We are now three episodes (possibly more by the time this topic is selected) into the new series of Doctor Who (2018), starring the talented Jodie Whittaker. Now seems like a good point to engage in a discussion of the show, its reception, the doctor as a woman, and Doctor Who fandom, in the light of the previous article The Artifice has published. ((link)
Has Whittaker lived up to the expectations placed on her both as a woman playing an iconic role, and as the newest of the Doctors? What has been the overall reception by fans and general media to the portrayal of the doctor as a female now that three episodes have aired? Has the new writer/show runner influenced the reception and portrayal of the doctor? Is this a positive or negative? Is the new Doctor displaying a subversion of gender normalisation or is it continuing to present traditional stereotypes?
What do you think?
In my opinion it may still be a little too early to analyse Whittaker's Doctor as she is still finding her feet, so to speak. It's a tough role for any actor to take on and truly make it his/her own. I'll reserve judgement until the end of her first season. Having said that though, Chibnall must, in my opinion, up his game. The third episode in this new series, 'Rosa' was particularly weak, insofar as the resolution could have been reached by almost any time travelling hero/ine and the villain of the week was dispatched far too easily. Still, I'm sure others have their own opinion. – Amyus6 years ago
I did not see it as a big deal that a woman was finally put in the role, I guess I just assumed it would happen, maybe later than it should have happened but finally. On the other hand, two of my daughters who faithfully follow the show were absolutely excited that it finally happened. Since one of the questions addresses fan reception, it might be useful to discuss how male and female fans reacted to the news, followed by how they react now that it is underway. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
Channel Zero, a new anthology series based off of popular stories on Creepy Pasta (a horror "microfiction" platform), has two seasons available on Shudder, a media platform similar to Netflix that caters to horror fans. Analyze various themes within the first season of Channel Zero, "Candle Cove," or compare and contrast Candle Cove with the following season, "No-End House." For example, while Candle Cove draws the viewer in with a murder-mystery approach that is later muddled by supernatural forces, No-End House seems to dive right in with the other-worldly approach.
Should the response from a community influence a producer to continue a series or not? There is some precedence: Chuck was at risk of being canceled but was renewed after fans submitted their distress to the producers. I know of others also, but not well enough to name them specifically. However, recent cancellations of shows have resulted in outrage from communities of fans (Sense8) but these responses did not make the shows come back in the same way.
I do believe that in some instances fans can help make networks and the like sit up and take notice of what the fans what. Take for instance the tv series 'Lucifer', it was cancelled by Fox but fans started an uproar on social media and Netflix was the one to renew the show. But other times even if a series is amazing to certain viewers, the networks and higher up concentrate more on business side of things and film and television are a business these days. If they don't get the viewers or the ratings, sometimes even with all the outrage and petitioning from fans, it can't help. There is one particular film which comes to mind, 'Vampire Academy', which is based on a series of novels. I am a fan of this film and signed all the online petitions and tried my best to help get the second film made, but when it comes down to it, the fans couldn't help even though I think it would have been amazing.
This is an idea I do think society should expand on because fans are sometimes what can keep a show from continuing or not and outlets such as social media can help bring light to cancelations. – ambermakx6 years ago
Whether it be competitive shows such as The Bachelor or simply watching people live their lives like on The Real Housewives, audiences are drawn to watching people live under surveillance. From a production point of view, the gravitation to these shows is obvious: they are inexpensive to make and draw in a large audience. But why are they so popular and when did this trend of reality TV start? What does it say about society that we are so obsessed with these shows? Are the actions of the members on the shows a good representation of society, or are their actions a response to being under constant surveillance?
Hi Maddy. Just a quick suggestion. It might be worth looking at the articles and topic suggestions already available at The Artifice, some of which have a theme similar to your suggestion. Perhaps these could be combined in a single analysis. I'd also recommend reading Neil Sanders's 'Your Thoughts Are Not Your Own: Volume 2: Marketing, Movies and Music', as an insight into mass media programming. – Amyus6 years ago
Hi I am not huge a fan of reality television but my Mum is a big fan of reality show so it dd get me thinking how now in early 2000's we are getting bombarded with more and more reality television shows and when I was growing up I do not remember seeing so many (I wonder if I just did not notice it or was there less on in the late 1900s). Even though as I said reality television is not my thing it would still be interesting to see why we are seeing so many of them now. – Melver6 years ago
Todays professional sports have now created their own storylines within the games, and are publicized enough in the media, that sports have become more intriguing and entertaining than reality television. With sports not being scripted, and available across the globe no matter the language, they are more accessible.
