The art world is current having a bit of a controversy about the nature of the soul in Art with the rise of programs like DALL-E 2, Stable Diffusion and Craiyon that allow for the submission of prompts to generate visual media. While many laud this as another innovation of the digital age others such as traditionally defined artists view it as not only "soulless" that is to say made without the efforts and passions of a creator but also a form of stealing as the A.I. typically process art and art styles without credit and attribution only to then to produce something that is given credit as though it was wholly unique. This brings up the ethical questions of the generators and that immortal question, "What IS Art?"
A.I. Art reminds us that art is a learnable skill. If we can teach a computer to follow style guidelines and create images, humans can certainly learn the same skills. – noahspud2 years ago
I am reminded of Walter Benjamin's piece on art in the age of mechanical reproduction. The uptick in A.I. art is a great opportunity to review some of Benjamin's original propositions. The question of artistic merit is worth digging into—what matters in a judgment of merit might be context-dependent rather than intrinsic. – JackWalton2 years ago
I think this would be a good topic to explore if it was focused on something more specific about the relationship between AI and its creator/participant. While it does bring up the same old questions of what is art, it would perhaps be more interesting to put a spin on those old questions by looking at what function AI art serves in the area of identify for those with the tools and the agency to create a kind of sentient intelligence and personality in cooperation with their own skills, but at the same time, outside of their own control. You know what springs to mind, is the conversation between Basil Hallward and Lord Henry Wotton, especially when he starts talking about this: “He is all my art to me now,” said the painter gravely. “I sometimes think, Harry, that there are only two eras of any importance in the world’s history. The first is the appearance of a new medium for art, and the second is the appearance of a new personality for art also." – taleialani2 years ago
With Disney releasing the live-action The Little Mermaid next year, many opinions have emerged regarding the casting of Halle Bailey as Ariel. Casting black actors for white characters is nothing out of the ordinary. Roles such as Morgan Freeman as Red in Shawshank Redemption, Will Smith as Dr. Robert Neville in I Am Legend, or recent Disney MCU choices such as Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury proved to be iconic roles in popular culture. I am curious to examine the differences and implications between color-blind casting and color-conscious casting. It is my understanding color-blind casting involves casting without any consideration for the actors' racial identities, physical appearances, and other characteristics. Color-conscious casting would be the opposite in that casting directors actively consider these characteristics. These terms can be quite difficult to pin down exactly, and the same goes for the implications they have for diversity versus tokenism. Casting Halle Bailey as Ariel sparked so much inspiration and feel-good moments on social media when brown and black girls saw themselves in their favorite princess. However, many people still felt enraged at the supposed inaccuracy of the character's casting or felt that Disney simply wanted to hit a diversity quota. I think about how white actors have played people of color for decades. From John Wayne as Genghis Khan in Conqueror (1956), Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra (1963), to modern productions like Angelina Jolie as Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart (2007), or Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One in the MCU, the film industry has a history of whitewashing and "blackface" when it comes to portraying BIPOC characters. These characters come from specific ethnic backgrounds which heavily influence their movement and life experiences in the world. For example, it wouldn't make sense to cast anyone who isn't Chinese for the live-action Mulan, the Chinese princess who saves her home country. The same can be said for other Disney princesses such as Pocahontas, Moana, Tiana, and Jasmine to name a few. However, it seems as though formerly cast white characters do not meet the same expectations like Ariel in The Little Mermaid. I would argue that the mermaids come from a fictional place, Atlantica, and therefore Ariel's character can have some leeway in her representation. To what degree should people's anger toward Ariel's casting be validated? Why should viewers be bothered with a black Ariel?
