Jump to content

924 'The Convergence Convergence' (May 12)


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Itwasdestined said:

Judd is brilliant. Taxi was brilliant. Loved Newhart as Proton. But would love to see Judd Hirsch become a regular guest star. Hope this ( and probably 10.1) is not the last we see him.

Yes. And perhaps his presence could breath a little more life into Leonard as a character. It seems to me he has not had enough to do for a while.  I'd much rather see Leonard and Penny interacting with his father than Howard interacting with his. Nothing against Simon but Leonard is one of the big three and too often he has been invisible.

Edited by djsurrey
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thought it was the funniest episode for a LONG time. While I love the relationships as much as the next guy and am so happy to see Lenny in such a good place leading into Season 10, my primary reason

really loved this episode!! I had such low expectations for it tbh, I thought Howardette/Raj military storyline would be dull, but I really liked it!  And Beverly / Mary were amazing as always

This episode was definitely the funniest for me in a while. The guests really made it and stole the show. Loved the Lenny sweetness. Loved the girls making plans and Amy being overeager to be MoH

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, legacy99 said:

The part where the reviewer talked about shamy in s8/24 and the interest it created nothing about lenny maybe we will never agree but the things you highlighted could have been done during s9. The tptb decided to concentrated on sheldon instead

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I think that the reviewer was trying to say that he/she thought that TPTB mishandled the P/L finale, not that they wanted a S/A finale.  But that's just me. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The part where the reviewer talked about shamy in s8/24 and the interest it created nothing about lenny maybe we will never agree but the things you highlighted could have been done during s9. The tptb decided to concentrated on sheldon instead

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I think that the reviewer was trying to say that he/she thought that TPTB mishandled the P/L finale, not that they wanted a S/A finale.  But that's just me. 

[/quote

Like i said we may never agree but i do look forward to your posts. Your a very dedicated fan

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vonmar said:

What part of the review made you feel this way?

I know you questioned Legacy but I will give it ashot. Their premise is that the dynamic has changed with Shamy. I don't see a difference between them from pre break up to post break up. They mentioned the great episodes earlier in the season and the great characterbwork they did with Shamy. Sheldon proved he is as clueless as ever in this episode as he was before. In the last episode Amy proved again she was okay being treated as crap. I will agree that the Lenny shifting dynamic needs attention badly. The thing is to me the reviewer missed the point that itwasdestined pointed out. The idea of the show is to make people laugh and IMO they did.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lennyx3 said:

I loved Mary hooking up with Leonards father emoji23.png laughed about it just like penny did.

We don't even know if that's what they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This episode seems...well. I do understand the relief of having a drama-free finale after the sturm und drang of the past two finales, and the frequent storms-that-were-ultimately-in-a-teacup of this season.

And look, if I had Baranski, Hirsch and Metcalf in the same room, I'd want to just have them play off each other, too. And they're comedy veterans who can take the hokiest of lines and situations and make them sing. And make no mistake, they were given material so creaky, it has baggage stickers from Noah's Ark. That oft-quoted AV Club review is right on the money when it points out that the Alfred/Mary/Beverley dynamic relied on "played-out notions of emasculated men in marriages, nagging wives, and pushy Christianity."

But I was watching Alfred, Mary and Beverley, and thinking: oy. Once again, the show's anti-intellectualism is at play, and maybe (though I can't quite be sure) its sexism as well?

Beverley has always been a cliche. She started as a cliche of the robotic intellectual, mixed in with a cliche of Freudian psychoanalysis. But, since she wasn't used very much, the one joke was amusing. I actually enjoyed her clinical, inappropriate, Sheldonesque approach to the gang, her brusque swatting-aside of Leonard's hunger for approval, and it made complete sense to me that such a person would enjoy interacting with someone like Sheldon, as a peer rather than as a swirling vortex of expectations and need.

And then, as time went by and the writers got more and more firmly wedded to the idea of a Leonard whose every single fault can be laid at the heels of Mommy, Beverley morphed into something darker- withholding, hypercritical, aware of the damage she inflicts but uncaring. The cliche of a cold, emotionally abusive parent, in fact. 

And then sort of the cliche of the bitter divorcee whose husband traded her in for a younger model, I guess? 

And all along, I was thinking 'Yes, but hang on. What about Leonard's dad? He doesn't seem to be getting any stick in-show for stepping out on his family, wanting to spend more time with the bones of an Etruscan boy than with his son, and borrowing his son's hugging machine rather than, I don't know, receiving the hug from his son and giving the kid some affection himself. Leonard says his mother ruined his life, when his father seems to be an out-and-out shit. Leonard's gotten fucked over by both his parents. Why is it only his mother whom he thinks ruined his life?'

