Recently, the online outcry over the horrific design of Sonic and the very poor execution of Game of Thrones' final season lead to a) a total redesign of Sonic commissioned by the film studio and b) over a million people signing a petition request a complete re-make of the final Game of Thrones season. This seems to be a new trend; people massing online to demand corporations adapt a piece of art (I know it seems a bit iffy to call the Sonic movie art, but hey, what else is it?) post production to suit consumer needs. What does this trend signify? How could it go wrong? Should we really have this power? Is it democratization, or making us somehow even more subservient to capital? Could be cool.
Since seeing these responses to Sonic and GoT, I had a very similar reaction, and I would love to see this topic explored more fully. I think the question of creator vs audience power would provide the best, narrowed focus if someone chose to approach the topic with depth instead of breadth. The pressure of the audience can be intense for creators, especially when they are working with franchises that have such a large following, and I imagine this has an impact on the process of creation and final quality of the art itself. Artists compromising their visions to cater to the demands of the large portions of the public could set a dangerous precedent in which art becomes more of a product with the intention of making the most money by reaching the most people instead of reaching them with a new perspective, idea, or story that means something more than the dollars and cents. Excellent topic! – Aaron6 years ago
Part of the reason GoT ended the way it did was to showcase the tyrannical nature of power, regardless of gender, with Dany representing a feminist sentiment and, though valiant in her acts, ultimately becomes corrupted by absolute power. Maybe touch on how even though this message may have meant to be informative about absolute power corrupting absolutely, it was still a political message that made the show seem weak in the end by focusing more on a political angle. This could also comment on overarching moral in good stories vs. political ideals. – Emiris6 years ago
Part of marketing is the driving up of hype, but in fact little active promotion is needed by many films and TV these days as most fans drive the movement with their own social media discussions and excitement. But is this proving detrimental to the work? For instance, with the close of the saga 'Game of Thrones' the hype and expectation around the wrapping of the series was incredibly high, with people taking time off work/study etc. to catch the "on time" release on Netflix around the world. But what seems to have come out is a post malaise of criticism about the ending that for some may have soured the entire show. Now is this a fair state of affairs? Was the ending really poor or is this simply a reaction to heightened expectations that just can not be met?
It would be interesting to explore the fan expectations, hype and marketing surrounding the completion of 'Game of Thrones', 'End Game' (throwing as hugely hyped film into the mix) and 'Big Bang Theory' (maybe even look back at other colossal series ends such as 'How I met your mother' and 'Breaking Bad') to examine how their completions differed and seemed to have resulted in a very different spectrum of responses from fans.
What makes an ending great? How do you manage fan hype? Can anything live up to a finale expectation?
This is really awesome and what you wrote shows how much you really like. – Markh326 years ago
I love the question you pose at the end of the first paragraph. Was it really that bad of an ending, or did we have unbelievably high hopes? It definitely gets the reader thinking about the topic. Personally, once I got past the disappointment the ending actually made a lot of sense. The other examples of shows are good to include as you're appealing to different genres. It will allow more readers to think about the questions you're asking in context to shows they enjoy.
– briannat6 years ago
Around WWII the television began to become more and more welcomed as a member of the average household in America. In the 1950's the television became the primary means of influencing public opinion on world events and politics. Later in the 90's we see the reflection of the culture surrounding television programming in postmodern writers like Don Delillo and David Foster Wallace. How have the infusion of the passivity of television-watching culture influenced the literature of subsequent decades? How has the expectation of the average reader been affected by this mass incorporation of this form of media in the average household?
You could also mention the shortening of people's attention spans, and could tie in the influence of social media here too. – Andi6 years ago
Disagree. I believe it was during the Cold War, not WW2. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Also, I feel like some sources and examples would support and illustrate your claims. – T. Palomino2 years ago
The sub-genre of comedy that focuses on shocking sexual depictions, over-the-top jokes, and hyper-unrealistic scenarios seems to be going strong in 2019. Films such as American Pie (1999), Superbad (2007), and The Hangover (2009) cemented a place in the medium for these narratives with all of their try-hard humor and problematic treatment of identity (homophobic and misogynistic jokes galore!). Weaker off-shoots began to form as quick cash-grabs for studios looking to ride the wave of the main-stream comedies noted, and now the market seems to be saturated with them.
