[ SECRET POST #3433 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3433 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.

__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 57 secrets from Secret Submission Post #491.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[herpymcderp]

It's a terrible show, but people give it a pass because it ~mentions scientific theory~ and ~nerd culture~. I've tried to like it a lot, and no matter how many times I watch it, it always comes across as a big "HEY NERDS, LOOK AT THIS STUFF YOU LIKE HA HA ISN'T THAT NERD STEREOTYPE FUNNY COMIC BOOK REFERENCE VIDEO GAME REFERENCE."

It's not smart. It's not really funny. I haven't come to the conclusion that it's actively mocking nerds, but it sure is exploiting stereotypes to build an audience. I'm more offended about the fact that it gets recommended to me so often than about it's character portrayal.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Every show uses stereotypes to build an audience. Stock characters are used in everything.

It's never come off as pandering to me but rather genuinely appealing.

Re: OP

[herpymcderp]

...Clearly you have never actually watched Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul.

They aren't used "in everything". In the really worthwhile shows even when they do make use of a stereotype, it's usually employed specifically to subvert that stereotype, meant as a character foil, or used as punctuation to the underlying theme (e.g. as juxtaposition or parallelism).

Or... maybe you do have a point. Maybe that's why I don't watch TV much anymore. Maybe the majority of it really is just lazy crap.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Actually I haven't because I don't have the channel they were on.

And it isn't really "lazy crap" to use archetypes. Everything does. There's the idea that there are only...what is it, seven plots and everything is just a variation on one of them. There's also said to be only so many characters and everything is just variation on those same.

Re: OP

[herpymcderp]

I disagree. There's a huge difference between writing a person and writing a set character. Sure, there's some truth to your traditional view of storytelling: archetypes exist and you often get characters based on a broad definition, but that's the thing: archetypes are BROAD. They are umbrella terms. No one in the world is just "a wise woman" or "the knight". Actual people are harder to classify, and that's where you get into relying on stereotypes about culture and behaviour versus defining an individual based on a carefully researched backstory.

In both BB and BCS, the characters are written as people rather than as archetypes to sterotypes. ...Now, granted, it is a lot more work to write a non-stereotypical character. You do have to come up with a unique backstory and have a good grasp of their psychology. Often times you just can't do that in sitcoms where many, many different independent writers will write single episodes.

That doesn't mean that the traditional view of storytelling is the only one there is, though. It's definitely more pronounced in television (though again, I argue that BB and BCS are examples of non-traditional storytelling)... but especially not if you consider that for hundreds of years people have been experimenting with what actually constitutes a full story, what is a short story, and how to communicate an event or series of events in a way that is meaningful/complete. Some stories exist where there are no characters at all (or at least not in as much as there are names for the characters so much as a race of people or a location or a non-sentient entity). Some stories even do away with the concept of beginning, middle, and end.

You can do a lot with a narrative, it's just easier and lazier and faster to produce when you rely on a formula. Just because most television does that doesn't mean all of it does though.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

See, I don't see the characters that way. Honestly I find them a lot more nuanced than characters on some older sitcoms (I cited Cheers elsewhere in the comments--just about everyone on there is two-dimensional, though I still find it a cute and enjoyable show. It's considered the best sitcom ever).

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

DA
oh come on. I love better call saul but that's a completely different genre. you can'T compare that to a classic type sitcom.

Re: OP

[feotakahari]

"Stock characters" and "stereotypes" really aren't the same thing.

(I don't watch this, so I have nothing else to add.)

Re: OP

[herpymcderp]

True, but in the context of TBBT they pretty much are.