Even “modern” sitcoms rely on character flaws for their humor. The audience laughs at Pierce or Abed or Troy or Britta just as much as any character on Big Bang Theory. Although there is a good point about the difference between Abed and Sheldon, there are plenty of jokes about Abed’s quirks.
You do realize there is a difference between a live audience and a laugh track, right? If you’re annoyed with other people laughing at something, you must hate watching live comedy shows, or going to movies, or watching sitcoms with other people in the room. All I can say is that shows with a live audience have fewer laughs per minute than those that don’t, but other than that, they are just different styles of show. One is not necessarily better than the other, although I can see how people would have personal preferences.
If you’re watching the show worried about having the “wrong” reaction, I can see how you wouldn’t enjoy it.
BBT has a lot of funny moments. I won’t judge someone for loving it or hating it, but at the end of the day it’s just a vehicle for jokes. The characters don’t have to be realistic or well rounded.
After reading some posts in this thread, I’m content that I can watch BBT without over-analyzing and over-thinking everything. I happen to enjoy the show, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t watch it.
I have too many real life problems to be concerned about.
Not really. I think you either like something or you don’t. Why analyze the reasons. Is saying you like something simply because it makes you laugh a bad thing? Must it have some kind of overwhelming social reason why you like it.
People who over think entertainment make it boring? That’s like saying you should like the Symphony and dislike the local garage band.
I understand that some people strongly dislike art criticism and I have no interest in discussing its merits. What I responded to in cornfuzed’s post wasn’t about arts criticism, it was more like a question of taste. If someone likes McDonald’s because of the taste, and says they don’t give a shit about the nutritional value, that’s fine – it just reflects poorly on McDonald’s.
Only if you presume that nutritional value is more important than taste. In that case, a fattening dessert would be inferior to a tofu burger in terms of raw quality. It reflects poorly on you judging something on its merits, instead of picking the category that you feel is most important.
I’ve been to a sitcom taping. Even if it’s “100% real” audience laughter, it’s not natural laughter. There’s a warmup comedian doing jokes, playing games with the audience, encouraging loud laughter, reminding them that they need to laugh like they did the first time when they see a scene shot the fourth time, and handing out prizes for the best/loudest laughs. So even when the joke is stupid or not even really a joke and the audience laughs, that’s often not a recording, it’s just a coached audience.
Hell, I took my kid to a taping of Jessie, which is no iCarly, and you’d think the audience was seeing the most brilliant, funniest work in the history of comedy from their reaction. And I was part of the problem, trying to win my kid a poster for the
cast to sign. (He won it himself with his own overly enthused laughter. :)
As for BBT, while I LOVE Community and agree it’s written 50x better, I find BBT amusing. And a number of folks I know or have met have guested – Wil Wheaton, Mike Massimino, etc. – which is always fun. I don’t think there’s any shame in occasionally having a “Friends” counterpart to your “Arrested Development.”
I can’t completely agree with this. I recently read the 33 1/3 Book about Celine Dion’s “Lets’s Talk About Love” (Subtitled “A Journey to the End of Taste”), which is really a brief overview of taste theory.
In the conclusion, there’s a bit about how critics over-examine compared to the average viewer, because that’s explicitly how they’re approaching it:
The question becomes “Is this good music to listen to while you’re making aesthetic judgements?” Which may explain what makes some bands critics’ darlings: Sonic Youth, for instance, is not great music to dance to, but it’s a terrific soundtrack for making aesthetic judgements…Celine Dion, on the other hand, is lousy music to make aesthetic judgements to, but might be excellent for having a first kiss, burying your grandma, or breaking down in tears.
Now, this may not map directly to comedy, because I think the laughter impulse does not function the same way as musical appreciation. But if you accept that different works may be appropriate for different audiences and different contexts, cornfuzed’s comment can be taken on its own merits.
The problem with that quote is that is ignores the fact that critics aren’t soley looking at aesthetics, they are humans having an emotional response too and often writing about that response. I don’t think it’s fair to say that just because a piece of art has a broader appeal it’s more emotionally valid or vice versa.
To say critics generally over-examine doesn’t seem quite right either (of course some do). Many examine work broadly both in the context of the form as well as their “gut reaction”.
Yeah, the book explores a lot of the social theory of taste (Boudrieau), and how it can predict (If not determine) tastes, but he does make it clear that it doesn’t make emotional responses less real. Each person’s preferences are entirely valid and sincere for themselves.
Enh. I’d argue certain highly desired foods are only properly prepared and satisfying in non-healthy form, which is why sensible people have them as treats or events not everyday meals.
