Why I despise Chuck Lorre: A Novel - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

*Pleasant Tomorrow* · 05-02-2012, 12:27 AM

LOL jk it's not a novel but if it were I'd totally buy it.

This is why Chuck Lorre (creator of Two and a Half Men, Big Bang Theory, etc) scares me: as someone who looks at the sitcom as an art form, he deliberately trashes it by refusing to move forward, by refusing to use anything but cheap jokes, and by refusing to give us characters that are not only not relatable, but aren't believable.

Putt, putt back a few steps before anyone accuses me of not seeing the sitcom for what it truly is - a medium to escape, to laugh, and that is all. Lucille Ball was notorious for arguing against the Norman Lear type sitcoms that got too heavy. But what I'm not arguing for is heaviness, it's for art. It's for substance. What Lucille Ball did was cleverly crafted, cleverly written, cleverly acted, and is rightfully placed in its spot as sitcom gold, an example among countless others. Maybe, as a writer, as someone who endeavors to work in this medium some day soon I am biased. I, too, hate the mindlessness of reality TV. But what I hate even more is the mindlessness of scripted TV.

Here are some examples of why Chuck Lorre and his sitcoms give me the negative feels:

I won't get into the fact that he is extremely sexist and self-absorbed and is really, very awful at masking how much he hates women. Okay, I'll get into it a little bit. Only recently has the Big Bang Theory added a multi-dimensional woman on its show (Mayim Bialik's character), after having scrapped Sara Gilbert's character, a living, breathing lady with real live thoughts in her head. The reason? The writers claimed they didn't know how to write for her. Previously, Chuck Lorre's sitcoms have only seemed to be able to manage the one-dimensional pretty lady. Thoughtless blanks or nags. Two and a Half Men is notorious for this. Even the mother is plagued as being solely responsable for any and all of the Harper brothers' emotional problems. For Christ sakes, Penny doesn't even have a last name. Curse ye, vaginas!

But it's more than just the fact that I'm fairly positive Chuck Lorre would try to pull some sleazy moves on me if I were alone in a room with him. I have a problem with lazy writers. It is clear that there has been a change in the way the sitcom is told. Over the past 20 or so years, methods have shifted. And that's okay! Guys, that's okay! That means it's growing as an art form. But no. Not so, says Chuck Lorre, and the general public agrees. Numbers soar, ratings don't lie. But I read an article recently who put it this way...Chuck Lorre's sitcoms don't get fans, they get viewers. Eyeballs. They are easy to digest. But how many people truly love Two and a Half Men? How many people sit down to dissect it or debate it with fellow fans? Do they inspire any sort of feelings in their viewers whatsoever? Best to you if they do, but I find it unlikely. These shows refuse to laugh with their characters. They choose to laugh at them. People can't relate to the caricatures of the Big Bang Theory, so how could we? And who the hell cared when Charlie Harper died? I suppose it's fine to laugh at characters sometimes, though. That's where a lot of comedy is based - seeing people fall on their asses or get into ridiculous situations. But don't we typically want to see them through it? If Jack Tripper died, if Liz Lemon died...I wouldn't appreciate the show opening with a view of a casket and an audience filled with laughter.

It's funny, because I could point out lots of shows with unlikeable people that are enjoyable (Married...With Children) but it seems that whatever a show is lacking in, it makes up for in other aspects. Sure the people are MWC are gross, but they aren't hurting anyone. They don't pick on a certain group of people aside from themselves or preach and whine. Chuck Lorre's shows just don't have any redeeming qualities.

Another point I'll make is the writing styles of these shows. The jokes are one-dimensional, rehashed things I've heard people say before. You know, people without any professional comedy or writing experience. Cheap shots. Rather than follow anything to do with the plot, they are largely thrown out there, disconnected with no rhyme or reason. Whenever I hear audience laughter at what was supposed to be a joke, all I can imagine is a bunch of guys sitting in a room, telling stories that demonstrate how much they hate the world and whatever jabs pop up in those stories, they throw into the show. Voila! Comedy!

