• Why you should not watch Two and a Half Men
    86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;28469508]Of course it's made so people can relate to it. That's the only way you make any money on television. To point that out is like pointing out that the sky is blue or that water is wet: it's a no-duh moment. My only real disagreements with your post, though, regards the canned laughter and the recycled humor. I laugh at things because I find them genuinely funny, not because some track tells me to. If I laugh at the same time the laugh track does, then it's purely by coincidence. I remember someone posted a video somewhere a few days back of a scene from the show without a laugh-track, trying to prove that it's not funny without it - I chuckled at least a half dozen times. The humor being recycled "sarcasm-gag-sarcasm" isn't really a valid point, either. I am personally an avid fan of sarcasm. I am known among my friends as a lord of both sarcasm and of puns; that's just who I am. Sorry to say, Rusty, but some people actually [b]like[/b] sarcasm and puns. That being said, I find [i]Two and a Half Men[/i] to be entertaining. It's not a show you sit down and watch for the sheer brilliance of the writing and the greater philosophical implications behind it - but it's not supposed to be. :colbert:[/QUOTE] All of this is addressed in the OP. It's like you didn't even read half of it. There's nothing wrong with sarcasm. Sarcasm can be hilarious. However, Two and a Half Men overuses sarcasm to the point where every single character is sarcastic 100% of the time, and the jokes usually consist of "...Huh." *canned laughter* "Joke about Alan's sexual performance" *canned laughter* Every single episode is recycled material, show never changes. I've seen more than a few seasons of it, and episodes ranging from the first to latest season. It's always the same. The sarcasm is dry. Sarcasm can be good, but Two and a Half Men not only consistantly reuses the same subject matter for it's humour, but also does so in a very dim and uncreative way. And so you like canned laughter. Maybe you do, but my whole point, was that the canned laughter is [i]trying[/i] to make you like it. It's manipulating you. A good counter argument to my manipulation argument is not "yeah well I like it" because that's the whole idea of manipulation. Don't you get that? Nothing you said has any substance and I've already addressed it. The show is sloppy. It has very blunt and obvious humour without much depth or weight to it, it overuses sarcasm for comedic effect, you enjoy it regardless because it's designed to be 'enjoyable without thinking about it', that was my whole point. This isn't exactly a redeeming quality, since when was it okay to say 'well it doesn't need to be smart'? If dumb shows, and you can't deny that it's a dumb show (just cleverly put together to assure popularity), continue to get as high ratings as Two and a Half Men, shows like Arrested Development will become ever rarer. Hell, that was cancelled, and Two and a Half Men was still running up until last week. Does that sound right to you? Switching your brain off to enjoy mindless comedy can be alright. But even mindless shows need to be at least creative, and deceptively dumb with a lot of subtle cleverness that you may not register. I'd say an example of this is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. While the dialogue is obviously quite dumb, that's because the characters are dumb, and the way they are written is incredibly clever. And yes it is always hilarious because they are shouting at eachother and stuff! But it has such impeccable timing and fantastically moronic dialogue, that you can turn your brain off and enjoy it, despite the fact it's superbly written. [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] And I don't think i RE-addressed the relatability thing, but yes. I said in my OP that of course a show needs to be relatable. But there's an extent to where it's plainly obvious that the characters are so relatable to just about everyone, that it's just trying to grab views with it. They are bland and non-specific characters. I relate to characters on shows that are like me, other relate to the different characters that are like them, there is usually a good balance between all the on-screen personalities, and everyone is just a little different to grasp the love of a difference audience. But as I said, Two and a Half Men just too the thing most people are, and the thing that most people want to be. It's carefully planned out to be a success unlike other shows with a genuine spark for character writing.
[QUOTE=Billiam;28455085]All the bits with Charlie Sheen are funny. All the bits with that other guy aren't funny at all. [editline]6th March 2011[/editline] All the bits with the kid are painful to watch.[/QUOTE] All the bits are awful.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;28469949]All the bits are awful.[/QUOTE] Charlie Sheen's on screen presence is just about the only thing I genuinely like on the show.
I think that Charlie Sheen outside the show is actually funnier, but that's probably just me.
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;28469971]I think that Charlie Sheen outside the show is actually funnier, but that's probably just me.[/QUOTE] Yes, that too.
The few times I've watched it, I found it funny. There are many things I'd rather watch, but I wouldn't say that its terrible. Entertainment is entertainment. If you enjoy something and its not hurting anything or anyone, then there's no real reason to stop.
8 seasons good lord [editline]6th March 2011[/editline] i had no idea
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28470021]8 seasons good lord [editline]6th March 2011[/editline] i had no idea[/QUOTE] Only? I thought it was more than that [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] I would also like to point out that my OP is quite poorly written. Writing it so late at night was not a good idea.
