• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


wowbagger last won the day on March 12

wowbagger had the most liked content!

About wowbagger

  • Rank
    Senior Executive Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,086 profile views
  1. so he did! Sorry, tonstar!
  2. Late to HipGate, but a few things: a ) heh, 22 degrees is really comically low b ) what I wouldn't have given for Amy to say the 22 degree thing and for Penny to stare narrowly at her and exclaim 'I'VE PLAYED TWISTER WITH YOU, YOU LYING HUSSY! ALL RIGHT, IT IS JUNIOR RODEO ON.' And, like, plonk Amy onto the back of some mettlesome Mustang or something just to teach her not to fib. 'I know you've deceived me, now here's a surprise..... I can see for miles and miles and miles (gotta keep with the Who theme) c ) all that chat and nobody seems to have made a 'hips don't lie' crack? Y'all are better people than I am....
  3. theoretically, you COULD lose Bernie without losing new improved Howard. Why would divorce or even widowerhood automatically reverse seasons of development? Simon Helberg actually did a good job of suggesting that the loving husband and father we see now always existed in potentia beneath the Pick Up Artist Skeeve of yore. similarly, I am really puzzled at the notion that it is That Succubus Amy who has wrought such a disastrous change in Steely Olympian Sheldon. This mythical robotic Sheldon whom you (impersonal 'you') could always enjoy in the show in your (impersonal 'your') mind. And who bears scant resemblance to the emotional, inappropriately-open, blunt creature on, you know, the actual screen. It's not Amy who's changed the guy. It is not the necessity of sustaining a relationship that has made him - what? - not the robot he never actually was? It's not Sheldon's HEART that has changed. It is Sheldon's vocabulary that has been sanded off, perhaps, and the greater quotient of dickishness in his behaviour, maybe. Those are functions of increased laziness in the writing, maybe. The almost inevitable wear and tear and Flanderisation that you (impersonal 'you') observe in long-running sitcoms. and suppose there has been a change. Suppose Sheldon really is more emotional now. Are you arguing that that is because he is in a relationship? Or is it rather that he is in a relationship because the writers fancied making him more emotional? In other words, what if you (impersonal 'you') are mistaking correlation for causation? What if Amy were to be wiped off the show and Sheldon were to remain 'emotional'? You know, the way he was all through that breakup? I suspect that you (personal 'you') would be comforted by the reflection that you (personal 'you') need no longer look on a screen despoiled by Amy. And I would be happy for you (personal 'you') in that case. but shall we stop pretending that one character is the sole lynchpin of another's?
  4. I am reminded of stories of my mum and aunts going to the movies as girls and taking my uncle with them - for, as they put it, 'scarecrow value'. Some pipsqueak tried to harass my mum and aunts. The girls gave him a good ticking-off in chaste Kannada and English (neither of which the would-be harasser understood) and said scornfully to their big buff brother 'fat lot of use you were, scarecrow'. my uncle has never gone to the movies with his sisters since. Fifty years and counting. (obviously this is not to minimise harassment, or even the actual role that is expected of many big brothers in India and elsewhere. Just reminded of my uncle, still incredibly embarrassed by his sisters all those years later. And his indignant sisters.) was raj actually told he was responsible for priya? I don't remember. If he wasn't then I don't know if we can say 'indian brothers be like...'. 1 billion Indians, after all. At least 1 billion ways of BEING Indian.
  5. Big Bang's Little Bang? The Big Bang Corollary? The Big Bang Lemma? The Little Bang Theory? The Kid With The Two T-Shirts? (requires slightly specialised knowledge, that)
  6. Young Sheldon, eh? They're.....not even pretending to try, are they?
  7. I think for the story to have any sort of bite, we'd have had to see Beverley and Alfred interact, and we would have had to have a clear and sustained idea of Beverley nursing hurt beneath her clinical indifference. And even then, honestly why would we care all that much? I yield to no woman in my love of Christine Baranski, but in the context of the show I'm basically interested in what is going on with Beverley and Alfred only insofar as it affects Leonard (and by extension Penny). It's even harder to care when I have literally only met Alfred for the first time in the S9 finale, and the show hasn't done anything with Beverley and Alfred's interactions to suggest anything other than irritation - not in a passion-charged 'I hate you' way, but in an exhausted 'Oh here we fucking go' way. And, as you say, they didn't even do anything with the Mary/Alfred thing. The whole thing was a storm in a teacup. A cup with cold tea. That nobody actually ordered and nobody wanted to drink.
