This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Is it possible to work in mentions of The IT Crowd and Spaced here? They seem relevant, in that (particularly The IT Crowd) they are sitcoms about geeky people, but I don't really know what would be a usual way of working them in. Or even if it's acceptable to do so. It just seems like someone looking this up might want to know about them. And they are much funny, full of actual geeky humour, but that's probably not relevant :)
- Maybe we could make a new trope, called lolaspergers or some such.
Could someone who is a fan of the show and endorses the Fan-Preferred Couple of Sheldon/Penny explain WHY!? This troper, who is a huge fan of the show, can't see it AT ALL. Sheldon barely qualifies as a human being, let along a romantic partner for Penny. Please, I'm begging, explain why you like this. — Talyn
- I'm at a loss to understand it myself, unless it's hoping for the most extreme version of opposites attracting.
- I don't really get it either for two reasons: 1) Sheldon is an asexual Jerkass and he's hilarious that way, why would you want to change that? And 2) Two nice moments probably isn't enough basis for a great couple. Also, could someone tell me why these people think that Leonard is a worse human being than Sheldon? - emeriin
- Because Leonard, in the early episodes, comes off as if the writers have read all the discussions online about Nice Guys (tm) (<a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/05/xkcd-explains-nice-guys-in-comic-format/
">see this xkcd strip</a>) and carefully written a character entirely around the idea. - Doyle
- It's also because Jim Parsons and Kaley Cuoco have the best chemistry of the cast. Cuoco and Johnny Galecki work well as friends, but the romantic scenes come off pretty forced and awkward most of the time.
- Yeah, but that doesn't really explain why chemistry automatically equals a romantic/sexual realtionship for some people. IMHO, Penny and Sheldon's chemistry is essentially based on their relationship to Leonard, not each other. Penny and Sheldon, while at different ends of the spectrum in terms of archetypes, serve the same function to the plot as characters, which is to act as antagonists to the comparatively moderate, complacent protagonist Leonard; he in turn acts as an anchor for them. Or in other words, they drive the plot, but he establishes the premise that makes said plot driveable. Neither Penny nor Sheldon seem to have any romantic/sexual interest in each other, and only get along when their differences create gravity (e.g. Sheldon's child-like vulnerability acting on Penny's maternal instincts). While I can't say it's impossible, the whole idea of shipping Penny and Sheldon seems absurd to me, because if it ever happened on the show, it would displace Leonard, and would in turn ruin the dynamic that makes the Penny/Sheldon chemistry possible. (On an unrelated note: I have no life and there's seems to be something very wrong with my brain.) ~Laota
- Kvschwartz Well said. I agree. Except I would say Penny and Sheldon are foils, not Leonard's antagonists. (Although Sheldon has his moments.)
- In Classic Dramatic terms, antagonists are exactly what they are. In addition to serving as foils for him, their actions provoke Leonard into making choices that subsequently lead to him growing and changing as a person. They drag him out of his comfort zone and challenge him, especially Penny. It's what creates conflict, it's what made the whole premise. ~Laota — PS, I am Jeeves. Tell no one.
- All right, put Sheldon's asexuality as 'most definitely'. If anyone thinks that it's still up for debate, I'd love to hear it.
- Because Leonard, in the early episodes, comes off as if the writers have read all the discussions online about Nice Guys (tm) (<a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/05/xkcd-explains-nice-guys-in-comic-format/
Does anyone else see this show as Mark Cohen + Niles Crane + When Things Spin, Science Happens? ~Slvstr Chung
- ...Goddammit, now I'm seeing it. Although it's more like Niles if he were crossed with Spock and House, and take away all sexuality whatsoever. Thanks a lot. ~Turtleducks
It strikes me that potholing "Transporter Problem" to Teleporters and Transporters in the opening paragraph isn't all that helpful. A short explanation of what that problem is would be more helpful. Some mucking around on google has turned up at least 3 different transporter problems: a transporter breaking down (usually tied to star trek), making problems that transporters can't solve, and a more interesting philosophical question which is a bit difficult to phrase clearly and concisely (it revolves around if a transporter which destroys and reconstructs a person has moved the person or created a new person). Someone who actually knows which version they discuss should put a description in a hottip to avoid confusion in the future. — Mike
whitetigah: With regards to the recently-added bit on magnetic monopoles — should we include in the article that magnetic monopoles were not found through research at the North Pole but through analysis of a new material? It seems a bit pedantic to me, but maybe someone could enjoy the information.
Putting this here rather on the main page because it's natter, but on this point:
- Second: no one sabotaged the polar expedition, an act that would have gotten them fired. They fed Sheldon misleading data to made him think they had found scientifically meaningful results when in fact they hadn't, but they still recorded (and presumably published) their actual data.
Meddling with the Arctic data, whether they kept the original data or not, meant that Sheldon wasted months getting nothing when he could have been looking for a method that did work. Sure, he might not have been able to get results anyway, but their equipment-tampering ensured he wouldn't, and they knew that. How is that not sabotage?
—- Kvschwartz: If they actually damaged the equipment, then it may well count as "sabotage." I don't remember what the show said word for word, but my understanding was more that they wrote down (or typed up, or whatever) misleading data specifically and solely to keep Sheldon Locked Out of the Loop. As for "wast[ing] months getting nothing done" ... I think that ice-ship had long since sailed: Sheldon doesn't give up, doesn't back down, and doesn't admit to making mistakes. (Also, they were about ready to kill the guy, remember? I'd say even sabotage was the lesser of two evils.)
Moreover ... the entire expedition is a thousand-mile-wide case of Fridge Logic. Four cold-weather n00bs alone together in the Arctic, months on end, without even a doctor's assistant within a several-hour radius? What next, the four of them on a personal exploration of Ganymede? So if the expedition is not working even in-universe, for heaven's sake let them come back home and do something not quite as ridiculous.
Laota: I removed this - * Wall Banger: The plot of the episode "the Vengeance Formulation," concerns Howard being uncertain whether he wants to further a relationship, and considering not because she isn't attractive enough. This is in spite of the fact that she could easily pass as a model, and they obviously have further issues, such as having nothing in common, and her basically being a complete idiot. — as the wallbanger exists within the plot, as apposed to being created by it. Howard was willing to allow a perfectly lovely relationship slip through his fingers because he would've rather fantasize about beautiful celebrities than commit to a real woman. EDIT: Also, Howard's girlfriend is not "a complete idiot," she just has no sense of humor.
