06-21-2015, 11:36 AM
It was rather freeing to me when I realized that what we're seeing now, with BBT, are stock characters. It's a generic sitcom, and generic sitcoms have traditional stock characters. The constant, maddening question of "Why did they transform these characters?" might be *slightly* less maddening if you frame it in terms of "They didn't transform these characters, they simply replaced them with something else."
As we've all repeatedly said, there is no way those people from S1 could've "grown" into what we see now, barring some type of mental breakdown or major catastrophe. IMO we are now looking at the same actors playing different characters. The "growth, change, development" thing is a smokescreen. They wanted a more mainstream product which is more easily digested by a less discerning audience, so they made one.
It might be comforting to look at things this way: they have simply slotted these characters into new boxes, like a repertory theater where the various roles are always played by the same, limited group of people. The behavior, the choices, the mentality, the values that these characters have displayed in the last few seasons have NOTHING to do with the way these characters were originally created and conceived-of. I really believe that. TPTB can talk about growth for the next fifty years, but I don't think they believe it, either. The reason it's so jarring, so disturbing, so confusing and so frustrating to see the characters behave this way is that these current storylines have NOTHING to do with their original personalities. Nothing.
I can't think of anyone *less* suited to the Lazy Blue-Collar Husband stereotype than Simon Helberg. I really can't. That's like casting John Candy as Ichabod Crane. As I said before, it's like some type of intentionally absurdist trope-subversion. This is the guy so overflowing with nervous energy that he's fidgeting incessantly*, and you want us to believe he lays on the couch in a stupor until his wife yells at him to get up and do something? Yeah. Whatever his actual faults may be, Howard is *dynamic* and *creative.* That, not the sex-jokes, is the essence of his character. He's full of plans and ideas, and because this is a comedy, many of the plans and ideas don't work out, but he's always at the ready with a new one. That's what I feel. He's about self-renewal and self-reinvention; he literally keeps trying-on different personas, different costumes, different approaches. That's very much in line with him being a scientist, really. It's not a separate thing. He's an inventor, builder, and tinkerer, with *himself* as his main project. I don't think you can separate Howard the Engineer from Howard the wild and eccentric schemer; that's all part and parcel of the very same thing; the never-ending effort to attack a problem or question from a new angle. Stagnation, defeat, or complacency are the antithesis of what he's about.
You can apply this to the other characters, too, I'm sure. *We* know that "Sheldon wouldn't do that", or "Penny wouldn't do that", or "Howard wouldn't do that." They wouldn't, but Lazy Husband, Dumb Blonde, and Wacky Neighbor would, and that's the point, here. And with each character, there might be a combination of several different stereotypes being used, but they are stereotypes nonetheless, and they do not proceed in any natural way from the original presentation of these characters. Were there some clichés present in the early seasons? Yes. Were there some moments of wobbly or inconsistent characterization? Yes. The early seasons are not perfect. But these characters had VERY specific and distinctive personalities, which did not correspond to what had been seen in previous sitcoms, and that's a big part of why it captured people's imagination and became a pop-cultural phenomenon. I think PJ has alluded to this.
I think this is the point where somebody else can chime in about Vintage Sheldon and his inherent dignity, and how the inherent dignity makes it all the more painful to watch JP act the fool.
I'd argue that what we're seeing is not a degraded or diluted version of those Vintage characters, it's simply different characters, period. Characters for whom these particular actors are very poorly suited and poorly cast, and that's one reason why the show sucks. And if we still see glimmers of the original characters from time to time, that's because they are indeed being played by the same actors. IDK, maybe I am wrong, but IMO this is a comforting way to think, and it's a good response to the "growth" argument, and it's a good response to anyone who thinks the guys (or Penny) are jerks because of their behavior in recent eps. As I've said before, I don't hold the Vintage characters responsible for the actions of the new ones, and that's why I'm still able to love them. IDK, this thought was rather reassuring and helpful for me, in trying to mentally disconnect from how awful S8 was and what lies ahead.
