09-25-2014, 08:27 AM
The crux of the issue is, I disagree with this entire assumption that the point of a TV show is to watch the characters "become better people." Seinfeld came along and blew that out of the water, but apparently the message hasn't stuck.
A good *character* is not necessarily the same thing as a good *person.* Well-behaved people are not very interesting.
If this show had ended after just 2 or 3 seasons, I would be fine if none of the characters learned a damn thing or overcame any of their personal issues, because their personal issues are *funny*, and make us feel compassion for them.
If it had ended after four or five seasons, *then* I might want some character development, but it would be *real* character development, not all this nonsense they've foisted on us via Amy and Bernadette.
I was watching clips from S1 yesterday, and I was reminded once again that Mute Raj is adorable. Non-mute Raj is...what, exactly? Not necessarily any better-off than before.
As I've mentioned before, Canons seem to take everything very literally and very personally, so they watch the show as if they're picking out a new boyfriend/friend/neighbor for themselves. They don't seem to understand that there is a safe distance between themselves and the characters' outrageous behavior. Fiction allows us to vicariously watch and experience all this outlandish stuff in a safe way.
I could watch Flirty Howard, Mute Raj, and Misanthrope Sheldon until the cows come home. I don't need sitcom characters to be "good", I need them to be entertaining.
I reject the notion that a character's story is always about personal betterment. It *can* be, but that's just one option among many...
A character can be flawed and amoral (not immoral, amoral) and still be lovable and relatable. In fact, I think it makes them MORE lovable and relatable, not less.
Characters being reasonable and sensible and making wise decisions does not open-up many plot possibilities.
It's *okay* for them to engage in behavior that might be objectionable IRL, because...they're fictional. Of course, a show should still have some type of internal logic, and while their behavior can be eccentric, it should be consistent. That's a matter of characterization and continuity.
Nobody is asking us to put-up with these characters' behavior IRL. Canons don't seem to grasp that. A tv show is not asking you to APPROVE of what the characters are doing. On the contrary, comedy and satire are often about lampooning bad behavior.
As an aside, I also believe Howard was *never* as creepy and objectionable as the show seems to insist he is/was. I have watched and re-watched S1 and S2, and I simply do not see what is so terrible about him. IDG people clutching their pearls over some corny sexual innuendos.
This idea of "Creepy Howard" has taken on a life of its own, not rooted in what the character actually says/does. IIRC there is some scene in S6 or S7 where Leonard claims that Howard used to take his balls out of his pants and show them to people. Are you kidding me??? He would've been arrested. There is nothing in S1 or S2 which suggests that level of depravity. They are retconning like mad, in order to justify this phony "redemption" story. This is a character who was too timid to approach a pretty girl in the cafeteria, in "The Vartabedian Conundrum." And now we're meant to believe that without Bernadette, he'd apparently be molesting schoolchildren or something...
The show just keeps on hammering and hammering this narrative of "the characters used to be such-and-such, now they're better", without showing us *evidence* of either part of that statement. They're very nearly having the actors break the fourth wall, look directly into the camera, and tell us point-blank what we are supposed to think, feel, and believe about the characters. It's as subtle as a sledgehammer, and it's so pushy/bossy, like they're actually *afraid* of the viewers having any interpretations other than the official, sanctioned one.
If I had watched this show in a total vacuum, without hearing other people's comments/opinions at all, I would never come up with that perception of his character, and I would be very surprised when I found out that this was the prevailing interpretation.
All of the guys are lacking an understanding of social cues. Whatever Sheldon has, all four guys have it, to a lesser degree.
Back to my main point, who decided that the theme of a barely-20-minute mainstream sitcom was "becoming a better person"? That is just bizarre, to me. It's so preachy and drippy.
I would've loved to see *real* character development, but if it's a choice between the characters being static, and what we have now, I'll take static every time.
ETA: plus, the show claims that the characters are growing as people, becoming less selfish, then turns around and shows them being horrible to each other, in ways that are arguably worse than anything from the early seasons.
