Analyse why the adolescents of our generation are so desperate to reach viral fame, and the impact this is having on the online world, and on their future. Discuss the rise of social media platforms, such as Youtube, Instagram and Musically, and the influence viral stars from these platforms have on our youth.
Ok, this could get interesting. Social media has the potential to promote narcissism but here's my question: is it the chicken or the egg? Does social media merely activate genes already planted in someone's DNA, therefore only effecting people who are genetically predisposed to narcissism, or can it have an effect on any average teen? – ReidaBookman8 years ago
Being a kid in the early 2000s who was into video games and film, I wanted more than anything to be a famous YouTuber like iJustine or Mitchell Davis. I was a shy kid, but I loved performing. I reckon seeking viral fame has something to do with sharing a bit of yourself from the comfort of your bedroom. Something extraordinary about social media is that it allows 'celebrities' to have an intimate relationship with their fans. There has never been anything like that before, and it helps these people feel connected to others. So one possible argument could be that adolescents just want to be loved, but now they have the resources be loved on a larger scale by millions of strangers on the Internet. – Shannon Kelly8 years ago
This would make a very interesting article! A side note could also enter the dangers of viral fame; identity theft and bullying...
Could have many different avenues!! Goodluck! – AbbyMay7 years ago
An interesting topic, indeed. Consider looking into phenomena such as the Cinnamon Challenge and Choking Game, which have dangerous and even fatal elements. You could compare/contrast with things like the Ice Bucket Challenge, which was tied to helping raise awareness of ALS. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
This is a very interesting and important topic. An article could also look at the view on "internet fame" versus "traditional fame" and how this perception affects these people. – L.J.7 years ago
When we see a moral dilemma presented in creative mediums, we will all generally pick a side. People have their own moral compasses that dictate how they might react to a given situation. With Bethesda's new title "Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus", a controversy of sorts arose with the games marketing campaign for being blatantly "kill Nazi's". This is a game that is reflective of the tense current day political atmosphere in the United States; one that had some more conservative gamers taking offense to it. To them, it was seen as a blatant political statement by Bethesda in taking sides and being "politically correct". To more liberal gamers, it was pointed out that in American culture, Nazi's, by the definition of World War II, are the bad guys and they always have been. "We've been killing Nazi's in this series for many years now. Why should it be an issue now?" was a common response.
So the following question came about as a result: How might you, if you could, handle a story if it tells a tale of an individual of a dissenting opinion (perhaps if it takes a political siding), and convince everyone, regardless of personal views, liberal/conservative or otherwise, to still enjoy it just the same? And can this be done effectively and appropriately at all without angering one side or the other.
That's a good topic. For me, general morality and specific political identities are different things. I don't know if I would have a lot of success convincing someone to play (and enjoy playing) a game that references a current, real-world political identity in a way that conflicted severely with that other person's own beliefs. Generally, sure, we might be nice people but still enjoy playing bad people in games and might do things in games that we would never do in real life. That's not the same thing as reflecting specific political views. I guess my strategy in that argument would be to talk about what games are and how they work, allowing us to do explore things we don't normally explore in real life. That argument may not get very far, though. Sometimes we don't want to explore something. I know I would have a hard time enjoying playing a character who was a hardcore white supremacist who wanted to get rid of whole groups of people. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
"Detroit: Become Human" is a video game made by Quantic Dream coming out in 2018. It's a choice based game shaped by the player and there has been controversy over the acceptability of it's brutal story telling/choice based outcomes. The main character may supposedly choose to act or not act in a situation that can result in the death of a child by her father's hands or the main character killing the father instead. People are calling for the scene to be taken out from the game. Some say the former outcome will fuel abusers' fantasies while others worry the latter outcome will put victims of abuse in danger by inspiring them to seek violence in return. Neither situation is unique, as in, such events have been written about and occurred in films and art before. People want to draw the line so harshly for video games and what they can portray because of the interactivity. Is it fair to treat video games so differently? Provide examples of highly controversial video games depicting violent or disturbing scenes from the past, and speculate on whether their reception will shape Quantic Dream's decisions in addressing such concerns. Are these concerns valid?
