What popular franchise do you dislike or simply not "get" ?

[Pitty]

I like the Big Bang Theory, but I don't relate to Penny at all. I relate most to Sheldon, because he doesn't comply with social frivolities. People see him as annoying, but its him just doing what he wants to do. I can see why people wouldn't like the show...much of the humor is based on the characters, so if you don't buy into the characters themselves, the jokes alone aren't that funny.

This is where I disagree, there is no depth to any of the characters on TBBT, it's their persona you are laughing at, or the creators portrayal of the "nerd" persona. Like I posted earlier, it's only funny to people who aren't nerds, but know a few. They hear them spew lines about the nerdy things these people do, whether it be their profession, hobbies, video games, etc. follow it up with a 'bazinga', ???, profit. Seinfeld, Curb, Sunny, those are all shows that actually build upon the nuances of the characters themselves. You will see references to the character development of someone like Dennis in season 2 all the way down the road in season 8, while TBBT maintains a serial nature where you are supposed to wipe your memory clean that each character exists from episode to episode each week.

 

[Senser81]

This is where I disagree, there is no depth to any of the characters on TBBT, it's their persona you are laughing at, or the creators portrayal of the "nerd" persona. Like I posted earlier, it's only funny to people who aren't nerds, but know a few. They hear them spew lines about the nerdy things these people do, whether it be their profession, hobbies, video games, etc. follow it up with a 'bazinga', ???, profit. Seinfeld, Curb, Sunny, those are all shows that actually build upon the nuances of the characters themselves. You will see references to the character development of someone like Dennis in season 2 all the way down the road in season 8, while TBBT maintains a serial nature where you are supposed to wipe your memory clean that each character exists from episode to episode each week.

I don't see how Seinfeld built upon the nuances of the characters in a way that was different than other sitcoms, so I am not really understanding that point. Perhaps you could provide some examples from Seinfeld. I agree there is no depth to any characters on TBBT and that you are laughing at their persona...but how is that different from any other sitcom?

If the reason you dislike TBBT is because of the lack of character depth, then I think you're expectations are too high for a 30-minute sitcom.

 

[Senser81]

Interesting as the way you described Sheldon is a pretty good way of describing the Kramer character.

But to me, Sheldon was more believeable. In a way, his behavior made sense. It was strictly logical. Kramer was too over-the-top for me. It was more forced, if that makes sense. He was just acting out to act out. I've known people who were a lot like Sheldon...I've yet to meet a person who was like Kramer.

 

[ralaw]

Sitcoms as a whole. I haven't consistently watched one since I was a kid....probably one of the TGIF shows. I've seen random shows of The Office, Seinfeld, etc and while they were okay I'd rather watch sports or a crime drama.

 

[Pitty]

I don't see how Seinfeld built upon the nuances of the characters in a way that was different than other sitcoms, so I am not really understanding that point. Perhaps you could provide some examples from Seinfeld. I agree there is no depth to any characters on TBBT and that you are laughing at their persona...but how is that different from any other sitcom?

If the reason you dislike TBBT is because of the lack of character depth, then I think you're expectations are too high for a 30-minute sitcom.

Character depth is supremely important to a sitcom, it allows the continuity of comedy and entertainment. Seinfeld had sufficiently deep characters such as Jerry (based on his obvious real-life personality), George (based on Larry David) and his inability to maintain a relationship, the influence of his family on his personality, etc.

A better example is from Sunny. Every character's humor is directly derived from their personality. Frank, the rich scumbag who strives to live as an urchin, scheming and plotting against his family and friends. Mac, never loved by his father, puts his faith blindly in the church and is questionably gay because of the former. Dennis, a narcissist and sociopath who's manipulation often drives the plot. Charlie, of course, the loveable idiot, who is a savant in many categories, coming up with 'unique' solutions to lifes problems.

In both shows, you never feel the humor is created by what they are meant to represent, rather it is created from the character/personality/interactions themselves. Sitcoms don't need to be canned laugh lines like in TBBT, they can have depth and I expect it.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

This is where I disagree, there is no depth to any of the characters on TBBT, it's their persona you are laughing at, or the creators portrayal of the "nerd" persona. Like I posted earlier, it's only funny to people who aren't nerds, but know a few. They hear them spew lines about the nerdy things these people do, whether it be their profession, hobbies, video games, etc. follow it up with a 'bazinga', ???, profit. Seinfeld, Curb, Sunny, those are all shows that actually build upon the nuances of the characters themselves. You will see references to the character development of someone like Dennis in season 2 all the way down the road in season 8, while TBBT maintains a serial nature where you are supposed to wipe your memory clean that each character exists from episode to episode each week.

Terribly inaccurate assessment. Just about every single point is weird or flat out wrong. I dont understand how you would have any idea what the character development is if you dont watch the show or have only seen a few episodes.
If you do watch it why would you if you continue to do so if you think its so terrible ?
Masochist or contrarian the people wanna know.

