# Big Bang Theory - The Clean Room Infiltration - S08E11 - OAD 12/11/14



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Having worked in a clean room before, I was slightly annoyed by this episode. A few clear strips on the door like you are walking into a grocery store freezer doesn't make a room a clean room. Will have to rewatch and try to ignore that part.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Azlen said:


> Having worked in a clean room before, I was slightly annoyed by this episode. A few clear strips on the door like you are walking into a grocery store freezer doesn't make a room a clean room. Will have to rewatch and try to ignore that part.


yes, perhaps the weakest episode of the entire series


----------



## ScubaCat (Jun 26, 2003)

They have always gone for the joke above scientific accuracy. If the "clean room" was accurate they couldn't have their bird joke so I can overlook it. Howard's story about the blue jay had me laughing out loud.

I really enjoyed this episode. I can't believe how fast they are suddenly moving with the Sheldon/Amy romance.

Sheldon: Ugh! English pudding. Y-You get yourself all excited for pudding, and here comes a cake with raisins in it. I'm not going.
Amy: You're going.
Sheldon: Why do you hate me?
Amy: I don't hate you. I love you.
Sheldon: Well, you call it love, but it has a lot of raisins in it.​
...And...

Bernadette: Wow, you really do love her.
Sheldon: I do. Now, let's find the kind of gift that makes her feel small and worthless.​


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

jamesl said:


> yes, perhaps the weakest episode of the entire series


Agree, not so great. I think they're running out of steam.


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

markp99 said:


> Agree, not so great. I think they're running out of steam.


C'mon folks it ain't a documentary. There isn't enough server space to tell you about the technical inaccuracies of WKRP in Cincinnati, but it made me laugh out load. AS did last night's BBT episode.

Just relax and enjoy the show.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

_Any_ televised representation of _any_ job or industry is _always_ wrong.
Those involved in that particular topic always get up in arms and others never care.
Stay far, far away from watching a show regarding anything you know too much about because it will only drive you crazy.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

rondotcom said:


> C'mon folks it ain't a documentary. There isn't enough server space to tell you about the technical inaccuracies of WKRP in Cincinnati, but it made me laugh out load. AS did last night's BBT episode.
> 
> Just relax and enjoy the show.


I see you have a low number of posts so let me just warn you now...Welcome to TCF....where the nerds and geeks here want accuracy above laughs.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Meh for me. I had the same thought about the series running out of steam. British tv lives by the motto of "leave them wanting more" while American tv milks series until there's not a drop of milk left.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

Did this remind anyone else of the BB episode Fly?


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Bob Coxner said:


> Meh for me. I had the same thought about the series running out of steam. British tv lives by the motto of "leave them wanting more" while American tv milks series until there's not a drop of milk left.


Capitalism.


----------



## mrpope (Jan 13, 2006)

jgickler said:


> Did this remind anyone else of the BB episode Fly?


Yes. that was my first thought. The shot of the guys down below the pigeon from behind the pipe. Definately BB.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

mwhip said:


> Capitalism.


When did the Brits abandon capitalism?


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

efilippi said:


> When did the Brits abandon capitalism?


Around 1776.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> _Any_ televised representation of _any_ job or industry is _always_ wrong.
> Those involved in that particular topic always get up in arms and others never care.
> Stay far, far away from watching a show regarding anything you know too much about because it will only drive you crazy.


I'm not up in arms about it. It just annoyed me on first pass because it wasn't just a technical detail that was wrong, the whole plot contrivance was wrong. Will have to watch it again and put that knowledge aside for that watching. Hopefully it will get better that way.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Heh. I laughed more last night than in several episodes. It was funny. Not running out of steam at all.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Yeah; the clean room annoyed me as well having worked in one years and years ago.

But I found the episode very funny and touching in terms of Sheldon and Amy. 

I loved Brian George's facial expressions and Penny reaching for wine all the time.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

it wasn't just the clean room, but everything with Raj's father was just not funny 

and did Sheldon actually make a joke about his uncle the child molester ? 

I can handle when they get a few scientific things or job related things wrong, but the story / side stories just weren't good


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I liked Bernadette singing Christmas carols to Sheldon's annoyance.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I thought her voice was on the verge of going higher than the human ear could hear in that scene.


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I thought her voice was on the verge of going higher than the human ear could hear in that scene.


OMG, this, so this.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I thought her voice was on the verge of going higher than the human ear could hear in that scene.





TiVo'Brien said:


> OMG, this, so this.


And that was funny too.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

I enjoyed the episode. I immediately had to suspend belief when I saw the "clean room". Plastic strips? yeah, right. But I liked the jokes in it. I also like how they can do the comedy and suddenly have an incredibly sweet and moving scene between Sheldon and Amy, almost totally out of the blue and unexpected, an more moving than you would anticipate. Like when he told her he loves her. I literally did a double-take.

In spite of the bird getting in the clean room, it was pretty darn funny.
Raj: You let him in!
Howard: How come you think I'm the one who let him in?
Raj: Come on! (voiced wonderfully)



Ereth said:


> I thought her voice was on the verge of going higher than the human ear could hear in that scene.


I seem to remember one episode where Howard mentioned her voice getting so high-pitched it was setting off the neighbors dogs. Then later in the episode, she got high-pitched and you could hear the dogs start barking outside. LOL. She does have a really high voice.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> She does have a really high voice.


Technically, she can _do_ a really high voice.

While it's obviously still recognizable as her, her voice in interviews is *surprisingly* (to me) un-Bernadette-like.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Of course, nobody is entertaining the thought that what we saw was part of the clean room and the real interface was off camera to the left. Yeah, the plastic strips were kind of dumb but where did they ever say that was the clean door?

I worked in a building that had more than one chamber in its clean "room."


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Of course, nobody is entertaining the thought that what we saw was part of the clean room and the real interface was off camera to the left. Yeah, the plastic strips were kind of dumb but where did they ever say that was the clean door?


That's rather unlikely. If there were a door off camera, then all three (Raj, Howard, and Leonard) would have left it open, along with the loading dock door they mentioned they left open, for the bird to be able to fly in.

It was just a dumb over-simplification of the concept of a clean room, that's all. Like a wise philosopher once said, "Just repeat to yourself 'It's just a show, I should really just relax.'"


