Much has been written about the death of news both local and global prompted by the shockingly sudden shutdown of local news websites. The popularity of print media is also in question nowadays contributing to this debate. Is the news still relevant? With Social Media playing a great impact in how news is now perceived and with influencers dictating public opinion is there still any value in having the news reported to the public through a lens. Think of betoota advocate who many follow on instagram, or channel 10s the project, we are still getting relevant news but in a much more entertaining way and apparent to societies wants & needs. How do you want to keep up with the news? You decide.
Use of the word "news" sometimes gives the impression of short and superficial. In other words leave the well-developed, policy implications, complexity to professional journals and lengthy articles. Maybe that is part of the problem. It's not unusually on a TV news show for a segment to be labeled something such as "in depth" and it never is. I suspect too much of an audience receiving "news" is getting the short and under-developed, it would be better to start with an assumption that lots of little stories, even if they fit some understanding of what is "news" are not helpful--several focused pieces might give an audience better insight into issues. – Joseph Cernik7 years ago
I think a topic like this should also look into how major 'news' corporations are adapting from print media to the digital realm. Many have apps (such at the Economists 'Espresso') while others have gone to podcast formats (like Serial) or multi-media masterpieces (Snowfall by the New York Times). Beyond social media's influence, I'd also suggest looking at how our society has begun to lose its attention span and simply doesn't have the patience to read lengthy news articles and prefers quick tweets. – Pamela Maria6 years ago
As our world is becoming more socially digitized and interactive, it is undeniable that fandoms have become important aspect in keeping franchises alive, but how important has fan influence become? Transmedia is a growing technic narrators’ in franchises have begun to use in which a single story is told across multiple platforms and adaptations. Although transmedia’s rise through social media and influence have been covered in a few topics and articles on the artifice before, how has fan fiction influenced transmedia storytelling?
Examples may include looking into fanon versus canon and instances where a highly popular canon has become fanon (such as Matt’s appearance in the anime Death Note). Another important aspect to look into is the “Boba Fett Phenomenon” where a side character becomes so wildly popular within the fandom that a franchise is forced to give them a backstory and more character development.
Although I struggled to find a source for this, I remember my Digital Media professor once discussed that there was a scandal in the Dr. Who fandom where a popular fanfiction actually guessed the fate of the current season. The fan who had written the story was sworn to secrecy or told to change their story (can’t recall exactly…) as to preserve the integrity of the show. Regardless, I think this is another example where fan fiction was integrated as an unauthorized expansion within a universe (and therefore has become a piece of transmedia storytelling).
A great theorist for transmedia and fan fiction is Dr. Henry Jenkins.
I myself use to think that fan fiction was boring and unnecessary, but recently this year I reread a book series I fell in love with in high school, 'Vampire Academy' and found a fan fiction writer/ blogger via Tumblr (can't remember their user) but I just fell in love with how they continued the story after it was finished by the author and it just amazed me how they decided to write so much and keep the story alive for themselves and for other readers
I also think that these writers ideas can be taken away from themselves and used in other peoples ideas and stories and can also be taken and twisted to suit the other story but people are so imaginative and society is changing so much, so fan fiction can be taken any place these days, there is also a fan version of the Vampire Academy movie I have not brought myself to watch yet – ambermakx6 years ago
It started in America with Childish Gambino’s “This is America” hit. It was a controversial music video saturated with modern issues for black Americans.
However now there are two other “This is” videos coming from Nigeria and Iraq. Let’s explore the significance of these three videos. The major theme that can be gathered from Gambino’s video is the way media attention diverts is from the truth. How does this theme carry over into these other videos?
The last several years have seen a major explosion of popularity for competitive gaming, with games like League of Legends, Fortnite, Counter Strike:GO to name a few. Millions are poured into this industry as it is a new market and it seems to be a good enough investment that the Houston Rockets (NBA Team) have a LoL team in North America. As competitive gaming continues to grow and tap into new potential, will competitive gaming be mainstream or will it remain in its own sphere.
