Jump to content

wowbagger

Members
  • Posts

    1263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by wowbagger

  1. argh I meant 'first' as in it happened before Rajgate. Fixed now.
  2. I'm rather uncomfortable with throwing around words like 'rape'. Regarding 4X24, neither the writing or acting gives one to understand that Raj deliberately withheld information from Penny. Similarly, to my mind neither the writing nor the acting gives one to understand that there was a power imbalance between them because of the alcohol - specifically that the imbalance was in favour of Raj over Penny. Probably neither of them should have had sex while they were pissed. Probably neither was making good decisions. But we don't have enough onscreen evidence to suggest that alcohol led to a power imbalance because of which one person is a victim and another is a perpetrator. I think there's far greater canonical evidence to suggest that Leonard took advantage of a drunk Penny when they had sex in an earlier episode. If you think what happened in 4X24 was rape, then what do you think of a sober man having sex with a drunk woman? I agree with all who hate that the show put Penny in this position. Twice, for fuck's sake. There are so many layers of misogyny there that it sickens me to contemplate them. First, Penny has to be drunk to have on-screen sex with someone with whom she is not in a relationship. So she isn't allowed to exercise her libido on-screen without the mediation of alcohol or a long-term relationship. But if you object to people she trusts failing in a duty of care to her and/or themselves, it's somehow okay, because we've told you how she's a big old slag, right? Go fuck yourself, show. And BTW, I'm no fan of Raj and I am sick and tired of the 'Poooooooooor Raj' shit that gets chucked around to excuse his entitlement and shallowness.
  3. Interesting point, that. Concur on what a movable feast 'normal' is on the show. And I absolutely agree that Amy of late is allowed to be eccentric and bizarre primarily in the presence of the girls (I am even blanking on recent examples of her weirding out a male Designated Normal like Leonard like she used to do). A pity. There is room for Amy to say things that would make Sheldon look at her with a puzzled frown, and I do so like it when Sheldon is allowed to be the straight man. hell, I'd love ANY of the rest of the gang to be the weird ones while Sheldon is given a break from his antics. It HAS happened on occasion and it has invariably been delightful. I understand that Sheldon's usually the weird one, but maybe mix it up some more.
  4. it's an interesting point. I have often wondered to what degree the show tests and responds to audience reaction. And I certainly agree that arrogance and proud geekery are not rewarded in women to the degree that they are in men. but my hypothesis tends to be that the writers follow their broad vision for the show. However, their vision isn't unified. So for example some of the writers might want the gang to grow up, and some might not. Even the writers who want the gang to grow up might not agree on what 'growing up' means. Does it mean putting away unrealistic dreams and appreciating what you have? Does it just mean not going to Comic Con (eyeroll)? So we'll have a disconnect from time to time, or bizarre compromises that make no sense and send really strange messages (see the 'marriage of three' debacle of last season, juxtaposed with magically appearing/vanishing financial problems. Or that godforsaken 'sex once a year' gag that meant poor Bernie had to give birth to a five-year-old or something).
  5. I think the point about vocabulary is spot-on, as is the point about increased....laziness? Sloppiness in characterisation? (although to be fair this season has been rather better than many previous seasons on that respect). I agree with the examples you cite about Sheldon, and I'll add an example for Amy, another very cerebral character who was sanded off and dumbed down quite a bit. (again, this season has been much better than previous seasons). Here I am thinking of the very precise choice of words the writers used to give characters like Sheldon or Amy. Consider 'I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by one who takes attendance.', or 'I share your aversion to soiled hosiery'. Is it the specificity of her pomposity? The fact that the sentiment uttered isn't standard Hollywood Atheism, but genuine scientific procedural curiosity? The fact that we're trusted to unpack the layers of the exchange? The AV Club at one point remarked about Amy (this would be circa S4, maybe S5?) that the writers did this thing with her that they did with Sheldon, where every single word was just exquisitely chosen. And yes, I understand that both characters were socialised and what-have-you, and honestly i am fine with socialisation. For example, I enjoy Sheldon's bluntness but I actually have never enjoyed his dickishness*. but it seems a pity that socialisation seems to march hand in hand with dumbing down on the show. Incidentally, I'm not saying that there was a Golden Age of the show in which everything was perfect and no stupid or nasty jokes were ever made. Obviously that is not true. I'm just saying that the show, over time, has begun to coast more and more. And that laziness comes across in the coarsening, or non-specificity, of vocabulary choices. The show can still get it together and put across sharp, well observed bits of dialogue. But I do think that the writers frequently don't bother. And you just notice it more in later seasons because by that time expectations have been set. I'm sure there was plenty of sloppiness in earlier seasons too. It's just that it becomes noticeable in later seasons because by then there's been time for Flanderisation or for a once-beloved running gag to become an irritant and so on. You need time to build the crutches that later seasons will lean on. * I don't enjoy the dickishness because of the neediness it implies I.e. The need to establish dominance in a gathering. I much prefer him when he actually wants to understand what is going on but doesn't have the tools or inclination to wade through social niceties.