The issue in modern times usually has to do with Tokenism. As, most critics complain that the change is not going to amount to anything in terms of exploring said minority group. For example should it matter that a fictional mermaid princess is black? Not really as the Atlantican's do not derive from our culture. They have their own completely fictional lore. It is not to say you cannot explore those topics, but it is usually a non sequitur that distracts from the stories main plot, which is a story of star crossed lovers. So, narratively speaking it does not matter if Ariel is black or white. Her race should not matter and there should be a greater focus on Halle Bailey's ability to play the role. Yet the coverage from the media put a great focus on Bailey's race, as opposed to her acting ability. Making the conversation about representation. We can see similar aspects with Beauty and the Beast and Star Wars Rise of Skywalker. Where both movies during promotion really talked about how they would have an openly queer character and how female characters would be in a leading role. Many people once again take annoyance with this as the representation of LGBTQ people is mostly a foot note at the end of the movie (that gets edited out when the movie premieres in a country that does not approve of such things.) Despite J.J. Abrams talking about how Poe and Finn are sexually active gay men, there is no exploration of that aspect. No romantic love interest for either of the characters. Which is why most of the time people accuse Disney and companies of pandering. Critics believe they are simply using diversity as a way to sell tickets.(Side not Star Wars has always had female leads, Ashoka Tano, Kreia, Princess Leia, and Meetra Surik. All powerful force users, who have a prominent role as hero and villians throughout the series. While these stories are limited to books and games, Disney could easily turn those into movies or continue exploring them in games.) Now the main reason people do not get nearly as upset about Will Smith being Dr. Neville and Morgan Freeman as Red is because is because them taking up the role did not focus on their race in Marketing. (not sure about Morgan Freeman and marketing as Shawshack predates me.) Samuel L. Jackson being Nick Furry was done because Stan Lee knew that he was a long time fan of the series, and he was placed in an alternate Marvel Universe. So, technically the white Nick Furry still exist and does continue to be used. Though the Ultimate universe Nick Furry has become the more prominent one used. Race swapping in movies and media is a tricky thing, mainly due to America's history with racism. As, yes, originally America did it to depict minority groups in offensive ways, and because minority groups were actually not allowed to be in films at one point. But in modern times I would compare it to J.K. Rowling saying Hermione is supposed to be black in the Harry Potter books or Dumbledore being gay. Despite being told something it is never shown or explored, so why should we care? I do not believe it is anything more than people trying to appeal to certain groups while putting the least amount of effort. It is the reason why instead of creating a new independent property or using an existing property that has character that is LGBTQ/minority group, they try to change an existing characters race like Superman. When DC comics could instead use characters like Icon or Static Shock and have a whole story that deals with the issues/experience of a black character. Race and sexuality appears to be mostly a tool to sell tickets for films. It is why people who are interested in such things have turned to other outlets. (From my understanding many people who like LGBTQ content have turned to comics,manga, video-games and novels as these mediums tend to have a more nuanced exploration of the topic. It is similar with diverse cast of characters.) – Blackcat1302 years ago
No group has a stranglehold on mermaids. I think the problem is that Europeans believe that they are the only ones who can cast differently. IN other words, it is okay for them to play other races or ethnicities but if a character is allegedly sacred to them, they get upset over the same thing they are doing. It is a very infantile way of thinking. But that is the privilege type of thinking that comes with imperialism. – Montayj792 years ago
It is hard to forget the background Hollywood has with race. In my opinion, and what I have learned previously, if the race is integral to a background, plot or culture of a character then it should not be altered. If a character is written to be a specific ethnicity or if casting is intended to look for someone of a specific ethnicity, then that should be respected. Otherwise, it really does not quite matter. You would not use an all white cast for A Raisin in The Sun, that would cause loss of meaning regarding topics of race in the show. Tiana, Mulan and Moana all have cultural links to their stories, and Ariel does not. To assume that a black woman being cast as Ariel is for the “woke crowd” then is dismissing the blatant mistreatment of actors that are not white. To see an actor who is not white in pop culture is not (and shouldn’t be) a radical idea. – eaonhurley2 years ago
Seriously thinking about writing this. I just wrote one on here--"Misogynoir: The Silent Backbone of Hollywood," that covered some of these issues. I could really expand on those ideas with this topic. – Montayj792 years ago
Contemporary (South Asian) Indian fantasy literature is heavily based on its rich history of culture and mythology. However, to grow as a genre (by creating stories that exist outside of/apart from our multiple readings of preexisting myths – stories that are original), does it need to explore stories and characters, other than the ones that already exist in cultural consciousness? (By this I mean the stories from mythology that are widely known [in India] and are passed on through generations).
I think it's interesting considering that these are things that people actually believe...I wonder if calling it "mythology" is actually a bit offensive. – nimraahmad2 years ago
Consider examples of literature or film that have had theatre adaptations (e.g. Dorian Gray, Sydney Theatre Company; Cyrano, Melbourne Theatre Company, and analyse how these works have been shifted and/or restructured for a live performance context.
I think it would be interesting to explore how the constraints of the new medium affect the adaptation, as well as the choices that are made (what is taken out, what is kept in and why) by the person who adapts it. Maybe you could narrow your topic down to a specific adaptation to make it a little more detailed, since it currently seems like you are taking on a huge deal if you're studying multiple texts. – Sangnat2 years ago
For the record, Cyrano de Bergerac was a stage play FIRST, before any of its many film adaptations. – ProtoCanon2 years ago
Analyze recent queer relationships as they are represented in a few mainstream TV shows (Atypical, Heartstopper, And Just Like That, L Word Gen Q, etc). To what extent are these relationships and characters homonormative? Homonormativity is the tendency for queer relationships to model goals and expectations on normative straight relationships (monogamy, goals like marriage and childrearing, citizen/rights-based activism, for example). Is it possible for mainstream TV to present compelling alternative queer characters and plotlines or is the form destined to churn out homonormativity?