One thing that might be added to this is the growth of board gaming as well. It's nowhere near the phenomenon of video gaming, but tabletop gaming is having a surge of popularity. – RublevIcon7 years ago
I really think the main focus here is Fortnite. League, PUBG, Dota, and others are popular, but Fortnite is a phenomenon. I can't remember any game being this huge, and, if gaming does become mainstream, I think Fortnite will have a major hand in it. A focus on breaking down Fortnite's success might be a really interesting angle on this. – elijahoates7 years ago
The fact that Drake played Fortnite with Ninja just the other month proves how far games have come as a contributor to the wider world of pop culture. I'd argue they've become mainstream already, when huge "normal" celebrities like Drake can publicly play games and not only AVOID backlash, but for it to be celebrated and garner the highest views a Twitch stream has ever had! – Dimitri Adoniou6 years ago
i think the idea of what is "mainstream" is changing with the internet and how we develop communities for media. Also, Gaming is a multi billion dollar industry, with massive communities. – Sean Gadus6 years ago
I know for myself, I watch maybe two or three shows on cable. The majority of content I watch is either on Netflix or YouTube. With everyone gathering their own streaming services now (Disney working on its own, CBS All Access, YouTube Red etc), it is not hard to see that this is where the future is heading. My film professor once told me that soon, cable will be phased out and replaced with each individual television network having its own subscription service, which would essentially be more expensive than cable. How can that be combated when subscription based streaming is super popular? It is an interesting debate to have.
I would also widen this to the discussion of pirating and pirate streaming sites to comment on the international cost to American studios also. It is an interesting discussion to have especially when drawing in more unusual streaming services such as Amazon and Twitch. – SaraiMW7 years ago
Is it because they're more human than the traditional hero (see: Captain America, Superman, any character who is Inherently Good and Morally Right). There are studies that have shown that people like to watch/read about characters who are on good moral high ground, that they feel elevated by this. So then, why are characters like Deadpool, Loki, Severus Snape, Robin Hood–even Jack Sparrow–so popular? Are they easier to relate to? Should they be idolized, as may be seen with the more traditional heroes?
in many ways the anti-hero is often idolized for their ability to make their own rules. opposing the traditional hero, who is bound by moral imperatives set by society which may often weaken them or cause them mental/emotional anguish, the anti-hero is often shown as disregarding the social/moral law in favor of their own rules. Friedrich Nietzsche and Plato write about this phenomena quite a bit, their work may provide a nice starting point for anyone who chooses this topic. – ees7 years ago
There's too many 'superheros' these days, who wouldn't want to be a villain or anti hero, they can sometimes be more relatable. Even though we all love a good hero as they can depict the good in the world, even hero's have their problems and anti heros or villains more or less are truthful about those demons which in my opinion is more entertaining
I have recently started to watch Gotham and the young Joker character played by Cameron Monaghan is so inspiring to be, as a hopeful writer and lover of film and television, he is a villain and evil but he has such profound emotions and the actor makes you feel like his feelings are real even though he is portraying a character – ambermakx6 years ago
Time Travel is a common plot device in fiction. But when it is introduced often the consequences it allows for or the plot twists become redundant or reversed. Are there examples of fiction that does time travel well, such that the impacts aren't made redundant or that it effectively creates isn't there to offer neat ways to resolve unsolvable plot contrivances. In this regard, is there such a thing as 'good' time travel?