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Even without being irked about the inaccuracy of the clean room I thought the clean room part was weak all around. The Sheldon/Amy arc was the only good thing in this episode, and even there more because of when it was sweet than when it was funny. (Though Raj trying to swipe a cookie and interrupting Sheldon's bromide was well done.)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I thought the bird stuff was hilarious (not the clean room stuff; the bird stuff). I laughed out loud several times.

The thing is, it would have been easy to have all the bird stuff without the clean room element. But I guess they really wanted the clean suits...


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I thought the bird stuff was hilarious (not the clean room stuff; the bird stuff). I laughed out loud several times.


Yes, like "you should have put the slim jim in the bag."

Very funny. The Sheldon loves Amy stuff, while quite sweet, seemed to me so unlike Sheldon that I couldn't believe he was really saying it. Finding a gift that would annoy her, yes, but expressing such loving feelings, no.

I'm a cynic? I don't think so.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

mattack said:


> Technically, she can _do_ a really high voice.
> 
> While it's obviously still recognizable as her, her voice in interviews is *surprisingly* (to me) un-Bernadette-like.


One recent example:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> That's rather unlikely. If there were a door off camera, then all three (Raj, Howard, and Leonard) would have left it open, along with the loading dock door they mentioned they left open, for the bird to be able to fly in.


Disagree. The plastic strips were clearly not what was keeping the "clean" room clean. There was another door beyond those strips and that's what got left open, allowing the birds to fly inside. While it clearly wasn't remotely accurate to the way a real clean room works, I don't think they were dumb enough to be pretending that the plastic strips were the barrier between the "clean" room and the "dirty" parts beyond.

However, that's not the part the bothered me. What bothered me is that they figured nobody would find out they contaminated the clean room if they could just catch the bird and take it outside, yet their plan to catch the bird involved SPRAYING A FIRE EXTINGUISHER IN THE CLEAN ROOM!!! Seriously? That was their brilliant plan to catch the bird and leave the clean room as if nothing had happened in there?

Also, all the stuff with giving the bird CPR totally lost me because I couldn't understand why they weren't just thrilled that they'd caught the bird, alive or dead, and weren't taking it outside. Why attempt to revive it at all, but even if they did, why attempt to revive it in the clean room where it could then fly away and require them to catch it again?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Disagree. The plastic strips were clearly not what was keeping the "clean" room clean. There was another door beyond those strips and that's what got left open, allowing the birds to fly inside. While it clearly wasn't remotely accurate to the way a real clean room works, I don't think they were dumb enough to be pretending that the plastic strips were the barrier between the "clean" room and the "dirty" parts beyond.


In that case then two doors would have had to been left open. The door to the outside and then the door beyond those strips. They only mentioned the loading doors being left open which seems to imply that was the door to the outside and there wasn't another door beyond the plastic strips.
In the clean room I worked in you had to go through an air shower before you could enter the clean room. The interior door to the clean room wouldn't even open until the cycle was complete.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> In that case then two doors would have had to been left open. The door to the outside and then the door beyond those strips. They only mentioned the loading doors being left open which seems to imply that was the door to the outside and there wasn't another door beyond the plastic strips.


The writers clearly put less thought into it than we have in this thread, but if I had to guess, I'd say it their intention that the the door to the outside, or the loading dock door, WAS the clean/dirty barrier door.



Azlen said:


> In the clean room I worked in you had to go through an air shower before you could enter the clean room. The interior door to the clean room wouldn't even open until the cycle was complete.


That seems much more realistic for a true clean-room scenario. Some sort of airlock-type door system where the door into the actual clean room won't open until you've entered some kind of vestibule and the exterior door to that is closed. But that kind of setup wouldn't allow a bird to fly in (let alone two birds), and therefore wouldn't lead to a "humorous" plot contrivance.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> That seems much more realistic for a true clean-room scenario. Some sort of airlock-type door system where the door into the actual clean room won't open until you've entered some kind of vestibule and the exterior door to that is closed. But that kind of setup wouldn't allow a bird to fly in (let alone two birds), and therefore wouldn't lead to a "humorous" plot contrivance.


Exactly. It was a sitcom-level contrived plot, that's all.

It makes about the same amount of sense to say that the plastic flaps was the door, as it does that there was a door to the clean room off-screen that opens directly to the outdoors _and_ is able to be left open to allow a bird to fly directly into the building and into the clean room. Either way, it's a nonsensical idea.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

DevdogAZ said:


> their plan to catch the bird involved SPRAYING A FIRE EXTINGUISHER IN THE CLEAN ROOM!!! Seriously? That was their brilliant plan to catch the bird and leave the clean room as if nothing had happened in there?


 It appeared to be a CO2 fire extinguisher. Which wouldn't have contaminated anything.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> It appeared to be a CO2 fire extinguisher. Which wouldn't have contaminated anything.


Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't familiar with what type of substance an extinguisher could shoot that wouldn't leave a residue behind.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I enjoyed parts of the episode but others not so much. The clean room stuff - not at all. Even I, as a non-science person could see that wasn't right. I mean, there are other shows that have used it and been more accurate - Monk comes to mind. They had a clean room episode there and it was great. Are clear plastic strips actually used for clean rooms?


----------



## QueenBee (Feb 26, 2002)

I know absolutely nothing about clean rooms, and even I thought, "Those swinging strips are supposed to keep the room clean?" But, meh. It's just a show.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

The only places I have ever seen those clear strips used was to keep A/C in- like the door between indoor and outdoor at Home Depot or a grocery store loading zone.


----------



## ct1 (Jun 27, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> It appeared to be a CO2 fire extinguisher. Which wouldn't have contaminated anything.


I'd wager even most off the shelf CO2 fire extinguisher's would have lower standards for particulate contamination than a typical clean room. (Well, maybe not _this_ clean room, given their standards and entry procedure...)


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I am only a little bit bothered by the ridiculous stuff like the clean room setup. I can look past that. What pisses me off is when supposedly brilliant people act like total morons. I can get the social inadequacies, but the truly stupid behavior (like doing the CPR in the room) makes me nuts.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

eddyj said:


> I am only a little bit bothered by the ridiculous stuff like the clean room setup. I can look past that. What pisses me off is when supposedly brilliant people act like total morons. I can get the social inadequacies, but the truly stupid behavior (like doing the CPR in the room) makes me nuts.


