Big Bang Theory: Main actors agree to $1 million per episode...

[Stewie]

Not bad work if you can get it...

It's $1 million each for the actors per episode. The advertisers must pay ridiculous amounts to sell their products.


http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/08/04/bi...y-cast-raises/

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Eric Fisher

Textbook appeal fallacy. You assume that because it has high ratings, it is therefore well liked and popular. This doesn't discredit the notion that while a lot of people do enjoy it, a lot of people also think it's terrible and unfunny.

So does being popular mean that you have to have lots of fans and no enemies? Or can you be popular if you have lots of fans and also lots of enemies? Or can you be popular if you have lots of fans and lots of enemies, but your net is higher than most of your peers?

I think I would lean toward the third definition, and conclude that popularity is relative and not absolute. I think the definition of popularity is probably something like this:

P = L - D - (AsubL - AsubD)

where

P = Popularity
L = Proportion of people in your universe who like you
D = Proportion of people in your universe who dislike you
AsubL = Proportion of people in your universe who like the average person in your universe
AsubD = Proportion of people in your universe who dislike the average person in your universe

So now one can define "being popular" one of two ways.

P > 0. This shows that you are more popular or less unpopular than the typical person in your universe. I think this is the most accurate technical definition. Even if you're well-liked, you're not popular unless you're more well-liked than average.

or

P > 0 AND L > D. If you want a more strict definition of popularity, you might add the second term. It requires you to actually be liked to be popular, and to be liked more than average. Otherwise, if you're in the midst of a particularly hateful group, you could be deemed "popular" if most people hate you, but they hate everyone else more. (This is the "Joseph Mengele at least had a sense of humor" clause.)

So how does this apply to the Big Bang Theory? We can estimate its viewer share to be L, and its ratings to be AsubL. I'm not sure there's an easy measure for D and AsubD, though. It would be hard to imagine that it wouldn't qualify as popular according to the P>0 standard. I guess you could make an argument that it wouldn't make the L>D standard if a lot of people who don't watch it actually dislike it. However, I suspect that it's more indifference than dislike.

Lacking certain data, I'm comfortable with the assertion and assumption that Big Bang Theory is popular.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I should not be surprised to see that Community, which tackles nerd culture with a much bigger heart than does BBT (but does more than just that), and which is arguably the most formally adventurous television comedy of all time, is being called unsuccessful & implicitly-not-good in a thread that's going the way this one is going.

Since I avoided commenting on Community's quality, and specifically noted

Sometimes shows succeed and sometimes they tank. Their quality is often irrelevant

I'm not sure why you quoted my post to make your "implicitly-not-good" claim.

[Gravedigger]

Originally Posted by Donger

Errr, doesn't that show that they didn't understand the jokes?

Yeah, if you're not laughing because you can't recognize when a sex joke is told and what the punchline is then you should probably stay away from this show. I don't laugh when the audience laughs, I laugh when it's funny. I'll admit that Big Bang Theory is repetitive with its sexual innuendos and nerd humor, but the actors sell it for me. It's a pretty good mix.

[BucEyedPea]

qual·i·ty
noun \ˈkwä-lə-tē\

: how good or bad something is [ This is not defined by the dictionary. It's a matter of opinion.]

: a characteristic or feature that someone or something has : something that can be noticed as a part of a person or thing [doesn't apply here]

: a high level of value or excellence [ Value is subjective. Each of us do our own valuing in the market place]

I said is was popular because it has high TV ratings which is what is used as the standard tool of measurement on something like this. I said nothing about quality being good or bad which are subjective too. The closest we can come is using a more specific word like "popular." This is reflected in ratings because that's what we have a tool to measure. That plus money, which was discussed at the start of the thread.

pop·u·lar
adjective \ˈpä-pyə-lər\

: liked or enjoyed by many people

: accepted, followed, used, or done by many people

: of, relating to, or coming from most of the people in a country, society, or group [That would be TV viewers]

It may be that somethings are high quality but not popular. There is a difference.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Gravedigger

Yeah, if you're not laughing because you can't recognize when a sex joke is told and what the punchline is then you should probably stay away from this show. I don't laugh when the audience laughs, I laugh when it's funny. I'll admit that Big Bang Theory is repetitive with its sexual innuendos and nerd humor, but the actors sell it for me. It's a pretty good mix.

It's also the chemistry of the characters and how they play off one another for me.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Eric Fisher

Please specify which part you think I'm 100% wrong on so I can show you why I'm 100% right.

Originally Posted by Eric Fisher

They both pertain to the same type of fallacy. Either way, it's fallacious reasoning to say that The Big Bang Theory is quality television because a lot of people watch it.

That is wrong.