On a final note, please understand I respect those who enjoy these shows opinions. We all have different tastes. But bear in mind that the sitcom is evolving, it is becoming more of an art form in and of itself, and despite Chuck Lorre's success, despite numbers, he won't win out in the end. I know far too many young writers who are the future of this business who could argue that point along with me.

As for Chuck Lorre, it'd only be fair if I let him have his say. To quote him,
"You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."

Gross.

__________
Sources:
11 Reasons Geeks Hate the Big Bang Theory
The Hypermodern
The Good Men Project
Essays on Sucking

Yong Fang · 05-02-2012, 05:18 AM

Interesting thread.

For the positive, the only Chuck Lorre (is it pronounced LORE or LORRY or neither?) show I really like is Mike and Molly. This is one of two of my favorite sitcoms (next to Parks and Recreation on NBC). Every character on that show is funny and I find the characters quite believable (except that a 350 plus pound man can be a beat cop.) It does go into bawdy and sex jokes, but what makes it work is that the characters who say them. I don't know who was the casting director, but he/she did a great job. Hell, even the mutt dog is hilarious.

I haven't watched The Big Bang Theory since its first season. Nothing against it, I am just not interested in the story, and I just don't find the characters to be funny outside of Sheldon. Four geeky guys trying to woo over a neighbor woman. Probably Sara Gilbert was fired because she was not attractive to focus groups of viewers. Sorry, but she isn't very attractive, and having her on there was just a connection to "Roseanne" to draw viewers.

I haven't watched a nanosecond of Two and a Half Men. Basically because I do not like Charlie Sheen personally, and what I have heard, the Charlie Harper character is pretty much Charlie Sheen. He makes millions and millions on this show, quits and then went on his ridiculous "Tiger blood" idiocy. Here is a guy who is in his mid 40's, did not graduate high school, is a total narcissist and tool, a wife beater, alcoholic and coke addict, and only broke into Hollywood because of daddy. Yes, he has some talents and I did like Major League. But him complaining about his successes rings really hallow with me.

I watched Two Broke Girls for the first episode, and besides having Garrett Morris in the cast, I didn't care for it at all and turned it off about halfway through. My wife is Chinese (Yong Fang is her name) and I felt insulted about the way the diner manager (or owner, whatever) was portrayed. Racist and demeaning. I guess it is OK in this day and age to reduce the Asian man as a weakling and a loser. Like I said, I haven't bothered watching this again. Want to watch a somewhat similar show that is a lot funnier? See "Don't Trust the B**** in Apartment 23". That's a funny show.

Honestly, I think some TV shows just go on and on under their own steam, and liked the OP said, it is not so much that these shows have fans, just viewers. Monday is a good night for CBS and has been for a long, long time (much like NBC was on Thursdays). I come home from work, I am tired, I plop down on the sofa and there it is. It is something to watch. The funny thing to me is that the people who are "fans" of a show are the programs that do poorly in the ratings but have a devoted following.

Two older shows like that were Everybody Loves Raymond and According to Jim (on ABC). I liked Raymond, but it was the same formula week after week. Slightly lunkhead man with hot wife, parents living across the street, mother in law berates hot wife, hot wife gets mad at mother in law. Lunkhead man has an unloved, weird brother who feels unloved. This show went on for nine years.

I think that there is now too much sex and sex talk on television. It gets ridiculous at times. I wonder if teenage boys write these shows sometimes. To most adults, sex is no big deal, it is something that adults do. I don't sit around with other adults and talk about sex frankly, this is uncomfortable. I don't watch HBO and Showtime (except for Shameless) because of the nudity. I don't need to see asses and genitalia. Really, I don't. Again, I am a middle aged adult. I know what boobs, penises and vaginas look like.

For the record, Lucille Ball hated All in the Family. I read that she complained to someone that this trash was on HER network. However, she did like Three's Company and especially John Ritter.

