Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#31

Post by rpgmaker »

soneca wrote: post #10
novum wrote: post #3

As an aside, I was watching BBT just yesterday (on a long plane ride with limited entertainment options) and I was reminded how uncomfortably awkward it makes me feel. In short, the core problem is that the characters are not sympathetic -- you're meant to laugh at them, not with them, to say nothing of the show's terribly backwards gender roles. This essay was quite popular a while back and summarizes all this and m…

I started to feel this way watching Two and a Half Men, because of the character Allan. After some years of laughs I just felt awkward because there was this, incredibly unlucky, with no particular skill socially or professionally, mistreated by everybody, from his ex-wife to his brother's maid, humiliated by women, with no will-power to fight back. Really, it was just sad. Usually even the weak characters have some…

I agree, they made Allan so pathetic. I also learned that Jon Cryer is an incredibly good comedy actor. Charlie wasn't really acting, he was just being himself but Allan was a real piece of depressing work.

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#32

Post by rpgmaker »

brazzy wrote: post #12
novum wrote: post #3

As an aside, I was watching BBT just yesterday (on a long plane ride with limited entertainment options) and I was reminded how uncomfortably awkward it makes me feel. In short, the core problem is that the characters are not sympathetic -- you're meant to laugh at them, not with them, to say nothing of the show's terribly backwards gender roles. This essay was quite popular a while back and summarizes all this and m…

> In short, the core problem is that the characters are not sympathetic -- you're meant to laugh at them, not with them, to say nothing of the show's terribly backwards gender roles. For the record: I disagree 100% with every single statement in there.

For the record: I agree 100% with everything you said.

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#33

Post by freyr »

Camillo wrote: post #23
lionheart wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. In my personal opinion those critiques are overly critical. My circle of friends is pretty much exactly like the main characters in the show. Nerdy, 20-something PhD guys that play board games and watch sci-fi. A few were actually almost as bad as Raj in not being able to say a word when a woman was around. And I love the show. Loved it as soon as it came out just because it reminded me so much of my fr…

I think the appeal of BBT is that some people like to see a reflection of their microcosm: they like to see people like them, situations like the ones they experience, references to things they like, etc.. It makes them feel relevant and part of an in-group. It's the same appeal that xkcd has. It has been called "referential humor", but I don't think it should be classified as humor, although for some people it seems…

>> It has been called "referential humor", but I don't think it should be classified as humor, although for some people it seems to be a completely satisfying humor surrogate.

You're just completely missing the point. The joke is not the nerdy references. The references are a backdrop, a framework in which to develop the show's humor.

Do people really think, even for a second, that CBS developed a primetime network show whose jokes were targeted specifically to Caltech physics PhD students? Or even to self-identified nerds?

Think of it another way. The show is produced by Chuck Lorrie, the same guy who produced Two and a Half Men, which featured Charlie Sheen as a Malibu playboy. Did you think Two And A Half Men was written to appeal primarily to Malibu playboys? Would you consider that referential humor? Do you think Malibu bachelors got their panties in a twist because some of the jokes poked fun at the show's main characters?

Some of the characters on the show are quirky and flawed, and sometimes they're the subject of ridicule. Flip the channel to another sitcom. It's the exact same thing, but about jocks, or suburban families, or blue-collared delivery truck drivers.

Only the nerd community has enough of an ingrained victim mentality to take it personally, to think the show should be about them, or that jokes about nerds should be off limits.

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#34

Post by dragonwriter »

Camillo wrote: post #23
lionheart wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. In my personal opinion those critiques are overly critical. My circle of friends is pretty much exactly like the main characters in the show. Nerdy, 20-something PhD guys that play board games and watch sci-fi. A few were actually almost as bad as Raj in not being able to say a word when a woman was around. And I love the show. Loved it as soon as it came out just because it reminded me so much of my fr…

I think the appeal of BBT is that some people like to see a reflection of their microcosm: they like to see people like them, situations like the ones they experience, references to things they like, etc.. It makes them feel relevant and part of an in-group. It's the same appeal that xkcd has. It has been called "referential humor", but I don't think it should be classified as humor, although for some people it seems…

> It's the same appeal that xkcd has. It has been called "referential humor", but I don't think it should be classified as humor, although for some people it seems to be a completely satisfying humor surrogate.

