MTV's Awkward is ending. The series focused on the adventures of Jenna Hamilton. She reaches popularity after the result of an accident is misconstrued and blown out of proportion. Yet, the teen drama gained acclaim for being one of MTVs best-scripted dramas. This article should explore the characters and how they differ from other teen dramas.For example, Sadie Saxton, Jenna's bully, is not a thin cheerleader, but a teen insecure about her weight.
For decades (nearly 3 for Simpsons and nearly 2 for South Park) The Simpsons and South Park have been two of the premiere cartoon comedies on TV. Their longevity is evidence of that. But does there come a time where a show should end, even while it's still doing well in the ratings?
I am not sure if we could say that they ought to end but I think that it is a good idea to see if the writing and story lines are as good as they could be. Is there a golden age of each of these shows and if so does the writing now live up to the standard that made each of them cultural icons. – DClarke9 years ago
I think because the worlds are so big in The Simpsons and South Park, the writers just explore every character and write story lines for them. Eventually they will run out story lines to tell, and that's when I think the series should end. At the end of the day, the shows aren't just about the family or friends - it's also about the community they live in. – YsabelGo9 years ago
I hold that "South Park", despite getting a bit sloppy near the end of last year, still has the potential and frequently exercises said potential because it is focused on social commentary, rather than character development. While I avoid new "The Simpsons", I think that it should bow out. I think I mentioned it in one of my previous articles, which whoever writing this should check out: https://the-artifice.com/when-a-story-should-end/ – Matthew Sims9 years ago
South Park, I believe should end but I'm speaking as someone who knows little about it. The Simpsons is different. It holds a certain title. Longest running show on television. All the characters are iconic and they are never forgotten. Imo, it's not that the show has gone downhill, it's that some (some) have gotten bored. It's still widely watched and loved. Simpsons at least should stay. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Although I believe these shows have had a long run and are definitely not as original or humorous as when they first aired, ending them might be difficult considering how iconic they are. I wonder what the ratings are? if they've gone up or down over the years. – Jameliee9 years ago
I personally believe that every show should try to go out while it's on top, or near there. The Simpson's and South Park's ratings will probably justify it being on air for another decade, but does that mean it should stay on the air? I don't think so. Also, the shows will never really run out of story-lines, especially since a lot of their story-lines come from current events, whether it's politics or pop culture. – cmlalor9 years ago
As long as South Park continues with it's social commentary it will continue to beon television. Long are the days when it can show somewhat random episodes with Christmas poos, Scuzzlebutt and Underpants gnomes. And while hardcore fans would like to see the more outlandish elements return, the show can be more successful without them. Matt Stone and Trey Parker have also recently sated that they would have to be cancelled for the show to end.
The Simpsons is a strange one because its popularity is diminsihing and so is its quality, but it is still seen as a comfort that it can be just put on the tv and watched without full attention. – Jamie9 years ago
The Simpsons should definitely end, it's embarrassing how bad it has become. The producers are to blame as they made an active decision to change the whole style of the show. I believe ironically they tried to emulate the "Whacky" element of Family Guy. even though early Simpsons was so good there really was no need to change it – BigPenguin8 years ago
This would require some research and probably a good handle on statistical analysis, but I would love to see an article on how Nielsen ratings cover the new television marketplace in comparison to how they worked when "tv" was three channels. How do modern Nielsen techniques account for Netflix, people who only watch the DVD collections, or torrent streaming? Do DVRs "report" which shows are live-viewed and which are time-delayed? And most importantly, how much effect do the Nielsens still have w/r/t to which shows are cancelled and which remain? Are cutting edge shows being dismissed because their fans are accessing them through non-traditional means?
This would be an interesting article, especially for those who are unfamiliar with how the Nielsen rating system works. You could begin by writing how the Nielsen rating system began, and perhaps argue how, at times, Nielsen ratings are often imprecise. – Amanda Dominguez-Chio9 years ago
Any fiction that focuses on a certain kind of technical profession inevitably makes short-cuts and cinematic allowances that cause experts in the field to grimace — my mathematician friends didn't want to watch NUMB3RS; the nurses I know won't watch Grey's Anatomy. This article would give examples of errors repeatedly made when portraying specific fields or professions.
This topic could actually be done as several different articles: say, 5 Shows that get Computers Wrong, and then a paragraph on each listing 2-3 commonly-occurring mistakes each show makes w/r/t to computers. (Like that trope about images being able to be refined until a fuzzy reflection in a window is a recognizable face, for instance.) Or the focus could be 5 medical dramas that repeatedly lean on bad medical procedures or tests.
Or from another angle, the focus could be on a specific show and abuses it makes w/r/t representing its field — 5 Times The Big Bang Theory got Physics Wrong, for example.
