Despite not being a part of the show per se, episodes’ titles can be very important and conscientiously made and choose by the creators. Indeed, they may reveal clues about the plot. They may add up to something, they may be little enigmas, they may seem incomprehensible at first, they can be cultural or academic references… For instance, Blindspot’s convoluted titles are in fact anagrams, the titles of Mr. Robot’s episodes from season one to three are written in Leet Speak, while in the recent Netflix show Warrior Nun each title is a reference to an extract of the Bible in connection with the episode’s plot. Other titles may include puns or schematics. Some titles’ format may become a tradition throughout the show.
From there, many questions can come to mind. Can we discern trends, whether historical or thematic? Is there some TV shows that stand out for their particularly clever use of episodes’ (or show’s) titles?
To what extent can we say that titles are a part of an implicit pact between the creators and the viewers? With platforms like Netflix and the increasing temptation to binge-watch our favorite shows, we may be paying less attention to the titles and the cuttings, therefore, to what extent are titles still relevant? How the pact previously mentioned could evolve in the future?
Favorite episode title choice is "Ozymandias" from Breaking Bad Season 5. The title tells you everything you need to know about the episode by referring Percy Shelley's poem. I also like a lot of Halt and Catch Fire's episode title which reference 1980s Computer Commands/Systems, song titles, and cultural ideas. I feel like those help ground the viewer in its 1980s-1990s world and are a treat for people who understand the references. – Sean Gadus4 years ago
An interesting idea. Are there are studies showing the title of a episode matters? I remember in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the title of the episode was announced at the beginning of some shows on TV. – Joseph Cernik4 years ago
It's no secret that film viewers often cherish the extra content attached to films. Deleted scenes, gag reels, director/actor commentary, behind the scenes footage generally. But, why is that? An article could look at various aspects of this. Do passionate fans just crave as much content as possible? Do film-buffs take a genuine interest in how their favourite media comes to be? Is it a learning tool? Is it a curiosity – perhaps, a curiosity to see how the people behind the serious-faced characters interact with one another? If a film is made to entertain by creating a (usually) fictitious world or story-line, then why are viewers so obsessed with this 'real-world' aspect of them? On the other side – what do film makers gain from this? Why do they include the extra content they choose to? This desire for extra content is evident in films like Shrek 2 where they animated an entire American Idol spoof with the characters. Or, the creators of Monsters Inc. animating various blooper scenes. Perhaps examples like this could be discussed. This could also work for TV shows, if so preferred.
Very interesting topic! Perhaps the article could also tackle, or maybe just conclude on or quickly mentioned as it is a different angle, the possible future of such content? Indeed, at least for now and as far as I know, such features are only available on physical supports (DVDs, Blu-rays…). Could behind-the-scene contents, therefore, be used and put forwards to help the film physical supports market? Or, on the contrary, would such content be absorbed (or erased?) by successful VOD platforms, such as Netflix? – Gavroche4 years ago
Between Melville's description of the color white as one of unsettling nothingness and the meticulous description of whales/whaling that can border on the obsessive (which could mirror Ahab's mindset), Moby Dick sports a kind of thematic link that emphasizes humankind's grappling with that which they either can't/won't understand or are willing to study if it means being better able to control the unknown. Have any of you gotten the impression that Ahab—in his single-mindedness—stands as a metaphor of sorts for the individual who not only dreads the strange, but also seeks to annihilate/tame it?
When some think English classes, one might think of novels such as: To Kill a Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, Lord of the Flies, Hamlet, etc. What importance do novels like these hold in literature? Why might some be considered the building blocks of English? Analyze the importance of classic novels in English courses and why they are still relevant in today's classes.