This show gives me so much cognitive dissonance, especially about Howard. The divide between what TPTB show us, and what they *tell* us, grows ever-wider.
A good *character* is not necessarily the same thing as a good *person.* Well-behaved people are not very interesting.
If this show had ended after just 2 or 3 seasons, I would be fine if none of the characters learned a damn thing or overcame any of their personal issues, because their personal issues are *funny*, and make us feel compassion for them.
If it had ended after four or five seasons, *then* I might want some character development, but it would be *real* character development, not all this nonsense they've foisted on us via Amy and Bernadette.
I was watching clips from S1 yesterday, and I was reminded once again that Mute Raj is adorable. Non-mute Raj is...what, exactly? Not necessarily any better-off than before.
As I've mentioned before, Canons seem to take everything very literally and very personally, so they watch the show as if they're picking out a new boyfriend/friend/neighbor for themselves. They don't seem to understand that there is a safe distance between themselves and the characters' outrageous behavior. Fiction allows us to vicariously watch and experience all this outlandish stuff in a safe way.
I could watch Flirty Howard, Mute Raj, and Misanthrope Sheldon until the cows come home. I don't need sitcom characters to be "good", I need them to be entertaining.
I reject the notion that a character's story is always about personal betterment. It *can* be, but that's just one option among many...
A character can be flawed and amoral (not immoral, amoral) and still be lovable and relatable. In fact, I think it makes them MORE lovable and relatable, not less.
Characters being reasonable and sensible and making wise decisions does not open-up many plot possibilities.
It's *okay* for them to engage in behavior that might be objectionable IRL, because...they're fictional. Of course, a show should still have some type of internal logic, and while their behavior can be eccentric, it should be consistent. That's a matter of characterization and continuity.
Nobody is asking us to put-up with these characters' behavior IRL. Canons don't seem to grasp that. A tv show is not asking you to APPROVE of what the characters are doing. On the contrary, comedy and satire are often about lampooning bad behavior.
As an aside, I also believe Howard was *never* as creepy and objectionable as the show seems to insist he is/was. I have watched and re-watched S1 and S2, and I simply do not see what is so terrible about him. IDG people clutching their pearls over some corny sexual innuendos.
This idea of "Creepy Howard" has taken on a life of its own, not rooted in what the character actually says/does. IIRC there is some scene in S6 or S7 where Leonard claims that Howard used to take his balls out of his pants and show them to people. Are you kidding me??? He would've been arrested. There is nothing in S1 or S2 which suggests that level of depravity. They are retconning like mad, in order to justify this phony "redemption" story. This is a character who was too timid to approach a pretty girl in the cafeteria, in "The Vartabedian Conundrum." And now we're meant to believe that without Bernadette, he'd apparently be molesting schoolchildren or something...
The show just keeps on hammering and hammering this narrative of "the characters used to be such-and-such, now they're better", without showing us *evidence* of either part of that statement. They're very nearly having the actors break the fourth wall, look directly into the camera, and tell us point-blank what we are supposed to think, feel, and believe about the characters. It's as subtle as a sledgehammer, and it's so pushy/bossy, like they're actually *afraid* of the viewers having any interpretations other than the official, sanctioned one.
If I had watched this show in a total vacuum, without hearing other people's comments/opinions at all, I would never come up with that perception of his character, and I would be very surprised when I found out that this was the prevailing interpretation.
All of the guys are lacking an understanding of social cues. Whatever Sheldon has, all four guys have it, to a lesser degree.
Back to my main point, who decided that the theme of a barely-20-minute mainstream sitcom was "becoming a better person"? That is just bizarre, to me. It's so preachy and drippy.
I would've loved to see *real* character development, but if it's a choice between the characters being static, and what we have now, I'll take static every time.
ETA: plus, the show claims that the characters are growing as people, becoming less selfish, then turns around and shows them being horrible to each other, in ways that are arguably worse than anything from the early seasons.
This show gives me so much cognitive dissonance, especially about Howard. The divide between what TPTB show us, and what they *tell* us, grows ever-wider.