09-30-2015, 04:08 AM
Gripe, I suck at cut and paste, so this is a disembodied reply to your character/plot comment.
The construction of a sitcom (or any other creative venture I guess) must be an interesting thing. When we look at the lore behind the origins of BBT it's the concept of two scientists and a world-weary woman coming together. Then comes the character-building and we have Leonard and Sheldon. Now the concept physicists had to put up with a lot of crap from their neighbour and, perhaps, it seemed funny on paper. BUT when played out to the test audience it fell flat. Why? Because the audience 'felt protective' of Leonard and Sheldon.
At least Lorre et al realized that they had something special in Leonard and Sheldon—they just weren't sure what. They thought that if the audience liked two nerdy scientists, then we'll give them more nerdy scientists. Enter Howard and Raj. So, we have another instance where the concept becomes fleshed out.
Then things get fun.
Because the writers get to flex their muscles, expanding the characterizations through plot (as IMO good writing does. Telling over showing really sucks for me), the plots can be rather unorthodox because they are being deliberately shaped (and reshaped) by a forming character continuity. The whole tracking down the America's Next Top Model house is a plot. HOW they went about finding it (star charts, satellites, drones) says a lot about Howard and Raj and, at the same time, made for a hilarious plotline.
So for me, when a story (or show) is really rocking, I find the episodes and characters interlinked. The plots display character traits, quirks, reasonings and their consequences. When I write I simultaneously recall plot scenarios and how the character reacted to it.
I get what you're saying about Ahab in the midst of 'Whaling 101', but for me, Sheldon, as a character construct, could have only come to be because of the plot-characterization synthesis. Sheldon would not be who he is in s1-4 if he originated on Friends or Frazier. Or if he did form into our Sheldon, what a whacked up version of Friends and Frazier we'd have!
At some point, however, there comes a separation between plot and character almost as if the audience goes through a 'yeah, yeah, I get it, he does this. But what if he did that?' And then we're cooking with gas. The character grows yet again, only this time outside of the canon-safe zone of 'official episode.' He can be in any situation because there is a core to him that remains fundamentally 'true' and recognizable to the fan fiction writer.
On the telly, the quickest way to progress the maturation of a character is through the actors. How something is said, the look, the gesture, adds to the core of the character until they become inseparable. The connection Jim and Kaley has elevates their banter as her grin to his scowl generates a sense of realness to their characters.
But of course, at the end of the day Sheldon and Penny are constructs and, as such, are at the mercy of Those That Be. The only reason why they are not together or on a movie set in Vancouver is because TPTB doesn't want them to. The characters are bound by the four walls of the episode and in the case of BBT, which doesn't have a strong suit for continuity in later seasons, are subject to what an outside observer would call a 'personality transplant'.
That's what's so grating to me about the later seasons. The writers have trod over their own constructs, the character traits defined and reinforced by 'canon' (backstory/history) via previous episodes. As a viewer, the Sheldon I got to know via quirks, traits, mannerism, etc is NOT the Sheldon I see in s5-9. He is Sheldon in name only because he is no longer consistent with his origins. I'm not saying that the character has to remain in a bubble, never changing, BUT that the changes have to occur without sacrificing the core traits that make him/her identifiable (and relatable?) to the audience. Otherwise, you could replace Sheldon with another character and go on with the seasons and it would have nearly the same effect. I say nearly because, of course, TPTB are counting on the sentiment for (Vintage) Sheldon to gloss over anything they do with (New) Sheldon.
It's sticklers like us who find ourselves betrayed by the bait and switch of both characters and plotlines (the focus from friendships to relationships) that are enraged by this change. It shits on not just our enjoyment of a quality show but, even more inexcusable, it completely defiles the genius used to create such a wonderful character as Sheldon. The casual viewer might not have noticed the technicalities behind what is going on but they are aware that something has happened—because people know the show is not as funny as it once was. The most notable change has been called out—the relationship focus—but whether the audience dismisses the character 'growth' bullshit and demands a return to the familiar protagonists they watched (and connected with) remains to be seen.