*He does this IRL, too, in interviews.
OMG, I am waxing so poetic about Vintage!Howard lately, somebody help me, lol...
As we've all repeatedly said, there is no way those people from S1 could've "grown" into what we see now, barring some type of mental breakdown or major catastrophe. IMO we are now looking at the same actors playing different characters. The "growth, change, development" thing is a smokescreen. They wanted a more mainstream product which is more easily digested by a less discerning audience, so they made one.
It might be comforting to look at things this way: they have simply slotted these characters into new boxes, like a repertory theater where the various roles are always played by the same, limited group of people. The behavior, the choices, the mentality, the values that these characters have displayed in the last few seasons have NOTHING to do with the way these characters were originally created and conceived-of. I really believe that. TPTB can talk about growth for the next fifty years, but I don't think they believe it, either. The reason it's so jarring, so disturbing, so confusing and so frustrating to see the characters behave this way is that these current storylines have NOTHING to do with their original personalities. Nothing.
I can't think of anyone *less* suited to the Lazy Blue-Collar Husband stereotype than Simon Helberg. I really can't. That's like casting John Candy as Ichabod Crane. As I said before, it's like some type of intentionally absurdist trope-subversion. This is the guy so overflowing with nervous energy that he's fidgeting incessantly*, and you want us to believe he lays on the couch in a stupor until his wife yells at him to get up and do something? Yeah. Whatever his actual faults may be, Howard is *dynamic* and *creative.* That, not the sex-jokes, is the essence of his character. He's full of plans and ideas, and because this is a comedy, many of the plans and ideas don't work out, but he's always at the ready with a new one. That's what I feel. He's about self-renewal and self-reinvention; he literally keeps trying-on different personas, different costumes, different approaches. That's very much in line with him being a scientist, really. It's not a separate thing. He's an inventor, builder, and tinkerer, with *himself* as his main project. I don't think you can separate Howard the Engineer from Howard the wild and eccentric schemer; that's all part and parcel of the very same thing; the never-ending effort to attack a problem or question from a new angle. Stagnation, defeat, or complacency are the antithesis of what he's about.
You can apply this to the other characters, too, I'm sure. *We* know that "Sheldon wouldn't do that", or "Penny wouldn't do that", or "Howard wouldn't do that." They wouldn't, but Lazy Husband, Dumb Blonde, and Wacky Neighbor would, and that's the point, here. And with each character, there might be a combination of several different stereotypes being used, but they are stereotypes nonetheless, and they do not proceed in any natural way from the original presentation of these characters. Were there some clichés present in the early seasons? Yes. Were there some moments of wobbly or inconsistent characterization? Yes. The early seasons are not perfect. But these characters had VERY specific and distinctive personalities, which did not correspond to what had been seen in previous sitcoms, and that's a big part of why it captured people's imagination and became a pop-cultural phenomenon. I think PJ has alluded to this.
I think this is the point where somebody else can chime in about Vintage Sheldon and his inherent dignity, and how the inherent dignity makes it all the more painful to watch JP act the fool.
I'd argue that what we're seeing is not a degraded or diluted version of those Vintage characters, it's simply different characters, period. Characters for whom these particular actors are very poorly suited and poorly cast, and that's one reason why the show sucks. And if we still see glimmers of the original characters from time to time, that's because they are indeed being played by the same actors. IDK, maybe I am wrong, but IMO this is a comforting way to think, and it's a good response to the "growth" argument, and it's a good response to anyone who thinks the guys (or Penny) are jerks because of their behavior in recent eps. As I've said before, I don't hold the Vintage characters responsible for the actions of the new ones, and that's why I'm still able to love them. IDK, this thought was rather reassuring and helpful for me, in trying to mentally disconnect from how awful S8 was and what lies ahead.
*He does this IRL, too, in interviews.
OMG, I am waxing so poetic about Vintage!Howard lately, somebody help me, lol...