Change? They Say It's Good...

[ekap2]

My theory: listen to the theme song lyrics--they lay out the show's premise right there in the opening. The "whole universe" for Leonard, Sheldon, Raj, and Howard (and in her own way, Penny) was in a static "hot, dense state" until the two forces came into contact with each other and sparked a "big bang"-like social reaction. The show tells the story of the subsequent expansion and growth in those 5 (now 7) lives as each learn to strike his or own balances between being true to themselves and getting along in the wider world. The show's taken such a gradual path that it's only the last season or so that you can look back and fully realize how much all of them have grown (except Raj, and I'm pretty sure season 6 will be his turn as well as Penny's). Whether change is "good" or not (I think it is inasmuch as it protects the core of the character's personality while allowing them to grow in a realistic way), it's been built into the premise of this show from the opening verse of the theme song.

Thats not a theory. Thats a hypothesis. One that I find to be ridiculous.

I know right?

btw that's more riducolous than shenny

[MTBigBangTheoryFan]

On 4/30/2012 at 7:43 AM, HeWolf said:

Do characters in a sitcom need to change, grow or evolve? Numerous posters (myself included) have commented on the changes to Sheldon. Some see the changes as positive, while others say it is making him less enjoyable. Not as funny. Without taking a position on the pros or cons of the ‘new’ Sheldon versus the old, I wish to pose the question. Is the change truly necessary?

 

Having given several moments of contemplation to this idea I am not sure I see the necessity for Sheldon to change in any way. The character from the first season was hilarious and he continued to be so up until the end of season three. That is when we were introduced to Amy and Sheldon truly began to exhibit personal growth. In previous posts I have stated it is not those changes that I find less enjoyable. My dislike for Sheldon 2.0 is the tied more to the way Jim is playing the character than to his evolving attitudes about certain aspects of life.

 

So, in determining for myself whether or not change is necessary for a sitcom character I decide to peruse my personal memory banks for classic sitcom characters and try to recall if they, during the run of their shows ever showed any significant change. My list and conclusions are as follows. I don’t know how familiar some of these characters will be to non-US forum members and apologize for any you find obscure. The list:

Character -- Show -- Change?

Barney Fife -- The Andy Griffith Show -- No

Lucy -- I Love Lucy -- No

Mork -- Mork and Mindy -- Yes

Jack Tripper -- Threes Company -- No

Fred Sanford -- Sanford and Son -- No

Archie Bunker -- All in the Family -- Yes

Hawkeye Pierce -- M*A*S*H -- Yes

George Jefferson -- The Jeffersons -- No

J.J. Evans -- Good Times -- No

Steve Urkel -- Family Matters -- No

Jerry Seinfeld -- Seinfeld -- No

Elaine Benes -- Seinfeld -- No

Cosmo Kramer -- Seinfeld -- No

George Costanza -- Seinfeld -- No

Edmund Blackadder -- Blackadder -- No

I am sure there are many other examples people can put forth. My memory is not what it used to be and so I’m sure my list if flawed. But this is what comes to mind. Many of them did not change over their time on television, and my memory indicates that the ones that did actually resulted in the character losing its edge. The more human the writers made Mork the less funny he became. Archie Bunker mellowed a lot in his later years and became much less enjoyable. Only Hawkeye Pierce remained enjoyable to me through the final episode of M*A*S*H.

 

So, after examining my list, I believe an argument could be made that Sheldon could remain consistent and unchanged without losing his comedic appeal. And, that there is a real danger of his losing that appeal the more they try to ‘normalize’ him. Just my opinion and I am sure many will have a contrary viewpoint and maybe a list of your own.

1

Sorry about bumping up a five years old thread but I have to say good post. Sometimes Character Growth is good and does need to happen. Sometimes it bad and shouldn't happen. Monica Geller on Friends was a bad character change in later years. I like Monica better in earlier seasons.  I did not like what they did to her character 

The one I disagree about is George Jefferson. The softening and growth of his character were actually a good thing much like Archie Bunker actually even more than Archie Bunker. The Jeffersons best ratings were after he started to soften and became friends with Tom Willis.  George Jefferson Character needed to grow. 

[3ku11]

12 minutes ago, MTBigBangTheoryFan said:

Sorry about bumping up a five years old thread but I have to say good post. Sometimes Character Growth is good and does need to happen. Sometimes it bad and shouldn't happen. Monica Geller on Friends was a bad character change in later years. I like Monica better in earlier seasons.  I did not like what they did to her character 

The one I disagree about is George Jefferson. The softening and growth of his character were actually a good thing much like Archie Bunker actually even more than Archie Bunker. The Jeffersons best ratings were after he started to soften and became friends with Tom Willis.  George Jefferson Character needed to grow. 

Similar correlations to Sheldon. Chandler from Friends. I was fine with Sheldon's character developing. Just some of the quirks he has acquired. Like his neediness and possesiveness with Amy. I don't like. He is more comical then he used to be. Just some changes, some times are not neccessary. Monica I agree was example of a bad character change. 

[HeWolf]

On 11/1/2017 at 12:50 AM, MTBigBangTheoryFan said:

Sorry about bumping up a five years old thread but I have to say good post. Sometimes Character Growth is good and does need to happen. Sometimes it bad and shouldn't happen. Monica Geller on Friends was a bad character change in later years. I like Monica better in earlier seasons.  I did not like what they did to her character 

The one I disagree about is George Jefferson. The softening and growth of his character were actually a good thing much like Archie Bunker actually even more than Archie Bunker. The Jeffersons best ratings were after he started to soften and became friends with Tom Willis.  George Jefferson Character needed to grow. 

Well, that is certainly a relic from the past. One I had forgotten I'd ever written. 

Still think 'new' Sheldon sucks most of the time...

[joyceraye]

I'm afraid I know very little or nothig at all about the other characters listed, but I think the changes in the BBT ones came about because they were young and at an early stage of their careers when we met them. Four bachelors in their mid-to-late twenties acting like teenagers was acceptable and comical at the time. The actors aged over the years and so their fictional lives had to keep up.

That characters who are first shown in their fifties might not have changed much by they are sixty-something is not a surprise. We might even like them to stay as they are. The Meldrews and Terry and June hardly altered at all. The BBT boys' changes and maturation has been a bit uneven, true, but then we're all like that. I still act like a sixteen-year-old sometimes. Change and growth aren't always the same.