Humor is subjective. But just because what is funny to other people isn't funny to you doesn't make it "not humor", its just not humor that appeals to you.

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#35

Post by dnautics »

novum wrote: post #3

As an aside, I was watching BBT just yesterday (on a long plane ride with limited entertainment options) and I was reminded how uncomfortably awkward it makes me feel. In short, the core problem is that the characters are not sympathetic -- you're meant to laugh at them, not with them, to say nothing of the show's terribly backwards gender roles. This essay was quite popular a while back and summarizes all this and m…

I think a second core problem with BBT is that it really plays into the "trappings of being intelligent" - which is not how most intelligent people actually are. There are a TON of "signalling" devices, for example liking comic books, or having thick-rimmed glasses. Now, I'm not a physicist (chemist/biologist) and we may be more "down to earth" but I don't have a single scientist friend who HAS THE TIME to do a lot of those things that maybe in high school geeks/nerds did a lot of. I don't know anyone who plays D&D anymore, I don't know anyone who goes to Comic-Con (I'm in San Diego). We do stuff like - go hiking; I'm obsessed with social dance (where there are, incidentally, tons of engineers and scientists); I had a lot of math majors friends from college and of the ones that did math PhD programs, they wound up: climbing rediculous spires in red rock country, supermarathon running for fun... And one, after getting his PhD, joined the Navy and entered its pilot training program (he would have become a fighter pilot but there were no fighter billets available).

So, what bugs me about BBT in addition to having really awful people (watch "BBT without the laugh track" on youtube if you doubt it), is not only that it perpetuates stereotypes, it perpetuates really dumb stereotypes... And the life of a scientist, I think, swings from incredibly boring times in the lab, to super-exciting times in the lab, to "relatively normal social life" outside of the lab, except that that last one gets a lot less time, since, we're in the lab all the damn time.

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#36

Post by coldtea »

freyr wrote: post #33
Camillo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the appeal of BBT is that some people like to see a reflection of their microcosm: they like to see people like them, situations like the ones they experience, references to things they like, etc.. It makes them feel relevant and part of an in-group. It's the same appeal that xkcd has. It has been called "referential humor", but I don't think it should be classified as humor, although for some people it seems…

>> It has been called "referential humor", but I don't think it should be classified as humor, although for some people it seems to be a completely satisfying humor surrogate. You're just completely missing the point. The joke is not the nerdy references. The references are a backdrop, a framework in which to develop the show's humor. Do people really think, even for a second, that CBS developed a primetime network s…

>Do people really think, even for a second, that CBS developed a primetime network show whose jokes were targeted specifically to Caltech physics PhD students? Or even to self-identified nerds?

Yes, and it named it The Big Band Theory.

I mean seriously, did you really think, ever for a second, that this wasn't at attempt to hit the target group of (not Caltech PhD students of course) the "geek/nerd crowd" -- a group which nowadays is more populous than ever, and it's not "the kiss of death" to indentity with anymore?

It's delluded to think the setting is not part of the targetting strategy and merely serves as a backdrop for the humor. That's not how TV works. The BBT is targeted for this crowd as much as Twilight is for teenage girls.

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#37

Post by nikatwork »

objclxt wrote: post #14
novum wrote: post #3

As an aside, I was watching BBT just yesterday (on a long plane ride with limited entertainment options) and I was reminded how uncomfortably awkward it makes me feel. In short, the core problem is that the characters are not sympathetic -- you're meant to laugh at them, not with them, to say nothing of the show's terribly backwards gender roles. This essay was quite popular a while back and summarizes all this and m…

> Can we at least agree that laugh tracks are awful, even on otherwise-phenomenal shows (Seinfeld)? No. Multi-camera sitcoms with live audiences are very, very different in writing, tone, and end product to single camera comedies. They both serve different purposes. Shooting a sitcom in front of a studio audience radically alters the pacing, the way jokes are told, and the setup (you're inherently constrained to fewe…

> Multi-camera sitcoms with live audiences are very, very different in writing, tone, and end product to single camera comedies. They both serve different purposes.

