TV

Explore the extent to which fandoms influence the progression of the television show they are associated with. The show "Doctor Who" comes to mind particularly, especially in terms of the episodes that feature more than one incarnation of the Doctor working together. This can be seen as an appeal to what the fan base would want to see, though the producers are able to fold it into the internal logic of the "Doctor Who" Universe. This article might also explore the motivation for shows like "Doctor Who" to incorporate popular aspects of their fandoms into the show.

It seems that in many television series produced for mature audiences, there is an abundance of explicitness, whether it be in gory violence or raunchy romance. Especially in HBO shows such as Game of Thrones, True Detective, and Rome, all of these rather "carnal" appeals almost dominate the shows. It is almost as if these themes are what define these series. What is it about such adult themes that makes these shows popular? Do they take away from the show's overall message? Are there shows that don't even seem to have a message beyond explicitness for entertainment?

There's violence everywhere these days, but it seems most prevalent when it comes to real incidents that are later broadcasted or written about on loop. Anything from random muggings to mass shootings winds up disseminated on every major, and many minor, news sources, which not only makes viewers increasingly anxious, but may inspire copycat attacks by appearing to glorify them. However, few sources will avoid these stories because they're popular and attract more viewers.

What can we do to mitigate this cycle without ignoring the news entirely? While we should know about such incidents, should we change the story, i.e. stop focusing on the criminal and focus more on the victims/aftermath? And, how do we explain violence in a way that doesn't leave the more vulnerable of our population, like children, afraid that something will happen to them as well?

In Japan, the ideologies behind "love" are a little different than that of the United States. Through television and film – which are the primary sources of information on both cultures, outside of individual research – How is the culture and moral beliefs portrayed in affect to how people view "love" in either country? And how does that affect marriages? How do the customs of each country delegate the reasons behind marriage, and does that affect the ideologies behind "love"? Is there a difference between what is being portrayed through the media and what is true to the culture?

In the recent decades, the History channel, as well as other networks have shown great interest in brining major historical characters or events to TV screens. Vikings, an Iris-Canadian historical drama has gained popularity since its premier in 2013. We get a contrary image of the vikings, unusual to the brutal, and "savage" warriors . While brutality and war is a dominant feature of the series, we also get a glimpse of loyalty, honour, compassion and of strong females who occupy significant roles in the storyline. To what extent are these images representative of a true viking culture? What historical events can we detect that are somewhat accurate?

Analyse how the transformation of the United States during the 1970s affected the world of the Mary Tyler Moore Show. These changes can be cultural, such as Mary discovering that her male predecessor in her producer job made more money than she did, Lou's divorce from his wife, and Lou's one-night stand with Sue Ann. But these changes can also be economic, such as Phyllis making cutbacks in the household, and gaining employment (in addition to her housewife duties) due to inflation. These angles are examples of what can be used in an article.

In 2003, Joss Whedon's Firefly was cancelled by Fox. The show was witty, original and would retroactively become beloved. The show became a cultural signpost for the idea that fans could "save" a show and the browncoat movement was born, eventually pushing an excellent and satisfying move into production. Jump to 2006 and fans of the cancelled show "Jericho" sent 9 tons of peanuts to CBS offices in protest to the show's looming cancellation. (It made sense in context, honest.) Later, Netflix briefly revives Arrested Development. Later still, Yahoo "saved" Community so it could get its shot at "six seasons and a movie". As the internet improves fans' ability to communicate directly with the creators and distributors, and as those fans get more savvy with their methods, the power of deciding "what's on" is more and more in the hands of the viewer.

But is this always a good thing?

Would Firefly be as beloved if it had continued another 3 seasons? Does Community still work without Donald Glover? As televisions fans gain more power and direct control over their favourite shows, are we not also becoming more responsible for the tough decisions? And ultimately, who has control over when a series ends? The fans who love it, embrace it and for whom it was ultimately for? Or the creators whose blood, sweat and tears are the creative juice that made it so good in the first place?

Steven Moffat, the writer for Doctor Who since 2010, has said horrible things about the female fan base of this show, and Sherlock, which he co-created, as well as detestable things about women in general. Highlights might include calling women "needy," calling actress Karen Gillan (Amy Pond) "wee and dumpy" and claiming that women only enjoy Sherlock because they are attracted to Benedict Cumberbatch. This is enough to enrage anyone, but does it affect the quality of his Doctor Who episodes when he dismisses the majority of his own fan base as boy-crazy, "needy" idiots.

There has always been a sort of dismissal for anything in pop culture which attracts female viewership, (especially young female viewership), implying that girls don't know the difference between good and bad entertainment. As feminist scholar Stacy Wolf says, "Historicizing the devaluation of girls' tastes shows how categories of cultural worth are highly gendered." (Changed for Good, 222) Does this apply to Doctor Who since Moffat took over? This study would compare the quality of female characters on Doctor Who before and after Moffat and their overall impact on the quality of events.