But then, why would I expect any different? Howard and Sheldon may bemoan the absence of their fathers, but the actual parenting is the sole responsibility of the mother. And it better err on the side of smothering warmth, by God, or the woman is a frigid bitch.

I mean, seriously, show? Leonard has no words of reproach for his father that you'd like to share with us on-screen? No, of course not. One hasty aside about the man having done all his growing and changing before we actually meet him. That's all we need. After all, Alfred is going to stick it to that bitch Beverley, right? He's going to stick up for all the hurt poor Leonard's suffered over the years. The hurt in which Alfred played no part at all, and which we would certainly have no interest in seeing Alfred pay for.

And we can still titter pleasurably at the sight of the cheater* sniping at the woman he betrayed, because he was emasculated in his marriage! Because of course he was. Men are emasculated by their wives' verbal putdowns i.e. their verbal intelligence. Men are emasculated by their partners' earning potential. Men are emasculated by the strength and fitness of their partners' other lovers. Hey, show, is there anything men aren't emasculated by in your universe? What masculinity have you even left them? And- more to the point- why do you think we care about this fragile, querulous masculinity anyway?

And notice, too, that now that the show has firmly crapped on Beverley by making her out to be borderline-abusive rather than simply the distant and somewhat robotic creature of the past, the show is now cadging for sympathy by telling you that Beverley has a beating heart that is wounded by exclusion from her son's wedding, or the defection of her husband? Hang on- if I thought that she was a bad hat, I'd still think her actions are culpable even if you tell me she has fee-fees and they were hurt. I didn't want to feel sorry for Beverley. I wanted, if anything, the show to vindicate her by having Leonard realise that one parent stuck around and did her limited best, while one parent fucked off with his side piece and never gave any indication of trying to be a parent while he was around.

Ah well. I admit you'd have heard none of this from me if the Alfred/Mary/Beverley interaction had ended the following way: Alfred knocking on the door of Mary's room, with Beverley answering the door in a bathrobe and Mary's voice calling her back to hear some more of the Song of Solomon. That ending? Would have made me very happy.

*and no, the show doesn't think there's any interest in exploring how cheating may or may not run in the Hofstadter men, why do you ask?

Edited by wowbagger
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wowbagger said:
This episode seems...well. I do understand the relief of having a drama-free finale after the sturm und drang of the past two finales, and the frequent storms-that-were-ultimately-in-a-teacup of this season.

And look, if I had Baranski, Hirsch and Metcalf in the same room, I'd want to just have them play off each other, too. And they're comedy veterans who can take the hokiest of lines and situations and make them sing. And make no mistake, they were given material so creaky, it has baggage stickers from Noah's Ark. That oft-quoted AV Club review is right on the money when it points out that the Alfred/Mary/Beverley dynamic relied on "played-out notions of emasculated men in marriages, nagging wives, and pushy Christianity."

But I was watching Alfred, Mary and Beverley, and thinking: oy. Once again, the show's anti-intellectualism is at play, and maybe (though I can't quite be sure) its sexism as well?

Beverley has always been a cliche. She started as a cliche of the robotic intellectual, mixed in with a cliche of Freudian psychoanalysis. But, since she wasn't used very much, the one joke was amusing. I actually enjoyed her clinical, inappropriate, Sheldonesque approach to the gang, her brusque swatting-aside of Leonard's hunger for approval, and it made complete sense to me that such a person would enjoy interacting with someone like Sheldon, as a peer rather than as a swirling vortex of expectations and need.

And then, as time went by and the writers got more and more firmly wedded to the idea of a Leonard whose every single fault can be laid at the heels of Mommy, Beverley morphed into something darker- withholding, hypercritical, aware of the damage she inflicts but uncaring. The cliche of a cold, emotionally abusive parent, in fact. 

And then sort of the cliche of the bitter divorcee whose husband traded her in for a younger model, I guess? 

And all along, I was thinking 'Yes, but hang on. What about Leonard's dad? He doesn't seem to be getting any stick in-show for stepping out on his family, wanting to spend more time with the bones of an Etruscan boy than with his son, and borrowing his son's hugging machine rather than, I don't know, receiving the hug from his son and giving the kid some affection himself. Leonard says his mother ruined his life, when his father seems to be an out-and-out shit. Leonard's gotten fucked over by both his parents. Why is it only his mother whom he thinks ruined his life?'