Sounds like you really get the point.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I thought her voice was on the verge of going higher than the human ear could hear in that scene.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

eddyj said:


> but the truly stupid behavior (like doing the CPR in the room) makes me nuts.


Cardio Pigeon Resuscitation?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

eddyj said:


> I am only a little bit bothered by the ridiculous stuff like the clean room setup. I can look past that. What pisses me off is when supposedly brilliant people act like total morons. I can get the social inadequacies, but the truly stupid behavior (like doing the CPR in the room) makes me nuts.


I can't remember - was it something they looked up online (as per usual) or just something one of them had seen on tv?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Cardio Pigeon Resuscitation?


Especially while still inside the room?


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I can't remember - was it something they looked up online (as per usual) or just something one of them had seen on tv?


IIRC, Leonard said he had heard of it and then looked it up online.

Doing it inside the clean room? Well, that was stupid.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

The room was already compromised... So what's the diff?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Hank said:


> The room was already compromised... So what's the diff?


If successful the bird would fly off again and they'd be back in the "try to catch him" stage. Even if you feel you should revive the bird, do it somewhere where you want him to be when he awakens.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

They are bigger than the bird.. they could hold it during revival. In fact, isn't that what they did before the crow flew in?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

But it could have easily escaped again. Inside. Incredibly stupid, for supposedly smart people.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

But it didn't. 

But far more stupid is (a) not closing the loading dock door (or having it auto-close) and (b) building a clean room so close to the loading dock.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

a) Not closing the door was not stupid, it was a mistake (each thought the other had).

b) This was not their design.

c) Deciding to do CPR on the bird on the floor INSIDE the room was incredibly moronic, as the bird could easily have escaped, even if it did not (dumb luck, not planning).

It is this type of stupidity, from people who are supposed to be very smart, that bothers me.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

eddyj said:


> a) Not closing the door was not stupid, it was a mistake (each thought the other had).
> 
> b) This was not their design.
> 
> ...


There are book smarts and there are common sense smarts

can be a VERY big difference


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

And I can live with some of that. But this was so egregious that I wanted me to throw something at the TV. The same feeling I get when I am in the room and the wife is watching Modern Family.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I sometimes feel that most Hollywood writers have never actually met a smart person.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I am sure it is hard to write a character that is much more intelligent than the writer.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I sometimes feel that most Hollywood writers have never actually met a smart person.


Having read articles from actual smart people who have consulted on Hollywood movies, I think the reality is that they will always choose what fits their story/joke needs over what fits the reality. They assume that most of the audience won't know the difference, and those that do are too small of a minority to worry about.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

I actually thought this particular episode had some pretty funny moments. Ok, yeah, the whole clean room environment left a lot to be desired, but if I ignored that, I was able to get some laughs out of the episode, more so than a number of other episodes recently.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I'd HATE to be a lawyer and watch some of the shows like Suits or something 

(I have zero problem with whatever in a sitcom or drama if it's not the 100% main point of the show, or you know a documentary)


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I can totally overlook the unreality of the situation, whether it is technical, law related, medical related, etc. Hell, I am still watching Scorpion!

I cannot overlook intentional (by the writers) stupidity.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

eddyj said:


> I can totally overlook the unreality of the situation, whether it is technical, law related, medical related, etc. Hell, I am still watching Scorpion!
> 
> I cannot overlook intentional (by the writers) stupidity.


Well that's true, but most of the BBT threads aren't just that


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Bird cpr is too stupid for anything, anyone, anybody. It's embarrassing.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

efilippi said:


> Bird cpr is too stupid for anything, anyone, anybody. It's embarrassing.


This.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Oh yeah.. That too... Especially for a pigeon.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

efilippi said:


> Bird cpr is too stupid for anything, anyone, anybody. It's embarrassing.





betts4 said:


> This.


http://www.birdchannel.com/bird-diet-and-health/bird-emergency-care/bird-cpr.aspx



Hank said:


> Oh yeah.. That too... Especially for a pigeon.


This.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Buncha heartless rotters


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Pigeons are just like rats with wings. Except I like rats.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Surely if it had been Lovey Dovey you would all have much different opinions!!


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

How long does it take to recertify a clean room once it has been compromised? What are the procedures?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

waynomo said:


> How long does it take to recertify a clean room once it has been compromised? What are the procedures?


For the one in the show, they just take a dirty rag and wipe every surface.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> For the one in the show, they just take a dirty rag and wipe every surface.


You actually have to spit shine every surface with that dirty rag.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

At first I thought Leonard was faking looking up bird CPR online and telling Howard to do it just to see if he would go along with it, and then make fun of him for it.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Not THAT would have been funny.

Especially if it worked.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I don't care how badly I felt about the pigeon.. no way I'm giving it mouth to mouth or CPR. It's a flying rodent.. just toss it out the loading dock, and if it survives, great, if not, fine. I eat chicken several times per week.. I don't feel bad about killing all those birds, why would a dirty, disease ridden pigeon urge me to give it CPR to save it's life?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hank said:


> I don't care how badly I felt about the pigeon.. no way I'm giving it mouth to mouth or CPR. It's a flying rodent.. just toss it out the loading dock, and if it survives, great, if not, fine. I eat chicken several times per week.. I don't feel bad about killing all those birds, why would a dirty, disease ridden pigeon urge me to give it CPR to save it's life?


That's what I didn't understand about the scene. They had a problem - how to get the bird out of the clean room. Then they inadvertently stumbled upon the solution by killing the bird with the blast from the fire extinguisher. But instead of throwing the bird out, rejoicing that they'd solved the problem, and heading home for Christmas dinner, they decided to compound their problem by trying to revive a pigeon.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

That's *exactly* what I thought they were going to do.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

eddyj said:


> Pigeons are just like rats with wings. Except I like rats.


You wouldn't like the ones in my neighborhood!


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Uhhh... there are different classes of cleanrooms. From the full bunny suit class 1 class 10 rooms, to the "better air handling, contamination controls, and tacky strips" class 10,000/100,000. 

I haven't been in any class 10 class 1 rooms due to my facial hair, but the class 10,000 is just "make sure you step on the tacky strip a few times and don't bring any food in." (and the smock I put on is for wire woven for ESD, and not for cleanliness)

A typical office is class 500,000 to class 1,000,000. That is a count of particles over 0.5 microns per cubic meter. And even in "dirty" rooms, you can get localized class 10/class 1 conditions with a flow bench.

