If I gave up on watching television because the showrunners, directors, scriptwriters, or actors on it or gave up on movies because the directors, writers, or actors of them, or gave up on books because the writers or publishers of them, or gave up on music because the singers, the songwriters, or the music distributers subscribed to a nut theory, I wouldn’t have much to do in my free time. The same is true of every art form. For that matter, there are important scientists who believed in nut theories in fields other than their own. People are imperfect.
But contrary to the implication of this facile maxim, not all imperfections are equal. To quote a long-running SDMB thread, antivaxxers are ignorant scumbags who kill children. For me, that makes the suspension of disbelief in watching her acting considerably more difficult, and there are plenty of other shows with casts that don’t have such “imperfections”.
Scooby Doo Mysteries and SpongeBob SquarePants.
Occasionally I need other than animation as much as I like it.
Generally sitcoms are not my thing at all. I’ve recently been watching old sitcoms. They’ve given me a better feeling for the genre. I’ve watched some of all the newer(not the latest ones, tho’)ones.
Except Friends. I cannot bring myself to watch it.
Barney Miller and old Frazier are more to my liking.
TBBT was never my favorite show. They had a marathon just few days ago. I caught some of the last season of the show and was so surprised how different it was from the earlier seasons.
It’s silly. Just silly. But kinda fun.
I don’t care what Bialik does in her life. She’s smart. She’ll come to her senses, or not. Who gives a shit?
Unfortunately, as a celerity, she has a bigger soapbox than the average nutjob, and more people will hear her anti-vax stuff, and it will have more meaning to them because she says she’s an actual neuroscientist.
I always feel guilty watching “The Masked Singer” because of Jenny McCarthy for the same reason.
It appears she has said nothing against vaccination for the last four years and has promoted vaccination.
Let me rephrase:
Many anti-vaxers use her as an example. “See! She’s smart- she has a doctorate in neuroscience, and she’s anti-vax!” (she has said that her family doesn’t get vaccinated).
You’re right. Recently, she has come out PUBLICLY that vaccinations are a good thing. I don’t know if she has said that she has changed her mind and that her children have gotten all of their vaccines, but she has certainly said that vaccinations are a good thing for society. IF her kids are not vaccinated, this makes her the biggest hypocrite. “Vaccines are good for society, but I don’t want to risk any potential side-effects, so I won’t vaccinate my kids. As long as everyone else vaccinates their kids, mine will be safe.” Yeah, and that kind of thinking is what eventually causes measles outbreaks in the US.
What a strange way to phrase that. She says it because she IS an actual neuroscientist. Ph.D from UCLA in neuroscience.
Nothing strange about the phrasing at all. The point is not to imply that her credentials are questionable, the point is that she STATES her credentials prominently to lend credibility to the bullshit pseudoscience that she promotes.
I remember that from some commercial. Don’t remember what she was shilling, but she said she’s an actual neuroscientist. OK.
Here you go:
What I see is weasel words and prevarication in the face of harsh criticism.
I disagree. That might be true now, but in classic sitcoms you could watch any episode and immediately understand each character’s quirks. And since there was no continuity so you could watch every episode out of order and be none the wiser. For example if you showed me an early episode of the The Dick Van Dyke Show and a later I couldn’t tell you which was which.
I could. While the show is on top of any list, the first year, with Carl Reiner doing almost all the writing, is clunkier than the later seasons, with the office characters not nearly as defined and refined.
But if you’re saying that today’s sitcoms strive for more characterization and fewer cookie-cutter characters I’ll definitely agree with you. Besides, who is even trying to get into Leave It to Beaver or The Beverly Hillbillies nowadays?
I could - in the later seasons, they had a child.
No. Ritchie is in the very first episode. His birth is a flashback in episode 15. And the episode where they think they brought the wrong baby home is the first episode of season 3.
The age of Richie would be the tell but he probably wasn’t in every episode
Earlier this week I was watching an episode from the first season. They needed someone for their team for a physics bowl. They said…
• We’re going to need a strong 4th for our team.
• You know who’s apparently very smart, is the girl who played TV’s “Blossom.” She got her Ph.D in neuroscience or something.
• Raj, we’re not getting TV’s “Blossom” to join our Physics Bowl team.
And Blossom was played by Mayim Bialik.
This is what as known as character arc, where a character can be a quite different type of person at the end of the series from what they were at the beginning. It’s more common these days than it was in the earlier days of television. It’s what goes on in The Big Bang Theory.
Me me me.
Love me some Beav and Wally.
The Hillbillies I’ve seen 100s of time. Love them.
But this is my point. You’re not a newcomer who has never seen either one but tunes in to MeTV and looks at one randomly.