Really interesting topic. I'd be particularly interested in the ones that set themselves up as queer - e.g. The L Word - and how they actually engage with queerness. – metacohen2 years ago
Thinking that this could be a very collaborative and all-inclusive piece if it comes to fruition. Being a heterosexual white male and not having knowledge on this topic makes my engagement with your potential prompt limited, but it does seem like a truly compelling topic for that reason. You could certainly take an educational yet relatively opinionated take on this in order to inform but also to make a firm claim on the way you believe mass media as a whole (specifically in TV and film) could move with this issue. – matthewmcgovern2 years ago
In the past it was common for TV series have seasons with 20 episodes. This has changed in the past decade or so. Now it is more common for shows to have 6-15 episodes. For example, The X-Files was a popular show in the 90s that had 9 seasons with 20 or more episodes each. When it was rebooted in 2016, the following two seasons had 6 and 10 episodes respectively. This shows the change in episode numbers according to the times. Discuss why this happened and what factors played a role, such as streaming, globalization, changing attention spans, busy lives, intended audiences, etc. Was this a change that occurred due to differing consumer needs or production needs? Was it due to the changes in how television and media is consumed?
Interesting observation, and I think it might be due to a number of the things you mention. For one, streaming allows people access to a plethora of series and movies, thereby potentially limiting their "attention span" for one series. In addition, since there are so many series being created, perhaps production needs are inadequate. – LibraryLass2 years ago
'The Second Sex' ultimately serves as the most eloquent, sophisticated and detailed synopsis of the patriarchal society and how it oppresses women. As Simone illustrates it is the amalgamation of destiny, history and myth which create “bird cage of oppression”. The reasoning that this oppressive structure has been created is muddled; however, there are three major considerations as to why it has been created: 1) out of necessity, 2) for control, 3) as a means of transcendence.
Control has been the epitome of the patriarchal society. Men have sought to dominate their environment and as part of that there exists women. Arguably women have been the greatest challenge to men’s goal of control. Women have stood in opposition to men even when they are bound by the institutions of men. It is because of this dichotomy between menn and women which have strengthened the resolve of menn and their pursuit of control. As history illustrates men have always sought to place women as the objects of their reality and through doing so men have thought that they could control women like they control the tools they create. However, this has not worked in the favor of men and the rise of feminism bears witness.
This is an interesting read, especially in relation to her fiction as well and the way she represents this. It would be good to also look at this in comparison to the other seminal texts, such as Greer's. – Sarai Mannolini-Winwood2 years ago
I would love to read further on this, but I have to wonder how this will address colonized males and masculinities? Will this article explore Patriarchy as it exists in the current world or will it seek to universalize the experiences with out respect to material conditions? Will it explore the constraints and enforcers of Patriarchy or will it pathologize "men". I think this will be quite interesting but how exactly do you define "men" under patriarchy? – Sunni Ago2 years ago
Gender terminology would need to be defined clearly, as well as the gendered context that Simone's book was arising from (re: what was the understanding of sex and gender in her time in comparison to now?) – alliegardenia2 years ago
I have read "Le Deuxième Sexe" de Simone de Beauvoir (be sure to check the spelling) in French when I was in High School. And, just like all teens, this did not talk to me at all. I had to read it again in graduate school in my critical theory class and it took a complete different meaning. I guess maturity helped ;-) Now, my helpful note on your excellent topic idea: how can we still make De Beauvoir applicable today? Let's look at the US politics today and apply directly the aspect of "male control" over the very hot and touchy topic of "abortion rights" or "healthcare access to/for women". Looking at what males are trying to (re)gain control over what women can do. Since this is an international forum, the article could even be richer by having international scholars contributing from their own country and examine the rights of women linked under male control (the list of countries that come to mind is too long). This is very promising and am looking forward to read the final product. Good luck with it. – luc9922 years ago
This may or may not be helpful but I was not introduced to Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex until I played Nier: Automata. I only bring this up to say that I suspect the majority of Beauvoir's work has permeated into much of our culture now because most of these issues still pervade our society today, though they might manifest differently now. In the game, your main protagonists face off against a boss machine called "Simone" or "Beauvoir" in the Japanese version. You learn she was once a small, stubby machine who was in love, borderline obsessed, with another machine lifeform named "Jean-Paul" after Jean-Paul Sartre. Simone was jealous of his other mistresses and began cannibalizing other machine lifeforms, using them to grow bigger and using their bodies as adornments for her own body. Her incessant search for beauty led to her tragic downfall. She associated her self-worth with an apathetic machine until she lost sight of herself completely and dies at the hands of the player. Although deeply exaggerated, her story becomes incredibly devasting for the player and perhaps somewhat relatable. The story is set tens of thousands of years into the future long past the extinction of humans, yet we still see androids and machines replicating human behaviors such as sexism, apathy, self-degradation, and toxic behaviors with love among others. While this may not be entirely applicable to Beauvoir's work, this could be one avenue to connect the pitfalls of the patriarchy to modern-day society. This game predicts that even long after we are gone, these issues might still persist after us. – iresendiz2 years ago
Disney played a large role in bringing fairy tales to a larger audience. To do so, they had to remove many horrific aspects, such as the stepsisters in Cinderella who cut off their toes and heels to fit into the glass slipper or how the princess is raped while unconscious in Sleeping Beauty. Compare more of the original fairy tales, which explored far more taboo and grotesque content and how Disney has altered them to be more child friendly and palatable. Discuss why this was done and how the purpose of fairy tales has evolved.
