Season One of Wynonna Earp was an interesting reversal of traditional gender depictions. Not only is the main character a kick-ass girl who wields an epic gun, she is also a stereotypical gunslinger, which is normally a man. She drinks (a lot), she swears, she is a sexual being, but she also is about family. However, this was not the only interesting diversion, rather it was the depiction and sexualisation of men in the show. The sidekick character of Doc Holliday is just that, a sidekick who does not diminish Wynonna's strength, the main villain Bobo delivers his epic bad-guy monologue shirtless, there are a series of other men-in-skimpy clothing moments throughout. The show is comedic and very tongue-in-cheek of its treatment of the gender roles, but it is also a great example of how very stereotypical most TV shows are when contrasted to this.
An interesting discussion would be to break down Wynonna Earp and compare it to other female lead shows such as Tru Blood, or even to other popular male shows such as Supernatural that deal in the same genre. Otherwise another comparison is to what happened in Season Two where suddenly we are seeing strongly sexualised portrayals of women, but in a largely lesbian manner – is this for the male gaze, or is it actually continuing to subvert gender portrayals?
I have been following the seemingly trouble wrought story of the game Destiny 2 with interest. Many have stopped playing, listing lack of in-game incentive as a primary cause for their leaving. Some fans have even reverted to playing Destiny 1, claiming the game is superior to the sequel. Bungie recently held a ‘community summit’ in an attempt to address player discontent, and continually update what they call a ‘roadmap’ to increase perceived development transparency. Bungie is not the only developer who has met trouble in trying to appease angry players who have their own ideas about the direction a game should take. My question is this: how transparent should game developers be when it comes to the creative process of game design? To what extent does community feedback and discussion help or hinder the eventual product?
Player feedback is an aspect of game development everyone should consider. Blizzard, as controversial as they may be, can owe a lot of it's success to how it connects with it's players and listens to feedback. The communication between developers and plays in the Overwatch "developer update" videos is really refreshing in the modern game industry, where so many decisions are made behind closed doors. – Dimitri7 years ago
Jersey Shore was a guilty pleasure to watch by everyone that was old enough to understand the sexual innuendos and see the drama first hand. Now that they are older and that I have seen the first two episodes I can easily see how they have changed and how censored the show already seemed to be. I think this topic would be great to explore once the month-long adventure is done and see if this one can live up to what they have done in the past. What do you think?
It is an interesting topic since everyone has very strong opinions about the show from both sides. Showing the corresponding view points in contrast with the ratings from the show can maybe help give an overall feel for the reboot. If you wanted you could also slightly digress into the debate of reboots vs. the original and how/what Jersey Shore is doing about it – Emily Murphy7 years ago
omg it is ABSOLUTELY worth exploring. I love the Challenge. And anything MTV, honestly. – meggiegates7 years ago
This is something that's been a discussion point with some peers recently, and I was wondering if someone else had some extended thoughts regarding it.
What do we want out of the next Metroid Prime title?
I mean we can safely assume that it will be a first-person shooter with puzzle-solving elements like past Metroid prime titles… but could we also expect an overhaul at all? And to what extent? Will they throw everything out the window and make it a bejeweled-based action horror game? Or will they just abandon some Metroid traditions and maybe put in more of Prime 3's ambitious but flawed cinematic cut-scenes? It's hard to tell. Mostly cause I don't know what I want either.
Breath of the Wild wowed me with it's perfect blend of embracing old Zelda traditions, while experimenting with some wild (no pun intended) ideas. Can we expect the same of Metroid? Or will it perhaps just be a return to form with some typical but fun Metroid gameplay?
I am so excited for this game but we haven't seen a second of gameplay so far. Additionally, there was the rumor that Bandai Namco Singapore was developing the game, not a Nintendo first party developer. – Sean Gadus7 years ago
I think something akin to Metroid Prime 3 will be the best, and with plenty of planets and locations to explore. I would like something similar to Other M's action takedowns but with the gameplay of Prime. Although I have to wonder if they're going to have an emphasis on story like the 3rd. – platinummad7 years ago
On the 5th of May, writer Junot Diaz was confronted by author Zinzi Clemmons, an individual whom Diaz had succeeded in forcibly kissing years earlier. Several other individuals have since come forward to testify and solidify Diaz's sexual misconduct allegations, and Diaz has since retreated from the public eye by stating that he "takes responsibility" for his past.