[QUOTE=Randdalf;28466924]In my opinion, the intelligence of Frasier just makes loads of other sitcoms look tame in comparison. That is how sitcoms should be, carefully constructed farce which is at once ridiculous, hilarious and clever. [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] I like laughter track comedy, because it necessitates the filming of the show in front of a studio audience. Which, I dunno, adds to it in some way.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure they just add in the laugh track digitally. It doesn't mean the show is filmed in front of an audience.
Read through the entirety of OP, and I agree. [b]But[/b] I'm still going to keep watching it because I still find it funny and beleive the writers are from outer space.
if that show is filmed in front of or played to a live audience then consider me Miles Davis
[QUOTE=Rusty100;28469893]:words:[/QUOTE] I read through your OP. In fact, I read through it twice, to make sure I didn't miss anything. I won't disagree with you that the show uses sarcasm a lot. In fact, I would even agree with you that it [b]over[/b]uses sarcasm. That's not my point, though. Maybe if you read [b]my[/b] post, you'll see that that's not what I'm arguing. At all. I am arguing that [b]despite[/b] its overuse of some sarcasm, some people still find it humorous. Such as me. Maybe another way to say it is [b][i]your sense of humor is not the be-all and end-all of humor[/i][/b]. I'd really rather not say it so bluntly, but I honestly can't think of another way to say it without you commencing another counter-rant against me and accusing me of not reading your original post. I [b]also[/b] never said I like canned laughter. In fact, [b]again[/b], if you were to actually read my post, you would see that, if I didn't explicitly state it, I was at least implying that I [b]dislike[/b] canned laughter. I laugh at parts that [b]I[/b], as in, [b]myself[/b], as in, the personalized and individualized entity I call [b]me[/b], find funny. If the canned laughter goes off the same I do, then great. If not, then what the fuck do I care? Are you honestly bitching about the way the media works? Are you going to post a rant about how Charlie Sheen gets more coverage that Moammar Gadhafi? Yes, of course I find something wrong with it. The fact of the matter is, though, [b]that's how it is[/b]. As to the argument about the correctness of justifying a show with "well it doesn't need to be smart," I fear that that's a completely irrelevant argument, erring on the side of a fallacy. Almost as long as television has existed, there have been shows that are "dumb" and yet still enjoyable to watch. If you have to justify every possible thing you ever do or watch with some sort of intellectual achievement, then I can only imagine you as being an incredibly dull person to talk to at a party. That is, of course, assuming you even [b]go[/b] to the party - I can foresee possible problems with trying to justify the intellectual benefits to such an event. I find it humorous how you're using [i]Sunny[/i] as a counter-example, since that is a show I simply can not stand. If I have to choose between watching [i]Sunny[/i] or not watching television at all, I will (and have, due to other choices being even less enjoyable) turn off the television and go do something else. Which I suppose is a good thing; television is rarely productive as almost anything else one can do with that time. Again, you're preaching to the choir. As you can see, quite clearly, in my post, I said that this is the only way to make money on television. Now before you launch into another tirade about this, please, indulge me in this: ask yourself what the goal of a corporation in a capitalistic society is. Then ask yourself whether or not a television broadcast / production company is a corporation. Maybe you'll see why that's the way it is. It seems that you either completely misinterpreted, misconstrued, or flat-out altered quite a few arguments I made. Maybe [b]you[/b] should thoroughly read a post before bothering to respond to it. :cheers: [editline]fish[/editline] To be fair, though, this entire debate is pointless. It's a television show, for Christ's sake.
I love charlie. In the interviews with him he's so alpha. He's like the living embodiment of Brucie from GTA IV. [img]http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/kotaku/2008/05/Brucie.jpg[/img]
I'll never understand how this show got past two episodes.
This is why I loved Corner Gas (a Canadian comedy show, sort of like a sitcom, but not really), because it was hilarious and didn't use a laughtrack ever. Also, it ended at the right time. Brent Butt knew that if he kept dragging it along season after season, it would get dull. I do miss it though, and his new show isn't that great from what I saw.
don't give a fuck because i don't watch this dumb show anyways
[QUOTE=xZippy;28470852]I'll never understand how this show got past two episodes.[/QUOTE] read the OP, it'll help!