This is an old debate, but still an incredibly important one. Something to consider would also be to look at academic journal articles of psychology studies that have been published around the link (or absence of the link) between gaming and violence. This is a great topic to discuss. – SaraiMW7 years ago
I believe some people are so keen to start making standards now because once Virtual Reality hits mainstream and those experiences become something akin to reality, what will the psychological effects be? Can someone get trauma or PTSD simply from playing a war game? – Slaidey7 years ago
We cannot deny the impact that video games have made and continue to make on our popular culture. Consider the evolution of the gaming industry. How, in fact, has it evolved? How has it become more mainstream? What do video games offer us emotionally, mentally, and sometimes physically? What can we learn from video games that we can apply to every day life, as well as in our intellectual and educational pursuits? After analyzing these factors, consider how (and perhaps, if) video games should be taught, possibly someday at a university level. What universities might already do this, and how do these courses operate? How are they taught? What do they offer?
While I (a professor) haven't taught a full class dedicated to video games, I have included them in my lessons. I would love to see a full pedagogical article dedicated to this topic. It would be strongest if the author has, in fact, taught the topic or is a teacher at a college level than if the article were written in hypotheticals. – Christen Mandracchia7 years ago
My university (University of Waterloo) actually has a course called game studies at a bachelor and masters level. We have tons of digit media rated course and have even sponsored a critical media that deals with gamification, video game studies, and digital theories, etc. The critic media lab actually has a virtual reality lab that even look at gamification in a sense of training (for instance VR training for surgeons, firefighters, etc.) Curiously, bachelor's, masters, and Ph.D options for the digital media stream are all under the English Language and Literature umbrella. – Mela7 years ago
@Mela I sure wish my university had a course like that! – Christina Legler7 years ago
My Hero Academia first garnered attention when it gained a surprising amount of momentum soon after its debut in Shounen Jump, often being heralded as a spiritual successor to highly successful and soon-after ended shounen titles like Naruto and Bleach. Now, with one completed anime season and a second one ongoing, MHA can be seen everywhere in otaku culture, particularly in the realm of visual essay analysis videos posted on Youtube and elsewhere. All this, despite the fact that, as many fans and critics have pointed out, there's nothing particularly new or inventive about it. MHA takes almost every traditional shounen trope in the book and runs with them, using them to their greatest effects. It'd be interesting to pinpoint what some of those tropes are and how MHA uses them so effectively. The writer could also analyze how outside factors (like timing and anime adaptation) affected its popularity growth over the past 2-3 years.
I've heard extremely positive things said about this anime. I think I will begin watching it due to its use of these common tropes. In addition to this, being a spiritual successor to favourites such as Naruto and Bleach compel me even more. Great Topic! – AdilYoosuf7 years ago
I'm a huge fan of this series, I think one could focus on the characters add to My Hero Academia. – Jiraiyan7 years ago
In my opinion i think the popularity comes with its simplicity in that MHA seems to be a purer example of the heroes journey as well as a story making great use of the big dam heroes trope. When you take such a classic formula and add deconstruction along with a health dose of power scaling your bound to catch eyes. – Delebo6 years ago
"A Cure for Wellness" is a movie filled with loosely defined answers in need of a good article to analyze it's potential hidden meaning. The movie is saturated with the presence of eels; why eels over any other aquatic life? A quick google search says seeing eels in a place they aren't meant to be is a sign one is out of their depth (as the protagonist clearly is on multiple occasions) and the touching of an eel represents a missed opportunity. This fits well enough with the protagonist's experience/character but that leaves the question, how often were these sightings real? The movie tries to throw watchers back and forth between believing whether everything is real or in the protagonist's head. At the end when the Baron is confronted it's assumed for a short time that all the strange happenings were real and influenced by a degree of brain washing, however, in the last frame of the movie the protagonist is seen smiling with a full set of teeth when earlier in the movie he lost two. When asked about this the directors remained ambiguous on the significance, if there is any at all. Can it be deciphered how much of the film is based in reality or illusion, or is the it an unanswerable question?
I believe the film is supposed to be a combination of reality and illusion, especially considering that the majority of it takes place in what appears to be some sort of institution. – Sarah Bish7 years ago
Whether it be Marvel’s “Champions” which introduced a variety of different super powered teenaged individuals with an equal amount of variety when it comes to their racial backgrounds or the introduction of a female Iron Man for a new generation of Marvel comic readers, or DC Comics giving Superman a different outlook to the planet he calls home in the comics as well as the Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman movies. While comic readers sometimes read about these extraordinary individuals to take a break from reality, they often tend to reflect the reality that we the audience lives in.