Chuck Lorre is not the man's real name. For some reason, people of his ethnicity like to change their names. Also, people of Lorre's ethnicity is much more open to taboo subjects than others, especially frankness and loudness. People of Lorre's ethnicity control Hollywood and call the shots. Only someone of his ethnicity would say......

"You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."

Nyan · 05-02-2012, 08:32 AM

Chuck Lorre is the Seth MacFarlane of the sitcom. He did have some good material in the past (Dharma and Greg) but everyone like to focus on and bash his franchise shows for some reason.

EmoJoe · 05-02-2012, 09:16 AM

Amazing thread Ashlee and I agree 100%. I have a true love of the sitcom and it makes me seriously angry that people like Chuck Lorre basically only view it as a way to make money. I don't even have much else to add because you said it all....but it does make me sad that lazy Chuck Lorre shows get the big numbers despite only having "viewers" while the well-crafted shows with huge rabid fanbases get small numbers even though the level of passion for those shows could destroy all of Chuck Lorre's shows combined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyan

Chuck Lorre is the Seth MacFarlane of the sitcom. He did have some good material in the past (Dharma and Greg) but everyone like to focus on and bash his franchise shows for some reason.

I think Ashlee sort of outlined the reason, no?

loaferman · 05-02-2012, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yong Fang

Chuck Lorre is not the man's real name. For some reason, people of his ethnicity like to change their names. Also, people of Lorre's ethnicity is much more open to taboo subjects than others, especially frankness and loudness. People of Lorre's ethnicity control Hollywood and call the shots. Only someone of his ethnicity would say......

"You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."

Brilliant post, I agree with just about everything you said. Mr. "Lorre" is not interested in making a good sitcom, he is interested in pushing the envelope and by having successful shows he gets more leeway. As you stated adults have sex and while it may occasionally be mentioned in conversation, it is not talked about obsessively like it is on "Two and a Half Men". The only people who may go around speaking that way are teenagers, especially those who are not actually having any sex. I wonder if Mr. "Lorre's" youth was spent being the boy who never got any and he uses this show to obsess over the subject. I did not see the episode but recently the mom on the show was suddenly revealed out of nowhere to be bisexual. It seems like that was just thrown in after all these seasons of the show purely for shock value or a cheap laugh. It certainly did not take any creativity. Before you could "push the envelope" writing sitcoms took real talent by being able to be funny without the luxury of going to cheap sex jokes every single episode.

yankeesrj12 · 05-02-2012, 02:08 PM

I love all three of Chuck Lorre's current sitcoms: The Big Bang Theory, Mike and Molly, and Two and a Half Men. In fact, Two and a Half Men is my all time favorite comedy (excluding the current season, which is only okay).

Mr. Television · 05-02-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yong Fang

Interesting thread.

For the positive, the only Chuck Lorre (is it pronounced LORE or LORRY or neither?) show I really like is Mike and Molly. This is one of two of my favorite sitcoms (next to Parks and Recreation on NBC). Every character on that show is funny and I find the characters quite believable (except that a 350 plus pound man can be a beat cop.) It does go into bawdy and sex jokes, but what makes it work is that the characters who say them. I don't know who was the casting director, but he/she did a great job. Hell, even the mutt dog is hilarious.

I haven't watched The Big Bang Theory since its first season. Nothing against it, I am just not interested in the story, and I just don't find the characters to be funny outside of Sheldon. Four geeky guys trying to woo over a neighbor woman. Probably Sara Gilbert was fired because she was not attractive to focus groups of viewers. Sorry, but she isn't very attractive, and having her on there was just a connection to "Roseanne" to draw viewers.

I haven't watched a nanosecond of Two and a Half Men. Basically because I do not like Charlie Sheen personally, and what I have heard, the Charlie Harper character is pretty much Charlie Sheen. He makes millions and millions on this show, quits and then went on his ridiculous "Tiger blood" idiocy. Here is a guy who is in his mid 40's, did not graduate high school, is a total narcissist and tool, a wife beater, alcoholic and coke addict, and only broke into Hollywood because of daddy. Yes, he has some talents and I did like Major League. But him complaining about his successes rings really hallow with me.

