quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My gut feeling is this: women are pickier about what they will watch than men are, in the sense that women like a narrower range of programming and are much more loyal to it. Ergo, it makes sense to design programs that men will tolerate and women will love.
That's an interesting thought, and the opposite of what I've heard about YA fic, namely that boys and girls will gladly read stories with boy protagonists, but too many boys will be turned off from reading about a girl protagonist.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a major difference between television shows and books. Television shows are largely ensemble pieces, providing numerous protagonists so everyone will have at least someone to identify with.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My gut feeling is this: women are pickier about what they will watch than men are, in the sense that women like a narrower range of programming and are much more loyal to it. Ergo, it makes sense to design programs that men will tolerate and women will love.
That's an interesting thought, and the opposite of what I've heard about YA fic, namely that boys and girls will gladly read stories with boy protagonists, but too many boys will be turned off from reading about a girl protagonist.
Perhaps it's because a book requires focus and active participation, whereas TV does not, as much.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: There's a major difference between television shows and books. Television shows are largely ensemble pieces, providing numerous protagonists so everyone will have at least someone to identify with.
Agreed; in most YA books, you spend a significant amount of time inside the protagonist's head. You can't say the same of TV shows.
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: in most YA books, you spend a significant amount of time inside the protagonist's head. You can't say the same of TV shows.
--j_k
Oooh, well put. That's a good point.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read through most of the interview... It's really long and I could find a lot of things in it that would ve interesting topic points. That CC chose gender bias is telling. Anyway, the guy only maintains that CBS and ABC have female dev teams, which isn't much. Heck that's just a sampling of two. Could have easily ended up "X and Y networks have mostly male dev teams" or "one each way."
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Clive, you going to ignore poor little me?
After all, I liked Grey's Anatomy! How could a heterosexual male think that way?
Millions of people constitute the relevant demographics so I'm sure there will be many exceptions.
Okay, so this statement was wrong then?
quote:But "Grey's Anatomy," "Brothers and Sistes" and "Desperate Housewives" undoubtedly alienate males (except the gay ones) and their core audience consists of women.
EDIT: To clarify, I think if you stick the word "some" into that statement I quoted, I'd have no issues with it.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what CC is missing in all this is that he does not constitute "all males" or "most males" in terms of media interest. We've shown a variety of interests here in the thread from male, female, lesbian, New Englander, Californian, etc. Doesn't mean much as an individual. Should look at the viewership ratings and make hypotheses on those. I'll give you one. "Major sports broadcasts tend to have more male viewership. They are very popular and will continue to be aired due to their popularity." Here's another one. "Some broadcasts are more popular to female viewership. They continue to be aired because they garner appropriate viewership ratings."
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't think of a show off the top of my head that has a featured husband/wife team where the woman is a blithering idiot and the husband has to constantly get her out of jams.
Yeah, I already mentioned that, but that point was that there has been a change since the I Love Lucy era.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't seen a great deal of that show, but the husband always came off as a fool to me. Actually, the whole family came off as pretty stupid.
Actually, I have to agree that "King of the Hill" qualifies. Hank Hill was a very smart guy, with a highly-developed sense of right and wrong and a strong capacity for coping with a world that wasn't the way he wanted it to be. Peggy, on the other hand, was shallow, self-centered, and willfully ignorant. She wasn't a ditzy dame type like Lucy Ricardo, but I agree she didn't have the intelligence or competence that her husband had.
I also have to say I loved the show despite Peggy rather than in any way because of her. I often wondered whether the show would be more enjoyable if she were a better match for Hank. I always hated Peggy.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Life on Mars was set in the 70s. They were trying to make a point about how hard it was to be a police woman back in those days. The overwhelmingly female developmental staff approved those elements of the show with a smug look on their face.
No, my friend, you entirely missed what I just said.
There are three pilots of the show Life on Mars. The first, the British original, contained the same struggling policewoman as in the American first pilot. They also contained the same modern-day girlfriend (also a detective).
In the first scene, set in the 21st century, there was an moment when the main character's girlfriend (a detective also) went off by herself (against his recommendation) to follow up on a lead that turns out to be correct. In the first US pilot, he sends her into danger. The switch undermines the woman detective's ability to make decisions on her own and puts all the responsibility in the hands of the man.
And then back in the 70s, we have the struggling female officer you described. There is a scene in the British show where this officer, with coaxing from our enlightened 21st century hero, uses her intelligence and her education to provide some information vital to the case. She must endure the jeers of the 70s policemen as she speaks.
Guess what happens in the American version? The man comes up with the same idea while looking lovingly at the woman's face as the camera spins around them. The jeers are still present but the main character uses the woman as an object anyway, instead of as a thinking mind herself.
This is what I mean. It has nothing to do with being set in the seventies and everything to do with conscious erosion of the woman's self-responsibility and intelligence.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