My interest with this sub-genre has taken shape after watching Blockers (2018), a film in which two up-tight parents (Leslie Mann and John Cena) team up with a laid-back father (Ike Barinholtz) to prevent their daughters from having sex on prom night. While Mann and Cena have more obvious motivations – not wanting to see their children lose their innocence – Barinholtz's goal is more nuanced. He's fully convinced that his daughter is gay (something she is still unsure of herself), and he is concerned that she is being pressured by her friends to have sex with a guy in order to feel accepted.
The set-up is the perfect representation of the interesting dichotomy that this film, and similar films in the sub-genre, present. While the plot is filled with ridiculous humor that is overly vulgar, graphic, and inconsistent, the "heart" or "message" of the film is clearly a positive one. In the case of Blockers, it's incredibly blunt in addressing identity politics to differing levels of success, but I believe it would be hard for the audience to walk away angry with the normalizing way in which the gay character is casually accepted by her friends and family, acknowledging the next stage of inclusive progress needed in the U.S.
My question for this topic is – does the graphic, vulgar, shock comedy sub-genre have the potential to encourage social acceptance, or is it a futile attempt that should be abandoned since the sub-genre has been pigeon-holed (by the creators and public) into a category of film that is designed to profit from being anti-politically correct or overtly offensive to shock the audience? I would love to hear additional thoughts on this topic as well as more titles that may fit into this small movement of shock comedies that are grappling with socially positive themes.
I've seen nothing but severely conflicting opinions on whether the Marvel films are going in a good direction or not. Audiences appear to be either diehard fans of the entire franchise, or completely disillusioned about the direction of the films. Despite this, there's a continuously large following, and I'd be interested to know why.
This is definitely interesting division to explore. It might be worth digging into why a similar but largely more negative split is occurring in the DCU as well. Is there something about these comic book worlds that especially lend themselves to diehardness and division? – JustinMoir6 years ago
"The Office" is such a widely known series that it is almost impossible to have a conversation with someone without referencing a joke or moment from the show. The internet is littered with Office memes, and people joking about only ever rewatching the series. People put Michael Scott quotes in their bios, their yearbook quotes, and their Tinder profiles. Why does this show, which has just as many cringy, immoral, distasteful, and insensitive jokes as it does sweet and kind moments, speak to so many people and demand a large role in so many peoples life?
I would love to see this explored more fully because I certainly fall into the category of "The Office" fans that you reference, rewatching it and using it as background noise for years. A couple of points that I would like to offer is that it seems like people relate to the mundane setting of the show that allows them to project hilarious moments and observations onto an office setting that they may have thought in the past but never stated. This deeper connection to the setting or overall atmosphere that the setting creates has the potential to provide escapism for people trapped in very dull work environments by finding the humor in less dynamic work places (obviously, not for everyone). Lastly, I think it's important to recognize that the immoral and distasteful jokes you note are usually presented as critiques since they are coming from characters that are lovable in some way but clearly presented as twisted personalities that should not be imitated. Younger or less critical viewers may be negatively influenced by these moments, but I would argue that that's not the intent (and I acknowledge that intent only goes so far). As I said, I would love to see this expanded because "The Office" is a piece of our zeitgeist that is thriving across generations since the early 2000s with its presence on Netflix. – Aaron6 years ago
"The Office" is not the first of it's kind to produce these outcomes. Pop culture references have been a long-term epidemic similar to reading the latest books or sharing the latest news and gossip. The normality of Netflix and additions to tv series provide individuals with a way of relating to others to feel accepted - this is most prominent in a digital environment which provides a social sense of reality that people potentially lack in their everyday mundane lives. – TheAuthortoria6 years ago
As Aaron stated above, I think The Office provides escapism for those who find themselves dragged down by boring and tedious corporate working environments. While the U.K Office used more dry and drawn out humor, the U.S Office failed to emulate this in season 1 and the writers instead went with a more upbeat, albeit unrealistic approach of an office environment. This does correlate more with U.S values, which are usually more optimistic and persevering. The characters in my opinion are what make the show. It's no surprise that Michael Scott and many of the other characters would be fired for various actions and interactions, but that's one of the show's advantages. It's an exaggerated take on the typical, American corporate work place inhabited by distinct and generally likable characters. The distasteful jokes are also done well imo because they're from the characters' distinct behaviors, who are portrayed as in the wrong and not to be emulated or praised. They're often sourced from their flaws. The Office also isn't the only show to have such type of crude comedy, see It's Always Sunny, Family Guy, South Park, etc. – ImperatorSage6 years ago
Characters who hold political office have been portrayed for television in a number of cases. Take those in the White House for example, whether it is House of Cards, Madam Secretary or The West Wing. Shows like these often capture corruption, tie in to real world events and provide some insight into the work of government. A recent study (link) showed how Argo and Zero Dark Thirty changed respondents view of government and others (link) have also explored the connection between political T.V. fiction and political engagement. Does this empower us, deceive us or inform us as political actors who vote, commentate and follow real world politics?
