Topics

Famously coined by Patrick Star (and, by extension, teleplay authors Jay Lender, Sam Henderson, and Merriwether Williams) in S03E05a of Spongebob SquarePants, the term "wumbo" has since become a fixture of the pop culture lexicon and fuel for countless internet memes. It is implicitly defined through its usage as being an adjective (as the opposite of "mini"), but subsequent explanation in the episode assigns it the qualities of a verb ("I wumbo. You wumbo. He/she/me wumbo."), and culminating in the academic discipline of "wumbology" (the study of wumbo, which is supposedly introduced in first grade curricula) thus indicating a noun form in order for it to be studied. Though obviously conceived as a simple joke — aimed at highlighting Patrick's well-documented stupidity — there is a lot to unpack with regards to this seemingly nonsensical neologism.

Conduct a linguistic analysis of "wumbo" and its variant forms, using only the self-contained snippets of dialogue within the episode as a guide. Does it defy our preconceived understandings of linguistic morphology, or can a series of grammatical rules be devised to account for its inherently contradictory nature? If society were committed to accepting the term's validity, what would be the parameters of usage under which it would enter our active vocabulary?

[Note: For the best quality article, it is highly recommended that this topic be taken up by someone with a background in, or at least a sufficiently deep knowledge of, linguistics.]

Discuss the connection between events in Designated Survivor and the current political reality existing in the United States. Note how the writers of the show reference current events, and the ways in which they may be 'poking fun' at current events while dealing with them in a serious manner on the show. If possible, also compare things said and done by President Kirkman to those of President Trump.

Explain why you think (or may be not) that Tv shows or Sitcoms portraying a well sculpted world, with friends for support and effortless enjoyment can posses a serious threat to how people view reality and their life outcomes?

Hollywood is almost obsessed with remaking films despite previous success. Remakes of film though often flop in cinema's begging the question; Why does Hollywoods keep making remakes? What's the point? So many remakes face criticism before being released. Diehard fans make judgements of the film before it is even released, while the film itself has a bar often set so high that 'failure' is inevitable.

Perhaps companies are simply relying on the success of the previous films in a pursuit of profit. From changing casts to all female (Oceans 11, Ghost Busters) to changing the tone of the film (The Mummy), is Hollywood simply trying to find ways to justify remaking a movie that doesn't need to be remade?

You can rightfully think that franchises are an easy way to grab money nowadays. Instead of searching for new 'forms' to present a story, big studios are betting on established worlds where they can add another thing or two; yet, a lot of us -the audience- fail to find a harm in that. When I went to watch the newest Star Wars, I was conscious that it wasn't going to be a breakthrough, but there was a bigger pull motivating me to follow the story. So I've been wondering: Why are we so compelled to get involved in these multi-film universes?

In the midst of latex suits and end-of-world-scenarios, Groot is an anomaly. Why would 'Guardians of the Galaxy' writers give Groot a character arc which parallels stages of human development, including infancy? Arguably, his presence allows the compassion to be revealed in other characters and also, completes the idea of a family structure in Guardians. Are there other characters who play this role in other branches of the Marvel/DC universes?

Since many original cast members are not returning for season 7 of Once Upon a Time, discuss the ways in which the new season could (or could not) be an exciting revival of the fairytales we once knew. Is the OUAT we know over, or do you think the rejuvenation of characters and tales will be enough to keep the fanbase and viewers satisfied?

I would like to see an article written about the different ways that political power is wielded. Foucault understands all citizens as complicity in state power (in a democracy), since one individual has a sovereign rule over us and governs our liberty, however en mass the public hold tremendous amounts of power during elections. Recent political history in Australia shows the power of public opinion polls, as leaders there have been usurped by party members due to their failing public credibility. But power also requires tenacious maintenance in a political scope Francis Underwood from House of cards illustrates the amount of time and effort he has to appease and blackmail other members of congress to retain his position. This involves calling the bluff of many different international and domestic threats to his reign. Lord Baelish from game of thrones also shows how a character with little credentials can hold great amounts of power by dancing between leaders of different kingdoms. There could also be a discussion about the gender intersection of power in both these shows as Claire Underwood and Cersei Lannister are both excellent case studies. 

Pro-Wrestling has been around for decades and has tens of millions of fans, but is often misunderstood by those on the outside. Moreover, the complex and serialized nature of pro-wrestling story-telling makes entry as a new fan difficult. A complete overview of the sport up through present trends and story-lines would be interesting: formation and history of the sport, brief summation of the legal players and corporate/owner factions, explanation of terminology used in the sport, brief summation of story-line factions (faces/heels/teams), and an explanation of why ' it's scripted, not fake ' is essential to understanding the appeal of the sport.

Nostalgia's been widely regarded as a good thing, but when does it go too far? When does it become unhealthy for us to stick ourselves to the same ideas, the same properties, solely because we associate good things with them and they make us feel safe? It is necessary for us to be challenged, but how can we do that if we're constantly being given the same thing because that's what we like and what we're used to? With all these reboots, when is enough enough?