Since then, Mary Karr reminds us of the sexual misconduct of deceased postmodern writer David Foster Wallace, and more importantly brings to light the public's indifference toward the matter. It's no surprise that our literary figures weren't morally upstanding individuals: Somerset Maugham's characters and stories exoticise the supposed "orient" in a rather unpleasant manner, Hemingway was a noted misogynist and sexist, and Bukowski has a history of quotations that aren't sympathetic to the female sex.
After last year's fiasco in the entertainment industry, I'd like to draw us back to the world of literature and fiction. What parts do we, as readers, consumers and therefore enablers of these individuals (alive or not) play in such a changing climate? Should we say nothing in the tradition of respecting the voices fostered in the creation of what we consider "good art", even if that means reproducing a male-centric perspective for the coming generations? Or should we condemn such works on the basis that they promote unsavory attitudes towards groups of people, and therefore bear the artistic cost?
this is not so much a comment on the content of this topic, but i would like to point something out here: maybe don't say "witch-hunt." assuming you are referring to the slew of accusations concerning sexual assault within the entertainment industry, to use the term "witch-hunt" implies that these people are not guilty, that they are falsely accused. this article provides a nice articulation of an alternate meaning to "witch-hunt," contrary to what i think your comment implies: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/opinion/columnists/weinstein-harassment-witchunt.html
in the present social climate, it's very important to choose our words with care. – ees7 years ago
Thank you for your response, and you're absolutely right in that there is a connotation of innocence when using the term witch-hunt, but of course, to an extent, I believe that is what it has come to. Kevin Spacey, Weinstein and Louis C.K. are undoubtedly guilty of their morally reprehensible acts, but I had hoped to focus a little more on the nuance of the situation than the pure black-and-white of the matter. I certainly do not use the term in reference to those already clearly guilty and deserving of punishment, I use it to delineate the necessary culture of fear that has risen from uncovering these people, and the increasingly unreliable sources from which such allegations begin (see Aziz Ansari). There is no question that these people are guilty and deserve punishment. What I hope to explore then, is what we do in the light of the growing understanding that people who we consider artists, and literary artists, deceased or otherwise, are indeed guilty. – Matchbox7 years ago
that's a fair point, and i won't argue that. however, "witch-hunt" is still too loaded, i think, and i would suggest rather than using that term, to say what you just said. consider: "witch-hunt" is linked to events like the salem witch trials, where obviously innocent women were targeted and killed, predominantly by men with power. to use this term to delineate something of the nature that you describe, and to apply it to (predominantly) men is, in my view, not doing the term, its history, or those people who suffered during that time, justice. that word has a very loaded history, and perhaps we should consider using something better. – ees7 years ago
You're right, and I've changed it. Thank you for the advice :) I'll be more careful next time. – Matchbox7 years ago
I think this is something where art should be separated from the person. Yes, the people who were caught in the MeToo movement did deserve their punishments, but we shouldn't ignore their art on the basis of their actions. For example, I'm still going to read books by Al Frankan and learn what he has to say about politics, in light of his recent activities. Even though he has done some things that aren't great, he still has something to say about politics and that should be heard. – 21stCenturyQuill7 years ago
"Roseanne," the show, both the original and the revival, are extremely radical in its handling of topics as lesbianism, crossdressing youth, teenage sexual awareness, women's rights, and political differences in families. Yet because of the star's recent utterances, which often border both on the inane and the insane, viewers and critics see the show through Roseanne-Barr-colored glasses, and are oblivious to actually what is being portrayed, which is often an anti-Trumpite agenda. How hard is it to separate the "art" from the person?