The visual novel and anime called Steins;Gate is always my go-to reference for time travel being done well. It creates it's own rules around time travel and shows the power even small changes in a timeline can realistically make to change the wider world around them. Every use of time travel has deep and meaningful consequences that shakes the story to it's core. However, the show only succeeds because time travel is the major plotpoint of the show. I'd say this is the only way time travel can be done well in fiction - if the story isn't explicitly about time travel, chucking it in to resolve plot contrivances is always bad. – Dimitri Adoniou6 years ago
I think this applies mainly to movies or TV shows, but literature not much. Limit and define the concept of "fiction" here. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Discuss why social media negative or positive influence young adult's self esteem
What examples of pop culture do you mean? Could this include YA films like Divergent and Star Wars and how this affects the psyche of YA? – Kevin8 years ago
This is a good line of inquiry, but really broad. Narrow in on some particular aspect of pop culture so you can build a better argument with solid analysis. – albee8 years ago
Hmm...interesting question. I'm now trying to think of any songs, movies, or shows that have impacted my self-esteem...I automatically think of "in a negative way" but I realize that there are probably a lot of things that have impacted me positively. I think focusing on one of these sides would be very interesting and much more effective. – skohan8 years ago
It seems like there is a distinction between pop culture and social media. You might want to pick one or the other. If you want to focus on self-esteem, social media might be a good one, and think about the idea of cyber bullying. It could come in several forms, but people on the internet are notorious for saying things that they wouldn't in person. – AbeRamirez8 years ago
I agree with AbeRamirez, the writer should consider selecting either pop culture or social media. If they choose the former, it would be worthwhile to discuss how role models, fictional characters, uplifting songs and films inspire people and make them feel more confident. However, these same things might also create an impossible standard, which most people are unable to attain thus making them feel inferior and less confident. If you go the social media route, you could talk about interpersonal connections fostering a sense of community that makes someone feel loved and/or respected in a way that's beneficial to self esteem. However, as AbeRamirez suggests, you could talk about cyberbullying. – IsidoreIsou8 years ago
I agree with the latter two comments. Targeting pop culture as it is would be too broad a topic. Since you've already funneled it down by using social media as an example, I suggest you just stick with that one aspect. My input on this is pretty much stating the obvious: more often than not, the effect is negative. More young people tend to compare themselves to others, resulting to low self-esteem and newfound frustrations. – Elizabeth Ruth Deyro8 years ago
This is a GREAT topic that is very prevalent in today's society. It seems as if one's self-confidence is becoming more dependent on the number of likes they receive. Bullying is also a growing issue here. – hmccraw8 years ago
I think social media is distinct from pop culture because the user is more directly involved with the former. When your post gets a like or a hit, it's a dose of dopamine, and when you go ignored, there's a sense of sadness, like you haven't been accepted. – ScottyGJ8 years ago
It sounds to me that you are blending social media and pop culture. Although they intertwine, there is a distinct difference. i think that you should talk about social media in reference, but focus on pop culture. – SamLuckert8 years ago
I agree with the former comments that pop culture and social media should be separated. In regards to the latter, I believe social media in today's society is largely tied to an individual's self-worth, which can be incredibly harmful. In measuring ourselves based on how many likes and comments we receive, we measure our worth based on others' opinions of us or attention to us. However, Isidorelsou raised a positive use of social media, which is when we can form friendships online that we might not form in real life, and how we build our real-life friendships through interaction on the internet. – melmollyrose8 years ago
Eliminate the words "pop culture such as" just focus on Facebook. Change "influences" to "influence." – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
Moe, Larry, and Curly (forget Shemp, Joe Besser, Curly Joe) made movies between 1934 and 1946 and still are popular today. Almost anywhere in the country a TV station is running Three Stooges short movies. A song called "The Curly Shuffle" was made in 1983. Sam in the TV series Cheers frequently referred to the Three Stooges. MASH had an episode in which three Korean doctors were referred to as Moe, Larry, and Curly. A movie was made in 2012 and one is scheduled to begin production in 2018. Why is there such an enduring affection for these three characters more than seven decades after Moe, Larry, and Curly made their last short movie?
I'm watching Inuyasha for the first time and as a biracial person, I identify a lot with his complicated relationship to his race. He's half human and half demon, but is always trying to squash proof of his human half by overcompensating his demon half. He experiences negative stereotyping because of his identity and though I'm only in season 3, it seems like Inuyasha's struggle with identity will lead to him being forced to "choose" one or the other.
Half-demon characters are fairly memorable in anime, and it's usually a big deal when it's revealed. I'm thinking Rin from Blue Exorcist, here. Even looking at Yusuke from Yu Yu Hakusho and his discovery of demon heritage could be tied to the concept of "passing" or even embracing one's culture when it's been erased from your history.
I feel like this is a really good insight and for someone who doesn't watch or read a lot of anime/ magna this could be a different way of looking at 'cultures' through media. Cultures here being the demon vs human culture – ambermakx6 years ago
With the rise of technology over the last decade, horror movies and the horror genre have drastically changed. Is this because of lazy writing and producing that relies on cheap jump scares or is it because modern technology has ruined the terror of isolation?
One reason why horror movies worked so well in the past is because the technology we have today did not exist. You couldn’t just whip out your smartphone and go on Google Maps. If you forgot your wallet you had no money, period. You couldn’t pull out your phone and paywave instantly. The characters had no one and nothing to rely on except themselves.