Recent events in London and abroad raise questions of how we should be representing terrorist attacks and the victims of those attacks. The visualization of difference is crucial to our popular understanding of these events as they unfold and reverberate throughout the world. Discuss the way major news organizations like CNN, Fox and MSNBC visualize these events. What differences arise between these televised news sources? How can stations visualize the aftermath of these attacks and the victims in tasteful ways that don't compound the trauma?

Instagram has become a way for artists to cultivate followings and promote themselves in a way that artists in the past have not been able to do before. Poets have become household names and makeup gurus now have their own beauty lines all due to the power of the 'gram. How does this new medium affect content? Are their negative consequences for using this service? For example, copying others work, authenticity, and quality.

Superhero movies are some of the most popular movies coming out today. After so many being released at this point, and two major comic book film universes, some people are getting "superhero fatigue". What that means is that people are starting to get tired of these movies, and are accused of being all the same. What are some patterns and flaws that are commonly seen in superhero movies?

TV opening credits obviously let viewers know who the main cast is as well as give everyone involved in the process their due. The aesthetics and artwork of each individual show's credits can also persuade the audience into participation. How do opening credits function depending on what shows one is watching? There are certain shows that begin with catchy themes, eye-catching graphics, or contain "easter egg"-like codes/foreshadowing. There are others which keep the visibility of opening credits to a minimum, perhaps to heighten the realism of the show's fictional world. How does the nature of certain shows determine the way opening credits are presented to the audience?

Miscegenation in the United States is a social taboo stretching back to early colonial North America. At first, Puritan theology condemned its practice. With the institutionalizing of slavery, the racial-caste system crystalized such divisions segregating specifically black-white sexual union. Subsequently from the religious to pseudo-scientific racism, eugenics further legislated such prohibitions. By the twentieth century, the effects of Jim Crow laws restricted the spirit of artistic license by suppressing interracial imageries. With the arrival of motion pictures, the Hays Code firmly enforced anti-miscegenation guidelines in popular Hollywood film. While a knee-jerk assumption is to summon pervasive binary between black and white miscegenation, the article proposes examples of all diverse mixing of racial and ethnic categories. Meanwhile, it explores a variety of interrelated questions. How are interracial romances treated in recent popular culture across the varying artistic mediums? What elements of interracial relationships are censured? What does such specific excising say about our society? In contemporary United States, what are considered the more acceptable pairing[s] of interracial couples and why?

The actor Michael Douglas graduated from University of California at Santa Barbara with a degree in Drama. The real work began after an impressive portfolio of film and television roles: The Streets of San Francisco, The China Syndrome, Romancing the Stone, Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, Black Rain, The American President, Wall Street, and The War of the Roses. He has played: detective, banker, lawyer, reporter; in both an acting capacity and as director. As if that wasn't enough to qualify on your own merits, he is the son of famed Hollywood thespian, Kirk Douglas. But, success has no limits and Michael Douglas is proof that the territory of theater is his dominion. It is no surprise then that the University of St. Andrews in Scotland bestowed upon him an honorary Doctor of Letters degree in 2006. With a vibrant history of contribution to the arts, one must wonder–what was the allure that kept audiences flocking to the theaters and Hollywood studios beckoning with scripts? One avenue to explore could be the pressure the character has to deal with in front of the camera; crime, career, colleagues, addiction, moderation, or marriage. Who holds the key to a great performance: the scriptwriter, the actor, the circumstance, or the foil? In what way does Douglas figure against seasoned counterparts, gender-ethnic based peers, or immediate audience? Is it a matter of how willing and able the actor is to crossing boundaries (cultural, professional, geographical, personal, ideological) for the sake of the film industry, even if merely for the art? Consider this common thread of crossing material and metaphysical boundaries in the analysis.

I have always wondered why it was that John Grisham, within his genre, has come to such massive fame. Please do analyse the ways in which his work appeals to his target audience and his rise to success.

YouTube revenue is at an all-time low, in part due to the recent departure of several major advertisers over concerns about their products being associated with hate speech. Many on YouTube now rely on services like Patreon for income as much or more so than their YouTube partnerships. That said, Patreon is typically only successful for content creators that have already built a brand and a following. Is this the beginning of the end for YouTube as a cottage industry? Is there room for scrappy newcomers to make a living anymore?

Nostalgia is every where as many shows which had been cancelled or ended long ago are returning. X-Files and Gilmore Girls came back, Young Justice finally got its long awaited season three, and Charmed is getting a reboot. How does this affect how we watch the new season out reboot? How does this affect our perceptions of the old show? Does waiting so long end up paying off?

As esports and professional video gaming become a much bigger part of the wider world, there seem to be many people that show resistance.
A tournament of an online game (can't remember which game) was televised on ESPN recently and I was shocked by some of the comments. "These people weren't bullied enough in school," took the cake from the pool of negative comments.
Do you think gaming should make it's way into the mainstream world via television broadcasts? Should it stick to game-centered shows and websites rather than leak into the professional sporting world?