I think this is a very interesting question and engaging question. One topic of it would be work investigating is the idea of Canonicity. it is related to the different purposes of reading, why things are considered important or significant works, and why we teach certain things in classes. A big takeaway of Canonicity is that there isn't just one reason we read a group of works and there are different important works depending on who you ask this question and the reasons behind reading. This might be an area to explore related to the reading of classic novels in English class – SeanGadus8 years ago
Great topic, and truly relevant given today's educational system. I work at a large university and find that students are ill prepared in both writing and their backgrounds in literature. Pretty much all of the books you mentioned were things I read in high school. We talked about character development, plot lines, and other relevant themes within them. Nowadays, it seems as if most English classes are centered around blogging and social media and not the perpetuation of great literature. – NoDakJack8 years ago
In my English classes, we did read the classics; however, there was also a focus on reading material written by authors other than white men. Because of this, we supplemented the classics with more modern, yet still popular works, such as The Kite Runner. It would be interesting to show both the benefits and possible drawbacks of the classics, as there is a great benefit from reading material written by authors who are not white men. – rosacan8 years ago
Beautiful topic. I've been a bookworm practically since toddlerhood and declared my major in English as early as I could get away with, so I definitely think there are "building blocks" of English lit that students should read. They are still relevant, and they should be considered building blocks. My thought, however, is that the canon may be evolving. That is, I wonder if we're focusing on building blocks too much, or if some books have been read so often that students and teachers feel they are "done to death." I'd be interested in an author who looks at some of these classics and then tries to decide which ones the canon should "keep," and which might be traded in for more modern books in middle, high school, and college classes. For instance, should we give Hamlet a break and study a lesser-known play such as A Winter's Tale? Should we toss out Of Mice and Men in favor of a contemporary book with a contemporary understanding of cognitive disabilities? The list goes on... – Stephanie M.8 years ago
This would be a great read, and if I could suggest another avenue, look into The Decline of the English Dept. by William Chase. Really delves deep into the humanities and how English is the basis of most avenues of learning – sophiebernard5 years ago
In my experience, classic novels are usually really easy to analyse. They’re usually filled with techniques, symbols, motifs, allegory, the themes are usually obvious. While the content may be problematic, they’re often useful for teaching students how to approach texts because they’re so accessible in that way. – Samantha Leersen4 years ago
I think this article would make for a swell addition to the website, especially if it tackles the Western canon and the parallels of those works included under the high art umbrella. Generally speaking, classic English-language novels such as Dubliners, Blood Meridian, Moby-Dick, and Heart of Darkness tend to delve into and expose the human condition via plot, setting, and character. All of these combine to craft a thematic arc and consensus that conveys the work's tone and atmosphere. – Michel Sabbagh4 years ago
It's often been said that a character's design is supposed to tell the audience something about them and complement their personality and role in the story in some way. Non-human characters provide unique challenges and opportunities for animators because they possess features that no human could ever have. The popular kids' movie Monsters, Inc. does a great job of designing characters to perfectly fit their roles in the story. For instance, the main character, Sully, is huge and strong but also fluffy and colorful; his timid but loyal sidekick Mike is small and has a very large and expressive eye and mouth; and the villain Randall is a slippery and surly-looking lizard voiced by Steve Buscemi. What are some other examples of non-human characters with particularly appropriate or memorable character designs? What is it about their designs that provides insight into their characters more broadly?