May I suggest also taking a look at political satire. There was an excellent British comedy series titled 'Yes, Minister' (and its follow-up series 'Yes, Prime Minister'), which was not only hugely popular with TV viewers, but was frequently acknowledged by members of parliament to be uncannily close to the truth, concerning the blunders made by government. In many ways political satire can tell us a great deal more about the true workings of government. I'm sure there are American series that deal with the same. – Amyus6 years ago
I definitely would consider tying in the actions of Edward Snowden, who released top government secrets to the people to show that our government was doing questionable things, and some of those actions have been bases for movies and popular TV shows. Shows like Castle, about the NYPD and other aspects, highlighted quite frequently the corruption in political positions and even in the police department as well. These shows offer real life scenarios that could easily occur or are occurring at this moment. Definitely something to consider looking into! – reschilke6 years ago
Whether it's Peter Parker, Miles Morales, Spider-Gwen or one of the other dozen versions of Spider-Man, people love this character. What is it about this character that has endeared him to audiences for over 50 years. Is it the stories that he's been involved in, the cast of characters around him or is it what he represents that has resonated with people so well for so long. By looking at the history of the character through all mediums, analyze what is it about the wall crawler that makes him and all his variants such a timelessly likable character.
I like this topic a lot because one of the most important things for superheroes to be popular and culturally important is their relatability. Even some of the most popular characters like Superman and Batman that have unbelievable abilities maintain some aspects of ourselves as humans like struggling with restraint, trauma, loss, identity, belonging, etc. Looking through the history of Spider-Man, he seems to be marketed as one of the most clearly, universally relatable heroes since his iterations are usually young humans dealing with very common young human issues like love, family, and even work-life balance. I think writing on this topic would require the targeted marketing of Spider-Man as an every-man/woman type to be explored more fully in connection with his overall likability and resonance. – Aaron6 years ago
I think even beyond his colorful and striking design, Spider-Man's resonance is sourced from him dealing with everyday problems many, if not, most people can relate to. Though he's a hard worker, he's poor, he's bullied, struggles in romance, handling his job, etc. All this on top of being a superhero who risks his life every day defending NYC citizens who are often ungrateful (depending on the writer). It grounds him as a character and shows that anyone can wear the mask, i.e be a hero who helps others, even in the face of adversity. – ImperatorSage6 years ago
The spider-man story usually starts in high school, and I think that is part of what makes it so appealing. The character is so average and relatable. He acts like any one of us would act. – kairigainsborough5 years ago
Very broad, unspecific and unoriginal. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Analyze how creating an image for "death" and having death be a character changes or impacts a piece of literature and in what ways. I immediately think of "The Book Thief" by Marcus Zusak and how he portrayed death to be its own entity in the novel. This alongside the mini story J.K Rowling had in her well known Harry Potter series called "Tales of Beedle the Bard" death is yet again seen as someone in a human like form.
It might be worth taking a look at the great work that Lindsay Ellis has done on this subject, both on her personal channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aNax1Rhs-w) and with PBS Digital Studios (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vQjHILQ0OQ). I'm sure there is still plenty worth talking about that she missed, to which I'd caution the prospective author against risking too close a retread. – ProtoCanon6 years ago
It would be interesting to look at Death in the context of greek mythology as well as the role of time within death particularly in Alice through the looking glass. Time has control over death but as the film continues the audience see Time as a caretaker if anything. – NCSERCOMBE6 years ago
An analysis into why modern streaming services like Netflix are picking up, and even creating, content that is modeled after the 1980s. Why is a decade that most of the viewers of these shows never experienced so popular in contemporary culture?
