In the early years of the Cold War, the nuclear family was promoted as providing an important sense of security. From "Leave it to Beaver," to "All in the Family," to "Dallas," to "Full House," to "Modern Family," the idea of family and what family means has almost been a direct reflection of their times. From no conflict, to constant conflict, to occasional conflict, the portrayal of "family" on television appears to both reflect and attempt to influence American ideas on the subject.
Excellent topic and so many variables here to establish such as cultural and gender roles and how they have transitioned. Additionally, the author can determine if the changes are inclusive to mirror more of American society and less of the mainstream demographics. – Venus Echos9 years ago
It's important here to include families of color. All of the families OP mentioned are white --- with the exception of Modern Family's Lily, Gloria, Manny, and Joe. Consider Family Matters, A Different World, The Cosby Show, and Blackish. – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
I had considered the exact same topic from a strictly African-American perspective, going from "Good Times," to "The Cosby Show" (though hard to dance around the unfortunate taboo of the name there, maybe swap it for "Family Matters"), to "Fresh Prince of Bel Air," to "Black-ish." (but then I got selfish and decided to tuck that one away for myself). – TheHall9 years ago
As mentioned, this is a great topic, but I also think it's important to study "atypical" familial situations, and ask what is a "family" per se. In one episode of the The Golden Girls, Rose must endure triple bypass surgery and the other "girls" are not allowed to see her at first in the hospital because they are not related to her. Dorothy raises the question "what is a family?" It could also be interesting to take an approach studying how these television characters become "families" to us, the viewers. I come from a loving, "typical" nuclear family, but also lived alone for much of my adult life. The Golden Girls has always been my security blanket, and got me through many rough, lonely times. The Facts of Life is another popular sitcom that altered a typical nuclear family with four girls who were not related, from very different backgrounds, but, like The Golden Girls, they formed a familial bond just the same. Both of these shows, along with The Cosby Show, helped carry NBC in the 1980's, and all three featured "different" kinds of families than what America was used to seeing with the shows you mentioned above. I still think it's a great idea, and many "routes" could be taken with this topic. :) – douglasallers9 years ago
Just to reiterate, this is a fascinating topic that will yield important insight as you flesh out your thesis. It's important, though, to keep in mind what the first comment mentions as far as how sitcoms are molded to suit a certain demographic of viewers. It could be interesting to do a comparison between the white American family and the black American family showing how they have developed over time. "The Cosby Show," as unfortunate a path as it has taken, was once groundbreaking for its depiction of a black family with a doctor and lawyer as parents. What problems are children in each family forced to encounter? How does that put the show in conversation with demographics of the time period? There are endless possibilities and points for discussion, so it's important to narrow them down. Choose the shows you wish to discuss, weighing pros and cons, and go from there. – LeahR9 years ago
Great topic. While we know that the concept of family and what stands for has changed since the 1950s, it will be interesting to see what ideologies still remain the same and how the stakeholders' approach to influence the audience has changed over the years. – Arazoo Ferozan9 years ago
The success of superhero TV shows and the success of bringing villains from the comics onto the screen every week (or on Netflix every season). AOS (Agents of Shield), Agent Carter, Flash, Supergirl, Gotham, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Arrow, etc. These TV shows all have something in common and that's appeal to the viewers that still like watching TV shows weekly and keeping on the edge of their seat until the next week comes.
Aside from these shows being popular on the screen and keeping the suspense coming, what does the effect of bring in villains from the comics appeal to the show? I know they are supposed to be there, yes; but, does it appeal to bring in one every season like Daredevil? Or bring them in all at once, like Flash? Which appeal works best, introducing them one at a time or introducing multiple at one time. With Netflix, you have Jessica Jones and Daredevil who have introduced one each season so far. But, TV shows like Supergirl and Flash are already having a crossover and Arrow has had one as well.
There are multiple topics to speak upon on this one, but there's also the difference between Netflix and TV show on TV. There's the fact that Netflix puts them all on the table in one night / day, is there enough leeway to have more than on villain based on that? Flash and Supergirl, even Arrow have the ability to introduce one every episode BECAUSE they come on weekly. What is the difference in doing that? Gotham has introduced the origin of the majority of the DC characters from Gotham in one season. Every show has a different way of doing it and why are they all so successful? Not only really copies the other, even on different publications like Marvel and DC.
I think this also speaks to our interest in the villain. We aren't satisfied with an all evil, kill-everybody-they-see type bad guy anymore. We are just as fixated on sexy conflicted heroes as we are on sexy conflicted villains. Good topic – DClarke9 years ago
An excellent topic! One might also consider how the plot arcs of these shows proceed. Does a series that contains a sustained plot arc across the entire season benefit from introducing a single villain vs. introducing multiple villains from the start? If a series is more episodic in nature, do they necessarily lean to one side or the other? If the series is going to be taking place in one of the "expanded universes" that have become so popular, how does that affect the introductions of villains? – SMurphyEGB9 years ago
I'd love to see a list of your favorite featured players on SNL that never made it to full-time cast members. There's quite a few that I found worthy enough to make the cast, but unfortunately didn't. Many of them went from writer, to featured player, and then they were either fired or went back to writing. I think a list of 1-10 of who you found was great, but didn't make the cut, would be best. Also, add an explanation or video clip for each of the 10, as to why they are ranked where they are. For example, if you had a favorite sketch or Weekend Update appearance that made them stand out for you.