I watched Two Broke Girls for the first episode, and besides having Garrett Morris in the cast, I didn't care for it at all and turned it off about halfway through. My wife is Chinese (Yong Fang is her name) and I felt insulted about the way the diner manager (or owner, whatever) was portrayed. Racist and demeaning. I guess it is OK in this day and age to reduce the Asian man as a weakling and a loser. Like I said, I haven't bothered watching this again. Want to watch a somewhat similar show that is a lot funnier? See "Don't Trust the B**** in Apartment 23". That's a funny show.

Honestly, I think some TV shows just go on and on under their own steam, and liked the OP said, it is not so much that these shows have fans, just viewers. Monday is a good night for CBS and has been for a long, long time (much like NBC was on Thursdays). I come home from work, I am tired, I plop down on the sofa and there it is. It is something to watch. The funny thing to me is that the people who are "fans" of a show are the programs that do poorly in the ratings but have a devoted following.

Two older shows like that were Everybody Loves Raymond and According to Jim (on ABC). I liked Raymond, but it was the same formula week after week. Slightly lunkhead man with hot wife, parents living across the street, mother in law berates hot wife, hot wife gets mad at mother in law. Lunkhead man has an unloved, weird brother who feels unloved. This show went on for nine years.

I think that there is now too much sex and sex talk on television. It gets ridiculous at times. I wonder if teenage boys write these shows sometimes. To most adults, sex is no big deal, it is something that adults do. I don't sit around with other adults and talk about sex frankly, this is uncomfortable. I don't watch HBO and Showtime (except for Shameless) because of the nudity. I don't need to see asses and genitalia. Really, I don't. Again, I am a middle aged adult. I know what boobs, penises and vaginas look like.

For the record, Lucille Ball hated All in the Family. I read that she complained to someone that this trash was on HER network. However, she did like Three's Company and especially John Ritter.

Chuck Lorre is not the man's real name. For some reason, people of his ethnicity like to change their names. Also, people of Lorre's ethnicity is much more open to taboo subjects than others, especially frankness and loudness. People of Lorre's ethnicity control Hollywood and call the shots. Only someone of his ethnicity would say......

"You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."

Two Broke Girls is not a Chuck Lorre Show.

Mr. Television · 05-02-2012, 02:55 PM

Well I love Chuck Lorre's shows. I think TBBT and Mike & Molly are 2 of the best shows on TV. They just make me laugh which is what a comedy is supposed to do. I'm not as big of a fan of Two and a Half Men. I do think that show gets gross far too often. I was a big fan of Dharma & Greg back in the 1990's.

EmoJoe · 05-02-2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuck In The '70's

Two Broke Girls is not a Chuck Lorre Show.

Let's be honest though, it's trying to be.

Mr. Television · 05-02-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmoJoe

Let's be honest though, it's trying to be.

and that's probably why I like it. lol

factsoflife · 05-02-2012, 03:26 PM

I would say that "Dharma & Greg" kind of ruins your argument here. Not only was it a multidimensional sitcom, but it's female characters were very well fleshed out, very layered and more than one-note. Kitty, Abby, Dharma and Jane all had flaws, were likeable but also human.

It was a funny series with layers to it, it covered serious topics when needed and still kept the light flavor it needed.

The Big Bang Theory is also very good, it has a lot of layers to it and isn't nearly as crass or cheap as 2.5 Men, which I agree is terrible in every account.

Skywalker · 05-02-2012, 06:19 PM

I can't defend 2 1/2 Men and I watch the show almost every week. It's a very mediocre sitcom that goes for cheap laughs which I admit make me laugh sometimes, but I hardly ever watch the reruns. It's even worse now with the addition of Ashton Kutcher, but that's a different subject for a different time.

You're wrong about the Big Bang Theory, IMO. Penny is not a one dimensional character and I'm sure many fans of BBT would agree with me on that. People care about the characters and if you don't believe it, go to the BBT message board at imdb sometime. I'm certainly no critic, but to me, the show is well written and has been from the beginning. Where else can you see a group of nerds bidding on the time machine from the movie "The time Machine", winning it and fighting over who gets to keep it?