--Carlos V.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

betts4 said:


> You wouldn't like the ones in my neighborhood!


I am sure I would hate them. The pigeons in your neighborhood, I mean.


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

eddyj said:


> I am only a little bit bothered by the ridiculous stuff like the clean room setup. I can look past that. What pisses me off is when supposedly brilliant people act like total morons. I can get the social inadequacies, but the truly stupid behavior (like doing the CPR in the room) makes me nuts.


CPR on a pigeon?? They're basically flying rats ... UGH!
And why not spray the second bird with the fire extinguisher to drop it ...
too contrived - and I'm gonna shoot the laff trak - so pitiful.
My spouse likes the show but its often painful to me ...


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

BBT doesn't have a laugh track.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SeanC said:


> BBT doesn't have a laugh track.


Here we go!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)




----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

SeanC said:


> BBT doesn't have a laugh track.





TonyD79 said:


> Here we go!


HA! I was JUST going to post that it doesn't have a laugh track, if anything we're certainly consistent here on TCF.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SeanC said:


> BBT doesn't have a laugh track.





dianebrat said:


> HA! I was JUST going to post that it doesn't have a laugh track, if anything we're certainly consistent here on TCF.


Do people really not understand that when most people use the term "laugh track," they're not talking about recorded laughter as opposed to a live audience. They're simply talking about the fact that the viewer hears laughter after the actors deliver jokes. Whether that laughter is created from a machine or from a live audience is irrelevant.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

DevdogAZ said:


> Do people really not understand that when most people use the term "laugh track," they're not talking about recorded laughter as opposed to a live audience. They're simply talking about the fact that the viewer hears laughter after the actors deliver jokes. Whether that laughter is created from a machine or from a live audience is irrelevant.


Question: Could you be any more wrong?
Answer: No, not in this life or the next.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Do people really not understand that when most people use the term "laugh track," they're not talking about recorded laughter as opposed to a live audience. They're simply talking about the fact that the viewer hears laughter after the actors deliver jokes. Whether that laughter is created from a machine or from a live audience is irrelevant.


I'm intentionally smeeking.

I think just the opposite. Filmed in front of a live audience at least used to be a big thing and a very separate thing from a laugh track. When I see, hear, or use laugh track I would never think of live audience.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> Question: Could you be any more wrong? Answer: No, not in this life or the next.





waynomo said:


> I'm intentionally smeeking. I think just the opposite. Filmed in front of a live audience at least used to be a big thing and a very separate thing from a laugh track. When I see, hear, or use laugh track I would never think of live audience.


I'm not saying that my previous post is the correct definition of the term "laugh track." Obviously within the industry, that term has a specific meaning that indicates the laughter was not created by a live audience.

What I am saying is that the vast majority of viewers don't know, or care, about the difference. All they know is they hear laughter coming over their TV speakers and they refer to that as a "laugh track." Right or wrong, that's their understanding of the term and what they are referring to when they use that term.

When someone complains about the "laugh track" on BBT (or any other show), it does no good to correct them by saying BBT doesn't use a laugh track. Their complaint isn't going to magically disappear once they find out the laughter is generated by a live audience. They're simply complaining about the fact that they are hearing laughter after the actors deliver jokes, as opposed to a single-camera show where there is no laughter. Hence, it would be much more productive to acknowledge the actual complaint rather than take the discussion down an irrelevant tangent related to the proper use of industry-specific terminology.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> When someone complains about the "laugh track" on BBT (or any other show), it does no good to correct them by saying BBT doesn't use a laugh track. Their complaint isn't going to magically disappear once they find out the laughter is generated by a live audience. They're simply complaining about the fact that they are hearing laughter after the actors deliver jokes, as opposed to a single-camera show where there is no laughter. Hence, it would be much more productive to acknowledge the actual complaint rather than *take the discussion down an irrelevant tangent* related to the proper use of industry-specific terminology.


Is this your first BBT thread?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Is this your first BBT thread?


Ha! 

I generally enjoy the tangents and often learn interesting stuff in these threads. But that particular issue just grates on my nerves because it just comes across as so condescending and pointless to try and correct someone's usage of the term "laugh track" when we all know their complaint has nothing to do with whether the laughter comes from a live audience or not.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> What I am saying is that the vast majority of viewers don't know, or care, about the difference.


So, you think we should continue to contribute to the general ignorance of the American public and dumb it down?

Just keeping a BBT tangent alive, as all good TCF citizens should do.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> So, you think we should continue to contribute to the general ignorance of the American public and dumb it down?)


It's like if your friend drives a Toyota RAV-4 and says, "I love my SUV," and your response to him is, "Well, actually a RAV-4 is a crossover, not an SUV." Your response is totally missing the substance of the original statement, and is instead focused on semantics.

If you feel the need to correct the ignorant masses who use the term "laugh track" incorrectly, it would be much better to say something like, "I agree that these shows with audience laughter are just assuming viewers are too stupid to figure out when to laugh on their own. And just an FYI, 'laugh track' is a specific industry term that means prerecorded laughter and that doesn't really apply here since BBT has a live studio audience. Some people get offended by references to 'laugh track' when it's actually a live audience, so in the future it would probably be best not to use that term to describe all sitcom audience laughter."



TonyD79 said:


> Just keeping a BBT tangent alive, as all good TCF citizens should do.


Just following suit.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's like if your friend drives a Toyota RAV-4 and says, "I love my SUV," and your response to him is, "Well, actually a RAV-4 is a crossover, not an SUV." Your response is totally missing the substance of the original statement, and is instead focused on semantics.


It's more like your friend says "I love my pickup truck," and you say "It's not a pickup truck," and he says "SHUT UP, MORON, IT'S THE SAME THING!"

If the substance of his argument depends upon a radical misinterpretation of reality, then his argument probably ain't worth much.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> If the substance of his argument depends upon a radical misinterpretation of reality, then his argument probably ain't worth much.




Are you saying that the substance of the argument (not liking when sitcoms include laughter after each joke) is worthless because referencing that laughter as a "laugh track" is a radical misinterpretation of reality?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I'm saying not knowing the difference conceptually between a room full of humans and a machine is a radical enough misinterpretation of reality to render meaningless any argument that follows form it.