So what are your thoughts? Watch any past horror movie and pretend it’s set in 2018 and I can guarantee you the movie would be over within the first half an hour.
The fact that advanced technology exists does make an interesting point, but maybe what also could be explored is the shift in storytelling. What are the differences between the characters and topics included in past and present horror films? Do modern horror films rely on too many clichés, or not enough? – Gabby7 years ago
Horror movies have definitely changed with the rise of digital tech, but I would argue that they're nearly as prominent in the mainstream as they were during the 80's horror boom in terms of sheer output. There are even horror movies that make explicit use of the internet as a catalyst for horror, like Unfriended (2014), Megan is Missing (2011), and The Den (2013). This isn't to say that those are good movies necessarily, but they still manipulate the technological advances of the day the same way Scream (1996) and One Missed Call (2008) used early cell phones, and The Ring (1998) used VHS tapes. There are also recent, successful horror films that still make use of the terrifying sense of isolation that cell phones eliminate, like Get Out (2017), Split (2016), and The Babadook (2014). Smart phones and the internet can be obstacles in terms of building tension, but they can also be assets. We live in a world where abduction, trauma, and even allegedly supernatural occurrences still befall people regardless of their access to mapquest or emergency services. We still have weak points; it's the horror writer's job to find and exploit them in fiction. – TheCropsey7 years ago
This is an expansion on what Gabby and TheCropsey stated already. I'd agree that there is an increase in cheap/lazy horror movies but I don't think they are necessarily dying. In fact, I think they are on the rise again. With films like Get Out (2017) and A Quiet Place (2018). There are plenty of other films, but these are two strong examples of well-crafted horror films in the new age. I think it is important to consider the reasons why there are more horror films succeeding recently. Technology inhibits telling horror stories the same way as the past, but that doesn't mean they can't adapt. Some films even play on this. But other films like the two I listed earlier, along with It Follows (2014) and others, can work even in the confines of technology. The shift in storytelling is important, since some horror films can still work even if based in a different time period like The Witch (2016). There are a number of factors to consider, and this topic can easily work, I think it just has to cover how horror has shifted storytelling tropes and ideas for a 21st century audience. – Connor7 years ago
I don't think horror movies are dying. Rather, they're being reinvented for audiences familiar with the genre. We've become quite used to typical elements of horror (e.g. supernatural creatures, out-of-shot shadows) that we've vicariously speculated on how to defeat them. While technology can limit that sense of isolation, there are other ways it can pronounce terror. Reliance on technology can ratchet up a false sense of security before it all goes the hell. I agree with what's been said already; horror is in the storytelling. It's up to the writer to decide if they want to write a horror movie that only checks the boxes, or one that goes beyond that, and craps on our hastily built failsafes. – Starfire7 years ago
I do agree. Horror movies aren’t the same and they either aren’t scary or they are remakes of originals. – 2klonewolf7 years ago
Technology itself can actually provide a sense of horror that was not present in previous decades. I think of Black Mirror's emphasis on isolation, misplacement of identity, dehumanization, and other horrific symptoms of advancing technology. Definitely lots to work with if you're willing to evolve with the times. – Heather Lambert7 years ago
It might be interesting to consider the pros and cons of technology and cgi in horror movies. Yes it can be overdone and over saturated depending on the type of horror movie but special effects have improved drastically over the years and now some costumes and special effects are what make the movie. If you look at the original Friday the 13th with Kevin Bacon's horrible fake neck for his scene I for one am thankful technology has improved since then. – Emily Murphy6 years ago
Seinfeld ended oddly, it was difficult to feel as though the main characters were likable, Medium ended with a feeling of completion, and The Sopranos ended with a feeling of ambiguity (essentially choose what happened). Is there a good ending? Can they be done differently?