The construction of a sitcom (or any other creative venture I guess) must be an interesting thing. When we look at the lore behind the origins of BBT it's the concept of two scientists and a world-weary woman coming together. Then comes the character-building and we have Leonard and Sheldon. Now the concept physicists had to put up with a lot of crap from their neighbour and, perhaps, it seemed funny on paper. BUT when played out to the test audience it fell flat. Why? Because the audience 'felt protective' of Leonard and Sheldon.
At least Lorre et al realized that they had something special in Leonard and Sheldon—they just weren't sure what. They thought that if the audience liked two nerdy scientists, then we'll give them more nerdy scientists. Enter Howard and Raj. So, we have another instance where the concept becomes fleshed out.
Then things get fun.
Because the writers get to flex their muscles, expanding the characterizations through plot (as IMO good writing does. Telling over showing really sucks for me), the plots can be rather unorthodox because they are being deliberately shaped (and reshaped) by a forming character continuity. The whole tracking down the America's Next Top Model house is a plot. HOW they went about finding it (star charts, satellites, drones) says a lot about Howard and Raj and, at the same time, made for a hilarious plotline.
So for me, when a story (or show) is really rocking, I find the episodes and characters interlinked. The plots display character traits, quirks, reasonings and their consequences. When I write I simultaneously recall plot scenarios and how the character reacted to it.
I get what you're saying about Ahab in the midst of 'Whaling 101', but for me, Sheldon, as a character construct, could have only come to be because of the plot-characterization synthesis. Sheldon would not be who he is in s1-4 if he originated on Friends or Frazier. Or if he did form into our Sheldon, what a whacked up version of Friends and Frazier we'd have!
At some point, however, there comes a separation between plot and character almost as if the audience goes through a 'yeah, yeah, I get it, he does this. But what if he did that?' And then we're cooking with gas. The character grows yet again, only this time outside of the canon-safe zone of 'official episode.' He can be in any situation because there is a core to him that remains fundamentally 'true' and recognizable to the fan fiction writer.
On the telly, the quickest way to progress the maturation of a character is through the actors. How something is said, the look, the gesture, adds to the core of the character until they become inseparable. The connection Jim and Kaley has elevates their banter as her grin to his scowl generates a sense of realness to their characters.
But of course, at the end of the day Sheldon and Penny are constructs and, as such, are at the mercy of Those That Be. The only reason why they are not together or on a movie set in Vancouver is because TPTB doesn't want them to. The characters are bound by the four walls of the episode and in the case of BBT, which doesn't have a strong suit for continuity in later seasons, are subject to what an outside observer would call a 'personality transplant'.
That's what's so grating to me about the later seasons. The writers have trod over their own constructs, the character traits defined and reinforced by 'canon' (backstory/history) via previous episodes. As a viewer, the Sheldon I got to know via quirks, traits, mannerism, etc is NOT the Sheldon I see in s5-9. He is Sheldon in name only because he is no longer consistent with his origins. I'm not saying that the character has to remain in a bubble, never changing, BUT that the changes have to occur without sacrificing the core traits that make him/her identifiable (and relatable?) to the audience. Otherwise, you could replace Sheldon with another character and go on with the seasons and it would have nearly the same effect. I say nearly because, of course, TPTB are counting on the sentiment for (Vintage) Sheldon to gloss over anything they do with (New) Sheldon.
It's sticklers like us who find ourselves betrayed by the bait and switch of both characters and plotlines (the focus from friendships to relationships) that are enraged by this change. It shits on not just our enjoyment of a quality show but, even more inexcusable, it completely defiles the genius used to create such a wonderful character as Sheldon. The casual viewer might not have noticed the technicalities behind what is going on but they are aware that something has happened—because people know the show is not as funny as it once was. The most notable change has been called out—the relationship focus—but whether the audience dismisses the character 'growth' bullshit and demands a return to the familiar protagonists they watched (and connected with) remains to be seen.
Let's go exploring!