This is a great topic! I liked your example from Monsters Inc? Perhaps you can make the topic title, " How character designs of non-human characters in animation tell the audience about their character?" Or what are examples of non-human character animations designs that speak to their character? – birdienumnum175 years ago
Fun idea. First thing that comes to mind is Inside Out, where emotions are literally personified into characters - anger, sadness, disgust. You don't even need to hear them talk in order to understand what they represent. Maybe an interesting comparison would be between good visual depictions of personality (this was done often and super well in older cartoons) and less creative character designs. Consider all the possibilities of 2/3D animation and how those opportunities can be squandered! I'm thinking of the recent Lion King adaptation here; realism doesn't necessarily translate to an expressive character. – dbotros5 years ago
I think that the design of non-human - or even monstrous - characters often provides insight onto ourselves. That is, the grotesque or Other often reflects our own anxieties about the human condition. When the worst aspects of our psyche/appearance are exaggerated and externalized into non-human characters, they are easy to dislike because they represent the "worst" parts of ourselves. At the same time, mythologically heroic characters represent the best of ourselves, with their looks and demeanour exaggerated to show the potential for goodness and beauty that resides in the human condition. This topic puts me in mind of Peter Jackson/Andy Serkis's portrayal of Gollum in LOTR. The tragic beauty of the character resides in his "fall from grace narrative," for he straddles the line between ultimate corruption and ultimate redemption until his last moments. Smeagol's design incorporates elements of the innocent - his wide eyes and naiveté - while the distorted and expressions of Gollum connote his malice and cunning. Examining the ways in which Serkis/the animators at Weta Digital played with the tension between these two personae can reveal how the archetypes of good and evil originate within our own soul (or psyche, if you prefer). – Rhys5 years ago
This is an interesting topic, and one becoming more and more relevant as animation makes a resurgence in popular media. One interesting area the article could address would be how and why human elements are included in these character designs, as a means to evoke audience familiarity with the emotions of the character (you mentioned Mike Wazowski's eye as an example). Moreover, it might be worthwhile to discuss the uncanny valley and it's effect on the considerations of animated character design. The game Thomas was Alone is also a really pure example of this philosophy of character design, each character being literally a differently sized four-sided shape. – DanielByrne5 years ago
Adaptations of Lovecraft's tales are, of course, rife in modern society. Just last year, the film adaptation of Color Out of Space (2019), attempted to visually recreate the cosmic horror of the original text. However, when the original story made it very explicit that the 'color' is indescribable by human standards, is it faithful to attempt to visually represent it and, more generally, can any visual adaptation of Lovecraft's work be truly faithful?
The film cache of War World I, World War II, and Vietnam dramatizations are continual fodder for the curious and critic alike. The ancient battles of Europe and Asia have had their turn in front of the camera lens and the recent terrorism and rogue posturing leave no doubt that the theaters will draw revelers back in droves for the foreseeable future. Does the war formula of the past persist in terms of viewer expectation and recent innovation such as night vision? How does the ever changing geopolitical agenda and the socioeconomic appetite influence the confrontational depiction on the silver screen or the plasma screen? Does CGI enhance or devalue the tendency to transcend the dilemma physically, ideological or existentially? Consider the early stop motion techniques of Jason and the Argonauts (skeleton sword attack), War Games (teen hacker), The Hunt for Red October (espionage), or Terminator 2 (apocalyptic dream) for analysis of realism and suspension of disbelief in new battle fronts. Are psychological warfare or cyber-attacks in virtual space the future of wars, drone missions and stealth raids a nascent ploy, or is there still a place for the dog fights and tank ambushes of early combat?
Seems as though there are two different things going here: 1) Movies on war, meaning actual wars or probably well-known battles, and; 2) battle scenes associated with fantasy such as as Jason and the Argonauts. These need to be distinguished. – Joseph Cernik4 years ago
An analysis of the trend of "elevated horror", and how A24 curates and establishes the pillars of this trend through the films it chooses to purchase. There seems to be a school of thought that is under the impression that films like The Babadook, Hereditary and The Witch (which could all be considered as familial "drama" films masquerading as horror) are refreshing because horror has been "devoid of thematic resonance" in the past and the genre is having a resurgence of some kind. Important to consider that all of these filmmakers seem to hold horror at arm's length, stating in interviews that they weren't trying to make a horror film and that they see their work as a "family drama" or some other derivative and cliched response.