There needs to be a clear basis to how you judge a "good" ending. The sources you choose will need to include audience and critic feedback, as well as research to understand how networks vs streaming cancel their shows. This could be a really interesting read if it takes the time to analyze the above concepts. – Nicholas Bennett7 years ago
I think it will be helpful to consider what alternate endings some of these shows could have had. If they had had another ending would they have been more coherent or consistent as series? Some of these criteria might make sense. Did the shows subvert not just expectations but consistency as well. How much were the showrunners aware of their ending before the show was well underway? – Zander Jones7 years ago
It might also be useful to discuss how important (or not) an ending really is. Does a fantastic series become instantly ruined with an unsatisfying ending? Should the ending pander to the audience or serve the story and characters faithfully? It would also be interesting to consider the opposite argument. Can a slam-dunk ending make-up for a sub-par series? It would be important to analyze the type of series and what the end game is for a sit-com versus a thriller like "Lost" or "Breaking Bad." – zbalog6 years ago
Make sure to explain criteria for what is good, bad, etc.. but really interesting topic! – Sean Gadus6 years ago
Analyze what idea of masculinity is shown in Disney films where princes are portrayed. What are the negative or toxic ideas of masculinity that are shown and what are some examples that may criticize toxic masculinity.
I think disney wants more princesses. They wants girl to feel empowered and portrayed more as heroes and not only men can be heroes too. They want more heroines. They want Girl Power. Disney doesn’t show a lot of masculinity. I feel like the only prince movie that made was Aladdin but he wasn’t a prince. There was a princess who was Princess Jasmine. I think disney shows masculinity as a man being the true love kiss when really its not always about that and they showed that on Frozen. It can be close relationships like sisters loving each others. What if a disney princess was with a girl not a guy. – 2klonewolf7 years ago
Great topic! It's true, Disney has been spending a lot of time on their princesses, and while that is definitely a good thing, there is plenty of room to evolve the princes as well. Where's the artistic prince? The gay prince? A prince CRYING, for goodness' sake? It would be great to include a section at the end on examples of how Disney's portrayal of masculinity could improve. – Heather Lambert7 years ago
As a rule, I don't see Woody Allen movies. That's fine because I was never a Woody Allen fan to begin with, but removing all problematic people and their creations from my media consumption is difficult, particularly when it is old media no longer on the air. Do I stop watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer because Joss Whedon gaslight his wife and is not the feminist he proclaims he is? Can I no longer enjoy That '70s Show reruns because Danny Materson allegedly raped five women? I stand with these women, but I also deeply love the media of their accusers. What lines do we have to draw now? What media can we still enjoy even with problematic people involved? How do we enjoy it while acknowledging what these people did?
this is really interesting -- especially since our society has become more sensitive towards social issues and calling out problematic behaviour. – Pamela Maria7 years ago
For me personally I have chosen to draw the line at money. I will continue to watch or read or play whatever media as long as it doesn't put money in the pockets of the abusers. If I have already bought a book I feel comfortable rereading it, but I will not buy more books by that author. I will watch reruns on TV, because my watching them has no bearing on how much money an actor gets. The works haven't changed, but it would weigh on my conscience if I continued to put money in the pocket of people who have done such wrongs. – kungtotte7 years ago
This is such a relevant topic which defiantly needs more traction! I have thought about it before but I guess it is also the viewers own opinion on how they decide to consume the media and in what capacity etc. I love Buffy and That 70's Show but knowing these facts it puts a halt on their new projects for me and personally I have to consider if I really want to see their new ideas etc. – ambermakx6 years ago
One staple cliche in anime and manga over the decades has been the tsundere/tsundere childhood friend. Disregarding the sometimes odd definitions of childhood friend (eg kids who met on one day once), the portrayal of excessive violence against male characters for either perceived or minor transgressions is almost always played up for (groan-worthy) comedic effect. The reverse is only rarely seen, and is thus certainly seen as less socially acceptable. What social phenomena contribute to this strange view of violence?
A good point. I think that is largely due to the tradition of women being viewed as more delicate than men. I can't explain the sociology behind that.. lol. Perhaps, the fact that women are associated with fertility and child birth. Men are have been accepted as the protectors or "shields" throughout history. This is definitely not to generalize genders, and attach any tropes. Everyone is an individual, but I think those facts have a lot to do with why it is always the tsundere girl beating up the guy, and not the other way around. It would be a bad look if the guy was always beating on the girl. A great entry! – Kibishii5 years ago
Since its release in 1976, the academy award winning Rocky has received six sequels (Rocky II-V, Rocky Balboa, and Creed). The original Rocky was a relatively low budget film focused on a down in his luck boxer with an extraordinary chance to prove his worth inside and outside of ring. It was hailed for its underdog story, acting, and its iconic training scenes. The subsequent sequels often opted to forgo many of the ideas and the low budget style found in the original film. Sequels sometimes included cartoonish villains and other elements that would be out of place in the grittier original Rocky. When Creed was released in 2015, it received near universal acclaim for its story and acting (especially by Stallone and Michael B. Jordan in the title role), which focused on a hungry fighter working to prove his worth to the world. Like Rocky, the film was a character study of a box working to confront his issues within and outside of the ring. Is Creed the closest thing in style and tone to the original Rocky?