Another thing that separates this show from 2 1/2 Men is there's actually character development on BBT.

I don't always agree with the things Chuck Lorre has done, but he does seem to be branching out with shows like BBT and Mike and Molly. I'm not really a fan of Mike and Molly, but it is different and the main characters are likable.

Skywalker · 05-02-2012, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuck In The '70's

and that's probably why I like it. lol

EmoJoe · 05-02-2012, 08:59 PM

Here's the thing about Chuck Lorre: his of his sitcoms boil down to making fun of a certain kind of people. I will admit Dharma & Greg is a cut above his recent work, but it still falls under the Lorre formula of targeting a group of people and tearing them apart. Think about it, it holds true for all of his shows:

Dharma & Greg: Making fun of hippies.
Two and a Half Men: Basically, making fun of everyone, but especially women, rich people and...well, Charlie Sheen.
The Big Bang Theory: LOL ARENT NERDS HILARIOUS
Mike & Molly: Funny fat people hahaha!

It's just such a lazy way of doing comedy. And I really can't agree that Big Bang Theory or Dharma & Greg have "layers", sorry. Again, I'd place D&G a decent amount above Lorre's current sitcoms and Big Bang Theory doesn't quite hit the lows of Two and a Half Men, but they're still not great sitcoms in my opinion and the character work doesn't compare to what's been done in some of the all-time great sitcoms. Are you really going to try and tell me the nerds of BBT are as well-developed as the characters of...let's say, Cheers or Mary Tyler Moore? And BBT may have somewhat of a following but as someone who spends nearly all of his time on internet forums dedicated to TV comedy I can tell you the number of hardcore BBT fans is not even a fraction of the ones for shows like Arrested Development, 30 Rock, Parks & Recreation, and Community.

Quote:

the show is well written and has been from the beginning. Where else can you see a group of nerds bidding on the time machine from the movie "The time Machine", winning it and fighting over who gets to keep it?

Is this an example of well-written comedy? Because that sounds...like a very generic, bland sitcom plot to me.

*Pleasant Tomorrow* · 05-02-2012, 09:31 PM

But other than that these shows make you laugh, can you really argue much for the quality of them? To me, it's an insult to my intelligence. I sit there and know for a fact that I could write better material than what he puts on the table. It's fine if it makes you laugh. That is what a comedy is supposed to do. I addressed that. But we all laugh at a corny sex joke sometime, don't we? Doesn't mean people should be paid for creating them. Or, in Chuck Lorre's shows cases, borrowing them from a perverted uncle.

As for Mike and Molly, that is one of his shows I haven't seen. Sometimes the actors take crappy material and do the best they can with it. Clearly Melissa McCarthy is very talented. I haven't seen Dharma and Greg since I was a kid, but I wouldn't say those were well fleshed out characters. Lorre seems to thrive on stereotypes and caricatures. Greg, the type A fancy boy. Dharma, the crazy hippy chick.

As for people being fans of BBT on IMDB...let me just say, they're not the hardcore TV comedy nerds Joe mentioned. IMDB is the first thing that comes up when you google a show. Trust. I don't see these shows as being anything too memorable.