I like your focus on the familial aspect, as I believe I've seen analyses that have touched upon the family trauma aspect of recent horror, such as The Haunting of Hill House. When it comes to the "devoid of thematic resonance" part, the movies mentioned, especially Hereditary, are very influenced by other horror films. It makes me wary when certain directors treat the label "horror" as anathema, as if they're too good for it. It's like when people label certain films as "thrillers" because "horror" would be too "demeaning." Horror films aren't suddenly meaningful; they have often had thematic and symbolic resonance, but those who claim certain films are "horror but meaningful and different" (and I'm not directing this toward you, and you acknowledge the derivative nature of these takes) feel like they're people who generally dislike or don't watch horror and need to rationalize that the films they do like are different because, hey, I hate horror, so if I like it, it mustn't be horror! – Emily Deibler5 years ago
This is a really important topic to consider at the moment. I think your point can even be extended beyond A24. For instance, whether Get Out is a horror film or a 'family drama' is still up for debate online (much to my and director Jordan Peele's frustration). Interesting that Texas Chainsaw isn't included in these people's ideas of what constitutes a 'family drama'... – Kate5 years ago
The simplest definition of 'art' is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form." Given this definition, could fashion be labelled an art form? We dismiss clothing as an everyday aspect of life, but it may actually be inherently artistic. An article on this topic could look at designers, both big and small. Look at the creative process and discuss how clothing is designed. Think of what needs to be considered, colour, shape, material. These are also considered in other art forms, like sculptures or paintings. The article could also look to how people choose to dress. Is this, in and of itself, a kind of art? Is it a type of artistic expression? Painters or photographers create websites and Instagram pages to show off their creations. People in fashion also do the same. This is a niche you could explore when highlighting parallels between fashion and other art forms. The fast fashion industry is often criticised for ripping off other brands or designers. This might suggest a personal aspect to the creation of fashion. Just like you would not copy someone else's painting for profit, should designers not be copying other people's fashion designs? Finally, as with art, in the fashion industry there is a hierarchy of what is considered 'good' and 'bad'. Like art, fashion is constantly subjectively judged. This is another parallel which can be explored. Ultimately an article on this topic should draw a conclusion, is fashion an art form or is it not? It should provide evidence throughout to support which conclusion is drawn. There are a plethora of angles this topic could explore.
As a source for whoever writes this topic, the book "Beauty: A Short Introduction" by Roger Scruton is an amazing source for defining beauty and looking at the different forms of art in a philosophical/historical context to encourage questions like these. – Abie Dee4 years ago
I find this topic interesting. I think it can be, especially if you connect it with other art forms, like cinema. Look at Edith Head's work, or Adrian's with the film stars of the 1930s and 1940s. Givenchy with Audrey Hepburn in the 1950s.
I would also like to hear more about the journey made from the sketch to the finished product, worn by someone. I also think that fast fashion is something terrible for our lives and our planet and should not be considered art, even in copy form. – danivilu4 years ago
With the upcoming release of Playstation and Xbox's newest consoles many are curious will these be their last physical consoles. The world is shifting towards streaming technology over physical devices. Microsoft already offers accessibility options with the Play Anywhere service, which allows you to play your digital Xbox One games on Windows 10 and vice versa. Ubisoft co-founder Yves Guillemot, believes we will soon start streaming video games like we do TV, music and film. I'm interested in how the gaming industry's advance towards streaming will affect gaming culture. Will our favourite gaming companies go the way of blockbuster when the video streaming giant Netflix emerged.