Sometimes what things mean matters. "Laugh track" isn't an ambiguous term. The use of a laugh track is a very specific issue. Calling a roomful of human beings a laugh track completely misses the point...which is why, when people bring up the laugh track argument when talking about roomfulls of laughing human beings, people who know better correct them so they can make the proper argument if they so choose.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I disagree with the assessment that (some, most, all) people who say they don't like the laugh tracks are actually just complaining about laughter in general and not specifically laugh tracks.

A laugh track is a specific thing, I don't like laugh tracks, a lot of people don't like laugh tracks because they are laugh tracks. If someone complains about a laugh track when there is in fact no laugh track, I think it is totally justified to say, it's not a laugh track.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> _Any_ televised representation of _any_ job or industry is _always_ wrong.
> Those involved in that particular topic always get up in arms and others never care.
> Stay far, far away from watching a show regarding anything you know too much about because it will only drive you crazy.


They actually do a pretty good job with most of their scientific/computer facts on this show. Few holes here and there, but not completely moronic like some other shows. (i.e. Scorpion)


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Pigeons are just like rats with wings. Except I like rats.


That's what my partner used to call them. "Rats with feathers."


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

SeanC said:


> I disagree with the assessment that (some, most, all) people who say they don't like the laugh tracks are actually just complaining about laughter in general and not specifically laugh tracks.
> 
> A laugh track is a specific thing, I don't like laugh tracks, a lot of people don't like laugh tracks because they are laugh tracks. If someone complains about a laugh track when there is in fact no laugh track, I think it is totally justified to say, it's not a laugh track.


Usually the complaint about laugh tracks is that it's obvious it's a laugh track when there is laughter over something that clearly is not funny. IF real humans laughed at it, that's different than some sound engineer putting laughs there because he thinks there should be laughter there.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's like if your friend drives a Toyota RAV-4 and says, "I love my SUV," and your response to him is, "Well, actually a RAV-4 is a crossover, not an SUV." Your response is totally missing the substance of the original statement, and is instead focused on semantics.


Actually, isn't "crossover" short for "crossover SUV"? So it is a subset of SUV, but it (correctly) is not the main thing people think about when they use the term SUV.

Still, it is not anywhere near as close to using the term *completely incorrectly*, as the people are that use the term "laugh track" for any audible laughter during a show not created in the room where they were watching the show.

Are you fine with people using "begging the question" for "raising the question", when it is COMPLETELY WRONG?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

DevdogAZ said:


> Are you saying that the substance of the argument (not liking when sitcoms include laughter after each joke) is worthless because referencing that laughter as a "laugh track" is a radical misinterpretation of reality?


No, he is saying that one is judged by the company one keeps; and if one associates with inane assertions, one's other opinions and assertions are likely to be questioned or dismissed as utterances from a foolish source.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

To be fair to DevdogAZ (who I don't agree with on this topic) and to throw a wrench into the discussion even shows with live reactions from an audience have the audience reactions tweaked, sweetened, enhanced as necessary. This would include adding extra laughs.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

waynomo said:


> To be fair to DevdogAZ (who I don't agree with on this topic) and to throw a wrench into the discussion even shows with live reactions from an audience have the audience reactions tweaked, sweetened, enhanced as necessary. This would include adding extra laughs.


Lorre and Prady swear that the laughs on BBT aren't sweetened in any way.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Lorre and Prady swear that the laughs on BBT aren't sweetened in any way.


I didn't know that. Thanks.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

waynomo said:


> I didn't know that. Thanks.


No prob. In case you're curious, here's one quote: "Chuck Lorre, the man behind Two and a Half Men, Mike and Molly, and The Big Bang Theory, is unequivocal: 'I do not, and have never, sweetened my shows with fake laughs. Ive always thought it was a pretty hateful and self-defeating practice.' " (http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/laughtracks-2011-12/)

Bill Prady has also said the same thing, although I'm not able to find an exact quote from him that says so, at least not at the moment.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Sometimes what things mean matters. "Laugh track" isn't an ambiguous term. The use of a laugh track is a very specific issue. Calling a roomful of human beings a laugh track completely misses the point...which is why, when people bring up the laugh track argument when talking about roomfulls of laughing human beings, people who know better correct them so they can make the proper argument if they so choose.


All I know is every time I complain about some word or phrase being conscripted by an upcoming generation I am told "language belongs to the people that use it, it evolves and meanings change."
We have other even more ridiculous things being accepted like the Oxford English Dictionary altering its definition of "literally" to mean used for emphasis rather than being actually true." 
_Really?_

Regular, non techy, non nitpicky people use the term "laugh track" to mean intrusive laughter that disrupts their viewing experience. 
So we either need to agree on a new term or we need to accept that "common usage" is not technically correct, accept it, and move on.



waynomo said:


> To be fair to DevdogAZ (who I don't agree with on this topic) and to throw a wrench into the discussion even shows with live reactions from an audience have the audience reactions tweaked, sweetened, enhanced as necessary. This would include adding extra laughs.


I thought we agreed 100 years ago to refer to this as "augmented audience sounds" or some such nonsense.
See above 



LoadStar said:


> Lorre and Prady swear that the laughs on BBT aren't sweetened in any way.


And now we need to hear Lorre and Prady's definition of "sweetened" otherwise I'm not buying what they are selling.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I am not bothered by laugh during comedies. I get why they are used. They are mostly a good thing, people tend to find things funnier if others are laughing too.

Having said that, there is little difference IMO in using a traditional laugh track and using the audience "live" laugh. Tomato, tomahto. Calling both a laugh track works for me, even if I understand the difference.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> And now we need to hear Lorre and Prady's definition of "sweetened" otherwise I'm not buying what they are selling.


See my quote above. Clearly, by "sweetened" he means "adding fake laughs to the mix."


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> All I know is every time I complain about some word or phrase being conscripted by an upcoming generation I am told "language belongs to the people that use it, it evolves and meanings change." We have other even more ridiculous things being accepted like the Oxford English Dictionary altering its definition of "literally" to mean used for emphasis rather than being actually true." Really? Regular, non techy, non nitpicky people use the term "laugh track" to mean intrusive laughter that disrupts their viewing experience. So we either need to agree on a new term or we need to accept that "common usage" is not technically correct, accept it, and move on. I thought we agreed 100 years ago to refer to this as "augmented audience sounds" or some such nonsense. See above  And now we need to hear Lorre and Prady's definition of "sweetened" otherwise I'm not buying what they are selling.