05-02-2012, 12:27 AM	#1
Pleasant Tomorrow Member Forum Addict Join Date: Feb 19, 2003 Location: New York Posts: 69,525	Why I despise Chuck Lorre: A Novel LOL jk it's not a novel but if it were I'd totally buy it. This is why Chuck Lorre (creator of Two and a Half Men, Big Bang Theory, etc) scares me: as someone who looks at the sitcom as an art form, he deliberately trashes it by refusing to move forward, by refusing to use anything but cheap jokes, and by refusing to give us characters that are not only not relatable, but aren't believable. Putt, putt back a few steps before anyone accuses me of not seeing the sitcom for what it truly is - a medium to escape, to laugh, and that is all. Lucille Ball was notorious for arguing against the Norman Lear type sitcoms that got too heavy. But what I'm not arguing for is heaviness, it's for art. It's for substance. What Lucille Ball did was cleverly crafted, cleverly written, cleverly acted, and is rightfully placed in its spot as sitcom gold, an example among countless others. Maybe, as a writer, as someone who endeavors to work in this medium some day soon I am biased. I, too, hate the mindlessness of reality TV. But what I hate even more is the mindlessness of scripted TV. Here are some examples of why Chuck Lorre and his sitcoms give me the negative feels: I won't get into the fact that he is extremely sexist and self-absorbed and is really, very awful at masking how much he hates women. Okay, I'll get into it a little bit. Only recently has the Big Bang Theory added a multi-dimensional woman on its show (Mayim Bialik's character), after having scrapped Sara Gilbert's character, a living, breathing lady with real live thoughts in her head. The reason? The writers claimed they didn't know how to write for her. Previously, Chuck Lorre's sitcoms have only seemed to be able to manage the one-dimensional pretty lady. Thoughtless blanks or nags. Two and a Half Men is notorious for this. Even the mother is plagued as being solely responsable for any and all of the Harper brothers' emotional problems. For Christ sakes, Penny doesn't even have a last name. Curse ye, vaginas! But it's more than just the fact that I'm fairly positive Chuck Lorre would try to pull some sleazy moves on me if I were alone in a room with him. I have a problem with lazy writers. It is clear that there has been a change in the way the sitcom is told. Over the past 20 or so years, methods have shifted. And that's okay! Guys, that's okay! That means it's growing as an art form. But no. Not so, says Chuck Lorre, and the general public agrees. Numbers soar, ratings don't lie. But I read an article recently who put it this way...Chuck Lorre's sitcoms don't get fans, they get viewers. Eyeballs. They are easy to digest. But how many people truly love Two and a Half Men? How many people sit down to dissect it or debate it with fellow fans? Do they inspire any sort of feelings in their viewers whatsoever? Best to you if they do, but I find it unlikely. These shows refuse to laugh with their characters. They choose to laugh at them. People can't relate to the caricatures of the Big Bang Theory, so how could we? And who the hell cared when Charlie Harper died? I suppose it's fine to laugh at characters sometimes, though. That's where a lot of comedy is based - seeing people fall on their asses or get into ridiculous situations. But don't we typically want to see them through it? If Jack Tripper died, if Liz Lemon died...I wouldn't appreciate the show opening with a view of a casket and an audience filled with laughter. It's funny, because I could point out lots of shows with unlikeable people that are enjoyable (Married...With Children) but it seems that whatever a show is lacking in, it makes up for in other aspects. Sure the people are MWC are gross, but they aren't hurting anyone. They don't pick on a certain group of people aside from themselves or preach and whine. Chuck Lorre's shows just don't have any redeeming qualities. Another point I'll make is the writing styles of these shows. The jokes are one-dimensional, rehashed things I've heard people say before. You know, people without any professional comedy or writing experience. Cheap shots. Rather than follow anything to do with the plot, they are largely thrown out there, disconnected with no rhyme or reason. Whenever I hear audience laughter at what was supposed to be a joke, all I can imagine is a bunch of guys sitting in a room, telling stories that demonstrate how much they hate the world and whatever jabs pop up in those stories, they throw into the show. Voila! Comedy! On a final note, please understand I respect those who enjoy these shows opinions. We all have different tastes. But bear in mind that the sitcom is evolving, it is becoming more of an art form in and of itself, and despite Chuck Lorre's success, despite numbers, he won't win out in the end. I know far too many young writers who are the future of this business who could argue that point along with me. As for Chuck Lorre, it'd only be fair if I let him have his say. To quote him, "You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina." Gross. __________ Sources: 11 Reasons Geeks Hate the Big Bang Theory The Hypermodern The Good Men Project Essays on Sucking
	__________________ my name is ashlee Welcome! Everything is fine.

