Understand and analyze the fever of MTV's Awkward; a show that relates with teens and parents alike and has you hooked from the very first episode you watch. Is it a realistic portrayal of teen life or just an exaggerated, glamour coated TV version?
I think that this needs to either be analyzed season by season or just write an article about one season itself. I think that in the beginning it tried to emulate John Hughes but it lost that touch once it became a hit – ajames9 years ago
A lot of entertainment in this generation stems from the internet itself — with platforms such as Youtube, where companies release content on a monthly, weekly basis, do you find web videos competing with television? Furthermore, platforms such Netflix, HuluPlus and HBO Now virtually remove the need to capture the latest episodes of shows as they're already streaming them in HD; will television shows in the future only be released through such platforms or do you believe they will always be aired on television?
I think it's important to consider the differences in types of web videos with this topic. For instances while shows like Netflix' House of Cards, Hulu's Deadbeat, and Amazon's Alpha House are all direct competitors to traditional Television models. But most "web series" shows such as Emma Approved even as good as they are can not fill the same niche as conventional television. Which isn't to say they have no value. The numerous shows that have started as web series and then been picked up can attest to that from simple clips like Black Jesus to mini shows like Broad City these shows have value. But the question on the table is do they compete with television. I believe the argument has to be considered for each of the two categories. Those designed to mimic TV shows and are just released on the web and those the have been created and designed to take advantage of the perspective of their web release format. There's a lot to be said about the push for full season releases (something I've never really been behind myself) and the recent push back against full season releases for a more metered release. And how these varying release schedules affect the viability of these web shows of both types. – wolfkin9 years ago
With so much good Tv out there today, and the ability to tell a story through 10-12 45 min episodes allowing for much broader storytelling, has TV finally surpassed Film? Specifically in regards to social dominance?
I, myself tend to stray more towards television these days. I find that television just draws out the story longer - in a good way. (in a bad way, in some cases..) I like seeing what characters do in certain situations and being able to spend more than 1-2 hours with them. With shows like Game of Thrones, for instance; there's SO much story to tell and in the end you get more of it from television than what you could cover in 1-2 hours. – H4zel9 years ago
I definitely think that television shows are becoming the new film franchise! I think tv offers viewers a more intimate experience, and the way it continuously gratifies viewers with a new episode every week, pushing the story forward, is spectacular. I know that a lot of people are against this "tv dominating film" idea, but I support it- I don't think tv is of lesser quality than film and I think it's about time people start appreciating the work that goes into the shows thousands of people tune into. – ejakupovic9 years ago
I will agree TV has more room for story telling, but film will have that sense that of what you are watching is a spectacle. There are just stories like Blade Runner and Jurassic Park that are meant to be put on the big screen. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
An angle to look at for this topic is cost analyses. How much funding is allocated to a mainstream feature film; which you can find on IMDb. Then compare to how much funding is spent on a highly rated TV project. I would assume the cost is less for the TV project therefore, allowing more creative avenues for the team working on the TV project. Whereas, a film that is dependent on the funding of the producer or corporation like Disney will have to respect their needs, wants and desires and some of the creative talent can be compromised. – Venus Echos9 years ago
I think it would be interesting to look at why so many "A-list" actors are now drawn to acting for TV series. It used to be that major actors were reserved for making movies. However you could examine reasons why actors like Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson choose to act in "True Detective" rather than do another movie. Anther good one to take a look at would be Kevin Spacey in "House of Cards". – lindsayrussell9 years ago
We all watch shows such as Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in order to get our comedy fix. Even though these are just seen as simply fake news there are many aspects that can be considered more real about them than our "real" news outlets are. What do you think?