  6. Shenny? Shenny is so pre- financial crisis. Shelnard and Pamy, baby! Picture it: Penny, packing her bags, giving Leonard a watery smile and a final fond kiss on the cheek. Saying 'baby, you never could let go'. Picture the two of them walking out into the hallway to look at that ghastly portrait of Penny and Amy. Leonard smiling that lovely soft Leonard smile at Penny and saying 'You could never let go either'. Penny walking across the hallway with the portrait, to find Amy playing 'the way you look tonight' on the harp. triple knock at the door. Leonard opens to find Sheldon outside. 'Hi'. 'Hi'. Fade out. let's be honest: There's some canonical evidence to support the theory (waggles eyebrows). I am kidding, by the way. (or AM I?) ((yes, I am)) (((or AM I?)))
  7. I stopped watching HIMYM but I remember reading about the finale. YIKES.
  8. About a Lenny divorce: Hmmm. On the one hand, it would be genuinely rather brave of the show to dismantle the couple that drove so many of the show's long running plots for so long - from the pilot, even. And also to shrug and say 'hey, look, sometimes even people with sexual chemistry who love each other are better as friends.' And I confess I love Lenny when they are snarking and bantering and I could see that translate to friendship. on the other: Well, obviously it's awful for shippers of the two. And while i am not one, i can enjoy the pair. But if the show were to really make a case for Leonard and penny to be happier apart (but still friends), then I would go along with it. My problem is: I really do not trust the show to handle anything so delicate remotely well. Look at the reveal of that sodding Boat Kiss. Look at its aftermath. Ye Gods, no. No, I do not trust the show to show me Lenny's transition from married couple to friendly exes with anything like the grace or sensitivity you'd need.
  9. just doing a head-pop to say I was pleasantly surprised by the tag. The promo had me rolling my eyes all the way across the Channel. But the way it played out was actually quite charming. The promo definitely made it sound like 'oblivious Sheldon, frustrated amy' was in play. But when I actually saw it, neither really was true. Sheldon seemed to know very well what he was doing - in fact my favourite bit was actually the little 'erogenous joints' gag. And for her part Amy too seemed to see right through Sheldon. So instead of 'HAA HAA LOOK AT AMY'S DISAPPOINTED FACE' it was 'Sheldon flirts, Amy is all 'yeah, nice try, bucko'.' A MUCH more pleasant dynamic. As to the rest: I, like 2L, am a little saddened that only Sheldon is the holdout for Comic-Con. I'm also mildly irritated at the whole 'oooo look at this childish fringe event the boys are outgrowing!' thing. Come on, show. Whom do you think you are kidding?
