• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

How has no one murdered Sheldon Cooper yet?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheldon being asexual breaks the canon of the pilot. In the first five minutes, Leonard cracks a masurbation joke at Sheldon's expense, a joke Sheldon grudgingly admits there is truth to.

They consciously changed the character from the first four episodes. They originally wanted to make him a sort of competition for Leonard to go out with Penny, and instead made him mostly asexual and turned him into his own thing. The writers actually addressed this, and it's generally regarded as a good decision.
 
A terrible show watched by 13 million people who do not think it's terrible, but funny.
Sounds to me you are just upset somethign u don't like can be this successfull.


uhhh popularity is not a sign of critical excellence, especially in tv media. you should know that. i used to like the show, i watched it all the time. but it has too many flaws now for me to enjoy it.

maybe the racism, sexism, and homophobia just wooshes over everyone else's heads.
 
Sorry, I forgot to consult the bigboss370 funny-ometer. Clearly it isn't a funny show! Meter says so right here. Can't argue with that objective fact I guess.

You know, I've seen you in a lot of threads defending The Big Bang Theory. You do a lot of personalizing your attacks, and generally make your opponents arguments absurd by inflating them. You have some valid points, but you keep spouting them over and over, which is what you'd see an apologist do. And that's what I consider you to be, at this point. Nearly going around seeking places to defend it.

Yes, we get that you mean people laugh because it's in expectation of something funny, but you completely refuse how ridiculous it is to laugh at the sentence "my computer came with Windows 7". Or "My mom sent me my old Nintendo 64". They're good arguments. And this is coming from someone who's watched every single episode of this show.

My biggest gripe with the show is how, after every episode, that often are even down in the 18 minute mark, is that I'm left with no sense of progression in any sense. Things are just left hanging, and resolved by the next episode, there are like two story-arcs and they both lead nowhere. Makes me feel like I just ate a whole chocolate. Sure it was tasty, but when I'm done, I'm just like "ugh".
 
i'm also trying to understand why anyone (like the 'live audience') would laugh at the "you're a slave" remark Sheldon made at the black guidance counsellor.

...

did anyone here really laugh at that?

Yeah, I did. Found that part in particular hilarious. Equaled only by her reply. I also happen to like the show overall, and find it consistently funny.

uhhh popularity is not a sign of critical excellence

/shrug. I don't really care anything about whether or not its considered critically excellent. I just like the show.
 
You know, I've seen you in a lot of threads defending The Big Bang Theory. You do a lot of personalizing your attacks, and generally make your opponents arguments absurd by inflating them. You have some valid points, but you keep spouting them over and over, which is what you'd see an apologist do. And that's what I consider you to be, at this point. Nearly going around seeking places to defend it.

Yes, we get that you mean people laugh because it's in expectation of something funny, but you completely refuse how ridiculous it is to laugh at the sentence "my computer came with Windows 7". Or "My mom sent me my old Nintendo 64". They're good arguments. And this is coming from someone who's watched every single episode of this show.

My biggest gripe with the show is how, after every episode, that often are even down in the 18 minute mark, is that I'm left with no sense of progression in any sense. Things are just left hanging, and resolved by the next episode, there are like two story-arcs and they both lead nowhere. Makes me feel like I just ate a whole chocolate. Sure it was tasty, but when I'm done, I'm just like "ugh".

Did you even bother to read the nonsense I'm replying too? His argument is it isn't a comedy because it isn't funny. HE thinks it isn't funny, so the thought of it being a comedy that uses awkward dialogue is impossible because, remember, HE declared it's not a funny show. What is the proper way to address such ridiculousness?
 
They consciously changed the character from the first four episodes. They originally wanted to make him a sort of competition for Leonard to go out with Penny, and instead made him mostly asexual and turned him into his own thing. The writers actually addressed this, and it's generally regarded as a good decision.

That was a good choice. The way they went in the end is a liiiiiiittle less cliche, and its working well.
 
Did you even bother to read the nonsense I'm replying too? His argument is it isn't a comedy because it isn't funny. HE thinks it isn't funny, so the thought of it being a comedy that uses awkward dialogue is impossible because, remember, HE declared it's not a funny show. What is the proper way to address such ridiculousness?

what the fuck are you even talking about? i never talked about the show being a comedy or not. i din't say it wasn't a comedy because it isn't funny, i said it was a terrible show. i was asking about specific moments being funny or not which you replied to. i'll admit the show has had funny moments but overall i still think its a terrible show.

