#community sitcom

OPTION ONE: How does a show get its characters to believably reconcile their otherwise average lives with the fact that, for one day, they are living in a world where there is a zombie outbreak, a heist to be performed, or where they are suddenly claymated? How does a show get its viewers to accept this premise without destroying their immersion, understanding, or loyalty to the narrative? The show does this a number of times, to varying degrees of success. In short, “How does this show get its characters and its viewers to suspend their disbelief in unlikely scenarios, and what are the differences between when this is and isn’t executed successfully?” Possible case studies to look at: any of the genre pastiche episodes, Chang's dictator arc, Chang's changnesia arc, compare/contrast the puppets episode with any of the other special episodes (zombie outbreak and claymation come to mind)

OPTION TWO: Community is an incredibly self-referential show, and it has moments throughout, particularly in later seasons, that can only be funny to long-time viewers and engaged fans. It has a big “inside joke” culture, and a number of its jokes require viewers to have been around from the beginning, to be familiar with changes in the show’s staff and management behind the scenes, and the like. As such, I think it engages with its viewers and expects viewers to engage with it in a very unique way. I am also curious about the concept of “breaking the fourth wall” and the narrative implications of this. Questions regarding this premise that I could consider researching would include, “How does it affect the experience of watching a show when that show actually speaks to you?” and “What does it mean for the world of the show that it speaks, both directly and indirectly, to its viewers and fanbase?” Possible case studies to look at: the treatment of season 4 as referenced in seasons 5 and 6, the final episode's end tag, the final episode as a whole

THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND:

this has to be researchable, arguable, and defendable (aka RAD-able (this is a Harper original you're welcome)), so I should probably write the essay that has the more RAD-able question and premise even if it's not the more interesting one.

I am definitely forgetting examples because I made myself stop watching the show when I started undergrad so I haven't seen an episode in two and a half years. if you think of possible case studies for either option please tell me about them.

I plan to apply reader response criticism, if that means anything to you? the tldr being that I want to focus equally on the show itself and the effect/response from viewers watching it. the essay that has the question and premise that lends itself more to reader response criticism is probably the one I should write.