Discuss the current direction of the show, especially its later seasons and their emphasis on Sherlock and Watson’s personal lives.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s character has been successful for so long and undergone many adaptations because of the clever use of the powers of deduction to solve mysteries that boggle lesser minds.
Is the BBC show wandering from its origins? Is that something that contributes to its success and popularity, or will it trip it up if it continues?
The topic would definitely be of interest to a large audience, but it would be helpful for concept of "soap opera" to be more thoroughly defined. Perhaps just culturally. As a soap opera in the US is different than the UK and extremely different than Mexico or other Latin American countries. And is becoming a soap opera a bad thing? – mazzamura1 month ago
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdaptationDecay <-- this page may be helpful for anyone interested in writing about it. – Sadie Britton2 weeks ago
"The 100" has become known for its morally gray characters. In the TV show, warring clans often use the justification "[insert devastating action] was done for my people." However, "The 100’s" stance is not so clear cut. Discuss the TV show’s portrayal of moral relativism. Does "The 100" agree with the justifications characters provide for their actions (i.e. committing genocide "for [their] people")? Or does it want viewers to challenge the ideologies behind the "heroes" behavior? What evidence contributes to your conclusion, whether it be cinematography, symbolism, plot parallels, etc?
Considering current claims that Hollywood, media-making populations are out of touch with "regular Americans," and often prioritizes the stories of people on the east and west coast, how can we interpret the depiction of Texas culture on a show like Friday Night Lights? How does the show use, misuse, or rethink stereotypes about Southern/Texan tradition to portray a nuanced and realistic culture, for media consumers both from and outside of that culture?
With the rise of so many news stories revealing how Reality TV isn’t real at all, should the name "Reality TV" be changed to reflect what it really is–Fictional Reality TV (FRTV) Reality TV truly represents the idea of what people experience on a daily basis, but these experiences that are showcased on Reality TV are forced manipulations to make it appealing to watch. For example, Discovery Channel’s Alaskan Bush People supposedly live off the Alaskan land, and they barter for the things they need. Since they are getting paid for the TV show, do they really barter to get the things they need? Furthermore, if the name is changed to FRTV, will the ratings of these shows be impacted? Are people or a reality show’s audience more likely to discredit the show if the genre is visible, calling the show what it is?
"Fictional reality TV" might be a mouthful, but I say a name change is definitely in order. Personally, I know reality shows are scripted, but I still enjoy a few. Actually, knowing they're scripted sometimes makes the experience better. Example: I watch parenting-centered shows like Supernanny, and I know the camera people must be behind their equipment saying, "I'll give you a piece of candy if you call Mommy a poopoo head." The thought is hysterical. – Stephanie M.3 weeks ago
Hi Stephanie, I was devasted to find out the reality TV was so scripted. I thought camera men just followed people and the editors cut and paste to make sure there was a climatic point to the story. I'm glad we agree that there should be a name change. Acronyms are so popular in our society that all we have to do is start using FRTV, and I bet it catches on. Thank you for the feedback! – Vchelle3 weeks ago
I prefer the term, "Cancelled." – Tigey2 weeks ago
Netflix’s Stranger Things, although set in the 1980’s, seems to reflect the current state of life in America. How does the notion of the "Upside Down" speak to life today? The Oxford Dictionary word of the year in 2016 was ‘post-truth’ which states that objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion or personal belief. How does the notion of the Upside Down reflect the current post-truth era that we live in?
NBC’s critically-acclaimed but fairly short-lived television series Hannibal is an adaptation of Thomas Harris’s novels featuring the psychiatrist-cum-cannibalistic-serial-killer Hannibal Lecter. Although initially structured as a prequel to the first Lecter novel, Red Dragon, over the course of its three seasons the show became an entirely different animal, adapting pieces of all four of Harris’s novels about Lecter (Red Dragon, The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, and Hannibal Rising) to form a whole that’s very different than the sum of its parts.
How does Bryan Fuller choose, combine, and discard very different plot threads from the books into one cohesive series? Does he? Are his methods effective, or is the show’s plot line a muddled mess?
