[Spoilers] Season 12 Discussion Thread

[Jonny]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:42 PM, April said:

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).

There is most probably a lot of truth to your theory/take on it.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Jonny

[Die Zimtzicke]

12 hours ago, Tensor said:

Actually, the comment by Molaro about how they will now never give Penny her maiden name, seemed kinda big. 

And, to comment on the comments  about how poor the writers have been, Maria Ferrari signed a deal with Warner Brothers to develop new shows.  Warner Brothers seems to think highly of her.

I am not surprised about the last name. i never thought they would. As for Ferrari, that doesn't surprise me either. I figured the writers would land on their feet.

 

12 hours ago, chucky said:

Penny or Amy? Had to be Amy since Penny's turning point, in my opinion, was when she met Leonard!

Not in the eyes of the writers. I guess. That is also not surprising to me.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Die Zimtzicke

[djsurrey]

On 3/30/2019 at 8:09 AM, Tensor said:

It’s also a show that prided itself and bragged on its scientific accuracy for eleven years.  They’ve abandoned that with this plot line in two ways. First, the work itself is bullshit, second, the Nobel process is bullshit. 

Hardly the first BS story they have had on TBBT. Like "The Staircase Implementation"
 

Quote

Past Sheldon: You don’t see your mistake, do you?

Past Leonard: There’s no mistake.

Past Sheldon: This is for a full-scale rocket, not a model.

Past Leonard: Well, I’ve adjusted the formula.

Past Sheldon: Not correctly.

Past Leonard: Okay, I’ve had it with you. You might be an expert on theoretical physics and science-fiction programs and where to sit on a freaking couch, but this is applied physics. And when it comes to applied physic… uh-oh.

Since when is adjusting a rocket fuel formula applied physics?

There was also the Luminous Fish Effect. Playing with DNA of fish was in the realm of science in 2012 but this is hardly something one would expect a theoretical physicist  to play around with in his apartment. Not to mention that pigmentation of the fish interfere with the effect after they are a few days old.

Quote

For now, the fluorescent technology is limited to fish younger than six days old, because their skin has yet to develop pigmentation that would interfere with observing the fluorescence. From https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120423-fish-glowing-pollution-bpa-environment-science/ 

The writers only seem to worry about getting the science right if it is background dressing with no real impact on the story itself.

[Tensor]

7 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

Hardly the first BS story they have had on TBBT. Like "The Staircase Implementation"

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still bullshit, the process, the physics, and the references.   The universe, as the surface of a superfluid idea, along with the concept of quantum vortices were accurate, as far as it went,  But, super-asymmetry is just flat out wrong.  

[djsurrey]

6 minutes ago, Tensor said:

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still bullshit, the process, the physics, and the references.   The surface superfluid idea, along with the concept of quantum vortices was accurate, as far as it went,  But, super-asymmetry is just flat out wrong.  

I can't help thinking that if the science consultant had an idea worthy of a Nobel prize he would be writing papers not handing them off to TBBT. This is a story line that should have been referred to in passing but not named and with no details given in my opinion.

[Sah]

14 hours ago, Mario D. said:

Absolutely dead on right.  Could not believe that someone would ask about Penny's maiden name.....again  Who cares at this point

I know I certainly don't...

[joyceraye]

21 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

I can't help thinking that if the science consultant had an idea worthy of a Nobel prize he would be writing papers not handing them off to TBBT. This is a story line that should have been referred to in passing but not named and with no details given in my opinion.

Yup ! The Nobel prize is real and it's highly valued in many quarters. There's an astrophysicist whose name I keep forgetting  whose boss got the Nobel prize for her discovery and work. She says that the Nobel is so highly thought of that other prize-awarders think you won't want to be bothered with any other prizes once you've been given a Nobel. Consequently she has so far been awarded many more prizes than her boss. 

I can't see Sheldon looking elsewhere than the very top for recognition. Since the writers have from early days included the Nobel prize in the dialogue they can't very well invent a different one. They could hardly invent a science project that could be real, though, in case  somebody was working on it or a dozen of them started doing so after watching TBBT. It couldn't be anything but BS. And it gives them a chance to get Nobel prizewinners onto the show.

[hokie3457]

48 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

I can't help thinking that if the science consultant had an idea worthy of a Nobel prize he would be writing papers not handing them off to TBBT. This is a story line that should have been referred to in passing but not named and with no details given in my opinion.

This is all about giving the Sheldon character a big win going out. Either in his career with the Nobel or in his relationship (or both) by showing how nice he is to Amy by insisting on her inclusion (along with the fact of working with her). 

[JohnPhD]

55 minutes ago, Tensor said:

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still bullshit, the process, the physics, and the references.   The universe, as the surface of a superfluid idea, along with the concept of quantum vortices were accurate, as far as it went,  But, super-asymmetry is just flat out wrong.  