  10. thanks for the lovely detailed TR, 2L! I hope you had a lovely time! as to the episode itself: Hmmmmm. I have to confess that my first reaction to reading 2L's summary and then TR was: Yeah, this is why some people might groan at the thought of a renewal. Because this season has actually done a decent job moving most of the characters along. It's made a good fist of dealing with the pregnancy, even though Bernie is apparently a mutant elephant and nobody thought to tell us. The shake -up in the living arrangements has breathed fresh life into the shamy dynamic for the most part, and as a bonus we've had some really lovely scenes with PAmy and pamydette. Lenny suffered greatly in comparison, but I don't think lenny's being written significantly worse this season than it has been for...ouf, a while now. It is, however, noticeable that the show is stalling with them in comparison to many other characters. I wondered a little whether all this movement and freshness was because the showrunners knew they only had a few more weeks of the show, so they could just use up all their ideas. But I largely ignored the thought. And then came news of the renewal and a string of wheel-spinning, at-least-mildly irritating episodes. And I know correlation is not causation, but it is a bit hard to look at this latest TR and not think 'damn you, renewal-engendered complacency!' okay, it's going to take a while to unpack the things that intrigue me and the things that bother me about these plots, so let's make a list: a ) Raj:. Run, Kunal nayyar. Run. This late in the game, and all these writers can think of to do with your character is to bus you from house to house like a foundling. Never mind the implausibility of Raj's financial situation. Show, if you want us to buy that an academic in a not-particularly-deluxe-looking flat is broke, you have to play up his extravagance in other arenas in a sustained way. You have to give him bling and Lamborghinis and a new big screen TV every week and Swarovski feeding bowls for his dog and Bollinger in his Smeg fridge. You do not, for example, have him wandering the countryside looking like my maths teacher growing up. A maths teacher who managed to limp through life entirely solvent, by the way. It is a bit late in the day to hurriedly tell me in an episode that raj is extravagant, when you have taken no pains to SHOW me that he is. The occasional extravagant gift for his girlfriend? Hell, Leonard bought his girlfriend a car and his other great love a 4000 USD trip to a train something-or-other! And apart from his magically reappearing/vanishing student debt, Leonard manages to get by, yes? b ) women, amirite? Another episode where women are largely around to tut and sigh and be vaguely affronted by their menfolk. Bernie with Mister Paper Towels, and Amy with Sheldon's Batman whatever and his shitty anniversary gifts or her being disturbed at an actually quite sweet zombie dessert declaration that in quite a few other episodes I am fairly sure she would take in the spirit in which it is meant. And again, nobody is saying that women need to love every single thing their menfolk do. But I would quite like the show to mix it up more often and let the women have the crazy quirky decorating suggestions while the guys look perplexed. It was nice that penny went hogwild with the pink that one time. How about Amy wanting a harp in that tiny flat while Sheldon says '....er....'? Or Bernie wanting to convert a room into a lab? Something? c ) well, I suppose there was ONE exception. Pop psychology with Beverly Hofstadter! And just - oh, brother. Did anyone else get the feeling that all that blether about escape hatches and contingencies felt like the writers talking about themselves, rather than the couples? To be fair, they have somewhat accurately identified their own malaise with Lenny. The writers do indeed seem to struggle to write Lenny without a buffer. I might be vaguely optimistic if I weren't grimly certain that nothing concrete would ever come of it. And if I didn't see that the same explanation were being liberally daubed over Sheldon's pathologies. Right. Because the Man With A Thousand Contracts is apparently so terrified of commitment that he needs an escape hatch. And it is all so unnecessary, moreover. The seventh episode concisely and clearly diagnosed Sheldon's issues with moving. Moving is a change. Sheldon does not like change. Done! Simple! Why the zeal to pretend that lenny's problems are Sheldon's problems and vice versa? I would have more sympathy if the issue were more that Sheldon is worried about being burnt in his relationship and so looks on 4A as a contingency. Which is, thank heavens, what Amy said. It's nice that Amy is allowed a moment of clarity and acuity, but why not let her say so to Beverly instead of panicking and running around like a headless chicken? I love Christine Baraski, but this insistence on making Beverly seem some sort of omniscient puppetmaster in this episode seems rather irksome.
