For me there is a big difference between the UK and US sitcoms, both have some great shows but for me as a whole I prefer UK sitcoms but some of the US shows are my favourites. What do you think?
I would advise editing your topic to include a more focused approach. Just what about the sitcoms do you think makes UK ones better? Filming? Writing? Ect. I would suggest maybe looking into the shooting styles and the humour styles between the US and UK. They are actually quite varied. – LondonFog8 years ago
A agree with @Christien ^^ I believe that a more direct analysis would be necessary- Perhaps try taking some shows that have both US and UK counterparts and comparing and contrasting them would create a better piece. What social issues do US/UK sitcoms seem to present more? What is "funnier" to their respective audiences? Do these TV shows have any success in the opposite market? – AndyJanz8 years ago
Analyse how television and the 24 hour news channels directly influence our bias of political candidates. Narrow down on Australian views of American politics.
I'm interested what outsiders have to say about the 2016 Clown vs. Devil debates. – Tigey8 years ago
From I Dream of Jeannie and Bewitched to Seinfeld and FRIENDS to How I Met Your Mother (among many, many others), the sitcom has its own history in television. It would be interesting to do a study on sitcoms, focusing on how sitcoms over the decades have also been shaped by the sociocultural underpinnings of that era.
You could compare sitcoms all the way back from the 50's to now. – asd52618 years ago
It would be great to see if you compared the messages that were implied through sitcoms such as The Golden Girls, The Little House on the Prairie, and etc. – hwm52118 years ago
You should also include old ones, such as the nanny and fresh prince of bel-air that had comedic as well as meaningful episodes in relation the real-life situations at the time. – cjeacat8 years ago
Huge and unspecific topic for the kind of articles published in this magazine. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Analyse whether the use of cliffhangers in popular television series and their seasons, such as Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, is a shallow attempt to maintain returning viewers or if it is an effective plot device.
Also, does the "shallow attempt" work? If it is considered as such, does this sort of basic viewer manipulation alienate viewers, or are they hooked regardless? – JimEis8 years ago
This sort of tactic is poignant to a degree and definitely expected from mega-popular series, and really any television show is going to leave at least some things unanswered by the end of the episode or season because that's basically how you keep viewers engaged. But I think after a certain point the manipulation becomes too obvious and it can be alienating for viewers because it takes them out of the moment and forces them to realize they're being toyed with in a sense. It would be interesting to see a piece about this that uses specific examples and the reactions from fans. – darapoizner8 years ago
Though cliffhangers are absolutely infuriating, they act like a drug that leads the viewer needing more and more of it. When everything is tied up in a nice bow, what is going to push the audience to impatiently await the start of the next season?
I do view it as means of maintaining returning viewers, as well as acting as an effective plot device. Now, for clarification sake, it is an effective plot device when it is well thought out, drives the plot further, and serves a purpose in the show. Those cliffhangers that rely on pure sensationalism to "hook," the returning viewer, while leaving he or she with no real substance, is a shallow attempt to maintain returning viewers. Nice topic...I would like to see what is done with this. – danielle5778 years ago
It might benefit the topic, which is presently binary, to ask when is it effective and when is it manipulative, shallow, or unfair? – Tigey8 years ago
Very interesting idea. Cliffhangers are the ultimate catch 22. They might seem like a trope, but it is important to keep people interested. Plot is sometimes underestimated. – cbell8 years ago
In defense of GoT, there are too many story lines to not leave any one cliffhanger at the end of a season. Things just don't line up like that. As for the Walking Dead, as a consumer it did feel a bit cheap. In shows with only one real story line season ending cliff hangers don't inspire me to keep watching because everyone knows it'll all get resolved in the first bit of the next episode. Cliffhangers today need more depth, more layers to keep people interested, not just "oh, which one of these pre-determined people dies?" There's cliffhangers vs plot twists, and cliffhangers are the easier of the two. – Slaidey8 years ago
'The Path' unfolds, largely, through the POV of a member of a cult who deals with his shaken faith and thoughts of leaving his community. The show relies heavily on his family life and wife whom was born into the cult. Other story lines unfold around him as we get a look into the ways the cult hooks, indoctrinates, and keeps its members. There are also key stories involving outside views of the community.