It will be interesting to see how much the PS5 Digital Edition Costs Vs. PS5 Version With A Disc Drive, which feels like a step towards a streaming future. If console makers make people pay for a disc drive there are many who will opt for the cheaper digital version, which could get consumers more comfortable with the idea of streaming consoles. Additionally, not everyone has reliable internet so I wonder how people in that situation will view physical media. – Sean Gadus4 years ago
This would make for an incredible article, one that would draw in gamers, and ultimately start a much needed discussion about the future of gaming. You are definitely onto something about Microsoft/Windows, as almost every gamer I know has moved to primarily buying or building their own gaming PCs! Most of my friends who have consoles only have them to play older games with the original system. Just as a small little edit, don't forget to swap out the period in the last sentence with a question mark.! Additionally, if possible, I think the article would be more universally applicable to gamers if it was more focused on "the end of physical consoles" with brief sections about PlayStation and Xbox. From there, the writer could then focus on what that might mean for gamers, in both positive and negative lights. (: – Abie Dee4 years ago
Has the potential for an article sporting plenty of foresight. For instance, it'd be interesting, for instance, to take a gander at the different approaches Microsoft and Sony took with regards to how they make their games accessible to audiences, with Sony still banking on exclusives that require consumers to go the traditional route of buying the specific console for the job, while Microsoft's more interested in making their titles accessible across sundry platforms (which could explain the general lack of hard Xbox Series X exclusives at the moment). – Michel Sabbagh4 years ago
A bizarre name that can as easily put you off as draw you in – 'Warrior Nun' (WN) is the latest TV series from Netflix. It is based, unsurprisingly, on a comic book character by Ben Dunn. It tells the story of a young woman who is reincarnated by an angel's halo during an attack by demons on a sect of warrior nuns. The presence of the halo in her body, when the previous Warrior Nun died gives her abilities and a new life.
Sounds ridiculous right? It is. It is also a fascinating look at a range of new archetypal roles around women that are becoming increasingly popular in TV and film. Similar in format to the 'Motherland: Fort Salem' with the focus on a military-esque sect of women only warriors it pushes against traditional gender stereotypes and a patriarchal society. WN actively critiques concepts of free will, religious determination and the complexity of friendship. It has a Buffy feel that fits within the scope of a traditional monomyth narrative, but also brings new perspectives that consider issues of racial roles and language. Much of the dogma linked to the catholic church is considered and critiqued within the way the myth of the halo and the order is presented. It further utilises a fantastic bilingual approach that Netflix does seem to be actively beginning to incorporate, whereby any Spanish spoken in the show is not subtitled, but at points where Italian or other languages are used these are provided with subtitles.
The show is worth a deeper analysis both for the development of themes and ideas that are reflecting changing perspectives on gender, race and religion, but also from the perspective of wider changes that are being reflected through the stable of shows from Netflix and other show providers. What do you think?
Excuse me for playing Devil's advocate here, but what is the point in a streaming service not subtitling one specific language that many of its viewers do not speak, and yet subtitling other languages? As a subtitler, I'd hardly consider this to be a 'fantastic bilingual approach.' An explanation please. – Amyus4 years ago
Spanish is the second highest spoken language in the United States behind English. That's about forty-one million people speaking Spanish in their homes in America, not to mention that it is also the most frequently taught secondary language in America too. To me this seems to encourages people to learn and understand a language that may not be native to them while also catering to a large section of their audience that it is native to. You could also consider that this show is available in Spanish speaking countries, too, so Netflix just nabbed a huge section of their world-wide viewing audience in one fell swoop. Point being, many of its viewers do in fact speak it and that number is increasing. – FarPlanet4 years ago
"Warrior nuns"--two words i never thought would go together. Sounds fascinating! – Stephanie M.4 years ago
I don't know what to think. If it's not lambasting the Church and mocking nuns, great. On the other hand, I can see a lot of things Catholics/Christians will take issue with. I look forward to this article with great interest. – OkaNaimo08194 years ago
I just assumed this was an outgrowth of the movie "Priest." – Joseph Cernik4 years ago
Love is Blind. Love Island. Too Hot To Handle. The Bachelor/ette. These are just some of the examples of shows that have loyal followings even though they have nearly identical set-ups and very similar premises: can people find love in a short period of time, removed from their everyday lives? What I find most interesting about this show is, what drives people of all backgrounds to watch it? What makes people sign up for these shows in the first place? How do these shows maintain viewership over the years even though it's become very clear that these relationships never pan out? Are people less jaded/cynical about love than they profess to be? Or, is it enjoyable to watch them fail? I'd love for someone to share their thoughts on what makes people come back to "reality" TV shows about love/dating, time and again.
