When TV shows portray good jobs as not good

[TheHuckster]

Well it doesn't glorify it Big Bang theory doesn't really show being a waitress as being terrible aside from what Sheldon says. If anything because Sheldon says stupid stuff all the time you're less likely to listen to his comments about waitressing.

Not to mention Sheldon considers Raj, Leonard, and especially Howard's work to be equally "inferior."

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Well it doesn't glorify it Big Bang theory doesn't really show being a waitress as being terrible aside from what Sheldon says. If anything because Sheldon says stupid stuff all the time you're less likely to listen to his comments about waitressing.

The reason I said "glorify" is that the show implies that anyone would be able to afford Penny's apartment with that single source of income (IE being a waitress/bartender.) Plus afford all her nice things that she has (laptop, nice clothing, phone, etc.)

In reality, no way in hell would a girl be able to afford all of that - in that city - from ONLY the income of a waitress/bartending job at Cheesecake Factory.

[TheHuckster]

The reason I said "glorify" is that the show implies that anyone would be able to afford Penny's apartment with that single source of income (IE being a waitress/bartender.) Plus afford all her nice things that she has (laptop, nice clothing, phone, etc.)

In reality, no way in hell would a girl be able to afford all of that - in that city - from ONLY the income of a waitress/bartending job at Cheesecake Factory.

Wasn't it explained in one episode that she has help from her father or something? Or am I thinking of something else?

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Wasn't it explained in one episode that she has help from her father or something? Or am I thinking of something else?

Maybe, but I know that a lot of people (maybe even most) don't watch that show religiously, and only catch it on and off. So it's very likely that a huge number of viewers missed that episode. Or have just forgotten about it.

A one shot explanation in a single episode feels like trying to fix an huge oversight, and doesn't change that most people catching the show probably don't know she gets help from her dad (if she does.)

(What I'm trying to say, is that it's piss poor writing XD)

[TheHuckster]

Maybe, but I know that a lot of people (maybe even most) don't watch that show religiously, and only catch it on and off. So it's very likely that a huge number of viewers missed that episode. Or have just forgotten about it.

A one shot explanation in a single episode feels like trying to fix an huge oversight, and doesn't change that most people catching the show probably don't know she gets help from her dad (if she does.)

(What I'm trying to say, is that it's piss poor writing XD)

Penny's circumstances behind her nice apartment isn't exactly a major plot point. They also explained the broken elevator in one episode, but that doesn't mean in order for it to be adequate writing they have to remind the users about the subject over and over again.

[AdminAssistant]

Eh, it's just like Friends...None of those characters could have afforded living in Manhattan with their jobs.

[Giggle Goose]

Eh, it's just like Friends...None of those characters could have afforded living in Manhattan with their jobs.

I was thinking the exact same thing. And pretty much any TV family. The only home situation that is even mildly realistic was Roseanne, IMHO.

[telecom_goddess]

I was thinking the exact same thing. And pretty much any TV family. The only home situation that is even mildly realistic was Roseanne, IMHO.

Oh yeah totally agree

[Aethian]

Malcolm in the Middle was close.

[guywithashovel]

I've never studied performing arts or popular culture (well, unless you count the freshman level fine arts class in college), so I don't know if there's a term for it, but it seems that a lot of sitcoms have circumstances that seem unrealistic or strange or just make you think, "Gee, how could THAT have come about?" And these circumstances are rarely, if ever, explained. For example, in Seinfeld, Kramer almost never has any kind of job (not one that's mentioned, anyway), yet he somehow manages to pay for his apartment, clothes, etc. Sure, he mooches off of Jerry on food quite a bit, though. Also, there are often characters that are mentioned, but rarely, if ever, seen. For example, on Everybody Loves Raymond, Harriet Lickman is mentioned quite a bit, but is rarely shown in any episodes (only shown in one that I've seen).

I think a lot of these things go unexplained just so people can escape reality for a while when they watch the show. Most of us are bright enough to know that, generally speaking, a family of five where one parent is a teacher and the other is a cop aren't going to be able to afford to live in a two-story house with a two-car garage in a polished suburb, but most of us like to think we could pull something like that off, and I guess seeing that kind of stuff on TV makes us feel better.