This is a thought provoking topic, it is very broad though because comics have been around for decades. I recommend narrowing the scope to really develop a detailed arguement. Looking at the current decade may be a little too difficult, i think it would be really interesting to analyse superheros that were developed in the noughties since most audiences can relate, and the feeling of the era is still fresh in many peoples minds. Obviously detail major turning points of the decade as a focal point i.e. 9/11, war on terror etc – Iliasbakalla7 years ago
I think this is an interesting question, but needs to be narrowed. There are still a lot of current superhero storylines in the comics that are doing nothing but reiterating the status-quo and don't necessarily resonate as well with a modern audience. Perhaps what you are specifically wanting to discuss would be the reflection of mainstream heavy franchise linked superheroes. It is also worth noting the comics, like any form of literature, will always reflect the times they are written in as nothing is written in a vacuum - just look at Watchmen. – SaraiMW7 years ago
A work of fiction is considered to have passed the Bechdel test if it features two women who talk about something other than a man. In many cases, it also requires that the women have names. Nearly half of films meet this requirement. Does this test truly examine the portrayal of gender in media?
Maybe an additional question you could also ask is, what kind of insight does applying the Bechdel Test on films give us about particular filmmakers (and give some examples) and has the introduction of the Bechdel Test changed the industry at all? – Kevin8 years ago
I think another important question might be, does a film that fails the Bechdel Test always portray gender negatively? Does a film that passes the Bechdel Test always portray gender positively? If not, what does the Bechdel Test truly show us? – C8lin8 years ago
You probably already know this, but there are a lot of films, such as Showgirls or films by Russ Meyer, that pass the Bechdel Test despite the fact that they are FAR from positive portrayals of women. – jsanoff8 years ago
This could open up a really interesting argument into how low the bar is set for feminist media these days. If so many meet the requirements, are the requirements strict enough? Are they asking for enough? What would be a better test? – Mariel8 years ago
It's important to recognize that the Bechdel Test is a bare minimum of what should be required for female representation in media, not a be all end all. – Laura Andrea8 years ago
Good topic, because in my opinion, the Bechdel test sets the bar too low. Just because two female characters are named and have conversations unrelated to men, does not make them strong or memorable people. Films aimed at girls and women are particularly guilty, from Disney princess movies to Jane Austen adaptations to modernized "chick flicks." – Stephanie M.8 years ago
I've always wondered what the Bechdel test is trying to achieve. Is it trying to divide the genders, or empower females? Star Wars failed the Bechdel test, but Leia Organa is a stronger character than anything in the Ghostbusters remake. It also limits roles for women. If a women is playing a devoted parent, if her child is female, she passes; if her child is male, she fails. Surely that character would have the same level of strength regardless of the gender of her offspring. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Maybe you could also look at other tests that measure equal representation in film and media (but it would be a good starting point!). – AnastasiaS7 years ago
Think about what you experience on social media and exercise whether our language is ruined or changed for the better? Should we embrace the ways of the future and look forward to books written with genius literary writing such as "yestiday i cort da bus 2 da mall 4 a shawp & lunch wid mi bffl!!!!" Will punctuation marks such as commas, apostrophes and semi colons become the way of the past whilst multiple exclamation marks and hashtags rein supreme?