  8. Yeah, it was pretty mystifying who the audience was meant to be for that whole caper. How does one recurring character feel about another recurring character hooking up with another character introduced for the first time this episode? Tune in next season to find out! What effect will the possible liaison between their parents have on two characters who live together and already refer to each other as brothers? Tune in next season to find out! I mean, I might even have somewhat forgiven the show if it were going with the story of the Thawing of Ice Princess Beverley Hofstadter (only somewhat, though). But - um - not so much, eh? I mean, honestly, is there a viewer - regular or casual - who is so invested in the sexual shenanigans of the extended families of the show's main characters? Or is there a thriving community of Judd Hirsch/Laurie Metcalfe 'shippers out there? There may be, for all I know. And I guess they got their itches kinda sorta not-really scratched?
  9. To be fair, that line was actually not the most objectionable part of the Lenny plot in that episode - at least to me. The Central Casting Nerds objectifying Penny, and Leonard crowing over how he landed her (with an obviously miserable and uncomfortable Penny sitting behind him) is MY least favourite bit.
  10. For me (and I stress that I am speaking only for myself), my issue is not even that Leonard kissed Mandy. I loathe that he did it, and I absolutely consider it cheating, but look, everyone is allowed one drunken mistake. If he'd freaked out about it and told Penny immediately, I would have said 'yeah, it sucks and you're absolutely allowed to be angry, but it was one kiss, he clearly feels awful about it and he told you immediately.' but Leonard didn't follow that course, did he? Because - well - the showrunners had yet to come up with that brilliant plot twist. But okay, onscreen all we know is that Leonard says he kissed a girl who was not his girlfriend, said nothing about it for two years, and after he confessed, penny forgave him and they got married, he let slip the not-irrelevant detail that he sees the little chippy every day. And was pissy and defensive and not nearly apologetic enough about THAT little crime of omission. that's beginning to be my problem. but my biggest problem? Is that the show immediately bent over backwards to make it not be leonard's fault. His crime wasn't infidelity! His crime was self-sabotage! Leonard would never have had the guts to cheat before he was with Penny! So, in a way, it's kind of HER fault! (never mind that we were shown that leonard was contemplating cheating on Priya, yeah? Yeah). Leonard can never ever be guilty of a sin of commission or omission! Leonard's only crime is loving too much and daring too little! and that is MUCH more my problem. I am happy to root for Leonard even if he's done an awful thing, so long as he learns and grows from it. But when he is scooped up and clucked over and shielded from any serious moral consequence like the shittiest spoiled brat in school, I turn off. so I think it is a perfectly valid decision to say 'well, it's fine, penny forgave him'. I agree, she did, and that is what matters. But I can't help feeling that as far as the showrunners are concerned, it's not a question of forgiveness, so much as rewriting the law to say that no crime occurred. stupid Boat Kiss. Stupid, ugly, contrived, shittily-written, half-digested Boat Kiss. Blech.
  11. Well, you could argue that zuckerberg's hoodie and jobs's black turtleneck are dress codes in and of themselves...
  12. 'Once More, with Feeling' basically redeemed Season Six for me. Agree with the problem of the episode length, grrrr. oh man I would love, love, LOVE for ShAmy to have a 'Pasadena Scientist' song. Or -oo,oo! - in line with their 'snark improves cognition' storyline, a rap battle! 'You put the 'null' in 'null hypothesis'/ 'well, you put the 'fail' in 'fail to reject'!'/ 'Face it, I just took you to school, little lady'/ 'school? Where you got an 'f' in every subject?' and so forth.
  13. Ship Zone

    happy happy, Jonny! Have a fabulous day!
  14. yeah, look at portraits of Raleigh and so on. Velvet, silks, ruffs, EXTREMELY tight tights, pearl earrings...and there's still no question that the guy is an adventurer and a fighter and a jouster and can do some serious damage. If you look at the Regency era, that's where you can see the modern austere look for men get its start. But upper-class men were still expected to have beautifully-tailored and very expensive clothes. And they were still, you know, duelling and bare-knuckle-boxing and the like. Basically, fashion and more stereotypically 'masculine' activities weren't seen as incompatible. and I agree, there's still a money barrier but it's cheaper to express an interest in fashion. Probably there were always ways - it's just that the upper classes are better documented...
  15. and of course it is quite a modern idea that men aren't supposed to care about their appearance and clothes and whatnot. Up until the mid-19th century in western countries, there was no social stigma attached to men caring about clothes and grooming (in fact, the opposite). The only barrier was money, not gender.