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.
No comments:
Post a Comment