Television exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To make money. It is not for education. It is not for entertainment. It is designed, crafted, and implemented solely for the purpose of making money. When it comes to broadcast networks, the strategy for making money is to put something on TV that the largest number of households will watch, so that you can sell advertising.

Specifically for CBS, the tactics for doing so are making broad, three camera comedies.

The "quality" of the television program (if quality even exists) can only be measured by one thing - whether or not it succeeds in its goals. Since the Big Bang Theory draws top viewership, it sells a lot of advertising, and thusly achieves its goal better than any other scripted comedy.

It makes its television network money.

It is quality television.

The problem is that people have delusions about exactly what television is supposed to do - to move you, to make you laugh, to entertain, to make you think, to explore the human condition, etc.

All of those things are various tactics implemented by networks and TV shows, but always with a larger goal - making money. Period. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.

You should have said its popularity doesn't make it quality STORYTELLING or quality WRITING or quality COMEDY.

But television is a very specific business, and that business is about being in first.

[Kman34]

If I come home from work tired and grumpy and turn this show on, it makes me laugh. Really any comedy that can do that works for me.
I couldn't give two shits about who likes it or not......

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Kman34

If I come home from work tired and grumpy and turn this show on, it makes me laugh. Really any comedy that can do that works for me.
I couldn't give two shits about who likes it or not......

Well, then, since the size of the audience has no bearing on quality, we only need one opinion to validate the theory.

You like it. You find it quality entertainment.

It is quality entertainment.

[BigBeauford]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

That is wrong.

Television exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To make money. It is not for education. It is not for entertainment. It is designed, crafted, and implemented solely for the purpose of making money. When it comes to broadcast networks, the strategy for making money is to put something on TV that the largest number of households will watch, so that you can sell advertising.

Specifically for CBS, the tactics for doing so are making broad, three camera comedies.

The "quality" of the television program (if quality even exists) can only be measured by one thing - whether or not it succeeds in its goals. Since the Big Bang Theory draws top viewership, it sells a lot of advertising, and thusly achieves its goal better than any other scripted comedy.

It makes its television network money.

It is quality television.

The problem is that people have delusions about exactly what television is supposed to do - to move you, to make you laugh, to entertain, to make you think, to explore the human condition, etc.

All of those things are various tactics implemented by networks and TV shows, but always with a larger goal - making money. Period. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.

You should have said its popularity doesn't make it quality STORYTELLING or quality WRITING or quality COMEDY.

But television is a very specific business, and that business is about being in first.

I would hate to see your stance on the NFL.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It's simply one of the worst comedies on TV. Its sole point of value is that no other show on TV depicts academia as accurately. But for the most part it is so unfunny that it makes me angry. Many of the jokes aren't jokes at all; they are simply references to nerd culture or science dressed up in sentence structure & syntax that makes it come across like a joke - basically only finding a more clever way of saying "have you heard of ComicCon?" *cue laugh track* "Do you, audience, know what polymer is?" *cue laugh track*

I don't hate it as much as Reaper does if it is on I will watch it for a while but I don't think it is that great and the bolded section seems accurate to me. I am going to make a pie ---> π joke and call it a day.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Usually those few I run into that don't like the show, don't like it for a few reasons:

1. They don't get the jokes
2. It's not stereo-typed, profanity, soft-core porn laced innuendo in every other sentence
3. It's not about pot smoking, all night drink binging and how many people can I **** in 1 evening
4. Ain't no baby momma's or daddy's

intriguing take. INTRIGUING TAKE.

[|Zach|]

Community was fantastic. Just amazing.

Though it probably ran its course.

[Bufkin]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

That is wrong.

Television exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To make money. It is not for education. It is not for entertainment. It is designed, crafted, and implemented solely for the purpose of making money. When it comes to broadcast networks, the strategy for making money is to put something on TV that the largest number of households will watch, so that you can sell advertising.

Specifically for CBS, the tactics for doing so are making broad, three camera comedies.

The "quality" of the television program (if quality even exists) can only be measured by one thing - whether or not it succeeds in its goals. Since the Big Bang Theory draws top viewership, it sells a lot of advertising, and thusly achieves its goal better than any other scripted comedy.

It makes its television network money.

It is quality television.

The problem is that people have delusions about exactly what television is supposed to do - to move you, to make you laugh, to entertain, to make you think, to explore the human condition, etc.

All of those things are various tactics implemented by networks and TV shows, but always with a larger goal - making money. Period. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.

You should have said its popularity doesn't make it quality STORYTELLING or quality WRITING or quality COMEDY.

But television is a very specific business, and that business is about being in first.

Interesting take. I don't disagree with the majority of what you said.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by BigBeauford

I would hate to see your stance on the NFL.

It's great television.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I'd like to see the correlation between people who don't like BBT and the people who like Honey Boo-Boo....

What is your hypothesis on this Pete?