Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by April

  1. 5 hours ago, shell said:

    Gotta admit, Kaley and Jim seem pretty close, too off screen Whenever there is a cast photo, a majority of the time Kaley is all over Jim 

    So much so that back in the day some ppl would ship them in real life (yeah, that... yikes) - ironically all the while Jim is gay and Kaley was in a relationship with Johnny. lol

    • Like 3

  2. 1 hour ago, hokie3457 said:

    This is me projecting, I'm sure, but in watching the interview for the Australian Today Show, it seemed that Kaley and Johnny were a bit more wistful about the show coming to an end than were Jim and Mayim.  It could be the way the interviewer asked questions and Kaley is frankly more inclined to hold on, but.....just a thought on my part....

    I remember the times when people were reading into body language during interviews and were convinced Johnny secretly hated everything and would be the one who'd cancel the whole show. Ah, youth! lol

    • Like 3

  3. 36 minutes ago, Swedish Chef said:

    In the real world, the scientists aren't supposed to know that they are nominated to a Nobel Prize, but it's clearly different in tbbt land.

    From what I understand of the process first everyone who's allowed to (a few thousand people in fact) can send in their suggestions and then the committee is picking like 250 - 300 potential laureates. In TBBT Shamy and the rival team know their names have been sent in by two sources - Siebert with Shamy (and presumably one of the scientists??) and whoever from Fermilab with the two scientists plus Sheldon. Since both teams were trying to sway the public/science community I assume we're still in the vetting period here. So far nobody has been announced to be a proper nominee, as far as I'm aware anyway.

    • Like 2
    • Penny Thumbs Up 1

  4. 15 minutes ago, Tensor said:

    The two may have been "fakers" when it comes to Super Asymmetry, and their experiment results providing support for it may have been an accident, but it's still their experiment that provided the support for Super Asymmetry.  Anderson's find of the positron was entirely by accident, but it still provided support for Dirac and won both of them a Nobel.  

    The crux of the story is that there are 4 scientists in the run for a prize that allows a maximum of 3 people and one of them being a "faker" with a reputation of plagiarism could affect the outcome over who gets the prize, specifically here that Amy would be included. I don't know if the vetting committee would take that into account IRL (was there ever such a case anyway?) but since plagiarism is an issue in the science community they might as well.

    • Like 4

  5. 6 minutes ago, Sah said:

    I want Leonard and Penny to move somewhere far away. Never to be heard from again. They have four kids, leaving Leonard delighted and Penny fat and miserable and resentful. Staring at each other over some counter top somewhere with still zero common ground. 

    There's your spin off right there! lol

    • Like 1
    • Haha 8

  6. 18 minutes ago, Andy_90's_generation said:

    and there's to keep in mind he really is very private, i mean he hasnt even post for his birthday at all... i think he is just away from IG in general. when i see the liked post by ppl i follow, he never appears there, so i think he is just not using IG. 

    Yeah, he is doing the bare minimum of posting a few promotional things once a week or so but not more. So I guess he's just not into IG these days.

    • Like 2

  7. Just now, joyceraye said:

    Thanks. I was going by the blurb above which says 'The concept of what it would mean for women everywhere if Amy were to win a Nobel Prize causes Amy to have a meltdown. ' 

    If Amy were to win it would be huge cause so few women have won the Nobel in physics. Like, she might not be the first to win but with only 3 women getting it prior the next one will be a big deal again. And it will probably always be a big deal until women winning will be normal instead of the exception.

    • Like 2

  8. 1 hour ago, joyceraye said:

    Amy looks to be at various stages of distress in the photos. Why would she have a meltdown ? What could she think her winning a Nobel Prize would 'mean for women everywhere' in a way that would upset her ? Women from all over the world have won them. She wouldn't be the first to win it with someone else, nor even the first to win it with a husband. I'm puzzled. Can anyone who saw the taping, or knows someone who did, explain ?

    I would think that this is self-explanatory for most people. There were only 3 women winning the Nobel prize in physics vs. 207 men. Across all categories there were only 52 women winning vs. 856 men. Do the maths. The discrepancy is abysmal.

    • Like 1

  9. 1 hour ago, Swedish Chef said:

    The nomination part of this Nobel story is just pure BS, it doesn't work like that at all IRL.

    IRL a selected group of a few thousand people can fill out a nomination form and send it in. The deadline is Jan 31st - so the show got that right. Then after that a committee sorts through those forms and selects the preliminary candidates. That seems to be the part the story is currently in cause we don't know yet if and who of the 4 are actually nominated.

    38 minutes ago, vonmar said:

    Specking for myself, I don't watch scripted television for "real-life".  I already have one of those.

    Do crime shows accurately portray the way the justice system works, do hospital shows accurately portray how medical institutions work.  No they don't.

    So I simply tune in, suspend my disbelief and enjoy the product that's being offered.