Many of the revisions suggested weren't acted upon. – Sunni Ago2 years ago
Hi Sunni! I changed Grimms fairy tales to original fairy tales to accommodate all the origins. I also changed my questions to ask about why changes were made and how fairy tales have evolved over time and why. I specified who I was referring to and what I was asking. Is there anything else I can do to refine this topic? – Anna Samson2 years ago
Maybe make the question: Discuss the purpose of this change and how it is tied into the evolution of fairytales. Or something like that: same question but could be worded differently. – Montayj792 years ago
Might be some old interviews with good old Walt himself to help narrow down this idea a bit. – alliegardenia2 years ago
I think you could talk a bit more about the fairy tales that aren't commonly known to the public! – Sangnat2 years ago
This was a topic I was heavily interested in a few years ago. Children's literature and fairy tales is rooted in violence and weird sexual inuendos. They're more cautionary tales but if you're looking at the "Disneyfication" process, I believe there was an article called "Breaking the Disney Spell" by Jack Zipes. It demystifies Walt Disney a bit (not really in a good way) and will spill some of those trade secrets of marketing gruesome fairy tales for a modern child audience. – iresendiz2 years ago
Netflix fantasy series Shadow and Bone are based on five books written by Leigh Bardugo. The first three are part of the so-called Grisha Trilogy, and the other two (Six of Crows) follow a different group of characters years after the events of the first three books. Showrunner Eric Heisserer said he wouldn't have written the show without them, so the article could explore their particularities and why they're so endearing to the story and the public.
I think part of the charm of the crows is that they are already an establised friend group. The characters didn't have to get to know each other as Alina did with the Grisha. It meant we could get into the action way sooner. On another note, the Crows are technically 'the bad guys; it is always interesting to see their perspectives – hannahclairewrites2 years ago
I agree with the establishes friend group. There are no character developments being made when characters interact with each other to become friends, rather, they are already aware of one another. – hafsakhan3102 years ago
What caused the time loop of Groundhog Day (1993) is the cynicism of Phil Connors and the weather storm he wrongly predicted that trapped him and his coworkers in the town of Punxsutawney, Philadelphia. Phil Connors constantly relives the same day and experiences highs and lows while trapped in this time loop. What ends the time loop after several suicide attempts, correcting his wrongs, or seducing Rita? Is it the homeless man that lets him see the value in everyone's life rather than his own? He desperately tries to save this man but can never seem to catch him in time. He finally discovers that the only way to interrupt this time loop is through self-reflection on his life and the people around him.
Skins was a British teen soap opera which began in 2008 and ran for about seven seasons. This series was renowned for its controversial subject matter, as many of the characters did things like have sex, experiment with drugs, and struggle with serious mental health concerns. Several of the cast members–including Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, and Kaya Scodelario among others–went on to have illustrious film and television careers.
What if any influence has Skins had on the teen soap opera genre? How many modern teen soaps–which tend to feature fairly dark subject matter–were inspired by Skins, whether directly or indirectly? How do more recent television shows for teens compare to Skins in terms of characterization and structure?