Language does evolve. Perhaps, examples of how language has changed and how it has affected society. The writer could include reasons for language changes; such as, cultural influences or significant events that took taking place. Consequently, the writer can then address the current form of abbreviated communication. – Venus Echos9 years ago
I remember writing something on this in University, actually. I remember making the case that actually, it's the opposite. If anyone who takes this up wants to look at both sides, you could make the case that it actually takes a good command of the English language to be able to manipulate it like that, and bad spellers are much more concerned with trying to get their spellings right than manipulating the language successfully. This topic goes straight into the slang topic, from Cockney rhyming slang to internet and texting slang. It's a wide topic but very worthy of writing. – Adnan Bey9 years ago
I agree with Adnan -- language is evolving. I personally like the example of how millennials grew up with internet langauge -- first with AIM, then forum speak with loads of "epic fails" and "XD," growing up to using no shortenings, and then using shortenings ironically. "LMAO," for example, gives a different meaning than it used to when it first appeared. – ChristelleMarie Chua9 years ago
I agree it's devolving, not evolving. Yes, the simpler it gets the easier it is for less articulate people to get their point across but that simplification is resulting in a loss of language... as in, people don't know what larger words mean or how to properly spell or use grammar... The "word of the year" was an emoji, was it not? We're losing synonyms, punctuation, syntax, everything. – Slaidey9 years ago
It would be interesting to look at how educators deal with students using abbreviated words and sentences in work assignments. Do they deduct marks or consider it now mainstream enough to be acceptable language? That could be a good indicator in seeing if this abbreviated language is here to stay. – Lexzie9 years ago
I think its definitely true that abbreviation is killing the language. It is the apocalypse of Grammar – LydiaBrunet9 years ago
Wow, now this is a great topic in which I have so much to say. As a professor, I cannot even begin to discuss the amount of time spent in the syllabus, and during the first day of class, regarding the protocol of the acceptable mode of emailing. A lesson, that is unfortunately repeated in class at least one more time in the semester...If I am lucky.
The emails are one thing, but regarding written assignments, I truly believe they use abbreviated "text language," out of habit. When I point this out to the student, they are usually mortified, and I therefore try not to make it a big deal, but use it as a talking point for the importance of printing out your work, reading it aloud; changing the font to see the difference; using a different screen view to gain a different perspective on one's work, etc.
An entire book written in text language would drive me insane; yet, one with it intertwined in places would be fitting, and an ode to the way in which language is being used--or misused--at this point in time. – danielle5778 years ago
I think teens' culture and text speech nowadays can be helpful in a way, to make communicating more accessible to them. They have a larger sense of community now that there exists such a bigger generation gap. True -- it does make it more difficult to connect with those older than them, such as their parents. But they are more inclined to get their ideas out there, no matter how terrible they are, or how badly they are communicated. Today's technology makes it so much easier for anyone to get connected to anything, and abbreviation can definitely save time – dandeliaon8 years ago
I personally don't call it a devolution. Sure, words and phrases are getting shorter physically, a few of our best are losing syllables, but the meaning behind them has remained the same. "Text language" has its own set of rules, just like "regular English". For instance, yesterday I texted my friend a pun that I thought was absolutely hilarious. She replied with a "haha", and immediately I knew that she had not been amused.Now, if she'd replied with an "lol" or that laughing emoji, it would've been a much more positive reaction, even though all three options contain classic factors of conveying amusement. The reliance on connotation and knowing the person being contacted on at least a slightly personal level is why I don't call this shift in language a "devolution".
That being said, I think the distinction between personal and professional language is important and should stick around, at least for now. I still proofread emails for proper grammar and spelling when contacting a superior or a professor, and I doubt I'll ever be comfortable sending an emoji to any of those individuals. – eschiem8 years ago
I make a distinction between the evolution of a language and the devolution of its nuanced application. It's perfectly fine for 'textspeak' to emerge as a result of modern technology–that's an evolution. However, it's an entirely different thing for people to lose their ability for nuanced communication by being too dependent on simplistic forms–that's a devolution in meaningful application. . . but lol wut do i kno??? – IsidoreIsou8 years ago
Much like eschiem said, It might be interesting to explore how the use of abbreviation actually allows language to better simulate verbal speech in text. For example "you" means something different from "u" and many young people can tell the difference. "i h8u" means something different from "I hate you" . One connotes a joking tone the other a serious statement. Its the difference between stating something plainly and saying it with a roll of the eyes. – Mariel8 years ago
Devolution or evolution, it all depends on your perception of language and culture. One thing is certain: language is constantly changing. I'm currently taking a Linguistics class called "The Nature of Language" and I had never known how altered the english language is until now. Several words that we use in every speech are shorter versions of words, words that come from names and more. Pants is short for pantaloons. Bloomers were named after Amelia J. Bloomer. I think this specific change of language, using names and truncating words is interesting and I would consider it a form of evolution. I would also consider slang a form of evolution because it provides a sense of community and helps detect a certain era of language; however, text slang which is simple severely butchered diction is not evolution in my eyes. Reducing this vast english language to a few letters and numbers is also reducing the language.