I think an interesting aspect to cover is that these kinds of reality shows are often guilty pleasures. There are a lot of people who watch these shows but would not ever admit it. That could open an interesting discussion: if they're so popular, why are people so ashamed to admit they like them? – Samantha Leersen4 years ago
I'd love to hear people's thoughts, because I hate reality TV dating. :) – Stephanie M.4 years ago
The very few times I spent a moment here and there watching this stuff, I assumed the idea was get beyond the physical looks to obnoxious personalities. – Joseph Cernik4 years ago
Alex Garland has been making his name in the film industry for sometime now. Primarily with his contributions to the high concept, hard science-fiction genre. Writer of such films as 28 Days Later, Sunshine, and Dredd, as well as directing the films Ex Machina and Annihilation, Alex Garland has an ability to meld incredible storytelling about space travel, artificial intelligence, and futuristic tech with touching human emotion and true to life character flaws. His most recent endeavor has seen him take a step back from the big to the silver screen in his television debut, Devs: an eight-part stand alone series involving quantum computing, determinism, and humanity (in every sense of the word).
The article would highlight several aspects; Alex Garland himself, the technology of the show, the allegorical elements between technology and religion, and the philosophical and ethical issues such as determinism, multiverse theory, morality, and the illusion of free will. This article will be discussing the show in rather in depth details so a Spoiler Warning should probably be addressed rather early in the article.
Looking for some genuine feedback regarding people's thoughts about this one. Anything else that should be included or highlighted? Is there anything that should be omitted due to not being as relevant to the subject matter? Thanks, everyone. – FarPlanet5 years ago
Video games have been around for nearly fifty years now. Over the past few decades, trends have come and trends have gone within video game culture. When games started utilizing open worlds, many other games followed suit. When games decided that climbing mechanics were the next big hit, many games began to replicate this feature in their own way. But there is one game mechanic that no matter how much time passes or what stage in the video game zeitgeist we are in that remains, bar none, the best feature a video game can have. That’s right, we’re talking about grappling hooks.
There is just something so wholesome, so endlessly fun, and so rewarding about being able to traverse a wild terrain by slinging a grappling hook and getting the job done; perhaps there’s only one way to cross a wide ravine surrounded by waterfalls, maybe you need to gain the high ground on an enemy and lunge your katana into their torso from above, maybe you’re being chased by a horde of undead and a quick grappling hook to the rooftops if your best escape, or maybe you just want to see what happens when you grappling hook an enemy soldier and tether them onto a moving helicopter.
Explore the top games of the last fifteen to twenty years that featured grappling hooks and discuss the value of such a useful mechanic while also discussing other games, their mechanics, and how and why those mechanics are inferior (I.e. yellow markers to indicate climbable structures, active building mechanics, stealth mechanics, dual-wielding, etc.).
OkaNaimo0819, I see your point, but I can assure you that there is definitively enough material and that an article can be written highlighting the grappling hook above all other mechanics. I've gone ahead and added an edit to include your suggestion but perhaps reserve judgment for the final pending article before shooting it down because what you're suggesting is a different article all together. Which you can feel free to write because I'm not going to. – FarPlanet5 years ago
Uncharted 4 and The Tomb Raider remake both use grappling item. Also, would you count the hookshot from The Legend of Zelda series as a grappling item (Wind Waker also had a great grappling hook). – Sean Gadus5 years ago
A whole article about grappling hooks? That's why I love this magazine. :) – Stephanie M.4 years ago
The third season of Netflix's series appears to take a big turn towards scenes of "violent" sexuality in its most recent season, almost contrasting that of it's previous two seasons where there is minimal to no scenes of sexuality. Nonetheless, they do have significance for individual character arcs.
Is this what audiences demanded? Are audiences taking it well, or will it turn off some of its core viewers? How does Castlevania's video game community react to Season 3? And how do these scenes of sexuality change our previous understandings of characters?
