TV

It seems like every new release these days is either a reboot, a revival, or a sequel. That's all well and good for those of us who grew up with the original media and are now more than happy to see it return, but is this trend perpetrating the longevity of the series we love, or is it robbing the next generation of too many chances to form their own unique experiences with new media?

Symptoms of prequel-itis, in TV shows specifically, include 1) pointless cameos and foreshadowing for the sake of fan service and 2) backtracking to keep the plot from progressing "too far," which would result in the show ending. Examples of victims include Gotham, Smallville, and Merlin.
What I don't know about, and what I'd be interested in reading, is possible cures for this problem. I am unfamiliar with the Star Wars cartoon prequels, but I'm told they do a better job, so they may hold answers.
Another possible piece of this topic is causes of prequel-itis. Why do prequels exhibit these problems so often? Is there something inherently problematic with prequels in general?

Chris Carter, upon making the main concepts of the show, ensured that the two main characters would be in opposition of one another. The series includes character Dana Scully, a skeptic, and Fox Mulder, a true believer. The juxtaposition of each of their characterizations adds to the series conflict. By creating both external and interior conflict, the writers create an intriguing and thought provoking series.

They are everywhere, revival after revival. Gilmore Girls packed in 6 million initial viewers nearly 10 years after its not so ending ending for A Year In The Life. Boy Meets World sprung to life 20 years later with a new generation and over 5 million initial viewers in Girl Meets World. Full House was revived almost 30 years later a little bit fuller and with 14.4 million viewers in its first 35 days on Netflix. I believe the secret to these successes are the millennials. It's been repeatedly noted that millennials crave authenticity and TV revivals are swimming it. Getting a second chance to meet with characters you grew up with is like reconnecting with an old friend. Older millennials crave this sense of familiarity in a world they no longer understand. However on the (not so) opposite hand we have the later millennials. While it is still about authenticity for them it's more about feeling like they are apart of something, fitting into a "generation" that doesn't quite belong to them. Why do you think TV revivals are so important to this generation? Is it just because they've seen everything on Netflix and need a new show or is a deeper, more heartfelt search for somewhere to fit in?

In the three days after its Netflix release, "Stranger Things" rocketed to number 26 IMDB's top 250 shows. Marketed across the internet as a well-casted, spooky, nostalgia-perfect program, the description inspired a cross-internet search for movies, television shows, and assorted media that has been marketed for its "nostalgic" value and their close ties to the 80s and 90s. The majority of the hits were produced in the past 20-30 years (Clueless, Grease), but many instead are recent productions taking place in that time period (It Follows, Stranger Things), falling into decades not old enough to be considered "period pieces" but also clearly not modern age.

Examine this category of film and television, its cultural appeal, its widespread success across the western world, and determine whether or not "nostalgia" is being appropriately applied to these very specific decades, or how media of these categories might be alternatively described.

TLC. formerly known as The Learning Channel, has become a place to watch voyeuristic shows. That alone is disturbing, but what's more disturbing is that many of these shows seem to exploit women. What Not to Wear, which ran from 2003-2013, performed makeovers on infinitely more women than men, and while Stacy and Clinton were encouraging toward their contributors, one could argue the message was, "Women can't get away with dressing less than their best, ever."

What Not to Wear is not the only example. In five seasons of My 600-Lb Life, the vast majority of obese contributors have been women (as many as 80% in a 10-episode season). Counting On focuses on Jessa, Jill, and the other Duggar women instead of the Duggar men, playing up the girls' pregnancies, weddings, and other "traditional" activities. Toddlers and Tiaras featured airbrushed, enhanced beauty pageant participants as young as 2-3 years old.

Using these examples and any others you might like, discuss whether TLC is in fact exploiting women over men. If so, do they mean to do it, or are they just trying to net a bigger female audience? Is that a form of manipulation and if yes, is it okay? Why does TLC not seem as focused on men, men's lifestyles, or the self-improvement of men who might be overweight, sloppily dressed, etc.? Is TLC promoting or demeaning traditional women's roles such as wife and mother, and if yes, why?

Discuss the current direction of the show, especially its later seasons and their emphasis on Sherlock and Watson's personal lives.

Arthur Conan Doyle's character has been successful for so long and undergone many adaptations because of the clever use of the powers of deduction to solve mysteries that boggle lesser minds.

Is the BBC show wandering from its origins? Is that something that contributes to its success and popularity, or will it trip it up if it continues?

Considering current claims that Hollywood, media-making populations are out of touch with "regular Americans," and often prioritizes the stories of people on the east and west coast, how can we interpret the depiction of Texas culture on a show like Friday Night Lights? How does the show use, misuse, or rethink stereotypes about Southern/Texan tradition to portray a nuanced and realistic culture, for media consumers both from and outside of that culture?