[lionheart]

I don't know. In my personal opinion those critiques are overly critical.

My circle of friends is pretty much exactly like the main characters in the show. Nerdy, 20-something PhD guys that play board games and watch sci-fi. A few were actually almost as bad as Raj in not being able to say a word when a woman was around.

And I love the show. Loved it as soon as it came out just because it reminded me so much of my friends. And I don't feel like the characters are meant to be laughed at.

So, just to say, there's more than one perspective on this.

[stormbrew]

I agree with this. Insofar as you're supposed to laugh at the characters, I think it's true of pretty much all sitcoms. Sitcoms are almost always about broad stroke "laugh at yourself, because you are funny" kind of stuff.

But more interestingly, often people who hold up this argument are fond of bringing up The IT Crowd as a counterpoint to BBT on this front and... I just don't get it. The people in IT Crowd are basically awful human beings I can't sympathize with, in spite of existing in a vaguely similar world as they do. The characters on BBT feel much more sympathetic to me. They're mostly trying to be good people at least.

[mturmon]

People who think the show is not "close enough" to real life don't know enough elite physicists or Caltech grad students/research scientists. Even within the world of tech PhD's (a small community in the scheme of things), Caltech is especially unusual. I have been impressed that the creators of the show can capture some of that oddness and make a go of it for a mass audience.

The show does struggle with female roles. As does its real-life counterpart.

[Camillo]

I think the appeal of BBT is that some people like to see a reflection of their microcosm: they like to see people like them, situations like the ones they experience, references to things they like, etc.. It makes them feel relevant and part of an in-group.

It's the same appeal that xkcd has. 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. Indeed, BBT and xkcd are both full of nerd references, devoid of actual humor, and enormously popular.

[freyr]

>> 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 show whose jokes were targeted specifically to Caltech physics PhD students? Or even to self-identified nerds?

Think of it another way. The show is produced by Chuck Lorrie, the same guy who produced Two and a Half Men, which featured Charlie Sheen as a Malibu playboy. Did you think Two And A Half Men was written to appeal primarily to Malibu playboys? Would you consider that referential humor? Do you think Malibu bachelors got their panties in a twist because some of the jokes poked fun at the show's main characters?

Some of the characters on the show are quirky and flawed, and sometimes they're the subject of ridicule. Flip the channel to another sitcom. It's the exact same thing, but about jocks, or suburban families, or blue-collared delivery truck drivers.

Only the nerd community has enough of an ingrained victim mentality to take it personally, to think the show should be about them, or that jokes about nerds should be off limits.

[coldtea]

>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 which nowadays is more populous than ever, and it's not "the kiss of death" to indentity with anymore?

It's delluded to think the setting is not part of the targetting strategy and merely serves as a backdrop for the humor. That's not how TV works. The BBT is targeted for this crowd as much as Twilight is for teenage girls.

[freyr]

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.

[rhizome]

The way Chuck Lorre writes, the scripts could be transposed onto just about any combination of stereotypes you can imagine. Stereotypes are his game, and BBT could just as easily be shot with the Happy Days characters with the Fonz in the Penny role.

[coldtea]

>Right. You're the center of the universe

No; but you are at the center of a strawman.

Didn't the fact that I already wrote that "Twilight is targeted at teenage girls" stop you from writing all those dreadful "counter-examples" (as if I believed that the fictual setting of a show automatically and necesarrily determines the target audience?)

If I followed the strawman logic you accuse me of having, I'd have said "Twilight is targeted at vampires and girls having affairs with them". I did not.

As for your rude question, no, I'm just at the center of a big enough and profitable demographic -- geeks, semi-geeks, etc that have come out of the woodwork ever since the mid-nineties/early oughts, and for which tons of media content is produced, from J. Abraham's and Josh Whedon's stuff, to the nth comic book movie and down to Kevin Smith's Comic Book Men TV series.

The "counter-examples" that you provide, are workplaces and professions, that have served as generic backdrops for drama for ages. They are not about a specific demographic, and their content and references are not targeted at them. On a medical drama, for example, the content is all about relationships, tension, love affairs, etc, not the practice of medicine. They characters might as well be lawyers and the show would still work, whereas in BBT the content is all about the geek references, and nothing is generic and universal.

You even seem unaware of the fact that shows can be targeted a specific demographic, like, say, Friends created for 20-somethings, or Sex and The City created for 30+ women.

[freyr]

> Didn't the fact that I already wrote that "Twilight is targeted at teenage girls" stop you from writing all those dreadful "counter-examples"

No, merely reference Twilight is not enough because in majority of cases, a show about a certain type of characters is not necessarily targeted to that audience.

The gist of your argument is that since (1) geeks are more prominent in pop culture lately, (2) BBT is a comedy about geeks, then it follows that (3) BBT must be a show for geeks. Certainly that's possible, but where's the evidence? Another possibility is that the show is targeted towards people who know a geek (which is a much larger audience... essentially everyone).

> "in BBT the content is all about the geek references, and nothing is generic and universal."

I disagree. BBT is a comedy, and the content is the jokes, 99% of which, you don't actually have to be a geek to get (it certainly helps if you know a geek or are familiar with the geek stereotype).

Yes, BBT includes geek references. So what? Excuse the "dreadful counter-examples", but ER included medical references, MASH included military references, etc. That's required by concept of the show.

I think the most damning evidence against your claim is BBT's audience. It's a wildly successful show, yet so many self-identified geeks on Internet have problems with it (mainly the ones who think it should be a show just for them. Hmm.) So the burden of proof that it's actually a show specifically for geeks (but just happens to appeal to non-geeks) is on you. And you presented no evidence.

[dragonwriter]

> It's the same appeal that xkcd has. 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.

Humor is subjective. But just because what is funny to other people isn't funny to you doesn't make it "not humor", its just not humor that appeals to you.

[saraid216]

> 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.

I call them "tribal markers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics