of it, is exactly how scientists think--hence why we love the original series, so!), they prefer hedging things in. They want/need their characters to make sense to them where they are--which, in actuality--is a sort of 'projecting their own limitations' on characters trying to be so much more. Those of us that love the original concept..because the writing then was so stellar, them striving so hard to impress us/make us feel like we're 'smart enough' to understand and appreciate the characters..it makes sense. I could be totally baffled as to why people not interested in things of the intellect could be drawn to a show like this, but well, I think I've answered my own question. A big part of it, too, goes back to the introduction of the female characters/permanent love interests. And the character of Amy, most especially. But that's another discussion.
In a nutshell, those that focus on the romances don't want a Leonard that processes the complexities of relationships by applying the principles of how light behaves. They want it in plain English because they're disinterested in trying to grasp abstract or unfamiliar avenues of thought. Which I admit is daunting, and can take some work. But the beauty of the show--they made us WANT to do that work. Which now that I think of it, the fault lies in the writing, and of course, back to the vision of the head writer, Molaro. We who want to rise to meet the challenges of the original vision..well, we like puzzles and trying to wrap our minds around new concepts--(something not generally found in sitcoms, so all the more precious)--we got that from the original writers. But those who want to just feel nice, go with the flow, because it's secure and it's easy--they've been influenced by the later vision--and are it's casualties. This is why our two groups will never be on the same page.
A quote that comes to mind that PERFECTLY illustrates the whole problem..in the words of actor John Larroquette: "In drama, ordinary people are put in extraordinary situations. But in comedy, it's the exact opposite." And it's no more true than in BBT. Except it seems that there's a third idea, which those of us who uphold the excellence of the original concept of BBT find unthinkable--It starts at the top with TPTB/Molaro, and trickles dangerously down to the fandoms: wanting to make our EXTRAORDINARY characters ORDINARY. Scientists, capable of all these great things, fresh and unusual storylines, taking us in exciting and hysterically funny new directions, and not weighted down by the demands of these tiresome and routine relationships. The guys love Star Trek, right? "To boldly go where no man has gone before!" BBT had this chance (and still does, 'cos it ain't over yet!) Take these scientists, these comedic geniuses, boldly where no sitcom has gone before. They started out that way, why restrain them by tying them down to the mundane that surrounds the rest of us, the rest of everybody else in SitcomLand? Let other people get married and have babies and all that. But let our guys explore their greatest potentials. People like them, they're meant for something more. That's why they are so smart, why they have such unique passions and perspectives!
What we're feeling from the fandoms that embrace canon, is that we who think differently are being run out of town on a rail. I could understand it in just about any other sitcom. But Big Bang Theory? It just doesn't add up. Picture Kirk and Spock tied down to Earth. Who would go on the adventures? Someone's gotta go on the adventures, right? And if you don't "get" that, than I have to seriously question if you really "get" The Big Bang Theory at all. I mean, it's not called "The Big Nag Theory", yet you wouldn't know it by looking at it these days. PEOPLE, don't let Steve Molaro win--make him do these characters (and the rest of us who are tethered to the ground) the justice they and we deserve. Chuck and Bill need to take the reins back, or at least give them to someone who understands Smart People with Big Potential. (And yes, that includes Penny!)
"The mark of mediocrity is to look for precedent." Norman Mailer