    It's always harder to suspend one's disbelief if you know more about the subject. See Neil DeGrasse Tyson watching anything sci-fi/space related and then bitch about the inaccuracies on twitter afterwards. lol

    But yeah, just as @djsurrey pointed out earlier: The show has always taken a lot of liberties with anything in the academic circus as long as they thought it serves their purpose. Yes, they made sure some random maths on a whiteboard in the background is accurate (or has neat in-jokes) and some science mumbo jumbo sounds correct but that's the extend of their fact checking. And not just since this season.

    • Like 2

  10. 1 hour ago, Drea97 said:

    I know, but those examples were not mentioned in the show. Since Amy was mentioned long before she entered the show, I just thought they might have done something with it. I don't think the show would have been worse, if the story about Blossom had been a way for Amy to get through school. It would have been almost the same I think. 

    They discussed the Back to the Future movies at least once very prominently so Christopher Lloyd definitely counts.

    And as said, I think a nice in-joke could have worked but I wouldn't want them to do that much more with it.

    • Like 1

  11. 7 hours ago, Drea97 said:

    In season one episode 13, Raj suggests to get "tv's Blossom", to help them with winning the physics bowl, because "she has a degree in neuroscience in real life" . So, if they all know who Mayim Bialik is, since she plays tv's Blossom, then why is she not recognized when she gets on the show as Amy?  When other famous people are playing themselves, such as will wheaton, then why is Amy not recognized as Blossom? Just a thought. 

    Cause sometimes they have to hire actors to play, you know, characters and not themselves. She's by far not the only one. Heck, she isn't even the most famous to come onto the show and play a random character. I think Christopher Lloyd was the most egregious example of getting a sci-fi icon... and then he plays a random bum for no reason. lol

    Anyway, a joke about how Amy looks like that girl from Blossom would have been a fun in joke but that's about it.

    • Like 1

  12. Get your facts straight. Things you're wrong about:

    8 minutes ago, JohnPhD said:

    Yes. This whole ghastly storyline seems designed to insult scientists and even science. Notice that having utterly rubbished theoretical physicists with Amy writing a theory that "revolutionises physics" in lipstick on a mirror on her wedding day,

    Sheldon was the one writing on the mirror with Amy's lipstick.

    8 minutes ago, JohnPhD said:

    and the theory being up for the nobel within weeks,

    So far they haven't even been officially nominated so all that's been done right now is throwing their names into the ring. A lot of the conflict in the Nobel storyline is due to the uncertainty of whether they're actually up for the Nobel or not and the resulting rivalry with the Fermilab guys.

    8 minutes ago, JohnPhD said:

    they've been careful to also rubbish expirimental physicists (previously looking good as represented by Leonard) by bringing in the cloddish experimentalists from Fermilab, who are shown as not understanding what they were doing. I believr TBBT once had a science consultant - I assume he's long gone.

    The science consultant was the one who came up with this. His name is Dr. David Saltzberg and he's still working there. From an interview with Holland from last year:

    Let's talk about Amy and Sheldon's "super asymmetry" discovery.

    Early on this season, knowing we were building to the wedding, I had this thought about Sheldon's breakthrough. I called our science consultant Dr. David Saltzberg and said that we wanted to have Sheldon to have a big breakthrough at the end of the season, something that could eventually be maybe be prize-winning or game-changing — and it had to feel like something real that no one has discovered before. We've been laying in Sheldon's work on string theory and Saltzberg was tying it into one of Stephen Hawking's theories posing if any information can escape a black hole, creating an information paradox regarding black holes. And he thought those two things could tie together. Saltzberg said super symmetry is an actual thing but no one has ever talked about super asymmetry. There are no papers that mention it, which is a line that we put in the script for Leonard. David was on set during the finale taping and wrote all the equations on the mirror to make sure the science was right.

    Is that an actual discovery or is this all made up for TV?

    It's all theoretical. Conceptually, it is an interesting theory that no one has talked about before. Now does that mean it's a true theory? That's probably hard to say.

    Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/big-bang-theory-season-11-finale-explained-sheldons-scientific-discovery-stephen-hawking-tribute-1109270

    • Like 5

  13. 4 hours ago, Jonny said:

    IMO they should have developed this arc probably back in season 10. Hell maybe they should have stuck with the previous project they were working on and fleshed it out?

    I would have enjoyed that a lot more than this one. Heck, they could have even let them have a breakthrough on their wedding and all that jazz. But I think part of the reason why the project has been scrapped is that they only have Saltzberg as their science consultant and not a proper neuroscientist. (As much as I love Mayim her job isn't to check the scripts and she's been out of academia for a while now so I think they should have gotten someone from that field to fill that role.) So in the end they refer to him to come up with something and of course he's picking something from his field (no matter if it makes sense in the grand scheme of things).

    • Like 1

  14. 7 hours ago, joyceraye said:

    Amy doesn't want Sheldon to be one of those men (if they still exist ) who take no interest in their children until they are walking around saying, 'Daddy' and showing an interest in trains. She won't want to be landed with all the work.  Practising on someone else's children first is very much typical of both of them. Sneaky but Shamy. 'Me likey'.

    I'd always thought that Sheldon would love to schedule the baby's day and write detailed bowel movement charts though. LOL

    • Like 5
  • 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.