Excellent topic! Fuller's alchemy on that series is easily one of the most remarkable artistic achievements in recent television. It's worth noting, however, that he didn't have the rights to include the Silence of the Lambs characters and storyline into the series, which is why the roles of Clarice Starling and Will Graham were fused into one character. Upon cancellation, there was always the hope that Netflix might revive them for a fourth season, and that the timing might coincide with obtaining the rights to Silence of the Lambs, but that prospect kept looking less and less likely as the major players began taking on other projects. However, interesting that you should bring this up now, given the recent announcement: http://tvline.com/2016/12/23/hannibal-silence-of-the-lambs-miniseries-bryan-fuller/ In any case, I'd be excited to read this article. – ProtoCanon3 weeks ago
I think this would be a great topic considering the depth of source material and other adaptations of Harris's books. I would like to take a crack at it but I might have to spend a month or two just going over everything to write something worthwhile. – CoolishMarrow903 weeks ago
a few thoughts on some places to start: Miriam Lass and Abel Gideon as expies for SoTL Clarice and Lecter, the choice to adapt two books (Red Dragon and Hannibal) in season 3, the treatment of Hannibal Lecter's canonical but unpopoular backstory from Hannibal Rising. – Sadie3 weeks ago
With the revival of the beloved show "Gilmore Girls," watchers get another chance to see what their favorite people of Stars Hollow have been up to. It’s no question that those who loved the show before still love the show after watching it over again. However, and with much regret, after enjoying the seven seasons once again, along with "A Year in the Life," some viewers can’t help but question some of the choices the Gilmores make. From homewrecking, to bullying, to cheating, to using, being rude, and somewhat cruel at times, they still somehow manage to make audiences love them. What distracts us from these events? What makes watching it so enjoyable? What qualities redeem them? Why do we love them?
Focusing on the original series versus the revival might be helpful in keeping the essay focused. – mazzamura4 weeks ago
I was actually thinking about this recently and I was a fan of the series when it originally aired on The WB back in the early 2000s. I also own every season on DVD and tuned in for A Year in the Life on Netfilx with much anticipation. However, in watching AYIAL, I found myself really hating the Gilmores. They were bossy, self-righteous, and made selfish decisions that dragged others into their messy lives. I wanted to smack Rory and shake Lorelai. Emily, I just wanted her to open her eyes and ears to really hear herself and the racist and classist things that she would say to her hired help.Then I realized, I never loved the Gilmores -- it was always the characters around them that redeemed them. It was Stars Hollow, Paris, Lane and Hep Alien, Jess, Liz, TJ, everyone else (even Logan) that made the girls the magnet of my attention and appreciation. The pop-cultural references and wit were great, but the girls alone just didn't sit well with me. I felt it growing up with the series, but now I can more effectively express this feeling. Maybe the revival was too shady for me, but I think looking back at the series, I had more eye rolls towards Rory and Lorelai than I liked to admit. At least Rory got me psyched about applying to college and making something of myself...but how unnerving it is to see where she actually ended up... – khunt123 weeks ago
I really enjoy this idea and you can do the same for other shows as well such as Friends or One Tree Hill.
– boyerj3 weeks ago
I really like this topic as someone who was never a Gilmore Girls fan. I watched part of A Year in the Life recently and I just couldn't understand the appeal. My main issue was I couldn't understand why they spoke in monologues but that's mostly irrelevant. But I do think the issue isn't so much likability but maybe a bit of subconscious envy. It's appealing to see someone do or say whatever they want with no repercussions and remain the protagonist of the story. Even in something as trivial as eating, the Gilmore Girls live a fantasy idea. They eat junk food in large amounts at all hours of the day but remain attractively slim. Meanwhile the average person subsisting on pizza, ice cream, and pop tarts for 20 years would certainly not look like that. Many people love villains because they do whatever they want; in a way I think shows like Gilmore Girls (and Friends as another commentator mentioned) give viewers similar satisfaction whilst still rooting for the 'good guy'. – LC Morisset3 weeks ago
I've never understood the appeal of Gilmore Girls, and I've seen a few thinkpieces since AYITL came out posing this exact question. This could make for a good article, but whoever takes this on should be cautious to not repeat points made elsewhere, or to at least find new evidence for them. – Sadie3 weeks ago
Analyze what makes The Great Gatsby such an enduring piece of literature — the 1920s was long ago, as is its culture, and yet we continue to read the book and see pieces of ourselves in the characters. What is it about the writing, the scenario, or the characters that continue relentlessly, beat on, boats against the current?