– sastephens8 years ago
Personally, I hate what textspeak and technology have done to our language but then again, I'm a former English teacher and full-time writer, as well as a certified member of the Grammar Police. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
To judge by the sheer volume of helpful notes attached to this topic suggestion, you have really opened the proverbial 'can of worms', or perhaps that should be Pandora's Box! Much of what I would have suggested has already been covered by previous commentators - so whomever takes on this subject will have rich pickings from which to draw. We only need look at some of the comments made in response to You Tube videos to see just how poor the grasp of basic written English can be and 'text speak' frequently hides this fact. Maybe it's because I'm 'Old School', but I have to side with StephanieM on this issue. However, somewhat ironically, I do use textspeak a lot when texting close friends, but only because it's economical. Regarding the demise of punctuation marks - the one that will never disappear is the exclamation mark! Texters love to overuse it!! Don't they? !?!!!!? – Amyus7 years ago
http://www.furnishmyplace.com/chandra-rugs-2
We provide all kind of best rugs online in USA.
We deals in Kaleen Rugs, Dalyn Rugs, Colonial Mills, Nourison Rugs, Rizzy Rugs, Karastan Rugs, Momeni Rugs, Rugs America, Kas Rugs, Transocean Rugs, Chandra Rugs.
– Chandra Rugs7 years ago
From a linguistics class I've learned this: Language evolves and is not for the better or worse. People say language and the way people talk 'isn't as good as before,' but there's no standard. The main goal is communication and the new style of texting still does that. People also don't like change or are upset that they can't adapt so they blame the younger generation.
– as18337 years ago
Spiderman is a superhero who has had several on screen adaptations, each of which offers a unique take on the character. This article will discuss and compare these adaptations, what aspects of the hero each of them envisioned and the success they had in doing so.
Hmm...might need to consider a question or theory that you are really wanting to tease out to avoid this just becoming a review of the Spider-Man films. – SaraiMW7 years ago
Perhaps you could approach this topic by examining the circumstances for the various reboots of the franchise in such a short amount of time. Was there an underlying sociopolitical context that had an impact on the films and/or reboot? You could also consider juxtaposing the Spiderman movies with the different iterations of Batman or Superman on film. – bcurran7 years ago
The last two films by Damien Chazelle have both included ideas of dreams: Whiplash and La La Land; another favourite is Black Swan, directed by Darren Aronofsky. You could possibly explore the differences and similarities between such a theme in these films (or others, these are just suggestions); what makes these characters so willing to sacrifice things for their dream; in what ways dreams are presented differently in various films; the idealistic view of dreams vs realist depiction of them. It could also be titled something like 'The Presentation of Dreams in Film'.
Nice suggestion. Movies, especially Hollywood movies, are in themselves the product of the dreams of the creators, hence 'The Dream Factory', so we could consider movies that address the escapist dream theme as dreams within dreams. It might also be worth noting that Aronofsky was influenced by another great dreamer - the Japanese anime director Satoshi Kon, whose 1997 film' Perfect Blue' heavily influenced Aronofsky's 'Black Swan'. – Amyus7 years ago
"Dream" must be defined in a more precise way here. – T. Palomino2 years ago
There are many ways in which Jay Gatsby is portrayed as the physical embodiment of the American Dream, is his death Fitzgerald's way of criticising the changing idea of the American Dream, or its delusion/reality or the changing of American values in some way?
This is a good topic, but it is also an incredibly overdone topic - this is in fact the basis of final year high school essays the world over. However, that said it does not diminish the fact that this topic is one that continues to resonate. The idea of the death of the American Dream has been going on since the 20s. I think a more pertinent question at this point would be to ask is the American Dream actually dead? If so why is it still at the heart of so much popular culture? – SaraiMW7 years ago
Analyze the ways in which this TV series has successfully managed to go from an innocent and fun graphic novel to a dark TV series covering some graphic themes. Many people thought it would fail- what made it succeed?
