Stuart Fails to Save the Universe is very different from The Big Bang Theory. That’s a good thing. 60%

By June Thomas70%

7/23/2026, 9:45:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 33.9% saturation with 222 hits. Analysis detected 1,022 faulty-reasoning hits from 655 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.8% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,888 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.40% of the article peer group.

The big bang happened nearly 14 billion years ago, when the whole universe was in a hot dense state, but *The Big Bang Theory* began in 2007, when four male nerds and an exasperated Cheesecake Factory waitress found themselves on a couch in Pasadena. 
They stayed there—wearing the same clothes, ordering the same takeout, butts glued to the same sofa cushions, pretty much—for 12 years. 
Expansion of the megahit series started in 2017, when CBS launched *Young Sheldon*, a *Bildungs*-sitcom about the education of uptight know-it-all Sheldon Cooper, and fractured one more time in 2024, with the creation of *Georgie & Mandy’s First Marriage*, about the age-gap union of Sheldon’s older brother. 
On Thursday, HBO Max debuts another spin-off, *Stuart Fails to Save the Universe*, in which the eponymous comic-store owner  well, the title says it all. 
There’s a device, built by Sheldon and Leonard; there’s a malfunction, apparently caused by Stuart; there are dimensional rifts and wormhole weirdnesses, but what really matters is that this isn’t just a spin-off; it’s a do-over. 
Stuart isn’t only trying to save the universe—he’s out to fix the sitcom. 
In many ways, *Stuart* is the most *BBT*-like of the descendant shows. 
Original creators Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady are in charge, now joined by veteran Marvel universe screenwriter Zak Penn. 
We’re back in Pasadena, and a few familiar faces, whose identities I won’t spoil, show up over the course of the 10-episode first season. 
Most significantly, the lead characters are played by *BBT* supporting actors who hung up their graphic T-shirts seven years ago. 
All that said, *Stuart Fails to Save the Universe* couldn’t be more different from its forebear, in the best and most surprising way possible. 
For many years, Lorre has been sharing his innermost thoughts on the vanity cards that appear onscreen for a couple of seconds at the end of every TV show made by Chuck Lorre Productions. 
Many of these messages are stupid; occasionally, they’re repulsive; but the card at the end of Episode 1 contains a clear and bracing declaration. 
It reads: “I have spent almost forty years writing scenes in which a small group of people sit on a couch and exchange witty banter. 
 I just couldn’t do the couch thing anymore. 
I had to try something else.” 
In fact, *Stuart Fails to Save the Universe* isn’t only trying to fix the sitcom; it’s trying to change the way we watch TV now, distracted as we are these days by second (or third) screens and endless scrolling. 
The opening credits—this time accompanied by an original Danny Elfman composition rather than a Barenaked Ladies track—contain a series of pleas begging viewers to pay attention instead of hitting the fast-forward button. 
Each episode features a new set of entreaties, and while they’re mostly meh, I have to award points for trying. 
Unfortunately, *SFTSTU* can’t expiate *BBT*’s original sins. 
Since the producers weren’t able to alter the space-time continuum, the actors have aged. 
This means that, while *BBT* could send Howard Wolowitz into space, *SFTSTU* can’t permit men aged between 55 and 60 to lust after a woman older than 41. 
With no other female characters for Denise to talk to, the show fails the Bechdel Test at the first hurdle, and whereas *BBT* had one main character of color, *SFTSTU* is blindingly white. 
Oh, yeah, and Kripke still has the speech impediment. 
Gwow up, Chuck Wowwe! 
*The Big Bang Theory* was the poster child for Slow TV: It took 278 episodes just to fix the apartment building’s elevator. 
There’s more action in five minutes of *Stuart Fails to Save the Universe* than in a season—heck, perhaps the whole run—of its progenitor. 
Will *Stuart* succeed in transforming the TV comedy universe? 
Probably not, but it has already changed its velocity, and for the better. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 4.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%June Thomas: 3.8%Slate: 3.2%Availability Heuristic11.5%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%June Thomas: 8.5%Slate: 5.9%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%June Thomas: 0.3%Slate: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.9%This article: 9.9%June Thomas: 4.0%Slate: 1.1%Optimism Bias9.9%This article: 1.1%June Thomas: 0.4%Slate: 1.8%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 22.6%June Thomas: 10.8%Slate: 9.8%Negativity Bias22.6%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%June Thomas: 0.6%Slate: 2.7%Halo Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%June Thomas: 1.0%Slate: 1.0%Recency Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.4%Slate: 1.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.2%June Thomas: 1.7%Slate: 2.8%Appeal to Authority5.2%This article: 4.3%June Thomas: 1.4%Slate: 1.7%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 1.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.6%June Thomas: 7.6%Slate: 7.8%Hasty Generalization11.6%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.1%June Thomas: 2.7%Slate: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.1%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.1%June Thomas: 3.4%Slate: 3.3%Anecdotal10.1%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%June Thomas: 1.7%Slate: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%June Thomas: 0.7%Slate: 0.1%Middle Ground2.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.7%June Thomas: 1.2%Slate: 1.4%Unattributed Quote3.7%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.9%June Thomas: 31.6%Slate: 19.6%Biased Writer Voice33.9%This article: 6.0%June Thomas: 2.0%Slate: 2.4%Indoctrination6.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%June Thomas: 0.0%Slate: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

655 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker14%attributed speech562writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageChuck Lorre • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageChuck Lorre • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageChuck Lorre • 25 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Lorre • 9 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Lorre • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chuck Lorre

43%flagged-word coverage
93 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.5 ptsWriter: 39.5%Chuck Lorre: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.9 ptsWriter: 6.9%Chuck Lorre: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Chuck Lorre: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.