Put
Silicon Valley and
The Big Bang Theory on paper and they're fairly comparable at their core - a band of nerds are unattractive but highly intelligent, stumbling through the world with computers and science as their socially awkward personas hold them back. The characters themselves are even relatively similar on a basic level: the main character and central nerd; the brown guy with an accent; the totally aloof weirdo who provides the core of the most outrageous, unrealistic comic relief; and the bonus religious character (a Satanist and a Jew, the last time I'll ever put those two in the same category). Typically, they'll spew indecipherable jargon you'll be at a loss at understanding unless you're in the specific field. Furthermore, for both of the show centres around the characters' success with women, or lack thereof. Up until now one sounds like a knockoff of the other despite being them being entirely different programs; it would be like calling
The Amazing Race similar to
16 and Pregnant because they're both reality shows. Their delivery in their humour, storytelling and intended audience is how they separate, and it's indicative of the differences between cable T.V. and a network that literally defines itself as
more than television:
CBC and HBO respectively.
The two shows appeal to vastly different crowds.
BBT is a show for the masses, one that's simply easier to digest and meant to be enjoyed by anyone with a television and thirty minutes of spare time. Catchphrases help you find what was funny, and in case you missed it, laugh track reminds you. I mentioned the technical jargon of characters (mostly science mumbo jumbo that the majority wouldn't understand) but it isn't necessary to follow it in the least; in fact, it's better if you
don't as many of the jokes centre around the non-physicists reacting to something complicated by simply making note of the fact that no, they in fact are not as smart. They will then demonstrate that by pausing briefly before saying they don't get it. Cue laugh track. That's how you know it was funny. Now, before I go too far, I don't want to say
Big Bang Theory is devoid of humour - it's not. It has it's moments, the characters are for the most part likeable and it's better than most of the typical run of CBS shows (I'm looking at you,
2 Broke Girls). Honestly, it's a good show to have on in the background as you're doing something else...
...Which is key to my next point - the show's also differ in their delivery of continuing storylines. While
Big Bang Theory has one, it isn't critical to the viewer's understanding of their episode by episode approach. I have not seen the last season or two but whenever I jump into an episode currently I won't miss out on much of the humour. Typically, it'll only be five minutes in before I also understand the crux of the season's plot thus far.
Silicon Valley, however, has a linear progression to the storyline that is critical to the understanding of the show. It's not really a comedy that's meant to be tuned in on re-runs, but instead one that is watched steadily one to the next. In essence, it's a binge-watch show rather than a background runner. Unfortunately for shows of this variety, unless it's a comedy that gains almost immediate recognition - which is ultimately exceptionally rare - the viewership simply won't be as high due to accessibility for the viewer past episode one. I feel this is what killed the massively critically acclaimed
Arrested Development (before, of course, it's resurrection) as so many of the jokes were based off ongoing themes, much would be lost on those tuning in mid-way through a season - perhaps after hearing of the show's quality. I would bet you anything that even if the two found themselves on the same channel,
Big Bang would slaughter the other largely because of this reason. Mass appeal comes through accessibility.
Deep down, the shows reflect what the networks want from them; CBS wants viewers, and thus went the route of mass appeal. HBO wants quality and recognition, and shot for a niche market. So what makes
Silicon Valley niche and
Big Bang Theory for the masses beyond the base outline of the networks on which they run? I would say take a look at the visuals.
BBT is deliberately over the top, colourful, vibrant, filled with graphics on scene switches, and really strikes for excess in a number of ways; whereas
Silicon Valley goes for more of a realism approach. That's what makes
Silicon Valley niche. It's
actually meant for people who are, well, nerdy. It's for those who are coders, programmers, computer geeks and the like or at the very least those that understand that world to some degree.
Big Bang Theory is for nerd
perception; it's what most people think nerds are like, but really a group that doesn't exist in reality. It's equivalent to the popular girl in high school who says "oh, I'm such a nerd!" because she plays Candy Crush on her phone. I mean, no one in the world dresses like
this. It's the same reason all of these men - in spite of being social misfits - stumble their way through to date exceptionally attractive women time and time again, all the while complaining about their failures with wooing the opposite sex. This works because it's
America, and you can be successful however you please, and that's the American Dream. On the other hand, the characters in
Silicon Valley look the part (save for perhaps some degree of obesity) and after two seasons most of their characters strike out - with, of course, the exception of Erlich, the
Silicon Valley version of Sheldon. Here it would be important to note that since they fill the same role in opposite worlds, Erlich is the only one repeatedly successful while Sheldon is reduced to the girl who played Blossom.
Silicon Valley lives in the realistic world of lonely programmers, but that's just not what everyone wants to see. What everyone wants to see is Kaley Cuoco (pre-short-hair).
Neither show approaches nerd culture incorrectly (a great number of people will disagree with me on that) as at the core they're simply comedy programs. They're not bringing some sort of agenda, not trying to prove any great point, and if you don't like one or the other you can say it's not your thing and turn the channel. Deep down, it comes down to the same problem Andy Millman had in
Extras -
take the critical acclaim and be seen by few, or be seen by many and pass on the accolades. Personally, I'll watch both. The difference is with one I'll probably be making food with it in the background, and sitting down to watch the other once it's prepared.