Evolution of words is one thing. Totally disregard for definitions is something completely different.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Evolution of words is one thing. Totally disregard for definitions is something completely different.


So you're ok with "literally" meaning "used for emphasis and not actually true?"



LoadStar said:


> See my quote above. Clearly, by "sweetened" he means "adding fake laughs to the mix."


So no "fake" laughs.

But they can take the real ones and double/triple/quadruple them, adjust the volume, the tone, and manipulate the mix twelve ways from Sunday and it's not a "laugh track."

OK. 

It's semantics.
The sound we hear is not the sound that was recorded live.
It is "manipulated sounds of laughter" and thus a laugh track.

IMO


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

If the audience has its own set of mikes that is recorded and mixed in as part of post production, then wouldn't that be a laugh track?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Yes, it literally would be a laugh track.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

eddyj said:


> tomahto


What the heck is a "tomahto?"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

waynomo said:


> What the heck is a "tomahto?"


I can never remember, is that what you say or I say?

Ah, let's call the whole thing off...


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I love Jeannie.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> So you're ok with "literally" meaning "used for emphasis and not actually true?"


With my field linguist's hat on, I observe that other people use it that way.

With my native-speaker-of-English hat on, I say that "literally" meaning "used for emphasis and not actually true" is Bad English and should not be used.

I can be a professional and note what other people use -- but I reserve the right to act as an informant and say that those other people are wrong, just as the people who say "y'all" is a singular are wrong.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Do y'all mean that literally?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I could literally kill people who use literally to mean figuratively.

They'd better hope I mean literally in the figurative sense of the word.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Literally in the figurative sense of the word, this is now my favorite phrase.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SeanC said:


> I disagree with the assessment that (some, most, all) people who say they don't like the laugh tracks are actually just complaining about laughter in general and not specifically laugh tracks.
> 
> A laugh track is a specific thing, I don't like laugh tracks, a lot of people don't like laugh tracks because they are laugh tracks. If someone complains about a laugh track when there is in fact no laugh track, I think it is totally justified to say, it's not a laugh track.





Ereth said:


> Usually the complaint about laugh tracks is that it's obvious it's a laugh track when there is laughter over something that clearly is not funny. IF real humans laughed at it, that's different than some sound engineer putting laughs there because he thinks there should be laughter there.


Do you guys seriously think that when average viewers complain about "laugh tracks" that they're complaining about the technical aspects of when the laughter was recorded and how it was mixed into the show? Isn't it much more likely that they're simply ignorant about the term and are complaining about the presence of laughter when compared to single-cam sitcoms that include no laughs?

Do people really complain more about the prerecorded laughter in shows like MASH or How I Met Your Mother than they do about the live audience laughter in shows like Seinfeld or TBBT?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I think they are complaining about the presence of laughter when it's obvious that no normal person would laugh there. 

If the moment is funny, then THEY are laughing too, and they likely won't notice the laughter. It's when the laughter on the TV is incongruous that it stands out.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I think they are complaining about the presence of laughter when it's obvious that no normal person would laugh there.
> 
> If the moment is funny, then THEY are laughing too, and they likely won't notice the laughter. It's when the laughter on the TV is incongruous that it stands out.


While I'll concede that I'm sure there have been complaints of the nature you describe, do you really think that's what the majority of people are complaining about when they complain about "laugh tracks?"

Isn't it more likely they're watching single-cam comedies like The Office, Modern Family, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Community and animated comedies like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park and thinking, "Hey, I like these shows that trust me to know what's funny and don't cram that laughter down my throat. That audience laughter seems like a very outdated style that's held over from the early days of TV. I wonder why shows like TBBT and 2.5 Men still use that outdated style."


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> So you're ok with "literally" meaning "used for emphasis and not actually true?"


Yes and no. It changed because of the loose use of the word. Exactly what I don't like. If the agreed upon definition has changed, it changed. (So far, I know of only one dictionary that has added the usage.)

Another one for you. Factoid. It actually means an untruth that sounds true. But USA Today used it to mean a small fact years ago.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

As for laugh track, most people probably cannot tell the difference but I'd bet they would say "laugh track" and "canned laughter" are the same thing. An audience, even potted up for a mix is not "canned laughter."


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> While I'll concede that I'm sure there have been complaints of the nature you describe, do you really think that's what the majority of people are complaining about when they complain about "laugh tracks?"


This is the third time you've asked that. This will be the third time I say "YES I really believe that". What will it take to get you to accept that I believe that? Do I need a notarized document?



> Isn't it more likely they're watching single-cam comedies like The Office, Modern Family, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Community and animated comedies like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park and thinking, "Hey, I like these shows that trust me to know what's funny and don't cram that laughter down my throat. That audience laughter seems like a very outdated style that's held over from the early days of TV. I wonder why shows like TBBT and 2.5 Men still use that outdated style."


No. I don't think that's likely at all. In fact, I think it misses the point entirely. The only time anybody would even notice that there is laughter is when they, themselves, are not laughing. Why would someone complain about something they don't even hear?

Let me add - I, personally, complained about the laugh track on Sports Night. And not for the reason you mention. Because it was laughing at things that weren't funny, and as such it was jarring. I don't complain about the laughter on BBT because -wait for it - while I'm watching the show I'm almost never aware there IS laughter, because the laughs align with my own (usually). It doesn't feel like an engineer trying to force laughter into a scene that doesn't call for it.

So, I'm a person who has vehemently complained about laugh tracks - when they are actual laugh tracks and used inappropriately, but have no complaints about audience laughter at all. That's one data point for you.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Let me add - I, personally, complained about the laugh track on Sports Night. And not for the reason you mention. Because it was laughing at things that weren't funny, and as such it was jarring. I don't complain about the laughter on BBT because -wait for it - while I'm watching the show I'm almost never aware there IS laughter, because the laughs align with my own (usually). It doesn't feel like an engineer trying to force laughter into a scene that doesn't call for it.


It also makes a difference that Sports Night was a one-camera, while BBT is a three-camera. It feels weird to have laughs in a one-camera, making it all the more apparent that it is a laugh track (canned laughter.)