This is a fantastic, and it is often considered when thinking about artists such as Johnny Depp and Woody Allen. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to me, but I think by continuing to talk about this, a conclusion may be come to. – Bribbleisfreeble7 years ago
This is something I think about a lot in terms of artists and their music, which I think is a comparison you could make if you develop this into a full story. Take Kanye for instance, he recently showed his support for Trump on Twitter. Is it possible to listen to his music the same way after knowing his political alignment? If we can separate an artist from their work, does that mean that by enjoying their works we are supporting/validating their opinions? – Ian Anderson7 years ago
The Roseanne reboot doesn't strike me as radical at all. Rather, I think it sends a very safe, conventional message: love your family, even when your family includes mixed-race or cross-dressing children. It does little or nothing to send a more radical message that love should extend beyond the immediate family. The artist and the art are never entirely separate. Since the early 1960s, as a reaction to New Critical claims about the autonomy of the work of art, the separation of artist and art has been relentlessly questioned. We shouldn't dismiss anything simply because of who is involved in the project, but we also shouldn't dismiss the importance of who is involved in the project. In this case of this TV show, we see an obvious collapsing of the actor's name, the fictional character's name, and the show's own title. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
Just hours after posting I learned that Roseanne Barr got her show cancelled with a racist tweet. (Her tweets strike me as worse than simply "inane" or "insane.") The "Roseanne" version of love isn't all that revolutionary: "... it felt like an easy out, suggesting that as long as you’re good to your neighbors individually, it doesn’t matter how you treat people in the aggregate. (Roseanne’s neighbors are from Yemen, which her neighbors note is on the travel-ban list that the president she voted for campaigned on.)" (James Poniewozik, New York Times, May 22, 2018). Your topic is certainly still worthy of discussion, of discussion. I would definitely read an essay on that topic. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
As we have seen in the development of the Marvel Universe, when a single franchise owns a series of titles there are great opportunities for cross-over story telling. This contributes a number of interesting aspects to story telling: it allows for a greater sense of verisimilitude, that the world the story is set in is a real place; it encourages fan involvement in a multitude of stories, which also increases the viewing numbers across multiple shows; and it allows for diversity in story telling. So if it is so successful why do we not see more of this? Why are studios that put forward multiple shows set in a similar universe not including this type of story telling? What are the limitations of doing this?
Most studios do not invest as much into character building and storylines as Marvel. Take DC for example, the time investment either just is not there or they are just not as superb storytellers. – Munjeera7 years ago
Money! Any sort of ideological and/or sentimental lacking rests in corporate interests. And what is corporate most interested in? THE PROFIT MOTIVE. – camerond247 years ago
@camerond24, I actually agree, but this is part of what surprises me. It would actually cost them less to do cross overs and would help cross-promote their other shows, even those with lower viewing would receive a boost. Especially if they employed writers on contracts, which a number of studios do, and use them across multiple shows, this would reduce many costs. Plus advertising could be linked into this. I think it is perhaps considered "too hard" to manage? – SaraiMW7 years ago
Does being part of an acting family detract from individual performance? Or does the family dynamic contribute to the development of the character in ways not otherwise possible? Is the acting a product of the individual drawing from early formative experience or from a constant effort to avoid it and seek a unique path to stardom? Consider the dilemma or the benefit using famous Hollywood families such as Martin Sheen, Drew Barrymore, Kirk Douglas, Henry Fonda, and Julia Roberts.
Breaking away from the Hollywood-centric theme of this suggestion could produce some interesting results, such as: Armendáriz-Marín (Mexican), Asher (British), Banai (Israeli), Depardieu (French), Fox-Richardson-Redgraves (British), Gleeson (Irish), just to name a few.Good topic suggestion anyway. – Amyus7 years ago
In the past, a baker's son would become a baker, and a candlestick maker's offspring would be stuck with waxing the wick. The same with actors. When you grow up in a certain world, you learn the vocabulary and the ins and outs. You also get the connections. And the populace's embrace. Why else would Clint Eastwood's son be acting and Stallone's kids be models? Name recognition. – brandonjudell7 years ago
Don't forget about the Von Trapp family (the real ones). I find them a good fit for this topic. They were somewhat forced to hone their singing talent so they could have the financial means to live through an economic collapse and escape Nazi Europe, and those stakes arguably followed the whole family throughout their American musical career. Maria's eldest biological daughter Rosmarie actually had a nervous breakdown once, partially because Maria did not approve of her leaving the group. I'd love to see the Von Trapps included here. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Why do films with a car as the main attraction appeal to the audience as much as films with human actors? How does screenings such as Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider, or Smokey and the Bandit compare to established portrayals such as Star Wars, Star Trek, or Terminator in that cinematic rendition? Consider the same effect that animals have on the audience; Lassie, Grizzly Adams, and Mister Ed.
