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

41–50 of 75 posts

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

#41

Post by rhizome »

stormbrew wrote: post #13
eco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They both set up caricatures of an unpopular group for the audience to laugh at. Like I said, blackface is far worse but I don't see how the analogy is "[terrible] on pretty much every level". It's much less hateful and damaging, certainly, but it's there in tone. I was hoping to not have this debate that invariably comes up about how you can't compare anything to blackface because of how bad blackface was but I don'…

Part of what makes blackface so horrible is the power imbalance that underlies it. In the days of minstrelry, black people were deeply and powerfully unequal in civil society. They had no recourse against the indignity done to them by blackface performance, and it was an indignity forced on them by a more powerful social class. Try replacing nerds with black people in that paragraph and tell me it's at all comparable…

It is comparable. In the way that blackface allowed African Americans to work in venues and productions that they were otherwise prohibited, BBT allows nerds to be the subject of a mainstream sitcom.

BBT is not at all empowering the way that "Weird Science," for example, was, and highly-mainstream TV executive Chuck Lorre is of exactly a more powerful class who has allowed nerds to enter into a world where they were previously excluded. That BBT is only slighly less-awful than how nerds were previously portrayed is not a badge of honor.

How often does the show demonstrate dignified interactions between its main characters and the outside world?

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

#42

Post by robomartin »

Relax guys and gals. This show, much like most everything you see on TV and in the movies, is a caricature. It is not reality.

The formula is simple: Turn your brain down to "slow" and have a good time. Don't take any of it seriously. It's not real. It's television.

Some of the writing is hilariously funny. I have worked with people that exhibited some of these characteristics (not all). Some were great engineers but had the social skills of a brick. Most are nothing like these characters. They have varied interests and really full and active personal and family lives outside of work.

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

#44

Post by SeanLuke »

forgottenpass wrote: post #40
SeanLuke wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm sorry, but this isn't "layman use" of the term laugh track: it is simply wrong. A laugh track is a separately recorded or constructed track of laughter that didn't exist when the show was being shot. Calling a live studio audience a "laugh track" is an absurd black-is-white abuse of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugh_track

The laugh track has a long and sordid history in US television recording, and Lorre is ticked off that people think his shows have to result to fakery.

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

#45

Post by contingencies »

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…

It bothered me too, I thought about it and came to the same conclusion. Moreover, while watching the show (always at the behest of someone else, by now perhaps in four different countries) I am primarily left wondering how twisted the producers of such a show must be, and how sick the entire entertainment industry really is.

If you ask me, Buddhism got it right: communicating trivialities, distractions and divisive speech are things fundamentally unhealthy to ourselves and our environments that we should seek to avoid.

Hollywood, on the other hand, celebrates the same. Of course, people will interpret this as fundamentalism, and of course I'm not advocating zero entertainment (I believe we should all be free to make our own decisions about which company to keep and media to consume and produce). I am, however, advocating calling a spade a spade, and I do think novum's comments are right on the mark with this show.

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

#46

Post by freyr »

coldtea wrote: post #36
freyr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

Right. You're the center of the universe.

And "Gilligan's Island" was made for people stranded on desert islands.

"Taxi" targeted that coveted taxi driver demographic.

"That 70s Show" targeted time-travelling teenagers from the 1970s.

"Scrubs" was written for doctors. Remember how upset all the doctors were when Scrubs joked about doctor stereotypes? No?

Likewise "Frasier" was for effete psychiatrists, "Cheers" for bar flys, and "I Love Lucy" for Cuban bandleaders and their wives.

Or, it's just a comedy about some quirky, nerdy friends, written to appeal to a very broad audience.

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

#48

Post by cdcarter »

nikatwork wrote: post #37
objclxt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!!"

Did you miss the last paragraph of his post. He was comparing live in-studio w/ audience to single camera, saying how a laugh track in live in-studio helps, and then goes on to note how he doesn't approve of canned laughter.

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

#49

Post by cdcarter »

SeanLuke wrote: post #44
forgottenpass wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sorry, but this isn't "layman use" of the term laugh track: it is simply wrong. A laugh track is a separately recorded or constructed track of laughter that didn't exist when the show was being shot. Calling a live studio audience a "laugh track" is an absurd black-is-white abuse of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugh_track The laugh track has a long and sordid history in US television recording, and Lor…

From the second sentence of that article: "In some productions the laughter is a live audience response".
Post reply on HN