TV

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?

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?

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.

An in-depth comparison of seasons 1 and 2 and how they differ, how they are similar, and whether or not the changes made are for the best.

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?

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.

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?