Good topic! I think a list of 10 would be better in order to be able to be more thorough/detailed and keep interest throughout the whole thing; perhaps with a short video clip of each person's work (sketch or update, as you suggested). I'd probably click on this to read, but I know I wouldn't make it through 20 unless I was a die-hard SNL fan that already knew all of the performers - choosing a smaller number and adding clips will make this more accessible for those who don't regularly watch the show. Also, is the list focused on actors the writer feels weren't good enough, or that the show felt weren't good enough? It might be more interesting to choose people that the writer feels were worthy of full-time status but did not make it (and the tone would be more positive by pointing out their strengths rather than listing their faults). Your phrase "if you had a favorite sketch or Weekend Update appearance that made them stand out for you" suggests that you are talking about people who deserved to be on the program full-time, but your earlier sentence "There's quite a few I found good, but not good enough." suggests the opposite. If the article is about your favorites, the reader will want to see if their favorites match your own, which is fun, and invites comments. – Katheryn9 years ago
A video clip would add a lot to the article. – Munjeera9 years ago
I like this because I think right now SNL is in transition period. I think diversity is great and the voices are bringing out new forms of comedy. I think this would also be a great way to compare what sketches worked, for example, in the 70's and whether those sketches would work today given the quality of the performance and writing of the sketch and the sketches today. I think this is solid, relevant, and would open the article to go many directions while still being clear. – Matthew9 years ago
The new season of Black Mirror is in production. Netflix has now bought the rights and is changing the structure of the series, expanding to 12 episodes for this new season. They will no longer feature on TV but exclusively on Netflix and online. What can we expect from the new season? Will these changes impact the quality of the narrative? Will the themes be explored in a similar way and as thoroughly? Do you think they would benefit from linking episodes together since they now have more (although this might not be their ambition)?
Black Mirror is a good show to focus on, being that it is, in fact, Britain's response to our "Twilight Zone." – WebJJohnston9 years ago
The TV Channel BBC 3 has just turned into an online channel, abandoning its television platform to embrace the digital entirely. It has always targeted young people yet had low audiences and did not make much profit. The decision to turn completely digital and online seems to be BBC's way to keep its 'young' audience, who spends more time online than in front of the TV. What is there to gain? What is there to loose? How far until a TV channel is pushed to completely reinvent itself? Is the future of TV online?
Often in TV, we see female characters being portrayed as "strong" if they are irritable, contradictory, or just plain mean. Characters like Abby in Sleepy Hollow, Alicia in the Good Wife, and Amy from Superstore all seem like people I'd want to avoid. Their prickly personalities are supposed to signify that they are confident women who are trying to make it on their own in the world. But is that really what a strong woman is about? Having a personality that makes you unkind to others and very irritable does not seem to constitute the ideal woman in my book. It seems rare that we see a kind, agreeable woman being portrayed as someone who is also strong. What is the perfect combination of spunk and kindness that would make up the ideal "strong" female character?
This is an excellent topic! I find that I usually can't stand female characters in books, movies, and TV lately because they are so one-dimensional. It seems like authors and producers really want to push the "badass female" trope, which always makes her come across as rude, irritable, and like you said, just plain mean. I get that they're trying to make a woman seem tough and able to stand on her own two feet, but in reality, women are not that one-dimensional. A woman can be strong without being unlikable, obnoxious, or "tough." An example I would use is Yuna from Final Fantasy X. She is a very soft-spoken, gentle character, but she is out to save the world, and when she needs to stand up for herself or her friends, boy, does she do it! So I think the answer(s) to your question is/are complex. – Christina Legler9 years ago
Female characters are written by female screenwriters are often the best way to get good strong roles out for female actors. One example is Elaine Pope who wrote for Seinfeld. Elaine the character was one of the first really funny women on TV who did not portray the stereotypically straight "man" for the funny main character. Getting a multi-dimensional female character on TV would require a screenwriter who would have insight into women enough to make them entertaining. Usually conflict is what drives a character and plot. So the conflict would have to be something that would resonate with women. How the main character deals with the conflict with as you put it spunkiness and kindness would be nice to see. I think that Marg Helgenberger and Jorja Fox on CSI were a move in the right direction. Also Amy on Big Bang Theory is both very sweet, smart and strong and not your typical lead actress in Hollywood. – Munjeera9 years ago
This is a fascinating topic and one that I still find myself mulling over in my head. I think when we think of "strength" it's a word that is already so imbued with (sometimes narrow) masculine ideals. As Jack Graham wrote in "Stephen Moffat - A Case For The Prosecution," "Fetishizing ‘power’ in women characters – having them kicking ass and always being ready with a putdown - isn’t the same as writing them as human beings." Perhaps this would be a separate article, but aside from personality, appearance is also a big factor in what makes a female character "strong" (or "feminist"). For example, in video games, I often come across scantily clad women and then have to ask myself if I'm right to criticize the creators for their male gaze-based designs or if I'm accidentally slut-shaming. – txl9 years ago