But then, why would I expect any different? Howard and Sheldon may bemoan the absence of their fathers, but the actual parenting is the sole responsibility of the mother. And it better err on the side of smothering warmth, by God, or the woman is a frigid bitch.

I mean, seriously, show? Leonard has no words of reproach for his father that you'd like to share with us on-screen? No, of course not. One hasty aside about the man having done all his growing and changing before we actually meet him. That's all we need. After all, Alfred is going to stick it to that bitch Beverley, right? He's going to stick up for all the hurt poor Leonard's suffered over the years. The hurt in which Alfred played no part at all, and which we would certainly have no interest in seeing Alfred pay for.

And we can still titter pleasurably at the sight of the cheater* sniping at the woman he betrayed, because he was emasculated in his marriage! Because of course he was. Men are emasculated by their wives' verbal putdowns i.e. their verbal intelligence. Men are emasculated by their partners' earning potential. Men are emasculated by the strength and fitness of their partners' other lovers. Hey, show, is there anything men aren't emasculated by in your universe? What masculinity have you even left them? And- more to the point- why do you think we care about this fragile, querulous masculinity anyway?

And notice, too, that now that the show has firmly crapped on Beverley by making her out to be borderline-abusive rather than simply the distant and somewhat robotic creature of the past, the show is now cadging for sympathy by telling you that Beverley has a beating heart that is wounded by exclusion from her son's wedding, or the defection of her husband? Hang on- if I thought that she was a bad hat, I'd still think her actions are culpable even if you tell me she has fee-fees and they were hurt. I didn't want to feel sorry for Beverley. I wanted, if anything, the show to vindicate her by having Leonard realise that one parent stuck around and did her limited best, while one parent fucked off with his side piece and never gave any indication of trying to be a parent while he was around.

Ah well. I admit you'd have heard none of this from me if the Alfred/Mary/Beverley interaction had ended the following way: Alfred knocking on the door of Mary's room, with Beverley answering the door in a bathrobe and Mary's voice calling her back to hear some more of the Song of Solomon. That ending? Would have made me very happy.

*and no, the show doesn't think there's any interest in exploring how cheating may or may not run in the Hofstadter men, why do you ask?

 

^^^

Wow just wow.  It was just a drunking kiss that went no further and now you are labeling all the Hofstadter men as cheats. Just because his mother was there doesn't make her a good mother as seen and just because his father wasn't there doesn't make him a bad father.Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Edited by Tensor
Comments removed to comply with current rules.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I loved Mary hooking up with Leonards father laughed about it just like penny did.

We don't even know if that's what they did.

They shared a cap and took at least a good-night-drink together.

I think for Mary that's a hook up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lennyx3 said:

We don't even know if that's what they did.

 

They shared a cap and took at least a good-night-drink together.

I think for Mary that's a hook upemoji1.png

They could be just having a heart to heart chat away from Beverly and all that tension. If it was not TBBT that would have been my first guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wowbagger said:

This episode seems.../snip

/...why do you ask?

Hm, I can’t follow. 

Edited by Tensor
Comment removed to comply with current rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stephen Hawking said:

I'm really starting to get pissed off, that the videos are unavailable over here. :angry: 

If you're using Firefox, try the Proxtube add-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 13, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Tensor said:

 

Yes, it did.  To quote you "instead of one scene where he comments on how miffed he is that his son is with Penny."

Definitions for miffed (this is the Cambridge dictionary, feel free to look up others, all have the same meanings) are annoyed, angered, upset, etc.  There is no indication that Leonard's dad was any of those things.  Surprised?  Yes.  Puzzled? I can see it.  Astonished?  Quite likely from his tone.  But no indication of annoyed, angered or upset.  

If you would have said this, I wouldn't have responded.  But you used the word miffed for his father's mood.  There was no indication Alfred was miffed.  

 

Miffed can also mean bewildered or confused.  The fact that so many people upped your post over that still has me "miffed".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wowbagger said:

This episode seems...well. I do understand the relief of having a drama-free finale after the sturm und drang of the past two finales, and the frequent storms-that-were-ultimately-in-a-teacup of this season.

And look, if I had Baranski, Hirsch and Metcalf in the same room, I'd want to just have them play off each other, too. And they're comedy veterans who can take the hokiest of lines and situations and make them sing. And make no mistake, they were given material so creaky, it has baggage stickers from Noah's Ark. That oft-quoted AV Club review is right on the money when it points out that the Alfred/Mary/Beverley dynamic relied on "played-out notions of emasculated men in marriages, nagging wives, and pushy Christianity."

But I was watching Alfred, Mary and Beverley, and thinking: oy. Once again, the show's anti-intellectualism is at play, and maybe (though I can't quite be sure) its sexism as well?