I automatically think of Euphoria, but not really any others. What other examples would you use? It might be easier to just compare Skins and Euphoria. – Elisa2 years ago
I agree with Elisa! Euphoria seems a lot like a modern take on Skins. – Anna Samson2 years ago
Skins was beautifully produced and written. The characters are all complicated and loveable through their flaws. Shows like 13 reasons why have gone for the same things but done it in a much more graphic way, romanticizing the bad things meanwhile skins teaches lessons and is meaningful and very diverse. – Ellissa2 years ago
Some movie villains have sympathetic motivations, whether its devotion to saving the planet ala Poison Ivy, drive to right a systemic wrong ala Black Panther's Killmonger or Magneto, or desire for personal vengeance ala the Wicked Witch of the West or Clytemnestra. Some villains "just want to watch the world burn." Some are just hellbent on causing murder, destruction, and pain. Sometimes it seems the motivation doesn't matter nearly as much as the character's screen presence. Many movies try to add depth to their villains, only to leave lasting questions and plot holes over their villain's arc. Are there any essential elements necessary for a great movie villain? Do we see any mistakes in creating villains that could be avoided by following certain rules of thumb? Sometimes it seems that the only difference between the hero and villain are a)who the narrative viewpoint sympathizes with and b) who's destined to cross unforgivable lines. Is it okay that this is commonplace, or does it indicate a flaw in modern storytelling?
Thanks for the very helpful feedback T Palomino, I think there are two different directions I could take the question in, and I'm not sure which makes for a better prompt. The first is comparing various types of villains and the way they fundamentally shape the story and the hero, and how important the depth of their motivation affects the story. For instance, The Dark Knight has Joker, a villain with no deep motivation, but it also has Harvey Dent, and his arc is fundamental to creating a compelling finale. Other movies seem actually hamstrung by having a complicated and somewhat sympathetic villain, as they try to tell a good vs evil story. Perhaps the question could be comparing villains with complex vs simple motivations, how compelling they still can be, and how they shape the hero. Although perhaps this still too broad?
The second direction I was considering was pointing out that many heroes have the same motivations as I listed, saving the world, righting systemic wrongs, and even obtaining vengeance. What does a narrative require to distinguish between its heroes and villains, and how often does an audience's viewpoint play more of a role in making the distinction, than the actual story and character choices? Infamously we have seen authors revamp stories to center the villains, such as Wicked recreating Elphaba, or the recent Joker film. Is the difference between a hero an a villain the amount of time the narrative spends focused on the aspects of the character that are sympathetic? Is it simply the lines each character crosses and refuses to cross? How important is the idea of morality in telling stories of heroes and villains? – ronannar2 years ago
It might be helpful to take note of the context of the characters presentation, not only their story line, but how other features signal other, less seen, potential character links, I think Joachim Phoenix's Joker character walking down the stairs to convicted pedophile, Gary Glitter's song. Interesting that! – cwekerle2 years ago
I think that while sympathy can make for good background of a villain, I always think that moral ambiguity is what can make a good villain, great. For an ambiguous “villain” I would like to turn us towards Frank Herbert’s Dune. Spoilers ahead for books one and two. Paul, our protagonist of Dune and son of a Duke to a great house, seemingly does it all by the end of the first book of Herbert’s series. He becomes a hero, not only does he achieve standards that were practically undefinable (becoming the Kwisatz Haderach) but he also frees the native people of Arrakis, and seeks vengeance of his father and the great house he belonged to prior. Paul beats the bad guys, he becomes (quite literally) emperor of the universe, and he even gets the girl! He seems great, until book two comes into play. Dune Messiah details the lasting effects of Paul’s work. Paul has not only used the native people of Arrakis to become a great and powerful religious figure, but he has incited a Jihad lasting years, killing billions of people, even quoting that he has killed more than the ancient historical figure of Adolf Hitler (that is also real, I was absolutely surprised to read it). What I am trying to get at is this, that while Paul really ends up becoming a villain in his own way, he’s an intriguing villain because of his moral enigma. Sure, Paul did some helpful things through the books, but Paul really could be seen (and mostly is, in a way) as a villain, not only to Arrakis and it’s people, but to the universe and the endless number of people he has killed just for them to follow his religious and political empire. Like I have said, sure sympathy can make a good villain. Even crossing the line like you’ve stated can be a good way too, but to make the actions of this villain questionable, make them morally ambiguous, spark a debate, that is what can make them really interesting and really great. – eaonhurley2 years ago
I think it makes them compelling when they don't want to destroy the world. As you said. I wanna watch the world burn is outdated. Villians with dedication are the most popular ones. Joker, Ozymandias, Killmonger, etc. These characters had a dedication for a specific reason. And this reason mostly comes from experience. Back then, villains were just destroyers. But now, screenwriters create them with meaning and with character. They have their own thoughts, ideas, and body language. To create a compelling villain, the writer should work on them precisely as same as a protagonist. Namor is a good example. He is stuck in between. He wants to protect his nation from humanity. It is acceptable. Makes him a solid character. Some call him a villain, but I don't think he is. Yet his desire to wage war against all humans makes him a weak character, either. And this is the screenwriter's problem. A simple sentence can destroy the whole character and its path. – valeriiege2 years ago
Ever since "Arcane: League of Legends" came out, the praises haven't stopped and are still keeping the show alive in people's minds. Even months later, people are still loving its story, characters and storytelling because it has come out in an era where diversity and an agenda have now convinced screen writers and comic book writers that it was enough to make a good story.
