The Big Bang Theory : We never see the baby

Is anybody else bothered by the fact that we NEVER see the baby?? After all the storylines about the pregnancy, they basically act like it never happened. They only occasionally refer to the baby in dialogue, and she's always in the other room if she's there at all. I know sitcoms aren't known for their realism, but I just can't believe none of their friends ever want to see or hold the baby. In real life a baby is almost the center of attention. I suppose it doesn't play into their storylines, and child actors are hard to work with, but for the sake of seeming at least little bit realistic, you'd think they'd show the baby occasionally. I mean, the audience has NEVER seen her. Only once did Howard carry the baby's covered car seat across the room and say she was sleeping. And then left her in the other room, which most people would never do with a newborn, unless maybe you have a baby monitor on.

They said all along that we would not see her. She's supposed to be like Mrs. Wolowitz. This is not a surprise. It was the plan.

That's lame & incredibly unreleastic. The care of a newborn is all-consuming. The new parents would talk about little else.

melissastearnes wrote:

---

The care of a newborn is all-consuming. The new parents would talk about little else.

---

We all know how much humor there is inherent in caring for a newborn baby. How could the writers have missed an opportunity like that?

I don't think the writers are always trying to be "realistic." They are trying to be funny.

In fact, the first rule of comedy is to pretty much toss realism.

Very true. Not everyone likes to watch storylines with babies in itto be honest, it's boring and way too heavy for a comedy show. Look at Friendswhen they started getting married and having kids, the characters and the show became boring because the characters lost a lot of their edge and spunk. Sorry, but babies are not funny because they are immune to real character development like the principals on the show, unable to participate in banter and converse, which is the main purpose. It's a good thing BBT is smart enough to keep it out of the storyline.

Even if not, then we could know that we won't see the baby by the unconvincing "crying baby" sounds obviously made by an adult actor.

For purposes of comedy, it's easy to make believe same as if watching a play, but you know there's not really a baby there and a baby doll would be hard to pull off on a TV show.

Lesson from the times: Never trust an alligator to drain the swamp.

With Howard as the father, how attractive could the kid possibly be? It's probably for the best.

And I bet you're a flower.

honeybee-97195 wrote:

---

I mean, the audience has NEVER seen her.

---

Yes, isn't it wonderful.

---

Yes, isn't it wonderful.

---

I think so. I never wanted to see babies on the show at all.

Yeah, I think it was really supposed to be like that. I went to this comic con in my country where the guy who plays stuart talked about this. He said that babies and sit coms don't mash well together. Because of that, the writers decided not to show the baby and just mention her ocassionaly. The main goal was to keep the dinamic of the series. It's true that it really isn't realistic, but nothing much is on this show either way.

What did they even bother writing a baby into the show in first place then. That's stupid.

First, it was supposed to be that way. That was the plan. It's keeping in tradition with how we never saw Howard's mother. Her cry even sounds like his mother.

Also, the baby has been in plenty of story lines already. There was one with Bernadette feeling like a bad mom because she couldn't get her to stop crying. Howard was trying to fix the creaking floor boards in the baby's room. The episode ended with Bernadette in the baby's crib with her as she finally got her to stop crying.

The baby's presence is not being ignored. The audience just isn't going to see her.

With mrs. wolowitz, it was an ongoing joke that the audience never saw her. With the baby, it just seems like Howard & Bernadette are very inattentive parents. They shouldn't have written a baby into the story if they didn't want to deal with implications

Not seeing the baby is the best decision they've made in years.

Wouldn't mind Howard building the brat a potty seat MEATLOAF! All over the ceiling! Muahahahaha

No, I'm kidding about that, but the baby shouldn't be visible or important EVER.

---

Is anybody else bothered by the fact that we NEVER see the baby??

---

No. The next best things would be if we never HEARD the baby, and never had to DEAL with it's existence.

If ever there was ever a time "Dream Season" plot device to be used, it's in regard to this kid. It's wrecking the show as it has essentially split the gang in two.

Babies almost always WRECK shows.

---

Is anybody else bothered by the fact that we NEVER see the baby?? After all the storylines about the pregnancy, they basically act like it never happened. They only occasionally refer to the baby in dialogue, and she's always in the other room if she's there at all. I know sitcoms aren't known for their realism, but I just can't believe none of their friends ever want to see or hold the baby. In real life a baby is almost the center of attention. I suppose it doesn't play into their storylines, and child actors are hard to work with, but for the sake of seeming at least little bit realistic, you'd think they'd show the baby occasionally. I mean, the audience has NEVER seen her. Only once did Howard carry the baby's covered car seat across the room and say she was sleeping. And then left her in the other room, which most people would never do with a newborn, unless maybe you have a baby monitor on.

---

No.

1. The field is crowed enough already in this 18ish-minute show.

2. Even if I had had even a minuscule amount of interest in seeing it beforehand (and I didn't), THAT VOICE certainly would have put an end to that!



Count your joys instead of your woes; count your friends instead of your foes."

I don't need to "see the baby."

I know what a baby looks like.

I don't want to see the baby, I'm not fond of human babies, that's why I never had any.

I will never let you part, for you are always in my heart: MJ
turn to page 394: Snape (nasty woman)

---

I don't want to see the baby, I'm not fond of human babies, that's why I never had any.

---

Question to W.C. Fields: "Don't you like children?"

W.C.: "Only if they're cooked properly."

I will never let you part, for you are always in my heart: MJ
turn to page 394: Snape (nasty woman)