This is an interesting topic to explore. This was something I also noticed when watching the 3rd season. I felt that this was a drastic shift compared to season 2. I think that we will have to season how these characters stories progress in season 4 to fully see whether these scenes were effective/necessary. Alucard's scene seem to hint at a dark road for him ahead, so we may have to wait til season 4 to see if those scenes provide to be critical. – Sean Gadus5 years ago
R.K. Narayan's Malgudi, Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County, and of course, L. Frank Baum's enchanting Oz. These fictional places imagined by prolific writers possess great character, and ultimately reflect the author's mindset, intention and desires. A greater understanding of each of these places is pieced together bit by bit through every engaging story written, and eventually come to represent different things in the ways that they are perceived by us, the readers. Interesting questions to perhaps ask would then be: what was the intention of the author in creating such an intricate or elaborate world (all three are depicted beautifully drawn maps) and how did people perceive such fictional towns at the time, as well as what these towns eventually came to represent.
I love this. It'd be great to add Harry Potter and The Hobbit/LOTR into the mix! – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
I would also add, for Latin-American literature, Garcia Marquez' Macondo and Onetti's Santa María. It's quite a wide topic once you are familiar with it; and very interesting. – Felipe Mancheno9 years ago
Kudos to you for including Malgudi in your thesis statement. Few other places which the potential article writer can write about include Narnia and Panem. Even settings like Gotham can be potentially added into the mix and touched upon. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan5 years ago
Yes! I'm so happy to see this take because I consider the benchmark of truly incredible storytelling to be not in the characters, but in the world of the story. To make the world of the story feel lush and full of promise, when it is the characters that drive the focus of the story, takes a masterful command of detail and writing. Also, it is in creating such a strong sense of place that it offers up opportunities for greater storytelling; franchises like Harry Potter and Star Wars immediately come to mind, but there are more I'm sure. I particularly love that you've noted L. Frank Baum's Oz because, having recently directed a stage production of the musical adaptation, I found myself mind-boggled at the sheer biodiversity alone found within Oz -- there are corn fields, forests, cities, towns, jungles (if we are to believe that tigers and bears exist alongside The Cowardly Lion)...and those are just the parts we've seen! I would love for someone to make a map of Oz that delves deeper into its composition. – aeqbal4 years ago
Oh, you have to include Narnia, Panem, and/or Hogwarts. And can I suggest (PLEASE) that you add Storybrooke, Maine? – Stephanie M.4 years ago
Existentialism is often seen as a depressing philosophy, but I ultimately see it as a hopeful response to absurdity–a struggle for meaning and maybe a better life, whatever shape that may take. On that line of thought, popular shounen series with their various "never give up!" themes and questioning of humanity, morality, religion, and so on, seem to fit right into it. Naruto in particular reads like a bonafide Kierkegaardian Knight of Faith.
Does shounen anime/manga seem existentialist? If so, what kind of specific existentialist themes are in play? Does this help readers coming of age prepare for life by giving them a taste of having to figure things out in the face of adversity (and absurdity)? Or does it exceed itself and become naivety?
More broadly, what's the relationship between philosophy and fiction? Does fiction “play out” the ideas of philosophy, or does it create its own philosophical ideas?
Interesting topic. Shonen is all about existentialism. In any Shonen anime, especially those like Bleach, Naruto and Fairy Tail, willpower goes a long way. Whoever has higher will has higher power. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
This is a really cool topic -- if I knew more about existentialism I would write it. I think it's important to take into account Japanese philosophy and culture and how that affects the writers of shonen manga and anime. – Chris9 years ago
I would love to read this article!!! – Abie Dee4 years ago
Friends, That 70s Show, Community, The Office, Modern Family, the list spans kilometres. These kinds of ensemble tv shows, where rather than being just one main character, the focus is on a main group of characters, are incredibly popular today. Investigate WHY that is. Is it something to do with the kind of show – many shows with ensemble casts are comedy or sit-com? Can viewers better find someone to relate to within a group, rather than with a designated sole protagonist? Does it open more expansive avenues for story-telling, when the focus is on six different people as opposed to just one? Does this keep viewers more invested, less bored? Is it the relationship aspect that draws viewers in? Do they enjoy feeling part of the on-screen group's little family? Arguably, within a group, characters can afford to be more flawed as they have their peers to keep them in check, does this make for more relatable characters? Or is it the opposite, do these shows create caricatures (the smart one, the funny one, etc.) and is that why people enjoy it?