So many things stood out in "Arcane", but one of the most important was the way female characters were written. Violet, Caitlyn, Jinx, Councilman Medarda… they were written and characterized in a way that made them both appear strong and weak at the same time. Circumstances of the story showed their vulnerability and their strength in a matter of 'Show, don't tell' that has been lost these past few years in movies and TV shows where they have female leads.
This begs the question as to what else could have made these female characters so appealing to the public upon the release of the hit Netflix series. What has made them stand out so much in "Arcane: League of Legends" among the throng of other female characters? How has the writing of the show made them special and quite unique in their own way?
Arcane is an excellent show. There are a host of well developed female characters in the show (as well as male characters). I think that one of the things that make the characters so great are that the characters all have clear goals, desires, and fears that they are dealing with throughout the season. Rather than simply being a love interest or minor background characters, each of the characters has their own arc, with nuanced exploration of who they are and what they want. – Sean Gadus2 years ago
I find this really interesting. I watched Arcane through twice; once alone and once with my parents. Watch through one I found myself in adoration of Councilman Medara. Arcane fascinatingly has no inherently right or wrong people; they are borne of their ideas and upbringing which shape their decisions (like real people). I find other shows haven't really done this with women to the same extent, haven't given them the space to be debatable or mildly disagreeable but still very likeable. It also helps that it's rare in this type of media to see a person of colour with this depth of character. The second time was a bit different. It came with a few insensitive remarks from my father about character design, mainly how they're depicted in similar ways to his eras sex icons were portrayed. I don't necessarily agree, and I doubt these designs were made entirely for this purpose and yet his comment has me thinking about how much their likeability is tied to their character design, and would we like them less without Jinx's iconic braids or V's build. I'd say no, Caitlyn's outfits aren't too remarkable and I love her character's progression. – Zephyr2 years ago
This is a great topic, I have re-watched the series multiple times. The way the writers deal with gender in the story is very unique in how they neutralise gender stereotypes, with not only the women but also the men. I particularly applaud how they show Vi taking many hits, and showing the ugly side of violence that isn't often shown on female characters. – TheResearchPixie2 years ago
I think female characters are seen as more appealing because they finally get the representation in video games. – hafsakhan3102 years ago
I definitely agree that the female characters in Arcane stand out from other films and tv shows I've watched. They have actual depth and personality. We have strong, capable characters like Vi and Caitlyn who we actually want to root for. We have an interesting antagonist like Sevika who is respected by someone with the kind of power Silco has. None of the female characters (including even Mel and Jinx) are treated as if because they are women they have a less important role. They're just treated as people with their own trauma, expectations, motives, etc. Many of the women in the show exist, not to serve some arbitrary purpose or to prop up a male character, but because they are important to the story. – AnushkaJ2 years ago
Having female characters as the main characters for a show, which came from a game, which is not only male-dominated, but often sexist within the gaming community, is a very smart move from the producers/Riot. League of Legends players, along with many other consumers of this show, cannot deny how amazing the story was, and how amazing the main characters' lives were portrayed and I think this was really a powerful way to combat the negative perspective of women in games. Well done Riot, and lovely article! – Aleyna2 years ago
With shows ranging from the obvious (The Office) to others of less prominence (Degrassi), what does it take for a show to catch on in the US? With a show like the Office, it seemed a US version was needed, but shows such as Degrassi made it internationally and then had others based off of them. What others are there and what writers, directors, actors made became bigger because of it?
Including some examples of US remakes that weren’t successful can lend more depth to the reasoning behind these remakes – Anna Samson2 years ago
As the devil's advocate, what about foreign TV shows that ought to never be remade for US audience, because they nobody will be able to 'get it right'? – greenturnedblue2 years ago
I like the topic but perhaps you can identify 1-2 shows you would like potential writer to discuss or rephrase: "What two other shows are there and what writers, directors, actors did it make bigger because of it? – Montayj792 years ago
I could see this being popular. There are plenty of shows I would like to see brought to the US. – Hannahegeorge2 years ago
A Touch of Frost, Inspector Morse, Inspector Lynley, Vera … Free to air TV (at least in Australia where I am) consistently cycles such British crime series as these on repeat. Are such series perennial favourites, and if they are, why? Is it the characters? Or is it the familiar comfort and repetitiveness of the storylines? Does the quality of the shows or the popularity of crime as a genre play a part? Maybe it’s a combination of the above—or maybe these series are not perennial favourites and are rather the entertainment of only the unadventurous, narrow-minded, or deprived.