This article could explore the depiction of religion in this contemporary thriller and how it addresses the "American staple" aspects American cults have in American culture. Possibly compare contemporary foreign films depicting cults and how cultures depict them through media. How does the view towards the main character shift the show from a one-sided negative depiction to a sympathetic American issue?
Cool topic. The serious side of the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt or Bowfinger. – Tigey8 years ago
Since I first stumbled upon Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss’ Sherlock, I have been a loyal fan of this addicting show. From Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman’s chemistry to the amount of easter eggs and foreshadowing thrown into each episode, fans can analyze every frame until the next season. However, since Sherlock aired in 2010 to now, there’s a grand total of 3 seasons and 9 episodes (not including the unaired pilot) and a holiday special. Understandably everyone from the cast and crew have jam packed schedules, personal affairs that come up unexpectedly, and keeping film locations under wraps can be difficult for shows. How do these two to three year breaks fare in the longterm. Especially with more casual viewers? The new Doctor Who reboot has seen many scheduling changes as well as extensions on its season releases. Another way networks are able to go on hiatus is the mid-season break. ABC shows such as How to Get Away with Murder, Scandal, and Once Upon a Time have adopted this break to reorganize and come back even stronger in the second half of the season. With all these new variations in television breaks and social media interaction with fans, is Sherlock gaining more popularity with its infamous two to three year breaks and passionate fandom, or is it slowly being tucked away in many individuals' mind palaces.
I have been wondering the same thing for myself recently. The first two seasons were exceptional, but after the most recent one, I found myself saying, "Is that it?" Would love to see an article on this – C8lin8 years ago
With the fourth season having ended a while back and the cast still offering hope every time fans make enquiries, it is worth exploring whether such kinds of unintentional breaks aid or destroy a series’ chances. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
What fans love most is a great television series. Breaking Bad happens to be one of those shows that will always fill the hearts of its fans, and its writing is just brilliant. That being said, the objects within the show make it that much more than what it seems. For example, what is the significance of the bear that is burned in the plane crash? What events are foreshadowed from its appearance? The fact that half its face is burned is important. What other objects are significant and what do they mean to the overall show?
Really great focal points. – Diego Santoyo9 years ago
Strange. I'm already writing this topic. It's in the pending posts. I'll message misagh. – Tigey8 years ago
While watching re-runs of the 1960s cult classic, The Avengers, I was reminded of the effortless cool of many of that era’s heroes. With their witty banter and impeccable fashion sense, John Steed and Emma Peel were the epitome of the clever and effortlessly cool hero. Sean Connery as James Bond, the ever-jaded Humphrey Bogart, and even Cary Grant with his many aliases in the comic film Charade all exuded debonair qualities. Nowadays, many audiences gravitate toward anti-heroes instead. We are all about gritty realism, whether that’s by casting non-celebrity faces with minimal if any make-up as in Orange is the New Black, showing explicit content as in Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, or simply having skewed morals as in House of Cards or Dexter. There are even heroes who revoke the traditional heroism thrust upon them as with Jessica Jones. Modern-day protagonists are not often meant to be looked up to, but humanly flawed and as susceptible to be corrupted as we are. Yet it goes even beyond mere human flaws. It seems we enjoy seeing the extremes of bad behavior and the worst versions of ourselves. How did this come about? Is there a way to attain gritty realism without sacrificing the self-assuredness of the supposed heroes?
Great topic. I think there's an groundswell begging the return of standard heroes, not that antiheroes will disappear. – Tigey8 years ago
In terms of how it came to be, talk about how relatable these anti-heros are to real life people and situations. Relatability goes a long way in modern day film, because people are more accepting of how these old "heros" are not exactly the most realistic, and find the anti-hero more exciting. Incorporate why this has changed over the years. – Deana Murphy8 years ago