05-02-2012, 05:18 AM	#2
Yong Fang Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 04, 2009 Location: Memphis Tennessee Posts: 3,073	Interesting thread. For the positive, the only Chuck Lorre (is it pronounced LORE or LORRY or neither?) show I really like is Mike and Molly. This is one of two of my favorite sitcoms (next to Parks and Recreation on NBC). Every character on that show is funny and I find the characters quite believable (except that a 350 plus pound man can be a beat cop.) It does go into bawdy and sex jokes, but what makes it work is that the characters who say them. I don't know who was the casting director, but he/she did a great job. Hell, even the mutt dog is hilarious. I haven't watched The Big Bang Theory since its first season. Nothing against it, I am just not interested in the story, and I just don't find the characters to be funny outside of Sheldon. Four geeky guys trying to woo over a neighbor woman. Probably Sara Gilbert was fired because she was not attractive to focus groups of viewers. Sorry, but she isn't very attractive, and having her on there was just a connection to "Roseanne" to draw viewers. I haven't watched a nanosecond of Two and a Half Men. Basically because I do not like Charlie Sheen personally, and what I have heard, the Charlie Harper character is pretty much Charlie Sheen. He makes millions and millions on this show, quits and then went on his ridiculous "Tiger blood" idiocy. Here is a guy who is in his mid 40's, did not graduate high school, is a total narcissist and tool, a wife beater, alcoholic and coke addict, and only broke into Hollywood because of daddy. Yes, he has some talents and I did like Major League. But him complaining about his successes rings really hallow with me. I watched Two Broke Girls for the first episode, and besides having Garrett Morris in the cast, I didn't care for it at all and turned it off about halfway through. My wife is Chinese (Yong Fang is her name) and I felt insulted about the way the diner manager (or owner, whatever) was portrayed. Racist and demeaning. I guess it is OK in this day and age to reduce the Asian man as a weakling and a loser. Like I said, I haven't bothered watching this again. Want to watch a somewhat similar show that is a lot funnier? See "Don't Trust the B in Apartment 23". That's a funny show. Honestly, I think some TV shows just go on and on under their own steam, and liked the OP said, it is not so much that these shows have fans, just viewers. Monday is a good night for CBS and has been for a long, long time (much like NBC was on Thursdays). I come home from work, I am tired, I plop down on the sofa and there it is. It is something to watch. The funny thing to me is that the people who are "fans" of a show are the programs that do poorly in the ratings but have a devoted following. Two older shows like that were Everybody Loves Raymond and According to Jim (on ABC). I liked Raymond, but it was the same formula week after week. Slightly lunkhead man with hot wife, parents living across the street, mother in law berates hot wife, hot wife gets mad at mother in law. Lunkhead man has an unloved, weird brother who feels unloved. This show went on for nine years. I think that there is now too much sex and sex talk on television. It gets ridiculous at times. I wonder if teenage boys write these shows sometimes. To most adults, sex is no big deal, it is something that adults do. I don't sit around with other adults and talk about sex frankly, this is uncomfortable. I don't watch HBO and Showtime (except for Shameless) because of the nudity. I don't need to see asses and genitalia. Really, I don't. Again, I am a middle aged adult. I know what boobs, penises and vaginas look like. For the record, Lucille Ball hated All in the Family. I read that she complained to someone that this trash was on HER network. However, she did like Three's Company and especially John Ritter. Chuck Lorre is not the man's real name. For some reason, people of his ethnicity like to change their names. Also, people of Lorre's ethnicity is much more open to taboo subjects than others, especially frankness and loudness. People of Lorre's ethnicity control Hollywood and call the shots. Only someone of his ethnicity would say...... "You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."
	Last edited by Yong Fang; 05-02-2012 at 05:37 AM.