You can't argue what's funny or not, you just can't.


sure you can.
 
Did you even bother to read the nonsense I'm replying too? His argument is it isn't a comedy because it isn't funny. HE thinks it isn't funny, so the thought of it being a comedy that uses awkward dialogue is impossible because, remember, HE declared it's not a funny show. What is the proper way to address such ridiculousness?

I've seen you tackle somewhere between 5 and 10 people's arguments regarding why they think the show is bad. Every time you've reacted the same way. I don't get why you're doing it. Most people would just let it be, not seek out everyone who has an argument about the show and attacking them. It's like religious debates on youtube, where one side has reoccurring arguments, and the other side seeks out those and come in to the battle with their canned material.

It's pretty much just being an apologetic. I'm just pointing that out. You're justifying your way of handling the arguments on the grounds that the arguments suck. I'm just making an observation here.
 
I've seen you tackle somewhere between 5 and 10 people's arguments regarding why they think the show is bad. Every time you've reacted the same way. I don't get why you're doing it. Most people would just let it be, not seek out everyone who has an argument about the show and attacking them. It's like religious debates on youtube, where one side has reoccurring arguments, and the other side seeks out those and come in to the battle with their canned material.

It's pretty much just being an apologetic. I'm just pointing that out. You're justifying your way of handling the arguments on the grounds that the arguments suck. I'm just making an observation here.

I haven't attacked anyone and I certainly haven't engaged everyone that says they don't like the show. Your failure is the unwillingness to realize the difference between "I dislike the show" and "I dislike the show and can't understand why people laugh at this/don't recognize this/defend this/etc/etc." It's perfectly fine to dislike anything you don't find enjoyable. No problem with that at all. The issue is suggesting people who do find it enjoyable are lacking something: they're too dumb to recognize the hurtful insults, they laugh at things too easily, they just don't understand, or whatever else someone with insecurities can come up with to justify their opinion and feel good about themselves.
 
Bigboss370, what do you hope to achieve?

On one side, a group of people enjoy a show and find it funny.

On your side, you seem hell bent on trying to prove what they find funny and enjoyable is not.

I don't believe any poster is trying to convince you should enjoy the show. Why are you trying to convince someone else that they should not?
 
Bigboss370, what do you hope to achieve?

On one side, a group of people enjoy a show and find it funny.

On your side, you seem hell bent on trying to prove what they find funny and enjoyable is not.

I don't believe any poster is trying to convince you should enjoy the show. Why are you trying to convince someone else that they should not?

i'm not 'hell bent' on anything lol. like i said i used to enjoy the show too. i just want to discuss why certain moments people find funny, that i think are actually subtle jabs of racism or sexism.
 
I think the bigger question is why Emmet never murdered Hyacinth on Keeping Up Appearences?
 
i'm not 'hell bent' on anything lol. like i said i used to enjoy the show too. i just want to discuss why certain moments people find funny, that i think are actually subtle jabs of racism or sexism.

They aren't subtle jabs at racism or sexism though, they arent meant in vitriol. You are throwing up your shield for no reason.

Like for example when Sheldon says something perhaps that can be seen as sexist you arent being asked to laugh at the sexist joke, nor is it meant to be sexist. You are in fact being asked to laugh at the paradox that Sheldon can be such a highly intelligent human and not grasp simple social constructs.

Or when Raj and Howard are accused of being gay, you aren't being asked to laugh at homosexuals, at no point is the show saying homosexuality is bad!. You are laughing at the simple mindedness of the persons inability to grasp that men can be close and emotional and not be gay. Not the homosexuality itself.
 
Because they know the character and they know something's coming.
Basically.

As a fan of the show, I didn't laugh at that either. The actual joke was fine but the laughs at the buildup are just a bad side-effect of having a live audience and/or laugh track.

But people really need to stop using the Windows 7 example as a slight against the show. Every sitcom has points where you're wondering why the audience is laughing. It even happened all the fucking time in my favorite sitcom of all, Seinfeld. Do you see people taking the worst examples of "laughing at non-jokes" in that show and using them as ammo against it?