I think this is a great topic, though it may be hard since the show only has one season under its belt. With the second season being recently released, you could also analyze reactions to the initial episodes and trailers, and how that feedback might compare or contrast with its success from the first season. – Noelle McNeill7 years ago
It certainly plays on the old school American high school characters, which appeals to a wide audience, but is made unique with it's dark and mysterious themes running through, perfect for a millennial audience that has the best of both. The cast certainly helped the success also. – rebeverett7 years ago
Humanities graduates get a bad reputation in this time of increased attention being placed on STEM fields that will surely drive our technologically-advancing economy. Mainstream U.S. films have been a contributing factor to this poor image in representing humanities graduates as aloof and/or struggling writers that are haunted by addiction and manic spurts of genius or inspirational educators that set the bar unrealistically high for actual teachers. Titles such as Stuck in Love and The Dead Poets Society circulate these narratives of humanities graduates, perpetuating a single image of what these graduates can actually do in society. Arrival was released in 2016 with great critical acclaim, and one of the most interesting aspects of the sci-fi epic comes in the form of a humanities vs sciences debate between the two leads – Amy Adams as the linguist Louise Banks and Jeremy Renner as Ian Donnelly – a physicist. Banks makes it clear early in the film that they need to focus on learning to communicate with the titular arrivals before working out the physics of their space-travel, placing the linguist in a position of privilege, but does this narrative manage to correct the one-sided image of the humanities, or does it fall short of shedding a positive light on a field that has been traditionally relegated to narrow, stereotypical representations?
Though I get what you're trying to say, your argument is based on the flawed premise that "English majors" (or, more accurately, "scholars," since the term "major" typically disappears from self-identification after undergraduate study) and "Linguistics majors" are one in the same, despite being entirely separate fields with completely different subject matters and methodological approaches to such. Though it is not uncommon for Literary Studies and Linguistics do occasionally borrow ideas and practices from one another -- as was common in the Russian, Czech, and French schools of Structuralism in the early to mid twentieth century -- the disciplines themselves remain distinct. I had initially considered suggesting that this could be fixed simply by replacing the word "English" with "Linguistics," but the stereotyped image of English majors -- "struggling writers that are haunted by addiction and manic spurts of genius" as you've put it -- is not so accurate a description of the general societal impression of Linguistics majors. Honestly, I'm not sure if there even is such a thing as a mainstream personality stereotype of Linguistics students and scholars, aside from the occasional internet memes made by the majors themselves (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/52/db/6452dbbec053cf36476c1edfb68b68fd--linguistics-major-teaching-phonics.jpg). Perhaps a more accurate fix would be to replace "English" with the broader category of general "Humanities," since (as you've observed) the film's central question boils down to "Humanities vs Sciences." That said, being such a broad umbrella term for a vast array of disciplines -- from English to Economic, Geography to Gender Studies, History to Linguistics, etc, etc -- it might be difficult to represent that entire scholarly demographic with any one or two (or ten) stereotypical images. I'm just not sure what can really be done with this. Sorry. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
I understand the issues you bring up, and the phrasing was probably not the best. The subject is definitely a bit too broad for a focused study, but I was hoping to get some insight through notes to narrow it a bit. I realize that English studies and linguistic studies are separate fields, but I've personally seen the stereotype of those in the humanities who study language in some way being incorrectly lumped together under the umbrella of "English." This may be a personal experience that does not translate well for others, so turning our attention to the humanities in general may be a slightly more beneficial direction to take this topic. Having said this, I do believe that there is a trend in mainstream U.S. popular culture to view those in the humanities as the stereotypical "struggling artists" without taking into account the intricacies of the humanities such as linguistic studies, technical writing, etc. Thank you for the note; I believe you provided some very important clarifications to my initial topic. – Aaron7 years ago
Thank you *so much* for this topic. In an increasingly STEM-driven world, I sometimes feel as though everything I am passionate about is irrelevant. Sometimes I want to say to people, "You do understand you couldn't pursue STEM careers if you couldn't read, don't you?" And you're right, films don't help anything. I don't think I've seen a humanities-based film since Mona Lisa Smile, and that was what, 2003? Anyway...the topic should probably be narrowed down, but you have the seeds of something that will spark a great discussion. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
In 2017, whenever we watch a film and all the heroes are white-looking, and all the villains are black-looking, there is a problem. This is very racist, and not supported by fans.
We now see more minorities being the heroes of the stories or the "companion" of the hero. However, do people do this with a genuine intention? Or do they place these heroes strategically so no one complains?