Part of this could be the discussion of iconography such as the Star Trek uniform symbol or any of the superhero symbols. I think key props may do the same job psychologically that iconography in real life does. – SaraiMW7 years ago
Ah, interesting! Consider delving into how these inanimate characters or animals are often humanized to connect with the audience. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Ever wondered how creators come up with fictional languages? It would be interesting to look into some of the processes behind creating fictional languages and their popularity amongst fans. Some examples to think of: Elvish (Lord of the Rings/ Hobbit), Klingon (Star Trek), Valerian (A Song of Ice and Fire Series/Game of Thrones) and Na'vi (Avatar).
This is a very interesting concept. I know that Tolkien spent a lot of time in the development of his based both on the plethora of modern and ancient languages he knew as well as cryptographic codes he developed at college. – SaraiMW7 years ago
there is an interesting YouTube series produced by Wired about this very topic. Valyrian was pretty much gibberish until the show came along. Klingon was gibberish in the original series but then turned into a real language with TNG. – LFH7 years ago
Very cool topic! I have seen books in the film and television sections at Indigo that teach you how to speak fictional languages like Klingon, but it would be interesting to find out how these languages were actually created – Scalera187 years ago
David J. Peterson, a linguist who has recently written a book called "The Art of Language Invention," is the creator of the Dothraki and Valyrian languages as it is spoken in the TV version of Game of Thrones. He invents languages for a living. – Jos7 years ago
Analyze how Better Call Saul's characters portray problems that people in real-life may deal with everyday. For instance, the talented lawyer who will not be hired by anyone due to lack of good references (or jealousy from those you least expect).
Not only is Better Call Saul a television series that hooks you instantly with drama, it is a series that makes the viewer see everything is not black and white, sometimes there are grays in between.
I definitely agree with the fact that BCS' characters do portray problems! One thing I'd like to suggest is that you narrow down two or three characters as opposed to staying general. Perhaps even write about one character and how they portray issues/problems. – stefanjovanovic7 years ago
Many baseball books that are in the popular conscience are books like The Natural, Ball Four, and The Art of Fielding, typically range from fictional novels to biographies to nonfiction. Despite the range of styles, these books mostly focus on the players or teams.
Moneyball, on the other hand, is very different from other popular baseball books. It focuses on the front office, economics, and sabermetrics of baseball rather than revolving around players. It was the first popular baseball book about the economic and sabermetric side, and since then many other books in that vein have been written.
But why haven't they gotten as popular as Moneyball? Moneyball showed that these books have an audience and can even be marketable to adapt into a film (although the film is very different from the book). But other books like The Extra 2% haven't had the pop culture impact or reach that Moneyball has had.
So what makes Moneyball stand among other sabermetric literature and what keeps it as the king of that hill?
First, the title helps. The book was well written and baseball stats are not difficult to grasp, unlike a college-level statistics course. In the movie, easy to grasp stats were discussed, formulas just went by quickly. A number of moments in the movie that should lead to a pause where they should be explained in depth, could be glossed over. An enjoyable movie that did not really need to go into the depth of thinking behind the statistics of baseball. – Joseph Cernik7 years ago
With new tv shows coming out every season, what triggered the return of old tv shows? Why are they becoming a trend? and what's coming next?
People are running out of ideas. I also feel as if this generation has an abject fascination with what we consider "retro" or "vintage". MeTv airs these shows twenty-four seven, but one can easily see why they might not be as popular. Most are in black and white, or the special effects are cringe-worthy. Perhaps we love the ideas and story-lines of the older ideas, and with the vast arsenal of special effects and technology in general, feel we can reboot the old shows better than they were before. – Morgan Le Fay7 years ago
When I look at Disney Channel now, nothing catches my attention unless it's something like Raven's Home or Girl Meets World; this too only because the titles are recognizable to shows of the past. This generation knows what they want to watch- the originals played on these channels (I mean I would die to see Smart Guy on Television again) or perhaps brought back in a modern fashion. This is experimental though. It can work to a degree how Girl Meets World did, or it can flop to a great extent and not even our beloved veteran characters can save the reboots. They are popular as they draw off the nostalgia of this generation while presenting something the younger generation can relate to. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. – Kiranpreet Sandhu7 years ago
People are tired of current tv trends and want more substance. The long for shows that have benefit and leave you feeling good at the end of an episode. Families are starving for clean programming that they can refer to a friend, which is few and far between these days. – charisewilson7 years ago
Examine the struggle of black jazz musicians and their racial tensions with white striving jazz musicians. Jazz musicians, like Chet Baker and Miles Davis, have battled with their stature in the realms of jazz music. This race towards the best is and will always be a relevant topic to explore. How could their complex relationship correlate to our modern generation? How has cultural appropriation hurt people of minorities in the jazz culture?