What do you mean by "fake" news? I like this idea, but maybe there's a better way to put it. Totally agree though- I'd take my news from John Oliver over Fox news any day. Maybe some discussion of exactly what sets the two apart in terms of censorship and third-party interest, including political agendas, would be an interesting vein of discussion? – dprogosh9 years ago
I think it is also worth noting the degree to which comedy programs take responsibility for what they promote vs traditional news outlets. Jon Stewart has stated numerous times that the daily show is a comedy program and therefore has a responsibility to entertain rather than to inform (I believe he said this in his infamous Crossfire appearance). Fox News reps simultaneously have stated that much of their programming constitutes "opinion news" and likewise does not have as much of a responsibility to be factually accurate or restrained. Comparing these defences certainly seems like it would be worthwhile. It's a very interesting topic and I would love to see more about it myself. – Wolly9 years ago
Many satirical news outcasts are taking relevant topics in our society but forming their news cast in a way that mocks them. this is done within popular subject areas such as politics, and in the entertainment/pop culture universe that so many people are aware of. I would not call it fake, because the topics are relevant but at the same time i would not go as far to call it real. its an interesting idea but i do not believe it has one definitive answer. – nicolewy9 years ago
crikes that's a bad title. -- [To what extent is satirical news satire and to what extent is it news] -- that's the basic idea you're asking. There's numerous interviews with John Oliver whose program [Last Week Tonight] should be counted more than Jimmy Fallon. No one gets news from Jimmy Fallon. But Oliver often maintains the stance that he's not part of the new production industry. Here's merely a comedian with the news as his topic of derision. Stewart has said as much himself. And yet their audiences would see it differently. There are many who get their breakdown of the news from The Daily Show and John Oliver's Last Week Tonight has been so meticulously researched that were it on more regularly people would do the same with his show. This article should also explore the ways we consume news and how it's changed. There was a time when the best way to get news was from a newspaper and reading for an hour or two. Then from listening to a trusted source soberly delivering the news in a way that was always serious and rarely jovial. You can look at how news programs have changed from serious to the current jovial morning programs. The article can explore the way younger generations have even less patience for televised news getting their news from online articles which they can skim and summarize. You can note how the new currency of articles is "Time to Read" and how shorter and more consise articles are more valued now than meticulously laid out article that would take longer to read. With a note obviously considering whethere this is due to a lessening of patience or an increase of workload (more news to know than ever before). The article can explore How after that social networks have become the new platform for news. Even more filtered and summarized than anything else. In an environment where social networks often with limits implied (no one reads long facebook posts) or explicit (twitter has char – wolfkin9 years ago
I truly do not understand what you are trying to say here. If they are satire, they are not "true." But what do you mean by "true"? – T. Palomino2 years ago
A number of US shows feature a British lead playing an American character. Consider what happened when Damian Lewis won his best actor Emmy for Homeland, playing a former hostage in the Showtime drama. Twitter lit up in surprise as Lewis announced he was 'one of those pesky Brits'. Why are they successful? Are they inexpensive as many of them joke, or does it say something about how both side of the Atlantic approach entertainment or fame?
Is it not possible that British actors are just good at their job? I am only half-joking, but I really don't feel like the Brits are given enough credit; they're always "stealing American parts". But on the flip side the quality of american shows is far superior to anything Britain has; you don't see many, if any, American actors in British shows or many quality British actors for that matter. The US has Fargo (Brit: Martin Freem), Hannibal (Brit: Hugh Dancy), Elementary (Jonny Lee Miller) and as you said Homeland/ Band of Brothers (Damien Lewis). Britain has shows that aren't even worth the time (Atlantis, Doctor Who (controversial I know)). So I don't think that Brits are stealing American jobs, rather they are enchanted by and drawn in by the wonderful American shows. – Jamie9 years ago
I take much offence to the statement that the UK has bad shows. Maybe America just needs to show the good ones beyond the BBC? Atlantis is awful in many respects, but it should be remembered that it is for families unlike the american shows mentioned. Also, if you look beyond the BBC there are great shows. Downtown Abbey (i'm not a fan, but America is...) Misfits (series 1-3) Camelot with Eve Green (didn't get the recognition it deserved) The Tudors (where Superman and Margery Tyrell began...) For anyone who wants to write the article, it is worth bearing in mind that actor training in America and the UK is very different. UK has more emphasis on collaboration and (i think) physicality, multiple different practitioners from Europe, whilst America is very much The Method and Strasburg. – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
But the British have been "invading" for centuries, haven't they? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Many of today's most popular TV shows prominently feature morally ambiguous characters and situations. Characters like Breaking Bad's Walter White and The Walking Dead's Rick Grimes are cast as the shows' main protagonists ("good guys"), but do they always do "the right thing?"