We still see the main hero to be mainly white males in most stories, but there seems like there is a pressure to put minorities and I am wondering if these minorities were actually supposed to be there, and not placed there from pressure of current society. As a minority, I'd like to see stories where the main hero is a minority, but that these stories are genuine and that it was supposed to be like that from the beginning.
Having just graduated film school as a Producer, this discussion has come up quite often. There is no definitive answer, and yes, sometimes the minority is merely a marketing tool to broaden the audience of a film so that it grosses more money. Stereotypes are also an issue, case in point being the most recent Mummy remake. The actress cast as the mummy was in fact African/Egyptian, and people were up in arms that the film was "white-washing" the story. Something that happens in Australia (more frequently than I'd like), is that aboriginal actors will lose out on roles because they are "stereotypically" aboriginal - every race has various skin tones. Again, this all comes down to marketing - American distributors will take on an Australian film which asserts our "bushland/Dundee" ways, over something more contemporary. Knowing this, it is a grey area of racism. The creators aren't actively being racist, or placing a token (insert racial background here) character. What they're wanting is the marketing, which will allow them to get the notoriety to film something that is closer to their heart down the line. 9/10 times though, a script is typical written without any racial descriptors because it is up to the director's creative vision to determine who the character can be best portrayed as. One thing I learnt from screenwriting is that this, along with age, is best left out. It's frustrating, especially as a fresh filmmaker who wants to make stories about a broad range of characters. But until you have funding, and interest in distributors, a lot of the time we have to bite the bullet. Funnily enough the largest demographic who still go to movies are white women between ages 28-45, so basically mothers. Marketing, it's what Hollywood is built on, nowadays storytelling is left to film students and indie cinemas. – Joshua Haines7 years ago
I think it's important to have diversity in your writers and directors, not just the characters. If all of your writers and directors are straight white males, it makes sense that minority characters will feel forced. Producers are sadly a bit averse to hiring minority writers and directors, which is why, for example, Wonder Woman was amazing in her standalone film directed by Patti Jenkins but falls apart under Zack Snyder. – sikemeay7 years ago
When I am writing something, I like to include people of all sorts. Whether my characters be LGBT, from countries around the world or other racial groups (commonly represented or otherwise), disabled, etc, it has nothing to do with being inclusionary for the sake of it, but rather that diverse casts leads to diverse stories. – Dominick White7 years ago
Yes. Diversity is being pushed everywhere. All the trendy authors are doing it, so are the publishers and those who write about the publishing industry, always wanting more diverse characters and writers just so they can virtue signal. Think of the publishing industry as literary Hollywood, it's just as liberal as Hollywood, and the leftist bias is just as strong. It's easier to find a needle in a haystack than a conservative fiction writer who's against diversity virtue signalling. – WingedHussars7 years ago
We all recognize Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci to be one of the most iconic portraits ever painted. But only the true art enthusiasts are aware of the greatest works of art ever. From the powerful Mr & Mrs. Clark & Percy by David Hockney to the Jan Six by Rembrandt, there are endless other portraits that are a treat for the eyes. In this post, we will enlist 10 of the greatest portraits of all times.
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes; it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses" (Elwood Blues)
"Hit it!" (Jake Blues)
That legendary quote from 'The Blues Brothers' (1980) introduced the viewer to arguably one of the funniest and most notorious car chases in cinema history and exemplified the road movie as a metaphor for the desire for freedom. Freedom from oppression, freedom from authority and the freedom of self-expression. The comically manic, self-destructive joyride of 'Goodbye Pork Pie' (1981) saw the protagonist taking a thousand mile trip across New Zealand, in a progressively disintegrating mini, just to reconnect with his girlfriend, whilst David Lynch's gentle perambulation that was 'The Straight Story' (1999) was based on the true story of Alvin Straight's 240 mile trip on a lawnmower across Iowa and into Wisconsin to see his estranged brother. In more recent years we've had the eccentric British film 'Driving Lessons' (2006), the Bonny and Clyde-esque 'God Bless America' (2012), Inmtiaz Ali's loosely scripted and superb 'Highway' (2014) and the somewhat off-kilter 'The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun' (2015)…to list but a few examples. What connects all these films is that each is ultimately a life-affirming experience, even if the journey ends in disaster. It is the process of self-discovery, but in these modern times of ultra high-tech surveillance and ever encroaching self-driving vehicles, will we lose that chance to push the peddle-to-the-metal and engage with our thirst for a fleeting moment of automotive freedom?