I have wondered the same thing. Has jazz been white-washed or tokenized since it has moved from a fringe art form to an academic cash cow? Could the same argument be made about other musics that have found acceptance in the conservatory system? – LFH7 years ago
God of War has been a smash hit since its release April 20th. With a strong sales launch and massive critical praise, the game is primed to be a benchmark in AAA gaming. By setting the game in the Norse world, God of War borrows the mythology of the Norse cultural groups. In doing this, The game sets expectations for what enemies you will see, what locations you will go to, and what events will occur. However, the game plays with the conventions and established canon of Norse Mythology in surprising ways. This article would analyze how Norse mythology is applied to the God of War universe and how the game subverts our expectation of traditional Norse myths and characters.
I preordered this game and definitely do not regret that decision! Fantastic game, 10/10 would recommend. Underneath this topic, I think something interesting to explore would be the emphasis on Freya as a mother. I didn't think of her as primarily as mother figure before playing the game, so that would be a change to the original mythology perhaps to explore? – Nezumiria7 years ago
From the Italian horror 'Suspiria' (1977) to the psychological thriller 'The Neon Demon' (2016). Neon lighting typically implies something sinister, maybe something otherworldly. It's most frequently associated with horror genres or sub-genres and something perhaps set in the past. There's a certain nostalgia that comes to mind with the combination of dramatic synth music and a high contrast monotone, a la 'The Guest' (2014). It's gritty in 'Springbreakers' (2012) and uncomfortable in 'Enter the Void' (2009). No matter the colour, the scene or the themes one thing's for certain. Throw a high-key neon light in a film and your audience is bound to feel uneasy. Any thoughts?
I've always felt that neon is the new black. It is good reflection of modern society too, we love bright lit skylines and surrounded in art/culture. However, we like to eventually escape to darkness, look up at the sky and see the stars. Darkness is almost a comfort these days as if it is the only form of privacy. Seeing that neon is comfortable for most of us, throw it in a horror film and it would mess with the audience mentally and emotionally. If I ever get to make a horror movie, neon will be something I use. – MoonKat7 years ago
Another recent example would be Riverdale. Neon lighting seems vital to the mystery of the show. – Indigo7 years ago
Buffy, Angel, Supernatural, Community, the Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, Farscape, Person of Interest, and many other science fiction/fantasy shows have had episodes inspired by the movie Groundhog Day. A character relives a series of events multiple times, occasionally making changes to see what the effects are. There have also been movies revolving around the same idea, including Happy Death Day and When I First Met Her. Explore the reasons why the idea presented in this movie (or possibly originating earlier, if you can find past examples) is such a crowd favorite. Are there deeper meanings to be found here, or is it just a comedy bit that other writers reuse because it's well-liked?
I think it has something to do with our fascination of wondering what we could do differently if we could go through the same day again. After a hard decision, who hasn't thought: "what if I did this instead?" I suppose it's a fun and easy thing to explore for an episode or two in a TV show. A fascinating look at these time loop stories is 2016's "Re:Zero" a fascinating anime about a boy in a fantasy world who after dying discovers that he comes back to life several hours before his death. The disturbing nature of facing unavoidable fates and dying repeatedly to save the people he loves is the emotional core of the show, and showcases the true horror of endless time loops. It's a dark and interesting look on the genre/cliche. – Dimitri7 years ago
An intriguing topic suggestion and one that deserves a broader and deeper investigation. I'd suggest breaking away from the limitations of 'Groundhog Day' to consider how other cultures have addressed the same, or similar theme. Off the top of my head I'd recommend the very clever and fiendishly evasive Korean time-loop tale 'A Day' (2016. Directed by Jo Seon-ho) in which not one, but three disparate characters experience the same day, each from his own perspective. No spoilers as to the outcome, but it is unexpected. – Amyus7 years ago
Excellent feedback. I wouldn't have thought of those examples because I know very little about anime, Korean drama, etc. Considering how other cultures see the concept of quantum do-overs would be a great addition to this article. – noahspud7 years ago
Films like Freaky Friday and She's the Man glamorize the topic of body/life switching. Why do we as human beings hold such a strong fascination for trading our life experiences? Other films with the theme could be discussed, as well as the reasons the character in these films switch bodies or lives (willingly or not). Perhaps some human psychology to flesh out the thinking behind some ideas why we romanticize body/life switching.