I did my graduate thesis on this very topic. The trouble anyone who wants to write about this intelligently is going to run into is the answer to this simple question: what is femininity? Any answer that's remotely palatable is going to be complicated and nuanced. Ultimately, it is a social construct. And social constructs change--femininity in 1950 looked much different in 1970, and so on. Coming up with a streamlined definition is tricky, if not impossible in our very fragmented 21st century society. That said, I find the trope to be problematic because it perpetuates a false binary: traits coded as feminine (nurturing, empathy, crying) are weak, and traits coded as masculine (terse, detached, "tough") are strong. Basically, women are only strong if they "act like a man" (the quotes are to indicate skepticism--see above discussion of femininity versus masculinity). Some possible good examples in different genres of womanly women are: Snow on OUAT (I know, the show is terrible, I will not even argue that). Rizzoli and Isles are both great, and a great example of a healthy female friendship. Felicity Smoak on Arrow is another example of femininity to me. I don't really watch any sit-coms anymore because I haven't found one to rival How I Met Your Mother (the greatest sit-com ever), but Lily from HIMYM is a good example, I think. You may want to read Carina Chocano's NYT article entitled: "Tough, Cold, Terse, Taciturn and Prone to Not Saying Goodbye When They Hang Up the Phone"--it was the spark for my thesis.
– ladyabercrombie9 years ago
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the revival of TV shows or films from the 90's. The most recent addition to this lineup is Netflex's re-production of sequels to "Full House" and "Gilmore Girls". The remake of Ghostbusters, the Terminator, and Goosebumps are some of the other examples of this shift. What does the revival of such shows or films tell us about our cultural understanding of the 90s? Are we being nostalgic or does the industry tap into our love for such iconic shows, but why? Exploring this idea would require an examination of the cultural significance of such shows or films and to what extent their appeal has resulted in their revival decades later.
And with Nickelodeon rerunning Rugrats, it seems it's the makers that are being nostalgic. Perhaps one of the reasons is that a lot of new comers to the Nickelodeon production team were 90s kids? Maybe. I personally don't know who's I charge and how new they are so I could be wrong but it's worth looking into. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Nick has it's own nostalgia channel now and that is something too, it's like we are keen on being nostalgic 2015 /2016 are all about reviving dead shows, twin peaks is coming back from the 90's and x-files came back from the 90's. it is like the 90's shows are making a comback and they are even talking about having a hey arnold! movie and then a movie with all the old cartoons like rugrats, hey arnold! etc., it's a good way to start to get us to buy series' dvd's haha because that is def what it makes me want to do right now. But, what does it do to us as a generation to see these shows and see the people in these shows grown up and what does it do for the kids who did not know these shows existed and how this is the first show they are going to see and have as full house grown up, instead of as little kids, it is so weird to think about! – scole9 years ago
It's also worth noting that in the 2000s, Rugrats already sort of came back when All Grown Up aired. And as a spin-off/sequel of some sorts, it was actually not that bad at all. I'd say, as a generation, shows like this would rekindle anybody's old love, and make newcomers curious to what the original was all about. Only makes things better. It's a smart move by Nick. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
With Nickelodeon running it's 90s channel, The Splat, I suppose you could say that it's a way of keeping the 90s kids' youthful spirit alive in a way, similar to how Boomerang was aimed towards the Baby Boomers as a nostalgia television block. It seems too soon to be presenting a 90s nostalgia block, but with the fast culture and growing technology, the industry will always rise to this occasion of feeding these audiences what they crave. – Sean Navat Balanon9 years ago
Going on the Arrow sub-reddit there seems to be several "who's in the grave?" everyday. I suggest having a definitive roundup of who could be the person theorised about so much. Whose death would have the biggest impact on the show? Are Felicity and Thea in the clear now that they've survived near death experiences? The writers/show-runners say Felicity is not in the grave, but could her body be elsewhere and the Felicity in the car with Oliver be a hallucination much like Shado was in the flashbacks. What about Oliver's son? He seems like the next character the show is teasing to die after Malcom told Darkh about him. Would a character the audience has seen maybe just two times leave a big enough impact on the viewers? Would they even go so far as killing off a child? Even with its somewhat darker tone, Arrow still doesn't seem like the sort of show that would do this.
This should aim to be the definitive piece for the "who's in the grave?" theories. Which characters make sense? Which characters don't?
Prime candidates: Diggle, Laurel, Felicity, Thea, William Hawke and possibly Quentin Lance. Finally, is this who grave talk taking away from the rest of the show? This seems like a tunt to get the fandom in on speculating who is going to be killed off when this could have been handled as a surprise death.