05-02-2012, 03:26 PM	#11
factsoflife Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Sep 11, 2000 Posts: 8,745	I would say that "Dharma & Greg" kind of ruins your argument here. Not only was it a multidimensional sitcom, but it's female characters were very well fleshed out, very layered and more than one-note. Kitty, Abby, Dharma and Jane all had flaws, were likeable but also human. It was a funny series with layers to it, it covered serious topics when needed and still kept the light flavor it needed. The Big Bang Theory is also very good, it has a lot of layers to it and isn't nearly as crass or cheap as 2.5 Men, which I agree is terrible in every account.
	__________________ "and to the fans. I was only supposed to be on every other Tuesday. But, thanks to you, I'm here, and I promise! I will try my best never to let you down. I am going back into that studio on Monday, and I'm going to play Erica Kane for all she's worth!"-- Susan Lucci, May 1999 Daytime Emmy Speech.

05-02-2012, 08:32 AM	#3
Nyan Be The Rainbow! Frequent Poster Join Date: Jul 29, 2011 Location: Land of Pop Tarts Posts: 141	Chuck Lorre is the Seth MacFarlane of the sitcom. He did have some good material in the past (Dharma and Greg) but everyone like to focus on and bash his franchise shows for some reason.

05-02-2012, 02:08 PM	#6
yankeesrj12 Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Oct 09, 2008 Posts: 4,335	I love all three of Chuck Lorre's current sitcoms: The Big Bang Theory, Mike and Molly, and Two and a Half Men. In fact, Two and a Half Men is my all time favorite comedy (excluding the current season, which is only okay).

05-02-2012, 02:55 PM	#8
Mr. Television 23 Years at Sitcoms Online Forum Icon Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Location: Somewhere you're Not Posts: 62,132	Well I love Chuck Lorre's shows. I think TBBT and Mike & Molly are 2 of the best shows on TV. They just make me laugh which is what a comedy is supposed to do. I'm not as big of a fan of Two and a Half Men. I do think that show gets gross far too often. I was a big fan of Dharma & Greg back in the 1990's.

05-02-2012, 06:19 PM	#12
Skywalker Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 04, 2003 Posts: 14,204	I can't defend 2 1/2 Men and I watch the show almost every week. It's a very mediocre sitcom that goes for cheap laughs which I admit make me laugh sometimes, but I hardly ever watch the reruns. It's even worse now with the addition of Ashton Kutcher, but that's a different subject for a different time. You're wrong about the Big Bang Theory, IMO. Penny is not a one dimensional character and I'm sure many fans of BBT would agree with me on that. People care about the characters and if you don't believe it, go to the BBT message board at imdb sometime. I'm certainly no critic, but to me, the show is well written and has been from the beginning. Where else can you see a group of nerds bidding on the time machine from the movie "The time Machine", winning it and fighting over who gets to keep it? Another thing that separates this show from 2 1/2 Men is there's actually character development on BBT. I don't always agree with the things Chuck Lorre has done, but he does seem to be branching out with shows like BBT and Mike and Molly. I'm not really a fan of Mike and Molly, but it is different and the main characters are likable.

05-02-2012, 09:31 PM	#15
Pleasant Tomorrow Member Forum Addict Join Date: Feb 19, 2003 Location: New York Posts: 69,525	But other than that these shows make you laugh, can you really argue much for the quality of them? To me, it's an insult to my intelligence. I sit there and know for a fact that I could write better material than what he puts on the table. It's fine if it makes you laugh. That is what a comedy is supposed to do. I addressed that. But we all laugh at a corny sex joke sometime, don't we? Doesn't mean people should be paid for creating them. Or, in Chuck Lorre's shows cases, borrowing them from a perverted uncle. As for Mike and Molly, that is one of his shows I haven't seen. Sometimes the actors take crappy material and do the best they can with it. Clearly Melissa McCarthy is very talented. I haven't seen Dharma and Greg since I was a kid, but I wouldn't say those were well fleshed out characters. Lorre seems to thrive on stereotypes and caricatures. Greg, the type A fancy boy. Dharma, the crazy hippy chick. As for people being fans of BBT on IMDB...let me just say, they're not the hardcore TV comedy nerds Joe mentioned. IMDB is the first thing that comes up when you google a show. Trust. I don't see these shows as being anything too memorable.