Great topic! Empathy might be a good psychological concept to explore in an essay written on this topic. Empathy is all about being able to imagine yourself in someone else's situation, seeing things from their point of view, etc. "Human psychology" might be better termed "humanistic psychology." Empathy is a key concept in humanistic psychology. "Romanticize" (meaning something like "treat as idealized or heroic") doesn't work for me as a term here. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
I think this is such a fascinating topic. Talk about how people becomes so internalised that it is refreshing to think that there are other people that are living similarly complex lives as we are – thomasin227 years ago
The 2010 film "The Switch" might also be worth discussing. I think this topic is all about a) developing empathy for another character and b) exploring what it would be like to not be us- the body swap is usually preceded by the character's frustration with their own lives- experience how the grass is greener on this side, and then come to the conclusion that we would rather be ourselves- a sort of attempt to reassure people that even if the grass seems greener on the other side, that side also has a whole host of problems you're unaware of and ultimately you'd be most comfortable in your own situation. – Shivani7 years ago
The recent Netflix series "Counterpart" is fascinating. It is not so much about life-switching as it is about meeting, interacting and trading lives with an alternate version of oneself! – Jos7 years ago
Sorry, "Counterpart" is on Cravetv, not Netflix! – Jos7 years ago
Historically we could argue that there were film makers who genuinely controlled all aspects of their creative work, Sergei Eisenstein, Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick come to mind. Today in an increasingly complex cinematic world and one in which investment in films is perhaps more directly controlled by mega-studios how do we make this distinction?
An interesting question. We do still have this with filmmakers such as Guillermo del Toro and Quentin Tarantino, but they are not prolific filmmakers and we do see people wanting to put their stamp on their films. I think this would be a good discussion to have. – SaraiMW7 years ago
After a little more thought, Pedro Almodovar (in his early incarnation) would be a 'classic' auteur. Can an auteur be classified on the basis of one film - that is another thing to consider e.g. Robert Rodriguez after El Mariachi, or is he an 'incidental auteur' based on the expediency-triumphs approach he took to making a film for less than $30k... – Menadue7 years ago
In a large amount of tv aimed at teenagers, realism is thrown out the window. Disney sitcoms and CW dramas seem to exclusively deal in stereotypical characters and not with how teenagers actually act. For me, American Vandal and the Inbetweeners are the best recent examples of accurate portrayals, but I'm sure there's more.
What makes a good portrayal of a teenage character? Which shows do it well? Why do shows aimed at teenagers ditch realism in a way that other shows do not?
I think that a lot of shows ignore how teenagers would typically act because it wouldn't provide enough entertainment or drama. Most teen-based shows are filled with drama and different love triangles, and there may be a glimpse of realistic teenage feelings, but the reactions are only determined in order to create wreak havoc in everyone else's lives. – Lex5i7 years ago
Not enough shows actually show teenagers being kids and having fun. Drinking, partying, sex, and drugs are a huge part of the modern depiction of teenagers and while it has told some interesting important stories - I think it has also glamorized a certain aspect/view of teenagehood that can ultimately be misleading and not accurate. I would love to see more shows about teenagers doing more chill things, and goofing around. This isn't to morally grandstand, I don't think we should avoid tough or controversial topics, but let's not forget how young teenagers can be. I think a great example is the anime "My Hero Academia." The way that the central Class 1A unit function in the show, hanging out and boarding together and dealing with tough classes and societal pressures around their role as "elite students" feels much more real than the way Skins makes you think every kid off the street is a heroin addict. There is a balance. – Dimitri7 years ago
You can also look at shows like 6teen. It's a bit older now but I think it's still relevant to this discussion. One of the main things that tv shows gets wrong about teens is how they talk, often assuming that they are constantly using (outdated) slang. Speech patterns are often quite different in teenagers than adults, but that doesn't come across in shows. – banne7 years ago