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;28470520]I read through your OP. In fact, I read through it twice, to make sure I didn't miss anything. I won't disagree with you that the show uses sarcasm a lot. In fact, I would even agree with you that it [b]over[/b]uses sarcasm. That's not my point, though. Maybe if you read [b]my[/b] post, you'll see that that's not what I'm arguing. At all. I am arguing that [b]despite[/b] its overuse of some sarcasm, some people still find it humorous. Such as me. Maybe another way to say it is [b][i]your sense of humor is not the be-all and end-all of humor[/i][/b]. I'd really rather not say it so bluntly, but I honestly can't think of another way to say it without you commencing another counter-rant against me and accusing me of not reading your original post. I [b]also[/b] never said I like canned laughter. In fact, [b]again[/b], if you were to actually read my post, you would see that, if I didn't explicitly state it, I was at least implying that I [b]dislike[/b] canned laughter. I laugh at parts that [b]I[/b], as in, [b]myself[/b], as in, the personalized and individualized entity I call [b]me[/b], find funny. If the canned laughter goes off the same I do, then great. If not, then what the fuck do I care? Are you honestly bitching about the way the media works? Are you going to post a rant about how Charlie Sheen gets more coverage that Moammar Gadhafi? Yes, of course I find something wrong with it. The fact of the matter is, though, [b]that's how it is[/b]. As to the argument about the correctness of justifying a show with "well it doesn't need to be smart," I fear that that's a completely irrelevant argument, erring on the side of a fallacy. Almost as long as television has existed, there have been shows that are "dumb" and yet still enjoyable to watch. If you have to justify every possible thing you ever do or watch with some sort of intellectual achievement, then I can only imagine you as being an incredibly dull person to talk to at a party. That is, of course, assuming you even [b]go[/b] to the party - I can foresee possible problems with trying to justify the intellectual benefits to such an event. I find it humorous how you're using [i]Sunny[/i] as a counter-example, since that is a show I simply can not stand. If I have to choose between watching [i]Sunny[/i] or not watching television at all, I will (and have, due to other choices being even less enjoyable) turn off the television and go do something else. Which I suppose is a good thing; television is rarely productive as almost anything else one can do with that time. Again, you're preaching to the choir. As you can see, quite clearly, in my post, I said that this is the only way to make money on television. Now before you launch into another tirade about this, please, indulge me in this: ask yourself what the goal of a corporation in a capitalistic society is. Then ask yourself whether or not a television broadcast / production company is a corporation. Maybe you'll see why that's the way it is. It seems that you either completely misinterpreted, misconstrued, or flat-out altered quite a few arguments I made. Maybe [b]you[/b] should thoroughly read a post before bothering to respond to it. :cheers: [editline]fish[/editline] To be fair, though, this entire debate is pointless. It's a television show, for Christ's sake.[/QUOTE] You just said you'd prefer to watch Two and a Half Men, over It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia i'm done here, you've automatically lost for having such a disgusting taste everybody else agrees [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] i'm surrounded by fools and trolls
I used to find the show funny, but by that I mean it would get a mild chuckle from me, but most of the time it was the show that was on while I waited for the show starting after it if you get what I mean.
The previews of 2+1/2 Men always looked stupid to me.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;28473578]You just said you'd prefer to watch Two and a Half Men, over It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia i'm done here, you've automatically lost for having such a disgusting taste everybody else agrees [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] i'm surrounded by fools and trolls[/QUOTE] Mmmmm, dat ad hominem. Nah I'm just messing with you mate. How about we stick to the age-old "You watch what you want, I watch what we want, and we never talk about religion, politics, and favorite sitcoms"? I think it works well enough.
Fucking facepunch died on me. Double post. Ignore this.
I do not know if this has been pointed out, but this atrocity was created by a devil who goes by the name of "Chuck Lorre" [img]http://www.golgi.in/assets/chuck_lorre.jpg[/img] I bet you want to fucking punch him, right? The worst part is, he is also the "genius" behind shite such as The Big Band Theory and Mike and Molly. Why has this man not been arrested for crimes against humanity?
[QUOTE=Patriarch;28477182]I do not know if this has been pointed out, but this atrocity was created by a devil who goes by the name of "Chuck Lorre" [img_thumb]http://www.golgi.in/assets/chuck_lorre.jpg[/img_thumb] I bet you want to fucking punch him, right? The worst part is, he is also the "genius" behind shite such as The Big Band Theory and Mike and Molly. Why has this man not been arrested for crimes against humanity?[/QUOTE] Oh god, now everything makes sense!
[QUOTE=Rusty100;28455116]It really helps to read everything else I said I didn't just write a thread on 'why canned laughter sucks' Seinfeld has canned laughter too, but I wrote about how good that show is oh and almost everybody i know's parents are divorced. today, your every(midlde aged)man has been divorced at least one. includes remarried men [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] at the very least, divorce is so prevalent these days that the whole subject is over exposed and thus relatable to even more people[/QUOTE] Fair enough. I wasnt refuting your entire argument based on that but i was just pointing a flaw at the one point [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Spetzaz;28455115]Oh hey, another person who loved Red Dwarf! Thank god you exist![/QUOTE] Holy crap, have a high five!
So now that Sheen has been fired...
Well that's that, I can't imagine them continuing on with the show now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.