I'm ignoring mediafannishness. If you didn't need the term before, I don't think you need it now.
::closes eyes tightly::
I think there's general agreeement, even among the anti-proliferistas, that Heroes is dominating Box Set and when one show does that we tend to make some room.
Yeah, see, I threadsucked and had a look. I just got bored of counting the number of posts a Eureka episode generated. There's no way I'm coming down on the side of domination. Whatever the first Eureka episode is in the thread, it seems to have generated more discussion than the most recent, highly regarded, episode of Heroes.
Note--I'm NOT agitating for a Eureka thread. I just think that recency might be tainting PoVs being presented as quantitative.
I'm still confused about what "mediafannish" means.
Did these not help?
I'm not sure I can describe it adequately, but it's a cultural difference. "Liking a show" has no cultural tag to it; "mediafandom" has practices and customs and taboos, some of which have become general Buffista practice (intricate canon discussions) and some of which have not (fanfiction gets its own thread, and does not proliferate as a topic elsewhere). People who like a show seem to show up in Natter, asking whether there is discussion of that show (as ND mentioned once, about Stargate, and Burrell did recently, about Heroes); people in mediafandom have automatically gravitated -- fannish osmosis! -- to talking about new shows in Boxed Set whether that talk has been formally defined as kosher (Torchwood, Life on Mars) or not (Spooks). - Nutty
"Media fandom" in that context is a predominently female space, with more emphasis on squee and the emotional/libidinal aspect of the show and the fandom rather than the plottiness, with involvement in extra-textual activities (fanfic and fanvids) and a large overlap with the slash community. Of course there are exceptions, and I'm not saying an average media-fan cares nothing about mythology and only cares about the pretty, but there is something of a difference in the way one engages with a "mediafannish" show compared to another that doesn't quite fall under that umbrella. - Vonnie
I'm ignoring mediafannishness. If you didn't need the term before, I don't think you need it now.
Don't tell me what I need! heh
For some people at least, it seems a useful notion about what
kind
of discussion will go on there, and whether there will be more crossover of interest or discussion.
So I think it's useful. We can say "mediafandom" though if you prefer.
I just think that recency might be tainting PoVs being presented as quantitative.
If anything, I would've said that SPN was generating even more discussion than Heroes. The conversations tend to be very different, though. I agree about Eureka. Having Colin around generates a lot of discussion. It's like having an in-thread podcast.
I'm still confused about what "mediafannish" means.
Some shows, for whatever reason, generate a lot of traditional fannish activity around them. Fan fiction, vids, discussion in fannish forums (LJ is the prime example these days).
Other shows, though popular or critically acclaimed, don't generate the same kind of activity.
If I, clueless as I am, step into Boxed Set to discuss Supernatural, Heroes or SG-1 (I think I'm on Season 3) am I stepping on the culture?
No. Also, you should start a discussion about Daniel's hair.
House and Bones get discussion, but that's generally between me and a few other like minds. I don't know that's it's relevant to the categorization.
I don't like this divying up idea. Boxed Set isn't broken, I don't think it's even swamped under a tidal wave of Heroes talk. And it's not exactly a monoculture of mediafannishness, either, though I'm having trouble trying to put my feeling about that into words. There is fannishness all over Boxed Set, certainly, and it's important, but there is also room for more [for lack of a better word] mundane discussions of plot, etc. and I, for one, really like that mix.
It seems to me like there's crossover between The Office and Friday Night Lights, but that might just be Cindy's fault. Do those more realistic shows also draw from the House and GA pools?
Sorry. I was just trying to understand media fannishness. I suddenly felt like I don't quite belong in the thread, when that term came up. The discussion for
The Office
works fine, in Natter. Please don't try to fit that into any plans on my account. Not that many people here are all that interested in discussing it, here. We talk in LJ and are good with that, as far as I can tell.
I'm not advocating this necessarily, but here are the patterns I see. I'm trying to take a Jeffersonian follow-the-paths-then-build-the-sidewalks approach.
Broadcast Genre shows
Heroes - Genre, Not Mediafanish, Broadcast
Supernatural - Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Smallville - Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Sci Fi Channel
Battlestar Galactica - Genre, Mediafanish, SciFi Channel, Basic Cable
The Dresden Files - Genre, Not Mediafanish, SciFi Channel, Basic Cable
Torchwood - Genre, Mediafanish, Sci-Fi Channel, Basic Cable
Dr. Who - Genre, Mediafanish, Sci-Fi Channel, Basic Cable
Stargate - Genre, Mediafanish, Sci-Fi Channel, Basic Cable
Stargate: Aquarium - Genre, Mediafanish, Sci-Fi Channel, Basic Cable
Eureka - Genre, not sure of its media fandom status, Sci-Fi Basic Cable.
Broadcast Non Genre Shows
The Office - Not Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Friday Night Lights - Not Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
House - Not Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Grey's Anatomy - Not Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Bones - Not Genre, Not Mediafanish, Broadcast
You could've put Lost in the Broadcast Genre, and VM in the Broadcast NonGenre groupings.
eta:
Eureka is moved.
Yes, Eureka airs on the Sci-Fi Channel.