Beverley has always been a cliche. She started as a cliche of the robotic intellectual, mixed in with a cliche of Freudian psychoanalysis. But, since she wasn't used very much, the one joke was amusing. I actually enjoyed her clinical, inappropriate, Sheldonesque approach to the gang, her brusque swatting-aside of Leonard's hunger for approval, and it made complete sense to me that such a person would enjoy interacting with someone like Sheldon, as a peer rather than as a swirling vortex of expectations and need.

And then, as time went by and the writers got more and more firmly wedded to the idea of a Leonard whose every single fault can be laid at the heels of Mommy, Beverley morphed into something darker- withholding, hypercritical, aware of the damage she inflicts but uncaring. The cliche of a cold, emotionally abusive parent, in fact. 

And then sort of the cliche of the bitter divorcee whose husband traded her in for a younger model, I guess? 

And all along, I was thinking 'Yes, but hang on. What about Leonard's dad? He doesn't seem to be getting any stick in-show for stepping out on his family, wanting to spend more time with the bones of an Etruscan boy than with his son, and borrowing his son's hugging machine rather than, I don't know, receiving the hug from his son and giving the kid some affection himself. Leonard says his mother ruined his life, when his father seems to be an out-and-out shit. Leonard's gotten fucked over by both his parents. Why is it only his mother whom he thinks ruined his life?'

But then, why would I expect any different? Howard and Sheldon may bemoan the absence of their fathers, but the actual parenting is the sole responsibility of the mother. And it better err on the side of smothering warmth, by God, or the woman is a frigid bitch.

I mean, seriously, show? Leonard has no words of reproach for his father that you'd like to share with us on-screen? No, of course not. One hasty aside about the man having done all his growing and changing before we actually meet him. That's all we need. After all, Alfred is going to stick it to that bitch Beverley, right? He's going to stick up for all the hurt poor Leonard's suffered over the years. The hurt in which Alfred played no part at all, and which we would certainly have no interest in seeing Alfred pay for.

And we can still titter pleasurably at the sight of the cheater* sniping at the woman he betrayed, because he was emasculated in his marriage! Because of course he was. Men are emasculated by their wives' verbal putdowns i.e. their verbal intelligence. Men are emasculated by their partners' earning potential. Men are emasculated by the strength and fitness of their partners' other lovers. Hey, show, is there anything men aren't emasculated by in your universe? What masculinity have you even left them? And- more to the point- why do you think we care about this fragile, querulous masculinity anyway?

And notice, too, that now that the show has firmly crapped on Beverley by making her out to be borderline-abusive rather than simply the distant and somewhat robotic creature of the past, the show is now cadging for sympathy by telling you that Beverley has a beating heart that is wounded by exclusion from her son's wedding, or the defection of her husband? Hang on- if I thought that she was a bad hat, I'd still think her actions are culpable even if you tell me she has fee-fees and they were hurt. I didn't want to feel sorry for Beverley. I wanted, if anything, the show to vindicate her by having Leonard realise that one parent stuck around and did her limited best, while one parent fucked off with his side piece and never gave any indication of trying to be a parent while he was around.

Ah well. I admit you'd have heard none of this from me if the Alfred/Mary/Beverley interaction had ended the following way: Alfred knocking on the door of Mary's room, with Beverley answering the door in a bathrobe and Mary's voice calling her back to hear some more of the Song of Solomon. That ending? Would have made me very happy.

*and no, the show doesn't think there's any interest in exploring how cheating may or may not run in the Hofstadter men, why do you ask?

I'm sorry I can't agree with anything you said, because it is based on false data on Alfred.  You are incorrectly comparing an undeveloped character (Alfred) with a fully developed character (Beverly).  Up till last episode we have only seen Alfred through the eyes of other people, so all these third party descriptions of Alfred are opinions or something akin to gossip, using the legal term hearsay and completely inadmissible as evidence of anything.

What we are now seeing, first hand, Alfred is a man who still has a connection to his son, a man Penny has established a connection with.  Is he a good father, no, but he is a man who actually cares about his son and doesn't put him down, unlike Beverly who considers him a burden.  I cannot understand how you can equate a person who experiments on her son as anywhere close to a parent, could the only reason she even interacted with Leonard is because a sciencetist usually does interact with the lab animals he/she uses.  Leonard would have been better off in an orphanage than with Beverly, so her hanging around is meaningless when it comes to parenting Leonard.