What exactly would be the prompt for this post? Would it be talk about why sports are more entertaining and how it came to be? OR would it be more along the lines of trying to actually determine if such a statement is true, which by the way I don't believe is true. I think it would also be important to maybe pick one sport and talk about how specifically that sport might or might not be more popular than reality television. – tmtonji6 years ago
I think there's something here but if the focus is on how sports on TV has changed in how it is being presented from the past (exactly when that was should be made clear)? Storylines in sports is a good idea. Do we see it more clearly in, say, the Olympics more so than in football or baseball? What type of storyline? Are there studies showing certain storylines appeal to TV audiences and in what ways? – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
This could be interesting, but I think you would need to specify the particular elements of "reality television" which you are referring to. I think the point here is the competition element of some reality television, and how audiences prefer the supportive communities around sports teams. However you have mentioned how sports are not scripted, leading me to think of the rise of scripted reality such as Keeping Up with the Kardashians, etc. I think you need to specify what area of reality television you think this change refers to. It may also be worthwhile making a comparison or considering the massive current popularity of scripted wrestling franchises as this seems to be an exception to the trend. – Kayleigh Hall6 years ago
Keeping in mind the other suggestions, it would be interesting to analyse the recent trend of premier leagues taking India and the cricketing world by storm. Celebrity Cricket League and Box Cricket League are few leagues which tried to combine the glamour of celebrities and reality television with competitive sports. Leagues have also sprung up for badminton, tennis and plenty of other sports. Are advertisers able to target a specific audience easily, thus raising sponsorship and money needed for running these leagues in specific long-winded formats? – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
With Better Call Saul entering it's fourth season, it may be a good time for discussion on how well the show works. Specifically, how does it compare to the main show it evolved from. The writer could look at narrative and character similarities, stylistic choices and maybe even potential flaw if any are noticed.
With El Camino being released, the article could also focus and derive from it. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
Non-conventional episodic formats have been growing in popularity for a number of years now. With streaming services and premium cable lifting restrictions on how episodic content is made and consumed (doing away with standard 21/46 minute programs forced by advertising) how will this shape the way programs are made? BBC series have had this sort of format for years and now even shows like Game of Thrones have changed the way they shoot their episodes (originally opting for a more conventional structure but now ending the series with 6 approx. 2 hour episodes) Will this be more alluring for creatives?
I think this topic has a lot of potential. You could contrast the stylistic choices made by series that no longer have to facilitate advertisements versus ones that do. Traditionally series will be forced to incorperate an ad break at the 15, 30 and 40 minute mark depending on the length of the show and so will tailor certain tantalizing plot points to keep people watching after the break but the long form serial drama on certain SVOD services is free from such a creative restraint. Therefore you could compare say Game of Thrones or a Netflix series like Daredevil or Mindhunter in contrast to a conventional show in order to examine how these textual differences affects televisual flow- realting to the interplay between reception (viewing habits) and aesthetics. – OmegaReviews6 years ago
With streaming, OTT and other premium VOD services exploding like never before, it would be very interesting to assess how episodes of any length can now befit a series with numerous examples where a single season had successive episodes of totally different lengths based on the need of the script. What additional freedoms does easing of this restriction provide to screenplay and dialogue writers? – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
Conservative American pundit and public intellectual William F. Buckley Jr. was host of the television series Firing Line from 1966 until 1999, making it the longest running talk show in history to have a single host. The format was simple: Buckley had on one or several guests who were qualified to have something to say on a given topic. He and they would discuss and often debate that topic. As Buckley put it, "the show is based on the proposition that an interesting person can be interesting for sixty minutes consecutively." The show was noted for its formal, respectful tone as well as its generally high intellectual calibre.
Despite the success of the show, Buckley is perhaps best remembered for his extended television confrontation with liberal intellectual Gore Vidal, not on Firing Line, in which both men dispensed with intellectual discourse and viciously insulted each other.
Buckley is often credited as an important public intellectual of his time, and also for his more unwitting contribution to the kind of incendiary insult punditry we often see in contemporary talk TV, both right (Fox News etc) and left (Bill Maher etc).
Examine the legacy of Buckley the debater, and how he changed the way politics is discussed on television.
Watch Buckley debate Mark Halpern, who authored a book on the Kennedy assassination, and you'll see two of the most condescending non-royals in history. Here's an excerpt from a very famous debate, which I think the latter speaker won. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jEVCX-d4Zk – Tigey8 years ago
I loved the debate between Buckley and Hitchens, where they discussed the 'woman's movement' and the Ayatollah. It showcased how a conservative can engage a liberal in a fruitful way. – Bilal8 years ago
This is a great topic. Especially in this year, I find myself longing for the civility of Firing Line. There has been such an increase of hostility in politics recently -- on both sides -- that I feel if conservatives and liberals could just hear each other out without getting their proverbial hackles up, then that would go a long way toward restoring the respectful ideological atmosphere Buckley tried to foster. – John Wilson8 years ago
I took this topic to write on and, what I notice, is some statement saying how long ago (usually measured in hours) since I clicked the little rectangle saying I would do this. I do not anticipate this being a quick essay, in fact, as is the case with the essay I have pending (4,200 words) and the one I'm just polishing up and reviewing several times (4,500 words) before submitting, I expect this one to be around the same length. I like the topic. I think it's a good way to address concern about political dialogue today, but it takes time to make it a thoughtful piece--something, I hope, readers can enjoy and add to their ways of thinking and talking about politics. I'm figuring that if I can write some 6-9 good essays a year for The Artifice (all more than 4,000 words in length) then that will be a good year. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