Anyway, if it's not mentioned in more than one episode, I don't think that makes it piss poor writing. I mean, how would you like to read a novel and be reminded on every other page that the refrigerator is broken or that it's cold outside?

[TheHuckster]

I've never studied performing arts or popular culture (well, unless you count the freshman level fine arts class in college), so I don't know if there's a term for it, but it seems that a lot of sitcoms have circumstances that seem unrealistic or strange or just make you think, "Gee, how could THAT have come about?" And these circumstances are rarely, if ever, explained. For example, in Seinfeld, Kramer almost never has any kind of job (not one that's mentioned, anyway), yet he somehow manages to pay for his apartment, clothes, etc. Sure, he mooches off of Jerry on food quite a bit, though. Also, there are often characters that are mentioned, but rarely, if ever, seen. For example, on Everybody Loves Raymond, Harriet Lickman is mentioned quite a bit, but is rarely shown in any episodes (only shown in one that I've seen).

There are a few references to Kramer "falling ass-backwards into money." It's never elaborated beyond that, though. Whether he won the lottery, was given a huge inheritance, or possibly even found some briefcase full of cash that was never claimed is left to our imaginations.

Kramer's also very litigious, so it's even possible he won some huge settlement... before he met Jackie Childs, of course.

I agree about the "escape from reality" though. In fictional writing there's the concept of the suspension of disbelief. You give the reader a scenario that is plausible, but somewhat improbable, which is part of what makes the story intriguing. After all, otherwise you're writing either impossible things that people will consider too outlandish to accept, or you're writing about mundane things that most people would find boring.

[daleduke17]

I was thinking the exact same thing. And pretty much any TV family. The only home situation that is even mildly realistic was Roseanne, IMHO.

I could see Fraiser being close to realistic. Have a PhD, shill a couple books and a successful radio show.

A couple of others that might be realistic would be: Yes, Dear, George Lopez, Full House (maybe), and Caroline in the City.

I didn't want to say a lot of older shows (All in the Family, Jeffersons, Andy Griffith, etc) as those eras had more realism to them.

[AdminAssistant]

In fictional writing there's the concept of the suspension of disbelief. You give the reader a scenario that is plausible, but somewhat improbable, which is part of what makes the story intriguing.

In the performing arts, "willing suspension of disbelief" means that we set aside our knowledge that those are actors on a set, and allow ourselves to be absorbed in the story, experience catharsis, etc. Of course, there's a limit to the suspension..if there's a murder, you don't rush the stage. I would imagine that there's a similar theory in TV.

[guywithashovel]

I know this thread has been left alone for a few weeks, but I was just watching Big Bang Theory earlier, and I have to admit, I don't think Penny's apartment is too unrealistic, even without the possibility of her father giving her help. To be honest, it looked to me like a fairly basic apartment that almost any young, single person could have. It wasn't exceptionally big. It didn't have a lot of extra amenities of any kind. In fact, the guys' apartment doesn't look all that posh to me, either. Also, wasn't it explained that the reason the broken elevator has not been repaired is because the building couldn't afford to fix it?

As for Penny's job, I know waitressing is portrayed as a pedestrian job, and it often is, but if you're good at it, you can actually make pretty good money (in tips, I mean). My aunt has done that work off and on throughout her life, and she used to bring home quite a bit in tips, and that's because she's just good at that work. She has the right personality for it. She's good at talking to people and getting them to like her.

[smileyeagle1021]

I know this thread has been left alone for a few weeks, but I was just watching Big Bang Theory earlier, and I have to admit, I don't think Penny's apartment is too unrealistic, even without the possibility of her father giving her help. To be honest, it looked to me like a fairly basic apartment that almost any young, single person could have. It wasn't exceptionally big. It didn't have a lot of extra amenities of any kind. In fact, the guys' apartment doesn't look all that posh to me, either.

I always figured that the apartment was at the top of Penny's budget and at the bottom of the boys. It's all about priorities, Penny wants to live in the nicest place she can afford and the boys want to have just enough home to be able to sleep comfortably and save their money for things like spontaneous trips to Vegas and having top of the line electronics.