I'd attribute the current 80s trend mainly to two main factors, though I'm sure there are many more. On the one hand, people tend to remember their formative years in a positive light while simultaneously shutting out more complex issues they weren't paying attention to at the time. The 1980s, like any decade, had its share of crises (the AIDS epidemic, the Cold War, the state of the global economy, etc.). For children and teens, however, their focus was probably not on these issue they couldn't or didn't want to engage with, instead focusing on music, movies, video games, or other media that we would now identify as "classic 80s." So now that those former kids and teens are older and producing their own content, their memories of that time tend to be overwhelmingly positive and rose-colored (unless they're creating something grounded more in reality). And if those trends hold up, their creation becomes popular and delivers on their creative investment. Which leads to the second factor: If someone comes up with a popular idea, everyone will want to copy it to get some of that sweet revenue; for every Stranger Things that hits a cultural chord, you'll get Ready Player One or Fuller House to that exists mostly to ride the 80s nostalgia wave. I don't think there's anything inherently special about the 1980s that makes it any more ripe for nostalgia than any other decade, it's just the one that's in vogue right now. But then again, my nostalgia is for the 90s, so maybe I'm just biased. – CulturallyOpinionated6 years ago
It's 2019 and animated series and movies are finally tackling some more serious themes and ideas in their stories, but on the whole are still marketed towards children and younger age demographics. While I can appreciate exposing children to these kinds of stories, why are most adults still scoffing at the idea of watching anything that isn't made with "real actors" when animation can sometimes achieve what the largest of special effects budgets can't? It should focus on western media mostly, as I am already aware that anime has been doing this for ages already.
You bring up a great question, MissAila! I'm in my mid-40s, and I accept animation as a medium, but I know a few people in my parents' generation who will not watch animated movies. Those are solely for kids. And if they aren't for kids, then they are not only anomalies but abominations. I remember trying to watch the 1981 movie Heavy Metal when I was a kid, and my Dad was flabbergasted by it. He thought it was disgusting. I can only imagine his reaction to Netflix's Love, Death, and Robots, which is even more adult. So I don't really have an answer to your question, but I wonder if there is a generational difference and whether growing up with Saturday morning cartoons and Disney animated films makes a difference, too. – ChadW6 years ago
You bring up a very good point in the lack of animation as a medium for films/tv shows with a more mature setting. Perhaps people see it as a childish alternative to having actors portray something on screen (in terms of Western media), due to the fact that cartoons are mainly used to produce material with a target audience of children. It's hard to grasp that a medium with so much economic power in the East (namely, Japanese Anime) has little power to grasp audiences' attentions in the West. – davparth6 years ago
This is such a cool topic idea! I definitely think it's worth touching on "adult animation" that has been geared toward an older audience--think about the shows that have aired on Adult Swim, like Robot Chicken, the Boondocks, Rick and Morty, etc.--and also how streaming services like Netflix have tried to capture that niche as well with Bojack Horseman and Tuca and Bertie. Typically these shows use adult humor rather than darker subjects, but it would be interesting to see what you think might separate it from animation geared towards kids. – Eden6 years ago
I believe origin of animation as a medium played a huge role in it. Animation when it was initially made was a tiring process within itself it was almost impossible to include mature themes in animation in those days (given it was made in 1900's) and the imagery that was projected was cute, childish without much theme. This set the benchmark for most of the animation slowly people's ideology towards anime changed and people started felling animation was for kids(mainly because movies started tackling mature issues and animation remained as it was). In more recent times companies like Disney and Pixar had a lot of influence on animation they created family friendly animations(kids films) and channels like cartoon network, pogo, and other big names aired cartoon shows (kids films again) slowly creating the stigma that animation is a medium meant for kids Though, really I loved your topic and the questions it raised I must point out that this is not entirely true yes, main stream animation is not very famous for portraying adult themes and yes adults think animation is for kids , due to rise of web streaming another kind of animation is slowly becoming more famous(The Rise Of Anime),a medium which was doing it since its humble beginnings. If you can dig deep there are many really old anime that are adult themed (hell lot too many).Upon closer inspection there are a very rare few European and american animations that dealt with serious political,Social themes and served as critiques But saying that it is also true that tough they were always there, they never got the mainstream attention that they are getting now . I must give you a thumbs up for that Anyways great topic buddy
– PSSRV6 years ago
Animated films tackling darker or mature themes isn't really new in my opinion, I think the difference is that they're more prevalent and more people are aware of them. Japanese animation is obviously far ahead than U.S animation in terms of tackling more mature subject matter, but U.S animation has had it too with Samurai Jack, Avatar TLA, Spectacular Spider-Man, The Boondocks, many of the Disney/Pixar films and a few Dreamworks films, etc. I personally find it very frustrating how much animation is looked down as by general audiences, especially by older generations, though they have somewhat more of an excuse. With that said, I think it's also close-minded to generalize an entire medium just because all what one was exposed to from that medium were low-quality Saturday morning cartoons. There's also the fact that there were and are people who expect all media to cater to kids and thus try to censor or restrict anything that doesn't fit their preconceived idea of "child-friendly programs", and animation (and comic books) received the bulk of this, in my opinion. – ImperatorSage6 years ago
For many writers, keeping a personal journal or a personal blog is a necessary creative outlet to keep work private. However, simultaneously they are creating content that is relevant to a wide audience and likely highly different than their personal writings. How do they manage these different voices for very different audiences while maintaining their integrity to who they are as creatives? Creativity does not happen in a vacuum, and it's important to be able to cater to a number of different audiences (with the self or future self being a potential audience as well).