  11. Okay, there's a few things going on here. Let's start with the bits of your post I agree with. I think I mentioned that I disliked the push/pull of Seasons Six, Seven and the back half of Season Nine? And also that I understand calling that misogynistic? So you can assume that I hate any gags of the 'Sheldon says something that might be construed as leading to greater sexual or romantic intimacy, Amy gets excited, rug gets pulled out from under our feet, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA'. And I absolutely agree that the campus rape gag was heinous. I have, I assure you, ranted about that on this very forum. And am happy to rant about it again. Where I'm slightly puzzled is your seeming insistence that this dynamic is made worse because of Amy's....frumpiness? Lack of conventional sex appeal? I can see that nasty stereotypes about women abound. I understand that popular culture all too often ties a woman's worth to her appeal as a sexual object. But I would have thought the 'HAHA, look at Amy's disappointed face' dynamic was infuriating and sexist, even if Amy looked like Audrey Hepburn. I would have thought it infuriating and sexist, because it was reducing a woman to the role of passive handmaid or nag. Which I absolutely accept are horrible stereotypes that should be drowned in a well. It is the reduction of a person to a singular dimension that I object to. Whereas you seem to object to the depiction of....sexual desire? Stridently expressed sexual desire? Unrequited sexual desire? Sexual desire harboured by a woman who is not conventionally attractive? Is it the fact that it seems unrequited for so long to which you object? That Amy is frumpy? Both? Neither? At least from my perspective, a female character is allowed to pursue even calamitous and undignified romantic/sexual entanglements, if that is not the entirety of her characterisation. I objected to the reduction of dimensions of Amy's character for ....ooooh, far too much of the show's run. I couldn't enjoy her when almost all she represented to me was a sad sack waiting for her man to grow up and throw her a bone. For the simple reason that a one-dimensional character (male or female) grows old very very fast. But while she's allowed to be cerebral and snobbish and terrifyingly into all things mediaeval or whatever, I don't object to whatever level of libido she carts about, or whatever level of delusion she cherishes about her irresistibility. Or at least, I'd need more information before I object on the grounds of feminism.
  12. HA! Bless him. I don't know, there is something inordinately funny to me about any of the boys dissing any of the others' manliness. I mean, they're none of them The Hulk, you know? Also, why a butterfly as a marker of sexlessness? Butterflies actually are sexed (as in, there are male and female butterflies). Also, I'd assume that a butterfly that has managed to pass on its genetic material probably gets quite a lot of action, relative to its lifespan. Anyone want to weigh in? I googled 'butterfly sexuality' and got some very strange results.....
  13. Okay, let us parse this. Incidentally, I am not unsympathetic to the notion that there is some misogyny in seasons six, seven and (especially) the back half of season nine, where Sheldon and amy's dynamic was defined less by a meeting of the minds, than by the push/pull between them. I have ranted about this at some length. But let's take the characteristics you list, one by one: a ) sex-starved woman: There are two things going on here: One is whether we are really invited to think that Amy's libido is all that high, and two, whether that is automatically misogynist. as to the first , I invite you to step into the Shamy thread for an exhaustive discursus on whether and to what extent Amy's libido is actually all that high. Yes, the show talks more about her libido than it does about the other female characters. Because the show thinks it is HILARIOUS that anyone should fancy Sheldon. And because Amy, particularly as first introduced, had no filter and the show could get mileage out of her unfiltered confessions rendered in gynaecological HD. HOWEVER. We are still contemplating a female who was introduced taking coitus off the table. Who was put off enough by a hunk of beefcake's oafishness that she said 'nope' after her first libidinal stirrings after some decades. as to the second: Say Amy is as randy as a boxful of marmosets on a Spanish Fly diet. So what? This is only misogynist if you believe either that sexual desire is bad, or that females specifically should not have it - or should only have it if they have established their worth as sexual objects? b ) with no sex-appeal: Leaving aside that sex appeal is hardly an objective measure, are we implying that it would be somehow better if Amy looked like Angelina Jolie (I don't know - enter your own ideal of feminine sex appeal here) , energetically pursued Sheldon, and was de facto rebuffed in the face of his obliviousness? Would it be somehow more of a victory for feminism? where I have SOME sympathy with your point, is if you say that the show is somehow implying that it is AMY'S fault that Sheldon is not interested. But here's the thing: Sheldon has had pretty girls throw themselves at him on-screen, and he has been resolutely oblivious. And on the flip-side, the show has been generally careful to imply that if there is a 'fault', it lies with Sheldon, not Amy. For example, she has excited sexual and romantic interest from other chaps. It was only in the back half of season nine that I thought the dynamic really flirted with the ugly one you imply. Where, post coitus, the show couldn't seem to think of better gags than to have sheldon hint at something sexy and then effectively go BAZINGA! While the show displayed a hitherto-unprecedented fascination with Amy's body-hair and conventional markers of feminine repulsiveness*. And, as I say, I ranted about it at length. c ) a man with no sex drive: Oooooohhhhhh boy, I'd suggest donning the hardest hat you can find. I'm not going to go there. I'm just going to say that whatever sexual or romantic drive the fellow has displayed on-screen has been directed at Amy. I have no idea if it registers on your personal scale or whatever, but this is the empirical evidence we have on-screen. *Fuck you, conventional markers.