I just watched the movie and it is one of the best boxing movies out there and I can't wait for the sequel. – VELOSportsUK6 years ago
No other anime (or TV show in general) that I have seen has developed characters as perfectly as Cowboy Bebop. The most amazing part is that it does it via episodic storytelling. Most episodic shows (think most crime shows like CSI), focus on one-and-done plots as filler while maybe having a subtle arc occurring in the background. Cowboy Bebop has no filler. Every one-and-done builds connections between the characters, reveals details about pasts, and develops each character until the incredible climax. What makes Cowboy Bebop so successful at this, and why have other shows struggled to do it?
I have yet to see Cowboy Bebop but I have heard many great things. I want to start it soon. Two other anime's however I believe is worthy of great character development would be Naruto and One Piece. – danderson7 years ago
The difference between Cowboy Bebop and Naruto/One Piece is that Bebop is almost entirely episodic outside of a couple core episodes and it is only 24 episodes. Naruto and One Piece have hundreds of episodes to cover the journeys of their lives whereas Bebop can't, it has to cover backstory through the episodic adventures that culminate in the series question episodes in the twenties. Naruto/One Piece can have actual filler episodes as well because of how long they air for. I think it is interesting in comparing this to shows like Law and Order, since most of the stories affect the leading cast. I do think there are other shows and films that can detail a character's arc/personality and it would be important to detail how some shows succeed and others fail in this regard. – Connor7 years ago
How important is the soundtrack in a film? The selection or creation of soundtracks is big business in the movie industry, but how important really is it? Movie goers today are fairly savvy creatures and understand that particular scores match particular scenes. But what happens to a scene when a contrasting score is played to the expected tone of the scene? Does this change the entire "feeling" of the scene or can it offer a more complex examination of traditional representations of emotion in-situ? What happens when no music is used in an emotionally wrought scene? Or what happens to scenes when music is removed – are the scenes still able to portray the emotional depth of the moment?
Sound tracks and scores are incredibly important. Music is a storytelling cue that develops and plays on our emotions and reactions. We have a natural, human response to music, regardless of how savvy we are as viewers. If look at a film like Star wars, which used a orchestra instead a 70s style disco or funk soundtrack, the music sets the tone throughout the film. Similar thinks occur with The Dark Knight, Schindler's List, and more recently Black Panther. – Sean Gadus6 years ago
Every major broadcast network has at least one or two live TV musicals in the works for the next few years, and will this help to normalize musical theatre for the masses, or steal the magic. Hamilton has helped to usher in a different era of musical theatre, but is it drawing the elitism out of the art form, by facilitating the creation of broadcasts like this?
Interesting topic. The rising popularity of these live TV musicals certainly merits further critical exploration. That said, I take slight issue with your choice of the word "normalization," as it implies that musical theatre (i.e. an artform that, at least since the 1980s, quite literally exists for bourgeois consumption and merchandising) is something esoteric. Musical theatre has always been prominently positioned within the mainstream, and is one of the few forms of theatre to which that label still applies; I really don't think that television is a necessary mediator for acclimatizing the general public to the concept of musicals -- they're not exactly broadcasting Edward Bond or Sarah Kane. Perhaps there are better ways of approaching the subject. Two come to mind: 1) Aesthetically, regarding how this televisual intermediation affects the performance's fundamental theatrical elements. Is liveness enough to constitute "theatre"? Does the audience on the other side of a screen genuinely care if what they're watching is live, or are they missing out on the potential virtues of cinematic editing? Is there an appeal to simply knowing that the show is theatrical, even when not experiencing it in an actual theatre? If so, what and why? How does this differ from simply making a film adaptation of classic musicals? 2) Economically, regarding how television distribution allows a wider audience to experience Broadway productions (whose tickets are quite expensive, not to mention inaccessible to those living outside of New York and other major metropolitan areas). This, I believe, is more in line with what you may have meant by "normalization," as it allows people who otherwise would not have had a chance to see these plays an opportunity to see a version of them in performance. I see potential for an analysis of ratings, sponsorships, and funding models as a means of assessing the financial success or failure of this new distributional tactic. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Interesting topic....and definitely one worth exploring. One of the fascinating aspects of the theater is the confined environment and this type of unity within the crowd. One performance will not be an exact replica of another---part of what makes the theater so unique. A crucial component of theater is the fourth wall--the impenetrable invisible barrier between the audience and the actor--which, ironically feels breached during a televised performance?