I enjoy this topic, I struggle with this quite often. Finding the time to write, sometimes all I end up with is a journal entry and nothing polished or in proper story format. Although I know daily struggles are something people can relate to, I don't want to brand myself as that kind of writer when I want to publish short fiction. I write in very different voices when not in-character with a story. It would be a worthwhile article to the majority of people on this platform to read, and know whether it's beneficial cultivating a personal presence online as a writer on various platforms. – Slaidey6 years ago
Writers, as all humans do, come with their own intentions behind what they write. However, with editors as middle men, is the world shaped for the better as writers are forced to take on the advice of those trying to mold a final product for a reader. Sometimes a piece of writing can be made more interesting by this process, and a writers piece is molded for the better, which personal blogs miss out on having. Are they better off for that? – Elpis19886 years ago
Good topic to explore. I think it comes down to expressing oneself in stream of writing consciousness in a journal versus editing and being grammatically correct in one's published works. I don't censor myself in either realm. If I am writing a memoir most of what I write comes out naturally. However, there are lines that need to be drawn and one needs to consider one's audience and the potential to offend so I might change a name used or eliminate a specific word. I think this is really interesting because my journal and my writing are very closely linked, whereas there are some writers who insist that their characters have "nothing to do with them or their lives" and i think this is a lack of awareness on their part because EVERYTHING one writes comes from that individual's psyche and cumulative experiences. I only heard one author insist that her characters were nothing like her and she did not experience what they experienced and no interviewer really took her seriously but she maintains this position vigilantly. Not all writers explore the depths of their psyche and she is a good writer but not a great one because even though her characters are good it feels like their is something missing. I really don't know how one could be a good writer and not be connected to different parts of one's psyche as they are expressing themselves in a given character. I analyze and process things on a very deep level;some writers do not. I have always preferred the deep thinkers like Tolstoy and Cervantes whose complexity of characters is remarkable. – youngmollflanders6 years ago
Lately, a lot of movies are coming out and do not end the way that viewers hope: everyone together and happy. While this seems like it would turn a lot of people away from movies, especially those about love and relationships, it actually is improving ratings and gaining more viewers because many of those in the audience can relate to the negative life events. Is this bringing us closer as a society and enhancing reality, or have we lost the original goal of movies which was to give viewers an escape from reality?
I think it's an interesting issue, one worth researching further. I do not agree, however, with the generalisation. There are movies which are simply for entertainment (escapism), but there are also other ones which are very thought-provoking. It is difficult to take a stance that argues one or the other. I would suggest, instead, looking into some examples from both poles and exploring the effects and goals both types of movies have. :)
– Kaya6 years ago
I love the idea of this topic, especially now that The Avengers series has come to an end. Although "End Game" ended relatively happily, major characters were still sacrificed and lost, something superhero fans are not accustomed to (and "Infinity War" had everyone shook). Another good example is the popularity of Game of Thrones where death is ever present and characters perpetually suffer through tragedies. I especially like you bringing up romance movies, and personally think the sad endings are grounding people to reality and feeling more for the situations. Are we as a culture, growing up? – Slaidey6 years ago
I really like the idea of this post, but I am not so sure that all viewers are actually expecting or 'hoping' a movie to be ending a particular way ('together and happy'). Yes, a lot of movies are created with the intent to create some Utopian, idealised fantasy of happily ever after, but I also think that in the past there has been a lot of movies created along the romantic-comedy genre that end this way, and may be just what people expect to see sometimes. I think that the creation of movies that do not end in happy bliss are a good thing; maybe because it shows that in life things are not so perfect (and thus people can relate). But also, it may be a good thing as far as movies go in general, as variety in movie endings is always new and exciting. So, in fact, it may just be that viewers are just liking the different 'end' of movies, or it could be, like you said, because it relates to their own personal life. Regardless, movies are not real, they are art forms, depictions, and products of society and culture, and they take on different meanings to whomever may be viewing them. – jessicarealist6 years ago
It is a very interesting issue and agree that it is something to look further into! And also I agree that some people are just liking the different end of movie or somehow related to their life and personal issues ! – sunshinemegz896 years ago