Is what is sought/gained from the entertainment experience such series offer the same as or distinct from other forms of crime drama (less/more episodic examples, those produced around the world, shows offered on subscription streaming services etc.)? How does "quality" in terms of the writing and production of the shows compare? An investigation of these questions could potentially include books, noting that the examples above were originally based on book series.
This could be a massive topic, but it would be fun to see at least some of it explored …
Is "perennial favourite" a common expression in Australia or elsewhere? I wonder if its use, over "classic" or "timeless," may restrict the global audience to a specific view or local perspective, if that happens to be the case. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Comic books, back in the day, were the dose of tiger balm to the congested chest. They were painful narratives that made us think, that put our problems into the perspectives of a false world so a hero could show us they can be solved and the villains of our lives vanquished. Unfortunately, the solutions are solely on the page or on the screen, now with the Netflix series' of Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage, but does that erase the effect they have on us as viewers and readers?
Do the shows take some issues too far? Present them too blatantly or too straight-forward for escapism?
Are they too real and too relevant? Or exactly what we need?
Something else to consider would be whether or not the intention of comic books is still escapism. As entertainment becomes increasingly politicized, the escapism aspect may sit on a balance with a desire to provide political commentary. If you wanted to do that more broadly, too, you could look at the balance of escapism and commentary in modern comic books or their adaptations (like Daredevil/Jessica Jones/Luke Cage), which I feel like is what you might be trying to do. There's an excellent article about Ta-Nehisi Coates discussing his run of Black Panther which touches on this --> http://kotaku.com/ta-nehisi-coates-is-trying-to-do-right-by-marvel-comics-1769418783 – Sadie Britton8 years ago
I think the subjective nature social consciousness makes this a hard question to answer. Comics have always run the gamut from utterly ridiculous to uncomfortably real but a lot of that is in the personal interpretation. Most comics aren't going to be as clear in their messaging as Captain America punching Hitler in the face. The X-Men arose as an allegory for the Civil Rights movement but not every white comic reader in the 60s was thinking "I see, this is like how we treat black people". However black comic readers may have connected with the story in a different way. Jessica Jones and Luke Cage both seemed overtly political but technically were recreations of plot lines that were decades old. When Brock Turner is making headlines, Jessica's inability to consent holds more weight. When Black Lives Matter plays a large part in the political sphere, a bulletproof black guy (in a hoodie) holds more weight. Your environment and your gender/racial/sexual identity change whether you view it as a nice work of fiction or a very political one. – LC Morisset8 years ago
Whoever decides to write a piece about this topic, must keep the line about comic books being "the dose of tiger balm to the congested chest." Otherwise, no success will be achieved. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Money in Naruto comes in the form of 'Ryo'. However, it isn't ever explicitly mentioned how money is received or created. For example, Kakashi Hatake. Previously, he was part of the ANBU Black Ops, then soon became a jonin-level, academy teacher. What kind of income did he get while he was working as an ANBU? If any? Compare him to a chunin, academy teacher like Iruka Umino. What kind of income did he get? If you compare them together, would that mean Kakashi is significantly wealthier than Iruka?
Not trying to bash this topic, but I genuinely do not know how interesting of an article this will be, as the series does not focus on money that much. So, there is really not much to say. (I think there might be some filler episodes that address wealth, but they're filler so whether they match/can be considered canon is actually debatable.) We only get a few brief explanations about ninja's pay. I would have to do some digging to confirm, but I do recall that orphans get their needs taken care of by the village (at least in the hidden leaf. Other villages have differing policies.) until they are old enough to earn money for themselves. So, this is how Naruto and Sasuke are being taken care of before they become genin. During the early chapters/episodes when Naruto is getting his early mission it is stated that ninja's tend to get paid upon completion of a mission. A portion of that pay goes to the village and that is how the village and ninja's make money. Where never told how that money is split, but it is made clear that the village is very similar to a private military company. With the Hokage and elders acting as contractors, and the ninja's acting like mercenaries. The pay is based off the difficulty of the mission. (I recalling this being stated just before the Zabuza arc starts. Naruto is complaining about how their getting lame missions like chasing a cat, and wants something more difficult to prove himself.) Other than that I do not recall much else being said about the pay. I do know every village also has a Daimyo (Lord of the country) so they could be getting pay from them as well, but once again to my knowledge nothing is stated. – Blackcat1302 years ago
To add to that, how does Naruto sustain himself? He's lived by himself since he was a child, does he receive an allowance from the Hokage? – EvanLizardiSimo2 years ago
Studying the economics of an anime world sounds like an interesting topic! Maybe you could extend this beyond Naruto as well, and compare a couple of other shonen anime in which money isn't the central focus. – Sangnat2 years ago
This is one of the thing I really don't like about Naruto. Despite being such a long run it never even scratched the economics side of the world building. One of the untouched side by Kishimoto. On the other hand HxH did it really well while explaining the world building.