This article should offer specific examples of TV shows and what it is about them that people enjoyed.
There is something about this TV show formula that just works, and an article offering an answer to 'why?' could be very interesting and insightful.
Interesting topic! The cool thing about ensemble casts is that it gives more audience members a chance to find someone they can relate to. If there's a single defined protagonist, you either relate to that person or you don't. If there's a large ensemble cast, though, then it's more likely you can connect to someone in a fairly major role. – Debs5 years ago
Certainly the writing team has more work cut out for them with an ensemble cast as opposed to one main character. Also, it leaves the door open to additional characters that interact with one or more of the main cast. Ensembles, represent a wider slice of the demographic pie and gives multiple actors a chance to shine. Often lesser character's get a spin-off show for themselves. One main character can be daunting for that specific actor, as many are less capable of truly engaging the audience. If a viewer misses an episode of a one character show, it can be hard to understand what may have happened or will happen but with an ensemble you can play to the strengths of the other actor's character's. If your main star does something outside of work that the viewing public doesn't like, or perhaps is illegal or unseamly it can wreck a perfectly good or even great show. Just look at what happened to the Rosanne reboot. She ruined what arguably was and would have been a multi season hit show. Rosanne flipped out on social media and the show got axed quickly. If I was part of that cast I would have been very upset at what the main character did on her own time. I'll close this out by also saying that it's much harder to handle the eventual fall from stardom if you're a former Superstar that was a singular character, than if you had a group of stellar characters to play with. There's more than a handful of actor's that took that fall hard. Some didn't make it through that pain and ended up destroyed by depression, drugs, alcohol and heartbreak and in the absolute worst outcome suicide. Super Stardom isn't for everyone. – WillyMac4 years ago
Throughout history, many stories have featured characters who are depicted as being "too good for this sinful earth" and therefore dying young. Charles Dickens, for instance, wrote many such characters into his stories; and Uncle Tom's Cabin also depicts its most famous characters in this way. Such an idea, of course, has explicitly religious connotations, with the idea being that the character is so pure that they belong in heaven and not on earth. Do such characters still exist in modern, secular media? If so, what are some examples? How can a story that lacks a religious bent portray a character as too good for the world (if indeed it's possible)?
Oh yeah, they exist. A lot of times, they're disabled, which smacks of ableism (or they have cancer, which is not the same thing but is in the neighborhood). A lot of Christian-based movies have these, and what's interesting is that the characters come across as too good for earth even if they ultimately survive (inspiration porn). But sometimes you'll find them in non-religious literature, too. The key is, "too good for this sinful earth" in itself implies the character has some kind of faith or at least a belief in heaven, so there is some overlap. – Stephanie M.5 years ago
This is an interesting topic! I immediately thought of "Clarissa" by Samuel Richardson as one of "too good for this sinful earth" protagonists. I don't think such characters are as popular in modern media anymore because of how people's tastes and social ideals have changed, at least, that is true in most western movies/tv shows. There isn't any purely "good" character anymore and I think we mostly veer towards portraying characters as more human and flawed. But maybe that in itself could be an interesting direction to take for this topic. – Kheya4 years ago
"Top 10" type videos and articles on the internet are so prolific right now it's like they fill up any negative space available on the net. Examine why that is and how this type of arguably cheap content has become so popular. Is it because of the platforms they inhabit? i.e, "the medium is the message," or is it simply because of the mindset of the generation? Interested to hear your thoughts!
I would not call "Top 10" a new thing, it has been around for decades. Perhaps how it has changed, say, of songs that have been in the top 10 in different years might provide insight into changing tastes. – Joseph Cernik5 years ago