CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I was just curious as to what other people thought about this. From the show's own description, it seems to be loaded with the same stereotypes and prejudices regarding academics that seem to abound elsewhere in pop culture.

http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2007/05/cbss_dreadful_the_big_bang_the.php

I'm not sure about stereotypes of academics and scientists, or whether it's meant to be anti-intellectual or just plain silly. I'll have to see the show first.

Then again it seems pretty much run-of-the-mill for me. I don't think I'll be going out of my way to watch it in any case.

Two and a Half Men is good stuff, so I'm curious to see it first.

I would rather see the ABC sitcom based on the Geico Cavemen myself.At least
there aren't any Neanderthal's around to complain about being stereotyped for that one!

As far as it goes most blondes aren't dumb bimbos either.Though a sitcom about a
sexy blonde scientist with a genuis I.Q. is probably beyond the morons who make
these shows.

Or howabout a sitcom with no sexy people. At all! Now there's risky television!

Stereotypes and prejudices, yes. But the reason I won't be watching this show (other than that it is a sitcom in the first place) is that it sounds like unoriginal, formula television. If I am ever forced to watch standard "comedy" shows I find myself sitting there without anything approaching amusement.

Let me see if I can rescue this post from being a generic response, though. I think that these stereotypes surrounding academia (or anything else) will never be solved by any show specifically featuring a group. Instead, there simply needs to be the occasional scientists character that is intelligent and well adjusted. Not that I expect to see this on anything with a laugh track.

On a very much related note, let me put in a plug for Scrubs. It's a hospital-based comedy and essentially the only sitcom I enjoy watching. Not only is the writing often creative and hilarious, the characters are real people with significant depth. Furthermore, over time the characters mature and change, reflecting real growth instead of the frozen moment in time seen in much comedy. There's some language and unnecessary sexual content (it's daytime television, though, so nothing too extreme), but it's still an excellent series.

bigsleepj wrote:Or howabout a sitcom with no sexy people. At all! Now there's risky television!

Everyone loves Raymond
Laverne and Shirley
The Cosby Show
Leave it to Bever
Seinfeld
(Arguably) Will and Grace

uc pseudonym wrote:Stereotypes and prejudices, yes. But the reason I won't be watching this show (other than that it is a sitcom in the first place) is that it sounds like unoriginal, formula television. If I am ever forced to watch standard "comedy" shows I find myself sitting there without anything approaching amusement.

It's true that most of them suck, but I don't think that it's the fault of the medium. It's possible to make smart, funny sitcoms (for example "Yes, Prime Minister"), although sadly such creativity seems to be absent from most network television. I agree that the show sounds formulaic in its humour, my problem is that part of the formula is "scientists/brainy people are socially retarded losers" which tends to crop up fairly frequently in mass culture.

On a very much related note, let me put in a plug for Scrubs. It's a hospital-based comedy and essentially the only sitcom I enjoy watching. Not only is the writing often creative and hilarious, the characters are real people with significant depth. Furthermore, over time the characters mature and change, reflecting real growth instead of the frozen moment in time seen in much comedy. There's some language and unnecessary sexual content (it's daytime television, though, so nothing too extreme), but it's still an excellent series.

I haven't ever watched that show, although I'll say the same for "Boston Legal"

Rowan Atkinson has made a living out of producing and starring in intelligent
comedies.All you have to do is think of Black Adder and Mr. Bean.

Technomancer wrote:It's true that most of them suck, but I don't think that it's the fault of the medium. It's possible to make smart, funny sitcoms (for example "Yes, Prime Minister"), although sadly such creativity seems to be absent from most network television.

I'm not wholly against sitcoms (they can earn my approval, as Scrubs did) but overall I tend to be cynical about them until proven otherwise. The medium itself is fairly basic and doesn't have to be bad, yes.

Technomancer wrote:I agree that the show sounds formulaic in its humour, my problem is that part of the formula is "scientists/brainy people are socially retarded losers" which tends to crop up fairly frequently in mass culture.

Just to clarify, I don't approve of that aspect either. However, for me the larger concerns are the other factors that plague the sitcom industry. As someone said in the commentary following your link, sitcoms tend to be nothing but amalgamations of cliches, this one just happens to support a current trend of anti-intellectualism.

Personally I think the last great sitcom might have been Three's Company.
I also think that the 1960s may have been the golden age of the sitcom with series like:My Mother The Car,Please Don't Eat The Daisies,Gilligan's Island,Get Smart,
The Brady Bunch,F Troop,My Favorite Martian,The Andy Griffin Show,Gomer Pyle
U.S.M.C.,The Ghost And Mrs. Muir,Mayberry R.F.D.,Make Room For Daddy,The Lucy
Show,etc.