TV

“Happy Valley” (Season 3), “Stranger Things” (season 3), “Lost in Space” (Season 2), “Queen of the South” (Season 3), or “Into the Badlands” (Season 3). There are other series out there. Sure, some come from the BBC or AMC, but the convenience of quickly seeing as many episodes as one can enjoy in a short period of time, is so different than watching “Davy Crockett” on “Walt Disney’s Wonderful World of Color,” spread out over three Sunday evenings, eventually getting to Davy dying at the Alamo.
The anticipation, the expectation are probably different when waiting for an entire season of a particular show to be available on Netflix than was the case with waiting for the next episode of “Spin and Marty” a series that included some 78 episodes in all (also on Disney). Do we develop a more critical way of evaluating a series now because of the way we wait for its return and watch a number of episodes all in one sitting than was the case when we had no control over how many episodes we could watch at one sitting? Since episodes can be watched back to back (to back, and so on) we can evaluate plot lines and character development in ways that was not the case when we had no choice but to wait for the next installment. Perhaps we become TV critics in ways that was not the case previously or even possible.
Our capability to critique a series now has to impact how series lines are developed by, say, the writers of these shows. Is there more of an interaction between the audience and the writers, producers, actors on these shows than was the case in the past?

The first season of The Bold Type just concluded and it has received overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics and viewers alike. For a show predicated on the lives of three young women – Jane, Sutton, and Kat – working at a women's magazine, the writers could have easily made its characters vapid and its plot shallow or overly predictable, or pit the three females together in competition with each other. Instead, these women each occupy their own department within the magazine and only ever try to support each other as they navigate their love lives, sexuality, jobs, and identities.
Analyze the diversity of The Bold Type's major female characters (Jane, Sutton, Kat, but even Jacqueline and Adena are useful for this discussion): their strengths, faults, and growth throughout the season. How does the characterization of these women, and the obstacles they must overcome, contribute to the show's overarching theme of female empowerment?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.