Explore the idea of moral ambiguity in popular TV shows. Does this mark a departure from what has been popular on TV in the past? What is moral ambiguity's function on TV?
Another good show/character to focus on would be Under the Dome/Big Jim. – BethanyS9 years ago
Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? What defines good and bad? Who defines good or bad, and what gives them that right? The topic of moral ambiguity is relevant to contemporary society because we are a society growing out of the good guy-bad guy mentality. The globalization of communication has connected people from all different backgrounds all across the world. People are realizing that there are no good people or bad people, just one kind of person, humans. What these shows are trying to portray are the situations that cause people to behave in ways contrary to their morality, themes of redemption, upheaval of traditional ideals and values, and how human morality changes as the world around changes (Walter's illness and finances change drastically when he diagnosed, the world that Rick Grimes lives in is like nothing that we know now). – Visenya9 years ago
One of the best examples of this subject would be Tony Soprano. He was very influential on future television dramas. – Joseph Manduke IV9 years ago
Not to mention, Rumple, Zelena, and Regina in OUAT. And Snow's method of saving Rumple's life. – EllenFleischer9 years ago
Many of us who have read a book that has later been turned into a TV series are usually excited to see the TV Series but the majority of statements I hear declares the book being far greater than the TV Series itself. One of the most common complaints I hear when comparing the book to the TV series is that " that part wasn't in the book". Do you think it's a good or bad idea to stray from the book when creating the TV series?
If you look at something like Hannibal, it's first two seasons were (to the best of my knowledge) mostly show inventions. This has something to do with not having all the rights to adapt Thomas Harris' novels, but the the series was able to separate itself from previous screen incarnations and they were two bloody good seasons, too.
With something like Game of Thrones I have only read the first three books, but they have done well in combining characters to fulfil several purposes, promoting characters that weren't book POV characters (Robb Stark, Theon, the Hound, Cersei for the first 3/4 seasons). – Jamie9 years ago
It is difficult to compare television (or film for that matter) to books as they are both such different mediums. It is possible for adaptations to be done well without including every single detail from the original source. Sometimes elements that work in books just don't translate on screen and vice versa. The deciding factor on whether or not the adaptation was "good" should focus on whether or not the adaptation captured the overall mood, tone, and narrative intentions of the original. – Alora9 years ago
I think an interesting concept is the idea that some shows are produced faster than their source books can be written. The best example of this is Game Of Thrones. Soon, the show will have to become completely autonomous of the books. This leaves an interesting challenge for the writers of the show, and George RR Martin himself: will the writers be able to succeed when they are solely in charge, and if so, will George RR Martin be guided by the show in the same way as the show was guided by the books? – LiamCollins9 years ago
You can look at loose adaptions like iZombie and close adaptions like The Old Man and the Sea. I think there are problems that crop in in close adaptions where sticking close to a script that was written for the page instead of the screen creates a need to do things like narrate all the time. More recently 50 Shades of Grey's screenwriter revealed that she had made changes to the book and among those changes was the loss of something called 'The Inner Goddess' presumably this was a running internal monologue the protag has with herself. Such internal monologues tradtionally don't work on the screen. Voice Over is the first sign of a lazy screenplay as the saying goes. – wolfkin9 years ago
Season 5 of Game of Thrones is nearly finished and once again you'd expect that Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey will be nominated for Emmys etc. But there are so many actors that don't get that same recognition as the "bigger" names. Alfie Allen, Iain Glenn, Carice van Houten and even Birgitte Hjort Sørensen (a wildling with only 20 minutes or so screen time in Hardhome).
Do these actors deserve more credit? Why don't they get the credit they potentially deserve? This could be looked at in a way of how the awards ceremonies are also potentially "broken".
And, of course, this could be looked at with regards to more televiosn shows too.
I like the broken award ceremonies angle. I would compare the Golden Globes TV categories with the Emmys. The X-files won for best actor, actress, and drama one year but never at the Emmys. (They won for writing if I remember.) If you want to take a look at the UK brigade, like Iain Glenn, you can look at the way Brit awards recognize actors around BAFTA time, and contrast with their American counterparts. I see a lot of potential justs needs fine tuning. – fdemelo9 years ago