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Well, if you say so. If it weren't for these discussions here, I would be completely unaware of the difference between a 1-camera and 3-camera. It's not something that was obvious to me prior to having had it explained.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Well, if you say so. If it weren't for these discussions here, I would be completely unaware of the difference between a 1-camera and 3-camera. It's not something that was obvious to me prior to having had it explained.


I agree completely. I have never noticed the difference between 1 camera/3 camera. I had heard long ago that Lucy sort of invented it (or at least made it popular), but would never notice the difference myself.

But I do not pretend to be exceptionally observant. :


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Huh. It's incredibly obvious to me. 1 camera means rooms have 4 walls, and cameras can be at any angle. 3 camera means cameras are always looking in on the set, and rooms always only have 3 walls. It seems amazing to me that one can't notice the difference.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Huh. It's incredibly obvious to me. 1 camera means rooms have 4 walls, and cameras can be at any angle. 3 camera means cameras are always looking in on the set, and rooms always only have 3 walls. It seems amazing to me that one can't notice the difference.


"1 camera means rooms have 4 walls" is the epitome of un-obvious.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> "1 camera means rooms have 4 walls" is the epitome of un-obvious.


Well, the fact that 1 camera means rooms have 4 walls might not be obvious, I'll grant.

However, it seems like it should be obvious when you compare a 1 camera to a 3 camera show (regardless if you know that one is a 1 camera and one is a 3 camera show), because one of them is missing a wall in every room of the set.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> However, it seems like it should be obvious when you compare a 1 camera to a 3 camera show (regardless if you know that one is a 1 camera and one is a 3 camera show), because one of them is missing a wall in every room of the set.


Obvious because one is missing a wall in every room. Sorry, but I still don't get it. How often does a scene involve panning such that one sees all four walls? It may be obvious to you, and if you pointed it out to me I might also say Ah, I get it. But otherwise...

Modern Family is 1 Camera, no? Can you show me any scene where all four walls get in the picture? Maybe I should pay closer attention.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Huh. It's incredibly obvious to me. 1 camera means rooms have 4 walls, and cameras can be at any angle. 3 camera means cameras are always looking in on the set, and rooms always only have 3 walls. It seems amazing to me that one can't notice the difference.


I'm not getting that from the descriptions on Wikipedia.

Is there more discussion of this 3 wall vs. 4 wall thing?

I've understood the difference between single camera and multi-camera for years, I've just never seen it related to 3 walls or 4 walls before.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Well, the fact that 1 camera means rooms have 4 walls might not be obvious, I'll grant.
> 
> However, it seems like it should be obvious when you compare a 1 camera to a 3 camera show (regardless if you know that one is a 1 camera and one is a 3 camera show), because one of them is missing a wall in every room of the set.


I also think it's incredibly obvious. One looks like a set. Cameras at one location, audience behind the cameras, studio lights where a ceiling would be, limited exterior shots, driving shots look green screened. 
The other looks like they are filming more at an actual location. More variety of camera angles, more exterior shots, more locations in general. Quite obvious to me anyway.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

It has nothing to do with 3 walls vs. 4 walls. That's just adding unnecessary confusion. 

A multi-camera show is staged and shot kind of like a play, where all the action is viewed from the front of the stage. There are usually 3 (or 4) cameras set up at the front of the stage (set) to capture all the action simultaneously. The entire set is lit very brightly because the cameras are shooting from multiple angles and they can't tailor the lighting to any single angle. It's very common for the filming of an episode of a multi-camera sitcom to start and finish in an hour or two.

With a single-camera show, it's shot like a movie, with cameras and lighting placed to capture the action from a certain angle, and then after multiple takes of that shot are done, the cameras and lighting are moved in order to capture the action from a different angle. A single scene with a conversation between two characters can take many hours to film due to the multiple changes in lighting and camera setups. A sitcom episode shot this way generally takes 6-8 very long days of shooting, and then all the footage has to be edited together. Because of the way this type of show is filmed, it doesn't have to be done on a traditional 3-walled sitcom set, and can instead be done on location in real rooms with four walls. However, many single-cam shows are still shot on sets with open walls, but the sets are constructed in such a way that you can film them from many different angles rather than only from the front of the stage.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

I think one way even less observant viewers can quickly tell if a show is one camera or three: look at how people sit around a table.

In practically every three camera show, the actors sit in what amounts to a semi-circle, so that they all will face outward, toward the cameras (and in the case of TBBT, toward the studio audience.) If the actors actually sat around a table in a more natural, comfortable way, some would likely have their backs to some cameras.

Thus, TBBT practice of eating meals hunched over a short coffee table, so that no one faces away from a camera. If several people sit around a table, but none of them one side of the table, you have a three camera show.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Add me to one who didn't know anything about 1 camera versus 3 but I did know if there was laughter or not and usually could tell if it was real or not (based upon when it happened).

I'm with Ereth on this one. If the laughter is not forced, who notices it.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> So you're ok with "literally" meaning "used for emphasis and not actually true?"


I am literally not OK with that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Here's another way to describe the difference between single-cam and multi-cam. Does the camera angle ever appear to be from inside the set? If so, it's almost certainly single cam. For example, on Modern Family, we'll frequently see shots from multiple angles within the Dunphy house:














































Think about where the camera had to be placed in order to get each of those shots. They're shot from a camera that is "inside" the set.

Compare that to the main set for TBBT where everything is filmed from the one side of the set and the camera seems to be "outside" the set:


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

This has been very educating. I never cared to think about the differences. Now I won't be able to watch and not see them. 

Thanks for the edumacating.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

So how about Penny's hair?


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

I'm still trying to figure out how they do the walk up the stairs shots without laugh tracks.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I would also be willing to bet that the recorded laughter doesn't always match up with the take being shown. You aren't going to laugh the same on the fifth take as you are on the first. There also may be audience reactions that make sense in the context of taping the show that wouldn't make sense in the context of watching the show. It's probably something that is controlled in editing, just as everything else is when putting together a TV show.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Will they have one or three cameras in Penny's jail scenes?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Will they have one or three cameras in Penny's jailshower scenes?


*FYP*


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hank said:


> *FYP*


Eddy's post was referencing the ever so high-_larious_ recurring "joke" that "Penny is a felon."