Or, y'know, you could have single camera comedies with no laugh track. The British seem to manage that just fine. I personally find laugh tracks equal parts desperate and condescending. "Hey dummy! There's a joke here! Laugh damn you... LAUGH!!"

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#38

Post by mturmon »

lionheart wrote: post #4
novum wrote: post #3

As an aside, I was watching BBT just yesterday (on a long plane ride with limited entertainment options) and I was reminded how uncomfortably awkward it makes me feel. In short, the core problem is that the characters are not sympathetic -- you're meant to laugh at them, not with them, to say nothing of the show's terribly backwards gender roles. This essay was quite popular a while back and summarizes all this and m…

I don't know. In my personal opinion those critiques are overly critical. My circle of friends is pretty much exactly like the main characters in the show. Nerdy, 20-something PhD guys that play board games and watch sci-fi. A few were actually almost as bad as Raj in not being able to say a word when a woman was around. And I love the show. Loved it as soon as it came out just because it reminded me so much of my fr…

People who think the show is not "close enough" to real life don't know enough elite physicists or Caltech grad students/research scientists. Even within the world of tech PhD's (a small community in the scheme of things), Caltech is especially unusual. I have been impressed that the creators of the show can capture some of that oddness and make a go of it for a mass audience.

The show does struggle with female roles. As does its real-life counterpart.

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#39

Post by ajtaylor »

soneca wrote: post #10
novum wrote: post #3

As an aside, I was watching BBT just yesterday (on a long plane ride with limited entertainment options) and I was reminded how uncomfortably awkward it makes me feel. In short, the core problem is that the characters are not sympathetic -- you're meant to laugh at them, not with them, to say nothing of the show's terribly backwards gender roles. This essay was quite popular a while back and summarizes all this and m…

I started to feel this way watching Two and a Half Men, because of the character Allan. After some years of laughs I just felt awkward because there was this, incredibly unlucky, with no particular skill socially or professionally, mistreated by everybody, from his ex-wife to his brother's maid, humiliated by women, with no will-power to fight back. Really, it was just sad. Usually even the weak characters have some…

I felt exactly this way too. You know how you just cringe about something, knowing exactly how awful it's going to be or feel? That describes most of my reactions to Allan, and is part of the reason I quit watching. The other was that the raunchy factor seemed to know no lower bound. I finally reached a point where I couldn't take anymore and quit watching (around the time Ashton Kutcher came in).

Re: The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory'

#40

Post by forgottenpass »

SeanLuke wrote: post #24
BrianEatWorld wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that its not canned laughter, but a laugh track can more generally refer to a separate track for the audience's laughter. This can be edited to compensate for jokes that require repeated takes or have its level's adjusted just like the rest of the sound in the show. I don't watch the show, so I can't say for sure, but its possible that the way the laugh track is mixed makes it more obvious than other sh…

> I don't watch the show, so I can't say for sure, but its possible that the way the laugh track is mixed makes it more obvious than other shows, such as 90s sitcoms. Chuck Lorre, the producer for the show, is really ticked off at people who say that BBT has a laugh track, and has been very adamant that it does not.

Chuck Lorre, the producer for the show, is really ticked off at people who say that BBT has a laugh track, and has been very adamant that it does not.

Good for him. The television producer can split hairs about terms that have different industry and layman uses all he wants.

Either way, there is still studio audience laughter embedded in the show's audio. Dude should be well aware that home viewers can disagree with the recorded audience on whether or not punchlines are powerful enough for audible laughs, and that when they disagree often enough the audience laughter becomes very grating to the viewer.

And ultimately, that's what he is ticked off about. The way the laughs bother people is a indictment of the comedy in the show. When viewers agree with the recorded audience about what is funny, they don't notice the recorded laughs as much, so they don't complain as much.

Post reply on HN