  14. and in the meantime - and I really cannot believe that this needs to be reiterated so fucking often - it is possible to enjoy BOTH characters, Penny AND Amy.
  15. the season eight finale definitely made the boat kiss sound more mutual than I'd be comfortable with. Leonard used the ambiguous 'there was kissing' as opposed to 'she kissed me' (tensor, correct me if I am wrong). And did the show clear that up in the subsequent episodes? As in: Do we know that Mandy launched herself at Leonard and his only crime was not pushing her away fast enough? I thought that 'there was kissing' and in any case the real problem was that Leonard sat on the information for two years, omitted to tell penny that his tonsil buddy was his colleague, and that he was kind of a defensive douche when she (correctly) called him on his behaviour. also, the discussion about what does and does constitute cheating shows a puzzling tendency to involve the wronged party's behaviour or history. If you believe that kissing does not mean cheating, then surely you believe that irrespective of how unpleasant or slutty or dumb or whatever you consider the cheated-upon person. Similarly, if you DO think kissing is cheating, then surely you believe so irrespective of whether the wronged party has engaged in similar behaviour in the past?
  16. I guess my thing is not that Amy and Sheldon have to love everything the other does. It is more that a ) the show seems to portray interests such as trains and comic con as some sort of adorable infantile pursuit that may be indulged, but should really be outgrown. b ) and moreover, that said interests are harboured disproportionately by the guys c ) and basically that an engine of the plot rather too often is that the partners don't get the other's interests. and honestly the show can do better. This season, Shamy have been written frequently with more freshness and they've been allowed to have specific interests, or even to let the other person go away and do things they enjoy without implying an exhausted eyeroll or a disparaging remark or whatever.
  17. the teasing in the tag made me roll my eyes, frankly. It came off as that exhausted old chestnut of 'sheldon says a thing that could be construed as leading up to sex, Amy gets all excited because apparently she has had a head injury and has forgotten that Sheldon doesn't do innuendo*, and BAZINGA!' Combined with the no less exhausted narrative trope of 'one partner wants to do a thing, the other partner does not enter into their interests. Because tee hee, men and women or something.' Oh yes. How very fresh and exciting. Be still my ovaries. Etcetera. *except when he is trying to seduce her, in which case a number of appallingly direct suggestions will have been made first anyway.
  18. heeheehee!!!! Now, to be clear, I do think the show means us to think that Sheldon and Amy have had penis-in-vagina sex. You know - real sex (eyeroll). BUT. I confess I would crack up if I discovered that all along both these highly educated people thought that 'sex' meant 'bouncing up and down on the bed and making 'uh uh' sounds'. With, okay, their bloomers off. That would slay me.
  19. @sarah7, I suspect there's a bit of a syllogism in the reasoning there. I don't disagree with many of your basic propositions, but I can't follow you to some of the inferences you draw. Regarding Shamy and coitus specifically: Proposition 1: The showrunners frequently tank Amy's characterisation in service of whatever story they want to tell for Sheldon. Here I agree*. Proposition 2: No woman with a 'normal' libido would stick around for a relationship with Sheldon, particularly in the absence of the shared interests and intellectual companionship of their early days. Here again I agree. Inference: Therefore, Amy is a woman with a normal libido, whose desires are being suppressed or at least handwaved by the showrunners in service of Sheldon. And this is where I must respectfully disagree. I don't think you can draw this conclusion from propositions 1 and 2. This is like saying 'all dogs are animals, some dogs have spots, therefore all animals have spots'. The first and second clauses are true, but you need a lot more information before you can make the claim in the third clause. Specifically, I think we need to support the claim that a substantial part of Amy's satisfaction in her relationship with Sheldon stems from sexual intimacy, and that she needs more than she gets. And I would argue that neither seems to be true. 1) Amy may fancy Sheldon - and it is true that of all the women on the show, Amy is the one whose desire has been articulated more often than the others. Unfortunately, at least a little part of that I suspect came from mocking the frumpy girl, or more charitably what the showrunners consider the sheer absurdity of anyone fancying Sheldon (as @April points out). 2) Amy's sexual dissatisfaction tended to be bundled together with a number of other issues, mostly centring around Sheldon's general selfishness/rudeness** and a lack of the fun the pair used to have. Now, it makes perfect sense to me at least that, once the showrunners started writing the pair as more in sync intellectually, the issue of sexual desire both resolved itself and became less salient. But in general the frustration about sex and romance also tended to occur in seasons when a lot of other stuff was wrong with the relationship. 3) All of which is to say: would Amy like more sex, maybe? She might. Do I think that sex is particularly important to her? I don't actually think so. And especially not if the relationship is fun in other ways. *I also think the showrunners frequently tank Sheldon's own characterisation in service of whatever story they want to tell, but that is a separate issue. **You don't need me to say that I think Amy's own unrealistic expectations, passive aggression, immaturity and poor communication contribute to the issue. But I'll say it anyway.