I was chatting to some medic friends the other day and they said Scrubs was fairly consistent on an accurate portrayal :) some food for thought! – Camille Brouard9 years ago
With what seems to be the last season of Hannibal ending very soon, are shows that don't get excellent ratings, but are constantl raved about, being mistreated? Should these shows be allowed to carry on regardless? Why do these shows A) not get higher ratings? B) get cancelled regardless of quality.
I know the overriding reason will be money, but there must be more to this, surely?
Yes and no. To your first question, I think we have to think about whether those critics rating these shows actually have the audience in mind. A show may affect each person differently based on their paradigm. Often times, I find that I disagree with critics' reviews. There are shows that only become famous or have more views long after their first season, and if they weren't allowed to keep airing, no one would have discovered them. If you take money out of the equation, shows need time to develop and to really have their own "voice". It's a shame that a budget defines the show and it's potential, but money cannot be taken out of the equation completely, unfortunately. So where do we draw the line? – Nof9 years ago
I think it all depends on the type of budget that the TV show has. I feel it is also difficult to get a TV show "going" in a sense when you have shows such as Greys Anatomy and other "regular" shows that have a strong fan base and have had a TV spot for years. – mkhonnn9 years ago
Money is defiantly not the only reason a show lives or dies. Placement can have a huge factor in a shows success. Take Dark Angel for example, extremely popular but was put on Friday nights and seemingly died. The show had all the elements of a great show but didn't make it. Some shows like Andromeda and Smallville loose their luster near the end and try to end things without completely falling apart. I don't think money is always the reason a show ends. If the people involved with the show aren't dedicated to it then it will fall apart and end. A show like Supernatural has had its obvious hiccups but each year comes back with a new season. Fans see the dedication and commitment put into the show. They reward it with loyalty. A great show needs some money for sure but what it needs more is dedicated quality people producing it, enough fans that see it's potential for growth to become loyal, and a little bit of luck. – Marshal9 years ago
The quality of a show is only one of the many factors it success. Often times, cancellations are due to budget problems, management issues, political concerns, very low profits that do not compensate inversion. It looks like "art," but it is a business after all. – T. Palomino2 years ago
A deep dive into Sense8's polarizing critical response and its impact on both television industry and its vocal audience. The value of its idealistic themes and visual idiosyncracies generate dissenting opinons about the hiearchy of importances when it comes to serialized visual storytelling. Many consider its plot slow and weak at best, at worst utterly confusing and contrived. But audiences have fallen in love with its diversified representation of characters, cinematography, and a focus on character moments rather than A-to-B plot-driven sequences. In a high conceptci-fi show, that's almost blasphemy. But if anyone is gonna try it, it'd be the Wachowskis.
I watched this show recently, and I'd have to agree that while the plot left many questions unanswered in the end, I did find the characters easy to sympathize with and I especially love how "human" they all were. However, I would be curious to know if you think the character-centered storytelling was a good thing or not? As well, do you think that they will be able to revisit the story for a second season, or will they leave things as they are? – SStevens9 years ago
What baffles me about Sense8 is that the main characters are never physically together! I was expecting them to move countries to be together and fight the good fight. Of course, I'm not finished with the first season. I left off with episode 10, which told half its story with not text! Finally, we have story tellers who are being brave, clear and honest. This sort of thing is not original however. Dance and theatre use this style of story telling frequently. Fantasia was one of the earliest in its medium to do this. This article can draw attention to non-text based films the precede Sense8 and perhaps discussing other mediums of story telling, and how they translate to film, ultimately discussing what makes Sense8 successful. – yase9 years ago
The 2000s were generally the rise of the superstar era. By the superstar era, I mean the era preceding our current Geek culture era, the era where shows involving the lives of actors and musicians like Jonas, Hannah Montana, Sonny With a Chance, and Camp Rock among others ruled the television? Have these had any positive effect on the generation of the 2000s? What were the upsides and downsides to this era of television run by Disney? Is it a good thing that it ended?
I think this is a really broad topic but it is certainly interesting to think about. When I first read it through I was thinking of audience reactions but I think this could also be parlayed into thinking about the effect it had on the stars of those shows as well. This is pretty multifaceted and worth looking into – DClarke9 years ago
Oh, yes, especially when you look at the Jonas Brothers who split up and Miley Cyrus who started making headlines for the weirdest reasons and I think I remember something about Demi Lovato. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
It's generally very difficult to make large, sweeping, qualitative arguments like "any positive effect" or "good and bad." I think a good start might be a series of interviews or discussions with young adults who watched a lot of the shows that you're interested in (this maybe a point where you could narrow your scope). How did/does it affect their lives? Personally, the shows I grew up watching as a child haven't had much of an impact on my current life. Find some cool qualitative evidence. – rollerz9 years ago