With art now mirroring real life where not every ending is a happy fairy tale one, it offers more solace and acceptance to those who are really struggling with severe problems when not everything goes their way. It is okay to win and many times, lose. Not great endings allows people the chance of having something/one relatable to them and their fates in current times of increasing loneliness. For example, if a character they cared about failed miserably and then, a similar situation befell them, it will not prove as devastating as compared to having plots where everything is always happening perfectly as people on social media and increasingly in real lives, are trying to portray. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan5 years ago
There are way too many articles written out there that have a heavy-handed focus on the male gaze. It is a tight rope talk to discuss the gaze in general, especially in regards to objectivity in what/who is being looked at. I would love to see an article written about the many wonderful works that have an erotica theme to them, especially from creators like Katie Skelly, Kyoko Okazaki, Lisa Hanawalt, Gengoroh Tagame, and even through a bit more mainstream comics like 'Sex Criminals' and 'Sex' from Image Comics. It would be great to get more of a perspective on the female gaze, instead of the male gaze, and would be even better to get this examination from a female perspective. Erotica can present a very interesting relationship with its readers, especially from a voyeuristic perspective, and I feel like it can be a fine line for some when it comes to how the body is presented. However, when it's done right, erotica can really celebrate the body, dig into gender/sex politics, social rights and cultural ideologies as a whole (especially when creators like Guido Crepax and Milo Manara are put into the conversation). It would be worthwhile to discuss a topic that can hold a mirror up to many of us and get right to the subject matter that can be deemed taboo to some.
I recently read the book 'Ways of Seeing' by John Berger and some of the themes he discusses are centred around the gaze especially in art and contemporary Western visual culture. I like your proposition to examine this stance from a female perspective. However, there is a long and complex historical tradition, especially in art, which favors the male gaze and which objectifies the nude female body which needs to be taken into account. – Kaya6 years ago
Suspiria (2018) might be a great film to dig into this. It is thoroughly erotically-charged, but never in a purely physical or sexual sense; concerned more with physicality and power, force and affect than anything else. Really interesting. – joshasoflate6 years ago
The last season of Game of Thrones has garnered significant audiences as well as criticism in its handling of the fates of its female characters. However the abuse of Westerosi women for ratings has not been a fresh take from the showrunners. Analyse how the use of sexual violence and patriarchal narratives disguised by capitalist feminism has always led to the bitter defeat of the women in Game of Thrones.
It expresses an ironic reality that we live in. An aspect that woman empowerment highlights upon. But after all, it's just a show. – Zoran6 years ago
I really like this topic. Keep in mind one could go back to the very first episode of season one to get a sense of the misogyny and brutal treatment of women as predictors for the series' final portrayal and fate of female characters. In this sense, the show has always seemed to me to retain a very 1970s feel in its use and abuse of women as disposable commodities. – MarkTodd6 years ago
I see a lot of people countering this argument with evidence like "Sansa became queen of the North as an independent country, and Arya got to go explore a new world all on her own, so the women weren't treated that badly" but I have to agree with this topic. If you take every woman in the cast and summarize their story arc, they were not treated fairly or with respect as individuals with potential to make great stories. – MissAila6 years ago
I am part of that 1% that has never seen or been interested in GoT. At first it was because I thought it was all explicit scenes and that was the premise of the entire movie because that first season oomf, very hard to even get passed the first episode. Not my type of genre. Then I realized that the plot line is actually interesting. Instead of watching, I looked through recaps and understood what the story was through that. Not the words of a fanatic, but even I was disappointed by how they painted the characters. If we focus on the women specifically, we were given poor character development (rushed for Daenerys) she was made to be the villain so quickly. Sansa and Arya deserved so much more. Arya defeated the night kind for crying out loud and all we get for her closure is that she goes exploring. – njavaid6 years ago
Good idea for a piece, but keep in mind that some of the show's characters, Arya in particular, escape or carve a place for themselves outside the patriarchal power structure. She is the ultimate special forces operative--solo, brains over brawn, the only one in the battle against the White Walkers to learn (via the famous scene in the library) to learn about her adversary in order to penetrate their ranks--how else could she have maneuvered into a position to kill him? Unfortunately, the only logical conclusion was her own self-expulsion--she literally did not fit in any Westeros order and needs to find/explore her own brave new world. – barbarafalk6 years ago