 

[Pitty]

Terribly inaccurate assessment. Just about every single point is weird or flat out wrong. I dont understand how you would have any idea what the character development is if you dont watch the show or have only seen a few episodes.
If you do watch it why would you if you continue to do so if you think its so terrible ?
Masochist or contrarian the people wanna know.

Lol, I watched 2.5 seasons, then I stopped because it sucked. The first season wasn't awful, every one after got progressively worse.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

But to me, Sheldon was more believeable. In a way, his behavior made sense. It was strictly logical. Kramer was too over-the-top for me. It was more forced, if that makes sense. He was just acting out to act out. I've known people who were a lot like Sheldon...I've yet to meet a person who was like Kramer.

I loved both. Some of my favorite sitcom characters ever. Agreed totally on Kramer but for me that was his appeal. As I got older I realized more and more how insane Michael Richards choices were and he nailed it.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Lol, I watched 2.5 seasons, then I stopped because it sucked. The first season wasn't awful, every one after got progressively worse.

You said every lame joke ended in Bazingas.....then say you stopped at 2.5 seasons yet Sheldon didnt start Bazingas until season 3.

 

[Pitty]

You said every lame joke ended in Bazingas.....then say you stopped at 2.5 seasons yet Sheldon didnt start Bazingas until season 3.

2.5 seasons have to be continual? Jesus you're fucking dense. I hear Justin Beiber is pretty popular, guess I'm just a contrarian because I think he sucks. Because that is the equivalent to a Chuck Lorre produced sitcom.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

2.5 seasons have to be continual? Jesus you're fucking dense. I hear Justin Beiber is pretty popular, guess I'm just a contrarian because I think he sucks. Because that is the equivalent to a Chuck Lorre produced sitcom.

Guess not. Most people who say theyve watched two and a half seasons and the first season sucked actually mean they just watched 60 random episodes which accumulated to the equivalent of 2.5 seasons.:yao:
Dont take your weirdo opinions and this thread so seriously.

 

[Pitty]

Guess not. Most people who say theyve watched two and a half seasons and the first season sucked actually mean they just watched 60 random episodes which accumulated to the equivalent of 2.5 seasons.:yao:
Dont take your weirdo opinions and this thread so seriously.

I watched all of the first season, about half of the second and then a few episodes here and there when people would tell me it was getting good. Who's taking what serious here? The thread is titled "what series do you dislike"? Not "What series do you love and anyone who doesn't like it must be a contrarian?"

 

[Senser81]

Character depth is supremely important to a sitcom, it allows the continuity of comedy and entertainment. Seinfeld had sufficiently deep characters such as Jerry (based on his obvious real-life personality), George (based on Larry David) and his inability to maintain a relationship, the influence of his family on his personality, etc.

I'm familiar with both shows, but I'm still not understanding how the Seinfeld characters were "deep" whereas the Big Bang characters are just personas. I can point to Big Bang characters who have an inability to maintain a relationship, the influence of family on their personality, etc.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your post correctly.

 

[Pitty]

I'm familiar with both shows, but I'm still not understanding how the Seinfeld characters were "deep" whereas the Big Bang characters are just personas. I can point to Big Bang characters who have an inability to maintain a relationship, the influence of family on their personality, etc.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your post correctly.

The wording I'm looking for, is that in the case of this show it doesn't feel like it naturally comes from the character, it feels ascribed to the character because of the view of a 'nerd'. I never once got the feeling, while watching Seinfeld, that any of the situations/jokes the characters were involved in seemed superficial or forced.

 

[Senser81]

I watched all of the first season, about half of the second and then a few episodes here and there when people would tell me it was getting good. Who's taking what serious here? The thread is titled "what series do you dislike"? Not "What series do you love and anyone who doesn't like it must be a contrarian?"

You said you liked Seinfeld because of its superior character development....come on. Even Jamie Dixon wouldn't have said something so ridiculous.

 

[Senser81]

The wording I'm looking for, is that in the case of this show it doesn't feel like it naturally comes from the character, it feels ascribed to the character because of the view of a 'nerd'. I never once got the feeling, while watching Seinfeld, that any of the situations/jokes the characters were involved in seemed superficial or forced.

OK, makes sense.

 

[Pitty]

OK, makes sense.

Further, I personally don't think a Situational Comedy needs zingers, and they become a detriment if used too often, which, unfortunately for Chuck Lorre, his go to joke is always a zinger.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Because that is the equivalent to a Chuck Lorre produced sitcom.

unfortunately for Chuck Lorre, his go to joke is always a zinger.

Pitty =

 

??

BTW when you groan and curse in a light hearted thread Ill assume youre taking things too serious.:feelbro:

 

[manchild24]

I started watching the Walking Dead and the first two episodes started out a little blah for me but the show is starting to come around. Im watching more because I want to see what the big deal is.

 

[Palooza]

I started watching the Walking Dead and the first two episodes started out a little blah for me but the show is starting to come around. Im watching more because I want to see what the big deal is.

There isn't one.