  20. I would agree with the point that if it is not in character for someone to be happy or complaisant about a state of affairs, then we can't let the showrunners get away with simply telling us that the character is happy, or is not unhappy. And I also do understand that there is a tendency of Shamy plots to serve whatever the writers think Sheldon needs as a character. And that can be frustrating for fans of Amy or in general good writing. Where I disagree is that Amy has such a high libido. What we have observed is that she didn't use to have a filter. She used to talk about masturbation - initially clinically, and then exuberantly. In the first case (cf. Sheldon and Amy's first date, with poor Penny in tow), I remind you that Sheldon joined in with the discussion of Amy's subjecting herself to experiments, and Sheldon's camp. And yes, I'm sure the world would think of Amy's experiences as more valid sexual experiences, but I submit that the issue here is not that Amy's more experienced than Sheldon or that she has more interest. The issue here is that both impersonal experiences are discussed by Sheldon and Amy with exactly the same clinical detachment. Amy could have had penetrative intercourse, Masters-and-Johnson style, with the entire neuroscience department of Harvard, and he and Amy would likely have discussed it the same way. In the second case, what we know is that Amy wanted to join in with girl bonding rituals. Penny was her first crush on the show, and is still the one who's had the most influence on her. @April and @mirs1 have already noted that 'wanting to join in with what you think of as girl talk and 'grown-up' stuff'=/= 'being ready to go all the time. or most of the time. or even a lot of the time.' I'll only add that on many of the occasions where Sheldon's initiated contact (Locomotive Manipulation kiss, Indecision Amalgamation kiss, Brain Bowl seduction), Amy has tended to perform a remarkably convincing impersonation of a wax effigy. Which is not to say that she doesn't want Sheldon, or anything like that. It does, however, suggest that she might be more comfortable talking the talk than walking the walk. And also maybe that she prefers being in the driver's seat?
  21. Seriously. If you enjoy the couple, then you probably enjoy loads of other things about them. If you don't enjoy the couple, surely you're sick to death of that discussion. Either way: let it go, show.
  22. Oh yes. As I say, I do think the show should drop it, because clearly the show seems to think that the frequency of intercourse is some sort of issue. And I am a little worried that the showrunners will think that, so long as they insist that Shamy have sex once a year and That is Weird Haha, then they can let the rest of Shamy's characterisation slide. As in: they'll let the science arguments and both Sheldon and Amy's pointed eccentricities go. Because hey! Once a year sex! They're still weird and different! Tee-hee! Get rid of that pathetic little crutch, show. By which I don't mean that the Shamy need to go at it like jackrabbits. I mean that I'm good with not hearing that 'once a year' gag again. Ever.
  23. I feel like a number of issues might be getting conflated here. Let me lay out my own position as clearly as I can, speaking for nobody else. It might help to clarify why some things bother some of us and not others. I was never interested in the frequency with which Sheldon and Amy had penetrative intercourse. My concern was always sexual DESIRE. What I mean by that is: Do Sheldon and Amy FANCY each other? Does the other's speech/actions/proximity induce elevated heart rate, dilated pupils, and/or a desire to engage in physical contact? That contact could be kissing or all those tedious bases. It may include penetrative intercourse, or it may not. It may be predicated on the other's physicality, or it may not. And, based on those parameters, I am mostly satisfied. Science arguments get the two worked up. Logic Moebius strips make Sheldon randy. Harry Potter cosplay makes him go 'wowza!'. Other examples that others will point out. BUT. If one is of the opinion that only penetrative intercourse counts, then I get that these examples don't address the issue. Also, on a separate note, I do think that the show should get rid of its obsession with the once a year thing. Not because I think it's such a big deal, or because either of the two principals in the relationship think it's such a big deal. But because THE SHOW seems to think it is a problem, and - well - physician, heal thyself. You think there's something weird about shamy not having sex more than once a year? Well they are two consenting adults who share a bed. Sheldon wanted to slip his cooper up amy's Farrah fowler in her lab. So go forth, my pretties, and make merry. Nobody cares. If it bothers you, show, you have the power to fix it. If you don't want to do anything about the situation, fantastic. But then maybe stop loudly talking about it like it's a problem. You want Sheldon and Amy to be unique? They are two brainy snobs who geek out about renaissance dancing and vexillology. They get hot and bothered about whose scientific rigour is the rigourest. Their coital frequency? Not on the list. Trust me. So long as they are shown to enjoy each other and we are shown WHY they enjoy each other, they can fuck, or not, as often as they like.