At the end of the final season, Tyrion's motivation for choosing Bran as the new king begins with this line: "There's nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it. " And this line summarizes how the writers have failed the women of Game of Thrones--particularly Daenarys, who by all rights should have been Queen. When you think back to the earlier seasons (and when you read the books) you get a clear sense of the larger story from the perspective of many different characters. In fact the novels are organized around events told from the varying perspectives of the major characters. We can see the world through the minds of Cersei, the Starks, Tyrion, Daenerys, and others. But, when you compare this narrative strategy to the final season, it's clear that the narrative loses this quality and predominantly focuses in on a few narrative perspectives: Jon's, Tyrion's, and Jaimie's. For this reason, we don't really know why Daenerys chooses to burn King's Landing to the ground because we are never privy to her perspective. We are only told that she is "mad" and are forced to accept it. And when the characters reflect on Daenerys's past actions, her reasoning for her actions aren't included, her perspective is erased. And in that sense, Daenerys's story is stolen from her--rewritten by those who would rather see Jon on the throne because he is thought to be the "rightful heir." Thus, the power of story, indeed! On a final note: George R. R. Martin makes it pretty clear in Fire and Blood that the rightful Targaryen ruler is always the one with dragons. – bsumpn6 years ago
Western comics have an intimate relationship with the democracies in which they originated. It would be interesting to better understand how the two interact: that is, how the underlying ideas of democracy have influenced superhero stories, and in turn, how superheroes affected our ideas of democracy. For instance, Captain America was created during WWII as a champion against fascism, but the way he has been envisioned and even the person filling the role has changed over time, perhaps reflecting society's changes.
More recently the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been tremendously successful, and several of its movies seem to approach interesting issues. A core question Civil War asks is how much power a democratic government should have to control the ethical decision making of individual participants (and upholders) of that democracy? The movie appeared (May 2016) at a time when it seems Western democracies were going into crisis. With themes about rebellion from overly controlling governments, did it influence people's thoughts going into Brexit (June 2016) or the Trump election (Nov 2016). Another instance is the ongoing theme in many comics of the deep resilience of participatory forms of government, which we see again in the Marvel Cinematic Universe's End Game. Might that have similar influences?
The very mode of production of comics as descendants of pulp is democratic in terms of its mass production, popular culture, affordability. Moreover, its origins as art/literature written for children in essence made a niche for itself by creating its own adult market out of those children who then grew up and still wanted more. That reflects the mythological tie between liberal democracy and free market capitalism in that the demand of the consumers dictates the production of a supply though in fact the products breed further desire for consumption that merely appear as a self-generating demand. In a similar fashion, the rejection of the military in characters of the MCU like Stark and Rogers only appears to represent a democratic appeal to the common people but a closer examination reveals that the MCU ends up remaining a propaganda machine for the anti-democratic status quo when it vilifies such agendas as environmentalism (Thanos) or minority reparations or equality (Killmonger) at a time when climate destruction is demanding from our collective hand more extreme measures and Black Lives Matter struggles to have its voice heard. – williamnolen115 years ago
Apathy is a common emotion experienced with games that follow a “choose your own adventure” focus. Usually these game feature branching storylines, character deaths and the impacts of the player’s choices. Notable games in this genre include TellTale Games’ The Walking Dead Game and Square Enix’s Life is Strange.
Discuss, perhaps from a personal view, how the player may experience apathy after playing a choose-your-own-adventure. Is apathy a foregone conclusion after playing one of these games or does it vary on the player? As well, what are some of the other reasons a player may experience apathy? Could it be from the writing, disjointed plot, lack of character importance?
I believe this can be an interesting topic. When a person plays these forms of games, they are making drastic story-altering decisions in a limited amount of time. While people may make thousands of decisions a day, for the most part they are subconsciously thought about where the decisions we make are almost instinctual or based on personal bias. With these Choose Your Own Adventure Games, while being fictional, you are making these split second choices not for yourself but another person, even more so these games often give gravity to the weight of your decisions. Now from a writing perspective, these stories are very hard to properly cultivate because there are so many variables that making choices right from the first episodes already limits the possible paths you can take. Because of that, these games can be a completionist nightmare purely because each decision could impact just a scene or the entire feel of the story and having to go back over multiple times could feel like a mute point unless the story was worth re-watching.