I'd be really curious to know how the road trip movie fits in different cultures' cinema - I've assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it was a American connection. – Emily Esten7 years ago
With the rise of digital retail services like the recent "Movies Anywhere," is the age of owning films in physical formats coming to an end sooner than expected? With services like iTunes and Vudu, no one needs to buy a film in a store like Best Buy anymore. Is it for the best? Does owning a DVD or Blu-ray come with benefits, or is it now unnecessary?
Ah, verrrry interesting. I have a DVD collection of movies I consider favorites, but now that Netflix, DVR, and etc. exist, I definitely don't watch them as much as I used to and maybe should. For a topic like this, I think you'd have to think carefully about the upsides of owning a film. For instance, is it just the idea of ownership that makes us shell out hard-earned cash, or is there something else to it? – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I have also often pondered this question. One of my favourite weekly activities used to be visiting my local Blockbuster. I now fear that we live in an era of over saturation; there are too many choices when I browse my Netflix account. I don't feel the same commitment to watch something that I once felt when I paid a rental fee (and held the tangible product). For this topic, it might be interesting to revisit the time before home video. Perhaps people felt similarly when home video first came into existence and filmgoers were no longer forced to exclusively watch movies in a cinema. – bcurran7 years ago
We feel special affinity towards certain titles which may resonate with us deeply and thus, wish to associate with it in a tangible form. However, it is true that with leaks and videos available everywhere, there is less incentive for people to buy DVDs just to see the extra content being offered in terms of bloopers, cut scenes and behind the scenes interviews or alternate endings. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan5 years ago
Everyone has preferences in regards to what becomes integrated into our self-identity. With the increase of choices, does marketing play a significant role any longer? Or, do people (even within niche markets) know what they want and how to find it; so as far as profits are concerned, it is more about quality than hype or any other strategy, thus bringing about a societal need to cultivate creativity?
This is an interesting topic.I do think that marketing will always play a significant role, even more so with the increase of choice. Regardless, of who the initial demographic, the goal is to draw as many people you can to whatever artistic medium . I think this topic is interesting, but a little broad. Perhaps you should narrow it down to one or two types of art and media. – MKLee7 years ago
In a relatively recent episode of the new Sci-fi comedy show 'The Orville,' titled 'About a Girl' an interesting discussion is raised about the issue of gender identity, sexual categorisation, social acceptance and cultural interference. In the episode the same-sex couple (aliens known as the Moclan, of which all are male) give birth to a female, an unusual but not unheard of situation. The Moclan believe that growing up as a female in an almost exclusively male society is the equivalent to experiencing a form of social disability or social isolation. Yes, already an incredibly confronting concept. However, the two fathers differ on what is to be done, with one wishing to have their girls sex organs altered to allow her to live a "normal" life as a male Moclan.
The mostly human-based crew of the space ship become involved in this debate, strongly arguing for the right to her original gender to be honoured. Arguments concerning genital mutilation, female rights, and nature versus nurture all arise. This episode comes to ahead when a trial is held to decide and a very rare female Moclan is found. She has been living up in a cave in the mountains, but is also the races' most celebrated writer and philosopher. She argues for the right of the child to be allowed to remain a girl. However, the council ultimately rules in the favour of having her sex changed. A decision The Orville crew must accept as being a culturally acceptable choice.
Now, this discussion is not a new one, as often Sci-fi, and especially Space Operas, will use the alien race division to debate topics relevant to cultural and racial difference. However, an unusual choice by the writers is that unlike usual network shows, the alien race does not "come to its senses" and perceive the world from the human (privileged and thus better) viewpoint. Well, while I can respect this as a creative choice, and perhaps and interesting sociological choice, I can not help but be left with a bad taste in my mouth. Is this because I am so Westernised in my view I cannot accept that other culture's have the right to their view? Is it as a feminist that this is too close to genital mutilation for me to stomach? Or have I become so used to the stereotypical television norm of "making it all better" that I find it difficult to reconcile my expectations of entertainment with real life?