I thought that there were a few interesting points made within the article. I find it interesting that a plot so simple can be used over and over while still obtaining vast amounts of viewers from all different backgrounds. I’ve always felt that audiences consistently ask for new shoes with unique ideas and plots to keep them interested, instead we’re indicating that you can use the same general concepts to catch our attention.
I also thought about this article in relation to what a feminine theory would have to say about the number of popular television shows geared towards masculine ideals. I feel that one could argue that these shows are pro-feminist because they give examples of masculine men that would not be able to exist in their world without important female roles in their lives. On the other hand, one could make the assumption that these shows are popular because of the leading man, that the show would have nothing without the overtly masculine man at the center. The argument could be that we wouldn’t even have dominant female characters in these series’ if it weren’t for the central male character.
The paragraph about female leads in other quality dramas was also interesting. It seems that television producers are creating lead roles for women in similar types of shows, yet they don’t seem to get the recognition that the masculinity-based shows achieve. I found it funny that the article discusses the lack of popularity for women in dramas then flips to the “at least we’re good at something” comeback and talks about women’s success headlining comedies. I feel that it is a problem if women are accepting of their type cast roles in television. It should be an even bigger emphasis that women are successful in some genres yet are not gaining respect in other genres of television.