As to Leonard cheating, I will not even get into that with you, I'll just say I disagree.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically last season's finale was on tv tonight. It was all over the place. Raj thinking of dumping Emily. Howdette looking to get rid of Stuart. Lenny wedding? and Leonard's out of left field admission and Shamy's break up with Sheldon having an engagement ring. Too much drama and way too much going on. It seems TPTB learned from last year. This season they  only had two storylines and went with the idea of making it funny. Since Shamy was the bigger storyline through the season, even overshadowing Lenny's wedding, they went with more of a Lenny storyline. people may not have liked it but at least for me it was more enjoyable and easier to follow.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chrismo said:

people may not have liked it but at least for me it was more enjoyable and easier to follow.

I think lots of people liked it. There will never be an episode that will not bother some as the audience is diverse.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SRAM said:

I'm sorry I can't agree with anything you said, because it is based on false data on Alfred.  You are incorrectly comparing an undeveloped character (Alfred) with a fully developed character (Beverly).  Up till last episode we have only seen Alfred through the eyes of other people, so all these third party descriptions of Alfred are opinions or something akin to gossip, using the legal term hearsay and completely inadmissible as evidence of anything.

What we are now seeing, first hand, Alfred is a man who still has a connection to his son, a man Penny has established a connection with.  Is he a good father, no, but he is a man who actually cares about his son and doesn't put him down, unlike Beverly who considers him a burden.  I cannot understand how you can equate a person who experiments on her son as anywhere close to a parent, could the only reason she even interacted with Leonard is because a sciencetist usually does interact with the lab animals he/she uses.  Leonard would have been better off in an orphanage than with Beverly, so her hanging around is meaningless when it comes to parenting Leonard.

What I was complaining about in the original post was not whether or not people's reactions in the episode made sense to me: I was arguing about the story that the writers chose to tell. As in: Evil Mommy Dearest versus Well-Meaning But Ineffective and Emasculated Father. Within that context, the actors did the best they could. I was arguing that the story itself is , as the AV Club review puts it, played-out.

4 hours ago, legacy99 said:

Wow. Are we getting all this hatred for leonard and his dad because the finale wasn't about shamy

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

'All this hatred for Leonard and his dad'? I don't.....mine is basically the only post that was discussing the dynamic in that way, right? I am not an army.

Hatred for Leonard? Once again, pointing out Leonard's flaws- even disliking Leonard's flaws- does not make me a 'hater' of the character. I like Leonard. And for that reason, his flaws bother me.

Leonard's dad? Look, once I knew the guy was played by Judd Hirsch, I knew he was going to be fundamentally likeable, because I cannot ever bring myself to detest anyone wearing Judd Hirsch's face. But I frequently seem to get into these arguments where other people think I'm criticising a character's reaction to a situation as written, where I am actually criticising the situation itself. As in, as a piece of writing, directed to the writers: why is this the story you chose to tell? As I pointed out in my response to SRAM, the story they chose to tell (in my opinion) is really old and tired, and the jokes they wrote for Hirsch and Baranski were also old and tired. The episode was funny, because Metcalf, Hirsch and Baranski are amazing. Doesn't mean you have to love the writing.

Ah, the Shamy thing? Yes, because I didn't have a bad word to say about last season's Shamy-heavy finale, and the Shamy-heavy (or rather, Sheldon-heavy) episodes in the front half of the season. And every single one of the Shamy-heavy episodes of the back half of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wowbagger my comment wasn't aimed at you but there have been some posters that act like doing any story line for lenny is a waste of an espiode when tptb could be pushing shamy forward

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, legacy99 said:

Wowbagger my comment wasn't aimed at you but there have been some posters that act like doing any story line for lenny is a waste of an espiode when tptb could be pushing shamy forward

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

And they are allowed to do that.  If you disagree, feel free to state what parts OF THE SHOW, or what storyline you would prefer to see, without disparaging or negatively commenting on others opinions or what they want to see.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The finale was amusing without having any of the depth of character or wit or well constructed plot that made the early seasons of the show so good. Judd Hirsch (who is looking fantastic at 81) is an excellent actor but the character as written just seemed out of tune with how Leonard's Dad was developed in previous seasons. Personally I would find it amusing to see Leonard and Sheldon become step-brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jasonz said:

Judd Hirsch (who is looking fantastic at 81) is an excellent actor but the character as written just seemed out of tune with how Leonard's Dad was developed in previous seasons.

It seems to me little was developed about Alfred over the years. Just a few perceptions from a betrayed wife and a one time self proclaimed neglected son. Certainly Leonard and Beverly have different perceptions of Leonard's childhood so I would think Alfred's actual personality has been a mater of speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • 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.