– Kevin Mohammed6 years ago
You don't need to be a dead rockstar to be martyred anymore! Rocketman (the film) is being released May 31, documenting Elton John's rise to fame. Bohemian Rhapsody (the film) came out last year, depicting Freddie Mercury's tribulations. This is It and Leaving Neverland offer some disturbingly different accounts of Michael Jackson's career. The Dirt (Motley Crue film) was torn to shreds for its authenticity shortly after its release. Compare and contrast rockumentary films and discuss what impact these glorified stories have on fans. Does it matter whether a rockstar is alive or dead when the film is made?
A legend in his own lunchtime! Nice idea for an article. Good luck to whomever picks it. You have my vote, emaglio. Approved. – Amyus6 years ago
No, it does not matter if the musician is dead or alive and it is essential that we show successive generations the musical talent of artists who played instruments because music is something which is disappearing form the curricula of schools across the United States and unfortunately commercial successes are almost never musicians anymore. Rockumentaries are essential to introduce new generations to the alternative to rap, to show them how Freddy Mercury was so talented at piano and how a beautiful melody enhances well-written lyrics. I know this is not what you asked but I wanted to comment on the importance of these biopics in the revival of real music not synthesized detritus. All of the musicians you mentioned played at least one instrument and it is VITAL that we continue to educate successive generations about the beauty and artistry of music. – youngmollflanders6 years ago
Writing is an essential part of many people's lives, including my own; however, sometimes actually sitting down to write may be an issue. Whether it be due to limited time, lack of motivation, or distractions, writing may not come as naturally as we may wish it did. Perhaps it's the way in which we keep journals (or lack thereof of said journals), but what essentially would be a few techniques to keep you writing everyday? Is it simply writing whatever pops into your head, what you see, how you feel, details of your day, descriptions of your surrounds, and/or other details that you observe, feel, or imagine? What makes a "good" writing journal?
A fantastically simple yet useful topic to write about. I think coming up with a few different types of journals to talk about would be nice. As you mentioned, something which is just a list of events that have happened. Maybe a more structured journal with a formula such as today I went to _______ and felt _________ and I am grateful for _______. I definitely think a lot of people lack imagination and direction when it comes to journalling, so giving them some ideas and analysis of what could work would actually help! – walleaeaglehawk6 years ago
I think that there actually may be too many suggested guidelines when it comes to journaling. I had been trying different journaling techniques for years and was never able to find one that I could stick to for more than a few weeks. However, carrying a small journal around and writing whatever popped into my head is a tactic that has worked well for me. I think that journaling should be an act of self expression and a documentation of ones life. Too many formats and guidelines can stifle the creative aspect. – Raynee Hamilton6 years ago
When I first started journaling, I believed that what I was supposed to be doing was keeping a log of what I did daily but honestly that just made me feel worse when at the end of the day I had nothing significant to write down because I hadn't done anything significant with my day. Recently though, I've realized that journalling is more about keeping track of how you feel and it requires you to take a moment of your day to understand yourself and how you feel, and why that is. Everyone has their own motivation, and of course my journaling technique and motivation won't be the same as the next. But for me, it was about not forcing the words, but taking a moment to fully appreciate where I was, metaphorically and literally, and writing it down in a way that made me feel something, and left me much less anxious. Another thing that really made me committed to my journal was adding other aspects to it - I started drawing in my journal too. Somedays I chose to only draw instead of write, somedays I wrote a few pages, some days a poem, or other days I collected things like pressed flowers, tickets, and photos. To me this was the most important technique I found in staying committed to my journal - the continuous change made it so I was never tired of what I was doing, and I practiced new and old skills (I'm not very good at drawing) and the journal to me is a more full representation of my life because it is more than words but images and momentos. – chuard6 years ago
Analyse how the male characters are perceived in Avengers Endgame; especially the character of Thor. The movie breaks down conventions surrounding strong, and stereotypically masculine characters showing Thor in despair and defeated unable to deal with his 'failures'.
One scene that I feel is relative to this is Captain America being part of a support group for survivors of The Snap incident. – Kevin Mohammed6 years ago
This is a good topic as it talks about a serious issue as it relates to a popular film with a large reach. I think it would be good to also address how it shows Thor's mental health in a more comedic light and whether that is good or not for mental health awareness. – TheDude6 years ago