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

Azlen said:


> I would also be willing to bet that the recorded laughter doesn't always match up with the take being shown. You aren't going to laugh the same on the fifth take as you are on the first.


I believe it was the Friends DVD commentary that talked about that very subject. They said they would use the biggest laughs from all the takes. They justified it as the laughs were from that scene, just maybe not the one that made it to the show.
They also said sometimes they had to cut down the laughter because it was either too much or went on too long.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

I love Devdog's example of the different setups. It is very easy to understand when you put it into pictures like that.

And for the record I am with you on the perception of the general public on laugh track vs. live laughter. The average Joe doesn't know the difference.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Azlen said:


> I would also be willing to bet that the recorded laughter doesn't always match up with the take being shown.


Anybody who bet against you would be a fool.

I do not, and have never, sweetened my shows with fake laughs
-- Chuck Lorre

The show is sweetened with real laughs.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Eddy's post was referencing the ever so high-_larious_ recurring "joke" that "Penny is a felon."


He knows. It is just his wishful thinking.

Mine too, for that matter!


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Eddy's post was referencing the ever so high-_larious_ recurring "joke" that "Penny is a felon."


They don't take showers in prison?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> Anybody who bet against you would be a fool
> I do not, and have never, sweetened my shows with fake laughs
> 
> -- Chuck Lorre
> ...


Are there really any "fake" laughs used by anyone in the industry? It seems to me this whole thing has to do with when/where the laughs were recorded, as if there's something inherently different about the laughs of Audience A which is watching the filming of Show A, and Audience B which is watching the filming of Show B. Would it really be that big of a deal to use Audience B's laughter in the final mix of Show A?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Hank said:


> They don't take showers in prison?


New show: _Penny is the New Piper._


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hank said:


> New show: Penny is the New Piper.


I think that show might get some pretty decent ratings.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

kettledrum said:


> I love Devdog's example of the different setups. It is very easy to understand when you put it into pictures like that.
> 
> And for the record I am with you on the perception of the general public on laugh track vs. live laughter. The average Joe doesn't know the difference.


The average Joe couldn't tell the difference. If you are watching a show with audible audience reactions, you would have no way of absolutely knowing if the reactions were purely from an audience that was there at the taping of a show or if something was added or mixed in during the editing of the show.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Are there really any "fake" laughs used by anyone in the industry?


I assume most of the laughs used by the industry to sweeten shows are real laughs.

But if you are very small time you could use a laugh synthesiser on a iPhone to sweeten your show.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Glad TCF doesn't disappoint on BBT threads.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

We should totally have a "Laugh Track" discussion thread so that every time this comes up we can just link to that.



ETA: ARGH! I can't believe I just used "totally" in a sentence that way. My mind is rotting away as we speak!


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I like Penny's hair.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> We should totally have a "Laugh Track" discussion thread so that every time this comes up we can just link to that.
> 
> ETA: ARGH! I can't believe I just used "totally" in a sentence that way. My mind is rotting away as we speak!


Ha, I was thinking we should have a single-cam vs. multi-cam thread.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Ha, I was thinking we should have a single-cam vs. multi-cam thread.


Oh, don't be silly. If we had a new thread for every topic that came up, whatever would be talk about in the BBT threads?!?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Oh, don't be silly. If we had a new thread for every topic that came up, whatever would be talk about in the BBT threads?!?


Why, the merits of those threads, of course.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Why, the merits of those threads, of course.


What a felonious suggestion.

You must be drunk!


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Ereth said:


> We should totally have a "Laugh Track" discussion thread so that every time this comes up we can just link to that.
> 
> ETA: ARGH! I can't believe I just used "totally" in a sentence that way. My mind is rotting away as we speak!


In this case perhaps saying your mind is literally rotting away would have been appropriate.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What a felonious suggestion. You must be drunk!


It is egg nog season.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What a felonious suggestion.
> 
> You must be drunk!


Maybe he just got a bad haircut.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Hank said:


> They don't take showers in prison?


Every late night prison documentary on Cinemax always has the inmates taking showers.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Every late night prison documentary on Cinemax always has the inmates taking showers.


Although I suppose it's possible they do things differently in men's prisons...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although I suppose it's possible they do things differently in men's prisons...


soooo many ways to get banned for life from TCF!

Please don't lob a softball like that again


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> So you're ok with "literally" meaning "used for emphasis and not actually true?"


I'm not. It figuratively makes me cringe.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm sorry, can anyone tell me where the BBT thread went? I know it was around here somewhere.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

There was a big bang.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

It all started with the big bang. (That includes single camera and multi-camera sitcoms and laugh tracks and live audience reactions.)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

efilippi said:


> I'm sorry, can anyone tell me where the BBT thread went? I know it was around here somewhere.


Looks normal to me.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

efilippi said:


> I'm sorry, can anyone tell me where the BBT thread went?


The same place it always goes.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

teknikel said:


> The same place it always goes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

That picture is highly unrealistic.







You can see the tracks from the train.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)




----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Ereth said:


> We should totally have a "Laugh Track" discussion thread so that every time this comes up we can just link to that.
> 
> ETA: ARGH! I can't believe I just used "totally" in a sentence that way. My mind is rotting away as we speak!


I think you mean your mind is LITERALLY rotting away as we speak


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That picture is highly unrealistic.
> 
> You can see the tracks from the train.


I'm more bothered by the lack of driving rods on the wheels. Almost like a model airliner with empty engine nacelles. It's just _wrong_.

The fact that the proportions are off and the engine is sitting up way too high isn't helping.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I like this one better:


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Oh, sure. Blame the tracks.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Ereth said:


> ETA: ARGH! I can't believe I just used "totally" in a sentence that way. My mind is rotting away as we speak!


Dude, you're like, a Californian now.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Hank said:


> I like this one better:


To be honest I intentionally chose a photo from way back because I was concerned that someone viewing a random photo might possibly recognize the scene of a tragedy that had personally affected them.

So while yours has pretty colors and stuff I expect to be awarded at least a point or two for my thoughtfulness


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


>


[Sheldon]
If I was the engineer, this would have never happened.
Obviously, Wolowitz was in charge.
[/Sheldon]


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Alternative version of Thomas going off the tracks. When he will come back to the ground nobody knows.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I KNEW he was high...


----------