  24. I raised an eyebrow at Penny's 'You made me live with Sheldon' as well. I love Penny and I will always be Team Penny, but girl, what the hell. You offered. Sheldon is your surrogate brother too. At no point has the show suggested that it was ever more Leonard's idea than your own. Come the fuck on. That said, I do think Lenny have difficulty communicating, but I'm not holding my breath that the show will ever treat that seriously as a plot point and have the couple work on it. Not when poor communication is such a cheap and easy way to drive whatever conflict the writers need momentarily. And - sigh - not when it can be used to drive Sheldon's Epiphany Of The Moment. And yes, I am saying this as someone who really enjoyed the Shamy this episode. As to the rest: the Raj Focus Group thing was a potentially interesting idea that suffered from that relentless edit, edit, edit and the micro-scenes the show specialises in nowadays. Howard's dry asides were terrific. As to the end scene with Howard and Raj: now, this was really interesting to me because of how low-key it was. The show was playing it as two people thinking about what they would be like as a couple, without incessantly driving an elbow into our ribs and saying 'BUT THEY ARE BOTH MEN! WHICH MEANS THE COUPLE WOULD BE A GAY COUPLE! TWO HOMOSEXUALISTS! CHECK! US! OUT!!!!!!!!!!!' And that matter-of-fact approach was in itself really refreshing.
  25. I agree with you about the implications of the Opening Night Excitation in the light of the back half of Season Nine. It was part and parcel of what I thought of as a general nastiness and mean-spiritedness of the show at that time. In this season, however, starting from the fourth episode, I think the writers have course-corrected. The big thing that tips me off there, is the scene in the fourth episode where Sheldon and Amy are having their science argument, culminating in a make-out, albeit offscreen. That, to me, remains the biggest flag held up to the audience saying 'We got this. We fucked up, but we've got this now.' I think that sequence is relevant to this discussion for the following reasons: 1) Sheldon and Amy are being allowed to display cerebral interests and jargon; 2) In other words, in that moment, they are speaking in their own language. Obviously, we understand it, but the connotation is that they have entered their own world, while Lenny are watching; 3) Sheldon and Amy are challenging each other and shown to enjoy the challenge; 4) In fact, Sheldon provokes her into that dynamic; 5) And, of course, they get all worked up and power-walk out of there (note Sheldon's peremptory jerk of the head) to make out. And there is no indication that anything is being done here out of obligation or duty or anything other than Slap Slap Kiss. Sheldon and Amy are being allowed to display the braininess and eccentricity that drew me to them in the first place. Along with the exuberant, lofty intellectual snobbery that goes with the package. And the willingness to gambol into their own world with their own language and their own dialectical rules, leaving the Muggles beneath their chariot wheels. Those were the things that first drew them to each other too. So how fitting that it is a sequence like that with which the show signals The New Normal. As to The Brain Bowl: well, I am in the camp that Sheldon was so inflamed by his and Amy's act of creation that he wanted to continue the good work. He could have suggested IVF, but he wanted to bend her over the table then and there. That seems to betoken desire over and above reproduction, no? But even if you disagree about that: the reason that I am comfortable that Sheldon does desire Amy? Is that this season, instead of telling me that so-and-so unlocks the other's heart or whatever, we have been shown, multiple times, why the two would love and desire each other. In ways that have little to do with love or romance. Fun With Flags, eccentricity, philosophical discussions..it's been a while since I saw these two enjoy each other quite so much.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.