I would have to disagree with the idea of elitism and broadcasts as analogous, especially due to the high-cost of the theater today, and making this once enjoyable, frequent venture, less common among 'average' folk. The price of tickets are astronomical and really is a disservice in a society that supposedly upholds the importance of a cultured society through the medium of art. – danielle5778 years ago
I love reading anything about theatre, especially musicals. In your suggested analysation though, be careful you're not looking at two separate topics here. Hamilton has indeed created a new generation of theatre-lovers and reinvented the genre of musical theatre. And live TV musicals have done this in their own way too; perhaps the discussion is more pointed towards where the future of musical theatre is heading, or, what is attractive about these refreshing works to a modern audience? – OJames8 years ago
This is a really good topic.I think TV broadcasts can make theatre a little more accessible, it can introduce the theatre in a similar way that Hamilton has introduced theatre to new audiences. It also comes without the cost of making trips to the West End or Broadway. You don't really lose the elitism of theatre because you still have the west end and broadway. Perhaps the focus is on the future of musical theatre, there is the live versions (And I don't think they will ever really go away), tv broadcasts and things like Todrick Hall's Straight Outta OZ on youtube. – RJRStClair8 years ago
I love the concept of theatre becoming more accessible to the public through TV broadcasts, but it would be interesting to also consider how this topic might also harm or stagnate theatre as an art form. It's true that more people would be able to see shows, but the shows that pull in the viewership numbers TV networks want will probably be already-popular spectacle musicals or reboots of classics. Would smaller, newer, and weirder shows get a chance to shine? Would straight plays be given some airtime, or would the definition of "theater" switch wholly to musicals in the eyes of the public? Also, as people have pointed out before, the experience of watching a taped show and being in the theater are very different. Not necessarily a bad thing, just something to consider. – ohnomegan7 years ago
In TV shows like The Vampire Diaries, The Originals, True Blood, Teen Wolf, Supernatural, Being Human and Grimm, supernatural creatures are presented as gruesome murderers but they are still seen as attractive and desirable to a primarily teenage audience. Where did this phenomenon originate? Who started it? Why is this true? Is there a gender bias in that these creatures are seen as more attractive to a female audience more than male? Is it only vampires, werewolves, angels and witches that are seen as sexy or is it other creatures too?
Who started it? I think we can all safely say Joss Whedon with the saucy romance between Buffy and Angel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This allegory for danger and teenage rebellion by being attracted to a "bad boy" is definitely a trend that resonated with audiences. – Dimitri7 years ago
I feel that this trend definitely goes back quite a few decades. The vampire soap opera, Dark Shadows was one that certainly found a footing with teenage audiences of the 60's and 70's – LX4Tumbla7 years ago
I would say that the love for the supernatural could date as far back as the Vampire age of literature and story telling such as Dracula or Frankenstein who's books were later made into movies. There's something about the unknown or the impossible that lures teens and those alike into the genre - the fantastical ideas of the paranormal and abnormal appeal to teens who don't feel normal themselves. – KiaraB7 years ago
From a film history perspective, I think one could connect this to the advent of "teenagehood" that came in the late 50s and how crucial B-list films were in the teen lifestyle. Horror films were quite popular at drive-ins, and as horror has always played upon society's paranoia within the time period, the fear of human difference could have played a role. Looking at something like Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the films to influence that could be good for this analysis, too. – Nicholas Bennett7 years ago
I think people with supernatural powers are in disguise and want them to be human like as possible but that is not the case. Making these characters so called attractive will make the audience love then more or hate them but also love them still. I think that is what producers want the audience to feel. They want sympathy for the characters not hate. – 2klonewolf7 years ago