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, and the theory being up for the nobel within weeks, 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.

[chucky]

5 hours ago, Die Zimtzicke said:

I am not surprised about the last name. i never thought they would. As for Ferrari, that doesn't surprise me either. I figured the writers would land on their feet.

 

Not in the eyes of the writers. I guess. That is also not surprising to me.

I've never cared about the writers thoughts!

[April]

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

[luminous]

From tvinsider.com

Interview with Prady, Molaro and Holland

Reconciliations? Weddings? Reunions? 'Big Bang Theory' EPs on the Final Episodes

Quote

There are only seven episodes of The Big Bang Theory left, but producers still can’t fully preview the May 16 series finale for one simple reason — it hasn’t been written yet!

However, TV Insider caught up with Bill Prady, executive producer/co-creator, Steven Molaro, executive producer, and Steve Holland, executive producer/showrunner, TBBT, at WonderCon 2019 to grill them as to what viewers can expect to see as Leonard (Johnny Galecki), Sheldon (Jim Parsons), Penny (Kaley Cuoco), and the rest of the gang prepare to take their final bow.

[...]

full article

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by luminous

[chucky]

14 minutes ago, luminous said:

From tvinsider.com

Interview with Prady, Molaro and Holland

Reconciliations? Weddings? Reunions? 'Big Bang Theory' EPs on the Final Episodes

 

THANKS

[Swedish Chef]

49 minutes ago, April said:

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.

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

[djsurrey]

2 hours ago, JohnPhD said:

I believr TBBT once had a science consultant - I assume he's long gone.

I can't find any reference that leads me to believe he is gone. He just is not that involved in cleaning up scripts. More in just filling in science jargon goes here.
https://www.cbr.com/big-bang-theory-science-accurate-and-scientifically-false-television/

Quote

As fans will know, Dr. David Saltzberg (a physics professor at UCLA) has worked as a consultant for the show for over a decade. He’s given scripts in progress that read (insert science here) and has to put together a scientific reference that would fit the conversation.

It has been reported that Dr. Saltzberg was consulted...

Quote

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

Oh, I see @April already posted something like this.

Edited March 31, 2019 by djsurrey
April posted same already

[chucky]

5 minutes ago, Swedish Chef said:

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

TRUE

[bfm]

1 hour ago, joyceraye said:

Yup ! The Nobel prize is real and it's highly valued in many quarters. There's an astrophysicist whose name I keep forgetting  whose boss got the Nobel prize for her discovery and work. She says that the Nobel is so highly thought of that other prize-awarders think you won't want to be bothered with any other prizes once you've been given a Nobel. Consequently she has so far been awarded many more prizes than her boss. 

I can't see Sheldon looking elsewhere than the very top for recognition. Since the writers have from early days included the Nobel prize in the dialogue they can't very well invent a different one. They could hardly invent a science project that could be real, though, in case  somebody was working on it or a dozen of them started doing so after watching TBBT. It couldn't be anything but BS. And it gives them a chance to get Nobel prizewinners onto the show.

They already had other prizes on the show, thdy could've easily gone there. They could've invented, for instance, a prize that people say may predict winning the Nobel in some years, if the necessary research goes well.

As for the idea, thwy should have left it vague.

[Swedish Chef]

I wouldn't actually be surprised if the writers changed so the Nobel Prize in Tbbt will be handed out in California,USA instead of Stockholm, Sweden.

[MTBigBangTheoryFan]

Happy Mother Day to all the british Mothers on here. 

[vonmar]

33 minutes ago, Swedish Chef said:

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

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.

Edited March 31, 2019 by vonmar

[djsurrey]

39 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.

I feel the same mostly.  There are some things that bug me but on TBBT it is usually bugs me less in reruns. I'm far more bugged by historical drama's that get history wrong.

[April]

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.

[bfm]

52 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.

I don't expect top-notch accuracy, but when things are too far off it disconcerts me. All the Nobel talk is to me akin to something like the Scrubs (hospital comedy) characters being residents one year and applying to be department managers the next. Too far off.

[BigBang15]

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.

Again, it's a sitcom. A sitcom that's ending this year. When Super Asymmetry started, they didn't know that this was the last season so you have to suspend belief and see that time is relative to the story.

[Die Zimtzicke]

1 hour ago, vonmar said:

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

I feel exactly this way about The Good Doctor. I love the show but would the doctors be with their patients all the time doing the nursing and counseling? No. But I still love it. I have a son with autism and Freddie Highmore has obviously done his research on that.

 

1 hour ago, djsurrey said:

I'm far more bugged by historical drama's that get history wrong.

Yes, me too, but I worked at museum, I've done reenacting and history is really my thing so it hits a nerve. Perhaps that's how TBBT is for scientific types. I don't know.