Now they should do it in Boruto(since Naruto is the Hokege) but I don't think they are doing it. – tasin1 year ago
Netflix made binge watching a household phenomenon. In fact, it was one of their biggest selling points.
But now they are going to release episodes weekly instead of releasing entire seasons at once. Why is television reverting back to cable formats? What are the possible cons of binge watching culture and is it sustainable? Is Netflix following HBO Max’s success in weekly releases? Is binge watching conducive to long term streaming revenue? Additionally, how do weekly releases impact viewers differently than entire seasons being released at once?
Besides all the topics on binge watching that we have, I forgot to mention that we also have at least one published article focused on this specific phenomenon. It may be a good idea to look into it to make sure one is not repeating ideas that have already been explored. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Binge-watching, as an extreme, can cause some health issues; one being a long period of constant physical inactivity. However, companies replicating the successes of other companies is pretty common. That phenomenon is seen in the addition of "stories" to many social media platforms, or the simplification of company logos. – lorem1psum2 years ago
There are many video essays on Youtube talking about the downfall of Netflix and the binge watch format definitely contributed to it. If all your fans are watching things that take at least a year to produce in a few days, you need to constantly pump out new content which will be of lesser quality. – sabrinaellis2 years ago
*This can be argued from either Marxist or Anarchist perspective. As I'm not an anarchist I will present the topic from my perspective but the author is free to analyze with whatever school of thought they see as suitable.
The Robert Eggers film, The Lighthouse stars Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe as two men charged with the upkeep of a lighthouse. Throughout the course of the film the audience is shown the relationship of the two men, which is that of worker and boss. The Worker, Howard (Pattison) is younger and serves at the will of the boss, Wake(Dafoe) who is older.
The division of Labor is shown to be highly unequal as Wake (Dafoe) works considerably less and does considerably easier work than Howard (Pattinson). This is exacerbated by the fact that Wake controls not just how much Howard will be paid at the end of their shift but also if he will even be paid at all. The dynamic is severely unbalanced and rigidly show, the boss is able to control the worker with the threat of starvation.
The film explores other facets of domination, control, and but one key theme is liberation, that is escaping the need to labor and being free to exist. Wake has attained it, Howard seeks to reach that.
This is echoed by the fact Wake, is the only one to work the light. While Howard is forced to toil below. Drawing parallels to the idea of skilled vs. unskilled labor.
Of note, the two men share quite a number of similarities and it can even be said they're the same man at different points in his life, but then what can be read from the text. The oppressed worker himself becoming an oppressor. Indeed when Howard lashes out at Wake and turns him into a dog, is he in fact liberated?
"This is the Police" was a top down simulation game, in the vein of Sim City where, you play as a police chief. It happened to be released during the rise of Black Lives Matter and Gamergate, but went out of its way to say it was "not a political game but a human one", or at least that is what the developers claimed.
This is the Police, as game has a fail state, you have to make certain decisions or the game will end. In the case of your player character you are fired or killed for making decisions that could or would be read as moral, for example, not firing certain officers for their race or investigating crimes that mafia members don't want you to.
Hannah Arendt, wrote of Eichmann, how he wasn't amoral, wasn't a monster, and instead of how ordinary he was. How his motivation to send millions to their death wasn't motivated by sadism but shallowness and carelessness. He didn't think of the consequences of those actions.
Within the narrative of This is the Police, the player is faced with various situations were their own morality may come into conflict with the story. And that should be examined as even if the game is "not political" it does reflect a volatile political situation.
Why are you as a player character rewarded for being corrupt? Examinations of police corruption merit discussion but the game seems more than comfortable in presenting the idea of corruption without inspecting it. It's the nature of the system and as such is immutable.
This gives room for analysis of the actions the game forces you to take, why are those the only possible actions, why were some scenarios added and why not others? Moreover, what does it say about this "human game" as per the developers and its commentary on the nature of humans?