Obviously TBBT is no Seinfeld but still, anyone who's watched the show starting from the first episode has learned about the characters and what to expect, so obviously certain pieces of dialogue will garner reactions, either with laughter or anticipation of some kind. It's okay for someone to not like a show but in a thread full of fans who have watched all 5+ seasons of it and understand the characters and comedic structure, any judgment based on a single example of badness seems silly and hasty.
 
I still think it's the episode with sick Amy and Howard going fishing.

"You're not supposed to enjoy this!"
"Maybe that means you should spank me harder."
Yeah, that's still my favorite as well. Both of the major plot lines were great and the humor during the "Amy is sick" segments was perfect.
 
Wait people don't like the show because of the windows 7 comment? Wow.

That clip, and the one about the N64 emulator seem to be the most common arguments against the show. I think something about them just incites so much rage from people who feel somehow offended by the premise of the show. I understand that they're not the best jokes in the world, but in no way do they ruin the show.
 
i don't watch it. i just decided to watch the last episode so see if it got any better because there seems to be many fans.



that's funny? really now?

Penny isn't disgusted that she may or may not have had sex with a short Indian guy, she's disgusted that she may or may not have had sex with a spoiled, misogynistic jerk who can't talk to women.
 
Kind of like "Don't have a cow" in the Simpsons. How many times did Bart say that?
It was in every scene, just like Sheldon's "Bazinga!" It reminds me of how every episode of Chappelle's Show was just 30 minutes of him saying "I'm Rick James, bitch!" over and over.
 
why do people watch shows that they don't enjoy, to the point where they hate characters enough to want to kill them?

I love TBBBTTH and just enjoy it as a silly sitcom.

Doesn't seem like it would matter since nothing they said was even funny enough in the first place. Even if their timing was laughtrack-less, there were no jokes in that scene. Yet there was a lot of "laughter" at nothing.

different strokes for different folks I guess. I counted 4 jokes in that scene.

here's the thing about Sheldon. he's written by people that can accurately describe the way a duck walks and quacks but that don't understand ducks. Abed was written by someone who understands that kind of person, because they themselves were similar to that kind of person.

I don't have aspergers, but I am a geek, and I hate the way Sheldon is written as an 'other'. People think he's funny. People love him. Yet, like the OP points out, no one would want to share an apartment with him in real life.

Moss in the IT crowd is socially awkward, and a dork, but you can understand why he has friends. you can understand why people like him. it's the same with Abed. you can understand why Troy would choose to live with him, despite the elements of his character that would be troublesome in a room mate, they're balanced out by other things.

Sheldon was written by someone who knows the sort of things geeks say and do, but who has no idea of why. that's my take anyway.

Community is guilty of this in some characters too though. Shirley is written in a very similar way to Sheldon from the perspective of being based solely on outside observations.


See, I don't consider Sheldon a geek. The other three male characters are geeks but sheldon IMO is a scientist first and a geek second. Perhaps thats why he annoys geeks, because they think he is a bad one? I don't think he's one at all (and I'm a geek).

I also don't find him irritating. I'm either empathising with the other characters (who have known him long enough and work around his foibles) or being gently amused by his occasional attempts to be human.
 
What is funny is that bigboss is so damned concerned that people find BBT entertaining.
He kind of reminds me of Sheldon, ironically enough. He just won't let it lie.

The show gets massive ratings, and this has been one of the most popular threads on off topic for weeks. What does that tell you.
 
Isn't it about time someone posted that ridiculous "no laugh track" video? It's been about three pages without it being posted.

"Hey guys, this show seems really stupid when it cuts to complete, dead silence after every line."

Yes, yes it does. You're an insightful individual, who has managed to deftly skewer the show in one fell swoop.

I'm impressed and stuff.
 
I just love that through all the hate you get people like Dr Smoot, deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking on the show. And these guys WANT to be on there.

This is quite an interesting episode of deGrasse Tysons radio show where they talk about the show. Apparently people DO think you can blow up the moon by bouncing lasers off of it.

http://www.startalkradio.net/show/the-big-bang-theory/
 
He kind of reminds me of Sheldon, ironically enough. He just won't let it lie.

The show gets massive ratings, and this has been one of the most popular threads on off topic for weeks. What does that tell you.

Popularity doesn't really tell you the quality of the show.

Britney Spears sells millions of records. Doesn't mean she is a good singer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom