The new season of Black Mirror is in production. Netflix has now bought the rights and is changing the structure of the series, expanding to 12 episodes for this new season. They will no longer feature on TV but exclusively on Netflix and online. What can we expect from the new season? Will these changes impact the quality of the narrative? Will the themes be explored in a similar way and as thoroughly? Do you think they would benefit from linking episodes together since they now have more (although this might not be their ambition)?
Black Mirror is a good show to focus on, being that it is, in fact, Britain's response to our "Twilight Zone." – WebJJohnston9 years ago
The TV Channel BBC 3 has just turned into an online channel, abandoning its television platform to embrace the digital entirely. It has always targeted young people yet had low audiences and did not make much profit. The decision to turn completely digital and online seems to be BBC's way to keep its 'young' audience, who spends more time online than in front of the TV. What is there to gain? What is there to loose? How far until a TV channel is pushed to completely reinvent itself? Is the future of TV online?
Animated TV shows over the last decade or so have been following a certain trend. It would seem, that if an animated show is popular (let's consider for example, Adventure Time–having spawned numerous types of merchandise, comics, and video games), despite having some sort of intended (I use the term loosely here) audience of younger viewers (exampled by what network may pick up a show, like Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network), it grows a larger audience in older viewers as well, the "unintended" audience. What could cause this? Is there a notable trend in TV shows this happens with, like Steven Universe, Star Butterfly vs. the Forces of Evil, and so on? (Important to note the differentiation between shows such as these and those that have an older audience in mind, like Futurama and Bojack Horseman).
I like this topic but you should also include reference to things like lore, backstory, depth, etc. Adventure Time and Steven Universe have had an impact on older audiences most likely due to a developed lore system along with darker subtext that older viewers can enjoy on a more intellectual level. It is just something important that differentiates these works from shows like, I don't know, SpongeBob SquarePants or Fairly Oddparents. – Connor9 years ago
The work of Concept Artists is one of passion, hard-work, determination and patience. They come up with incredible designs that really help the production and give a visual stimuli to directors, producers, set designers, production managers and art directors. They manage to translate the director's and screenwriter's vision into beautiful images that are then used as a basis to convey the film's atmosphere and tone. They also help the technicians (lighting, camera work) and touch upon all aspects of production. It would be interesting if someone decided to shed a bit more light on these works. What is a concept artist? What do they achieve? How do they impact? Also, would be really interesting to find the concept art for big films to illustrate the point, like Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings or Marvel Universe films etc…
Disney animated films also have really beautiful concept art. – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
Another great movie to have a concept art for is Sleeping Beauty. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
'The Magical Negro' is a trope in American cinema in which a white protagonist is "saved" through the efforts of a self-sacrificing, wise, spiritually prophetic and often mysterious African-American. Examples include Will Smith in 'The Legend of Bagger Vance' and Michael Clarke Duncan in 'The Green Mile'. It is worth exploring the idea that white America once viewed Obama as a type of 'Magical Negro' when elected in 2008; interpreting his message of "hope and change" as an oath to drastically improve race relations. However, by 2016, race relations are infinitely more strained, and many who initially supported Obama now feel disgruntled and let down by what they see as a failure to make good on his promises (even though his rhetoric never truly specified this issue to that great a degree, and was spun by the media to reflect the general public's desires). The Right also manipulates this issue to use as a strike against him. How might the specifics of the cinematic stereotype reflect this surge of negative feelings toward Obama? Do white Americans subconsciously rely on this trope politically as an effort for them to feel safe and comfortable with black people (specifically men)? Has film conditioned them to expect this from black men of influence?
This is interesting topic. I think comparing films from the periods before Obama, during his presidency, and the recent portrayals to examine any significant changes. Also, if there is a negative portrayal, in what aspect? - i.e incompetency or personality flaw etc. – idleric9 years ago
Do white Americans subconsciously rely on this trope politically as an effort for them to feel safe and comfortable with black people (specifically men)? This is a very good question. The number of negative portrayals greatly outweighs the number of positive portrayals of African-American males in the media. Whoever writes on this topic should look at some causes as to why people don't feel safe and comfortable around non-White people. This includes non-White to non-White interactions. Perhaps traditional media outlets are some of the greatest culprits in perpetuating negative interactions amongst diversity. The person who writes on this topic could also look into digital identities developed and the success of diverse interactions online. – Munjeera9 years ago
Someone I think would be perfect to contact about this idea would be Siobhan Carter-David from Southern Connecticut State University. I recently presented at a conference with her and we were paired on the "Race and Symbolic Objects" panel. Her utilization of pop culture to examine blackness in America was very impressive.
carterdavis1@southernct.edu
Give it a shot! – Dillon Raborn8 years ago
In the humanities classroom—I speak in particular of literature here—what is the role of the professor now? Is it changing? How has it changed? Does the professor at times hold and use too much power so as to be authoritative with his published books and many letters behind her name? Is the professor a facilitator only that aids the literature student in finding his way? How often should a student openly disagree with or challenge professorial authority? In other words, in their attempts at dismantling authority, showing hegemony for what it is, separating us from the paradigms in which we unwittingly live, do professors also ironically demand certain kinds of "knowledge" which they ought not to?
Depends on the prof...There are as many different types of profs as there are students. I don't think they can be lumped into one category. In any profession there are people who abuse their power or who altruistically give of their time and knowledge. Perhaps whoever writes this article could look at how professors are portrayed in literature. The writer could also look at how the role of professors are depicted in movies even though the topic is in the literature category if the writer wanted to expand. In the kids movie Big Hero Six the prof was the villain. Surprise!! But how are most profs roles written? As villains or heroes? – Munjeera9 years ago
I personally think they can perform all these kinds of roles. Take your university -or the academic world- as a micro-society; everyone of this people has a role to play and fills it with individuality. A professor might choose to focus on his/her students learning because he's not able to produce academic material; another one may produce it, but become frustrated because the academic community doesn't value it, so he pushes his ideas on his students with authority; and so on. There's no fixed role for the professor. I've had teachers who wouldn't admit any answer as right as well as those who would agree to anything, as long as it was inventive; those pursuing the improvement of the whole class, and those motivating us to fight like dogs for points. They are human beings with a determinate set of goals, ideas and complexes; and yes, they have a position of power that 'practically' would be unwise to challenge. If you want to dismantle authority, you may always find other kinds of spaces: a conversation, your own published book. – Paul Iago9 years ago
Speaking as a professor, I can tell you that every one of us has a different teaching style, personality, size of ego, and pedagogical philosophy; as well as what we believe is important in the classroom atmosphere. You will find Wielders of Truth, Dictators, and Facilitators in every discipline; in every department; often all in one person! It really is about the individual. Interacting with students in the classroom is often based on the students themselves - not all students will respond the same way to the same material. Some classes are talkative and like to discuss issues, some do not; some seem as a general group to be defensive, or bored, or engaged, or laid-back, or hyper, or distracted (and if it's a 2 pm class, everyone is just trying not to fall asleep), so we have to (or ought to, at least) adapt our teaching strategies in turn. But your topic is actually very timely, as it is closely related to the current, often passionate debate over tenure: its perceived benefits and drawbacks, and whether or not it is a guarantee of free speech (as it is meant to be), or a free pass to be self-serving, lazy, and/or abusive toward students. Good stuff here. However, can you clarify the last part for me? I understand the implicit irony of expecting compliance while simultaneously preaching free thought and raging against the machine, but I'm not sure what you mean by demanding (?) knowledge "they ought not to be" requesting. Do you mean they are being inappropriate? In what way? – Katheryn9 years ago
To second the above comment, I, as a professor, would appriciate more nuance. Sometimes students challenge a professor with no evidence to back up their claims. There is a right way and a wrong way to challenge authority and the people with more letters at the back of their name are better trained in the art of critical analysis. I teach theatre which is close to literature and there IS a such thing as a wrong interpretation if it cannot be backed by textual evidence or dramaturgy. – Christen Mandracchia9 years ago
I teach theatre too! - seconded. – Katheryn9 years ago
Much of the holiday season is saturated with a canon of Christmas movies. However, the recent release of "Krampus" has reminded movie goers that there are some darker holiday legends. Analyze these lesser known stories and whether or not you think they should be considered for holiday prime time.
What I like about this concept is that we can start expanding the lens through which we look at holidays. Many of the modern Christian religions have pagan and polytheistic roots, and gives writers and audiences new territory to explore in regards to other cultural mythologies, as long as the proper respect is paid to the originators and the context of the story. – artemis8229 years ago
I love this idea, and agree with the above comment - there are a lot of darker roots that would be fun to explore. Great concept! – Hannah Spencer9 years ago
I think they should be explored. At the very least some of them have some moral lessons. And others remind us of what's important in life. – Tatijana9 years ago
Wow, I love this concept! I am totally up for exploring the roots of holidays! As someone who identifies as pagan, I would love to see the original roots of the holidays explored more. I don't know if "holidays" specifically refers to the winter season or holidays in general, but the director of "Krampus," Michael Dougherty, has done the original, "darker holiday legends" theme with both "Krampus" and "Trick 'r Treat" (Samhain). In regards to "Krampus," It is also an interesting question how we determine what is a true "holiday movie." Krampus is a Christmas movie, but it likely won't air on Lifetime any time soon. – emilydeibler9 years ago
Krampus has come up in recent years in different genres of tv as well. American Dad has an episode revolving around Krampus. Although not Krampus, in The Office (US) Dwight brings up the Christmas legend of Belsnickel. What's inspired the reintroduction of Christmas-time dark tales? Are we just bored of Santa Claus? – Slaidey9 years ago
I would like to see what writing does to people on a psychological, emotional, and mental level. I know of a study that suggests writing about an issue we are facing in life helps us heal, but I'm wondering about writing in the realm of fiction and creative nonfiction, rather than just journaling about the issues in life. I'm also wondering if other studies exist on this subject and encourage any takers to go deeper than the surface for this topic.
When I write, I frequently go into my character's mind, to the point I feel like I'm in another mindset completely. This helps to understand multiple points of views and how may different types of characters might think. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Therapeutic writing as non fiction vs fiction would be a fascinating study! I find journaling helps one work through pent up emotions but fiction can help express abstract feelings. Maybe a little section could address the difference in benefits between therapeutic writing and therapeutic art, it would be very interesting to see how effective those two modes of expression are at helping someone cope. – Slaidey9 years ago
One of the reasons I describe myself as a writer is that I've found that if I'm not writing regularly, I'm not as mentally healthy; I seem to need the outlet. The effect is very specifically fiction-centric -- academic and non-fiction writing doesn't provide the same release. I would love to read some psychologically-based research on why that's true. – Monique9 years ago
Writing can really help people deal with trauma because it allows one to communicate inner thoughts and self-reflections free of judgement. I think this would be a really cool idea and that you should pursue it. I love the idea of writing in the realm of creative nonfiction and, in a way, conducting your own case study about the psychological, emotional, and mental affects writing has on people. – Morgan Muller9 years ago
There are studies that I've seen that expressive writing helps with depression, anxiety, mood stimulation. If you look things up online you can see the studies created for that. Just taking 15 to 30 minutes out of each day is even enough to change a person's mood. I think it's important to get into your character's mindset and I think it can really change a person's mood good or bad as the situation is written out but you feel satisfaction in the end and the outcome. I believe if a person is feeling a specific way or dealing with something, writing it out and fictionalizing it can give them a way to cope and look over it and see one of the many possible outcomes written before them to put their mind to ease just a little bit.But as Slaidey said, it would be fantastic to see just how the difference is between non-fiction and fiction writing and the mood changes of the writers afterwards! – shelbysf9 years ago
I looked into this a bit during my degree and some studies I can suggest are... Mcardle, S. and Byrt, R. (2001) ‘Fiction, poetry and mental health: expressive and therapeutic uses of literature’, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 8: 517–524. Sexton, J.D. and Pennebaker, J.W. (2009) ‘The healing powers of expressive writing’, in S.B. Kaufman and J.C. Kaufman (eds.) The psychology of creative writing, pp. 264-274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. If you look up therapeutic writing / therapeutic reading / narrative therapy some more relevant studies may come up (especially if the ones listed above are difficult to access, apologies if they are!) For more general stuff about narrative and therapy/psychology: Riessman, C. and Quinney, L. (2005) ‘Narrative in social work: a critical review’, Qualitative Social Work, 4 (4): 391-412. Kleinman, A. (1998) The illness narratives: suffering, healing, and the human condition. United States: Basic Books. Harre, R. (1997) ‘An outline of the main methods for social psychology’, in N. Hayes (ed.) Doing qualitative analysis in psychology, pp. 17-37. Hove: Psychology Press. Hayes, N. (1997) ‘Introduction to Part I’, in N. Hayes (ed.) Doing qualitative analysis in
psychology, pp. 11-16. Hove: Psychology Press. Emerson, P. and Frosh, S. (2004) Critical Narrative Analysis in Psychology: A Guide to
Practice, revised edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Hope this helps! :) – Camille Brouard9 years ago
When I write, even if it's not about my life, I find it very therapeutic. – kendalld9 years ago
As Kendal said, writing for me is also very therapeutic and also a creative release. – Munjeera9 years ago
What interests me above all of this, is what writing does to memory and ultimately who we are / become. (i.e. how important is writing in the formation of self?), which also plays into our mental--and maybe even physical--health. – AKulik9 years ago
I think it would also be interesting if the article explores why so many great writers struggled with mental health issues. Not that there is necessarily a connection, but the contrast has always been a bit for me: writing being therapeutic and writers struggling with life.
This article from The Guardian might shed some light on the subject:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/13/writers-depression-top-10-risk – faezew9 years ago
Resident Evil Remake and Resident Evil Zero were remastered recently. Resident Evil was considered the historically significant game which led to the immense popularity of zombie horror, and survival horror as whole. But is it still effective? Does Resident Evil's formula still deliver tension and scare as it used to? If so, what does it say about the horror game genres of today? What can the current horror games learn from Resident Evil Remake's strengths and weaknesses?
Well, that depends. Are you asking if it could scare somebody who played through the original, or somebody who is either new to the franchise or that particular entry? I think that the answer depends on who you are trying to scare. If you are trying to scare somebody who played the original, then no because they already played the game and know when the scares are supposed to happen and what they are supposed to be. However, if you are trying to scare somebody who has never played the original, then yes it would more than likely still manage to deliver the intended scare. Maybe this requires a bit more of an in depth look. – Aarogree9 years ago
In my experience, Resident Evil 4 was the last successful game in the RE franchise. This was largely because of the developers' new approach to gameplay and its emphasis on storyline. All titles that followed after were not as successful, because they did not build much further on this new formula. However, Resident Evil as a franchise set the standard for many of its contemporaries and developers that came later. Atmosphere and environment were always major factors. Resident Evil 4's new camera angle (as opposed to the traditional fixed angle), which followed directly behind the protagonist, allowed for the player to appreciate the environment more wholesomely and assume a more immersive role in the game. This new approach can easily be traced to more recent titles like the 'Dead Space' series and 'The Evil Within'. One aspect of Resident Evil 5 that substantially hurt its "horror factor" was introducing a multiplayer option. This significantly diluted the feeling of isolation and desperation that contributed to Resident Evil's success as a horror game. – DoultonSchweizer9 years ago
With a lot of buzz surrounding VR (Playstation VR, Oculus, etc.), what do you think will happen to traditional console gaming and traditional pc gaming? Do you think that VR will be so revolutionary that the majority of gamers will move on from a controller or mouse and keyboard? Or do you think that VR will fall by the wayside like motion controls (Move, Kinect, Wii)?
With dwindling test scores in core Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) disciplines, politicians, policy-makers, and pundits have shifted rhetoric towards emphasizing curriculums geared towards hard sciences, such as Information Technology. As a result, arts education, from visual to written, has become radically divested of school funding from the primary to secondary levels and beyond, in comparison to their more tangible counterparts. Research initiatives are popping up around the country, such as the University of Iowa's "Creative Matters" series through their Office of Research & Economic Development and Arts Advancement committee, to defend the role of creativity and arts education in the classroom, including the hard sciences ((link)
How can creative writing benefit the classroom, and (more importantly) assist students in learning about STEM-based subjects?
Wow, this is something I've never considered, though I certainly don't think creative writing and STEM studies need to be exclusive, just as the humanities and STEM can intersect. I'm very curious about what someone will do with this topic. – emilydeibler9 years ago
Are you looking at K-12 education or college writing? I am in composition studies, and there is a *ton* of research on using creative writing in the composition/English 101 classroom at the college level, as a foundation to teach more specialized writing. There is also a move towards "STEAM"--that is, adding "arts" into STEM education--happening at several universities. – Caitlin Ray9 years ago
I don't think anyone can argue the importance of tech education, but creativity is absolutely necessary. Arts and writing help us think in a different way and exercise our creativity. What is the point of technology, if we don't have the creativity to come up with new and innovative ideas. – Tatijana9 years ago
It's all about balance and developing the separate cognitive skills creativity and STEM force us to use. – 1person9 years ago
Yes! Creativity is definitely a skill that needs to be developed. – DelaneyRoo969 years ago
This is a distinctly political question! It's all tied up in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and how that was designed to create students who could become "effective" workers in a growing STEM based world. What ends up happening, and the Common Core's obsession with both technology and nonfiction is a testament to this, is actually a systematic destruction of opportunities for critical thinking. What is labeled as "critical thinking" seems to actually be "systematic thinking". Creativity and critical awareness should be linked (ie - finding a way around a problem in a creative fashion), but they have been separated. This topic is timely, urgent, and important! I would love to write this topic from a political perspective. – Racoonhands9 years ago
It's comforting to know I am not the only person this dilemma concerns. As a modern era student coursework has become increasingly difficult and demanding. I graduated from high school in the class of 2014. Throughout my education the lack of attention to Arts programs became disturbingly evident. The school board felt it would be best to cut funding on "unnecessary" subjects like art, band, orchestra and creative writing and divert that money towards core curriculum. This may have seemed like the best response to the nations' academic shortcomings but in retrospect it was detrimental and quite frankly suppressive. I saw the effects of this personally and within my peers. In my early years of education I was active in painting, sketching, poetry and I played the cello for my middle school orchestra. These years were the years I excelled the most academically and was a high A, occasional mid B student. I would later be accepted into the Health/Science Magnet program at the high school I would attend as well as Advanced Placement course and Dual Enrollment. Upon entering high school my friends and I were no longer able to continue our passion for orchestra because the district refused to fund a program for high school. The art classes were always packed to the max capacity and difficult to get into. This left me and my friends with only our specialized health/science classes, College Courses and Advanced Placement classes in addition to regular curriculum. My motivation and interest in my academic courses diminished and quickly turned into hostility and contempt towards the education system within the four years. Without a creative outlet I struggled more to focus on my academics (the boring stuff). The psychological effects of constant academic pressure also became evident among all of us. Depression, stress and mainly anxiety riddled through classrooms. Some of my friends dropped out of classes or dropped out all together because the effort required for these didn't yield fulfilling results. The big shining A on a piece of paper sent from the registrars to your parents didn't seem worth the all-nighters of studying and lost moments with loved ones and friends. I understand that the question was "How can creative WRITING benefit the classroom and assist students in learning about STEM-based subjects?", but I believe creative writing is only one of the many mediums that could be used. Our academic system needs to realize that balance between core subjects and creative subjects is essential. With only one and not the other we push young minds to the extreme. Our country needs educated individuals just as much as it needs innovators and artists. By shutting down creativity in schools, we limit the futures of countless individuals and in some instances we condemn them to failure. – sakurathegreat9 years ago
I hark back to Woolf's old line, "Fiction here is likely to contain more truth than fact." When we ask students to write critically, we are asking them to be researchers to "prove" a point—and this is fine in their attempts—however, now and then we as teachers in the profession should remember that, if we are in the humanities at any rate, it is in the creative process that "truth" finds its relief on the page, or strikes a reader. Any particular truth—this is one great thing about the literary essays of old, those by Woolf, Lamb, Montaigne, that they gathered up their materials in one pail and, depending how the sun shone that day, drew their lines about and pressed onto paper a personal experience, a personal view. Yes, one can be both creative and critical; and often I would say far more discerning and penetrating if one uses the faculty of imagination in the critical process. We in the humanities should know firsthand that truth comes in myriad forms; can never be held; is elusive as time is long. It is in the "moments" of imagination that now and then find the page that a critical point can be at its most effective. – travismckinney9 years ago
Hear hear!!! Western education has definitely become utilitarian over the last two decades. I grew up in the learning is fun movement and am saddened when I see how students of all ages have lost the idea that the learning process and how we learn can be a great experience. Of course the world is a competitive place and there is the survival of the fittest. Hopefully in education there can be good balance between being able to compete and being able to create. Unfortunately, I think that creativity is a luxury afforded in times of economic prosperity. Given the austerity measures worldwide it doesn't appear that creativity in education will make a comeback any time soon. Munjeera – Munjeera9 years ago
Often in TV, we see female characters being portrayed as "strong" if they are irritable, contradictory, or just plain mean. Characters like Abby in Sleepy Hollow, Alicia in the Good Wife, and Amy from Superstore all seem like people I'd want to avoid. Their prickly personalities are supposed to signify that they are confident women who are trying to make it on their own in the world. But is that really what a strong woman is about? Having a personality that makes you unkind to others and very irritable does not seem to constitute the ideal woman in my book. It seems rare that we see a kind, agreeable woman being portrayed as someone who is also strong. What is the perfect combination of spunk and kindness that would make up the ideal "strong" female character?
This is an excellent topic! I find that I usually can't stand female characters in books, movies, and TV lately because they are so one-dimensional. It seems like authors and producers really want to push the "badass female" trope, which always makes her come across as rude, irritable, and like you said, just plain mean. I get that they're trying to make a woman seem tough and able to stand on her own two feet, but in reality, women are not that one-dimensional. A woman can be strong without being unlikable, obnoxious, or "tough." An example I would use is Yuna from Final Fantasy X. She is a very soft-spoken, gentle character, but she is out to save the world, and when she needs to stand up for herself or her friends, boy, does she do it! So I think the answer(s) to your question is/are complex. – Christina Legler9 years ago
Female characters are written by female screenwriters are often the best way to get good strong roles out for female actors. One example is Elaine Pope who wrote for Seinfeld. Elaine the character was one of the first really funny women on TV who did not portray the stereotypically straight "man" for the funny main character. Getting a multi-dimensional female character on TV would require a screenwriter who would have insight into women enough to make them entertaining. Usually conflict is what drives a character and plot. So the conflict would have to be something that would resonate with women. How the main character deals with the conflict with as you put it spunkiness and kindness would be nice to see. I think that Marg Helgenberger and Jorja Fox on CSI were a move in the right direction. Also Amy on Big Bang Theory is both very sweet, smart and strong and not your typical lead actress in Hollywood. – Munjeera9 years ago
This is a fascinating topic and one that I still find myself mulling over in my head. I think when we think of "strength" it's a word that is already so imbued with (sometimes narrow) masculine ideals. As Jack Graham wrote in "Stephen Moffat - A Case For The Prosecution," "Fetishizing ‘power’ in women characters – having them kicking ass and always being ready with a putdown - isn’t the same as writing them as human beings." Perhaps this would be a separate article, but aside from personality, appearance is also a big factor in what makes a female character "strong" (or "feminist"). For example, in video games, I often come across scantily clad women and then have to ask myself if I'm right to criticize the creators for their male gaze-based designs or if I'm accidentally slut-shaming. – txl9 years ago
I did my graduate thesis on this very topic. The trouble anyone who wants to write about this intelligently is going to run into is the answer to this simple question: what is femininity? Any answer that's remotely palatable is going to be complicated and nuanced. Ultimately, it is a social construct. And social constructs change--femininity in 1950 looked much different in 1970, and so on. Coming up with a streamlined definition is tricky, if not impossible in our very fragmented 21st century society. That said, I find the trope to be problematic because it perpetuates a false binary: traits coded as feminine (nurturing, empathy, crying) are weak, and traits coded as masculine (terse, detached, "tough") are strong. Basically, women are only strong if they "act like a man" (the quotes are to indicate skepticism--see above discussion of femininity versus masculinity). Some possible good examples in different genres of womanly women are: Snow on OUAT (I know, the show is terrible, I will not even argue that). Rizzoli and Isles are both great, and a great example of a healthy female friendship. Felicity Smoak on Arrow is another example of femininity to me. I don't really watch any sit-coms anymore because I haven't found one to rival How I Met Your Mother (the greatest sit-com ever), but Lily from HIMYM is a good example, I think. You may want to read Carina Chocano's NYT article entitled: "Tough, Cold, Terse, Taciturn and Prone to Not Saying Goodbye When They Hang Up the Phone"--it was the spark for my thesis.
– ladyabercrombie9 years ago
My Reaction When (MRW), Original Content (OC) and Too Long; Didn't Read (TL;DR) are just a few acronyms and abbreviations that "Imgurians" use to categorize their gallery submissions. The Reddit inspired site has allowed users with profiles the ability to create unique GIFs and MEMEs to share with a community of cynical counterparts and cohorts. The quest for upvotes, "fake internet points" and notoriety motivate people to compete against one another for the most authentic posts. Imgur's meme template enriches participatory media while simultaneously developing a homogenous form of originality. Thus does the platform's production of cookie cutter memes contribute to this trend?
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the revival of TV shows or films from the 90's. The most recent addition to this lineup is Netflex's re-production of sequels to "Full House" and "Gilmore Girls". The remake of Ghostbusters, the Terminator, and Goosebumps are some of the other examples of this shift. What does the revival of such shows or films tell us about our cultural understanding of the 90s? Are we being nostalgic or does the industry tap into our love for such iconic shows, but why? Exploring this idea would require an examination of the cultural significance of such shows or films and to what extent their appeal has resulted in their revival decades later.
And with Nickelodeon rerunning Rugrats, it seems it's the makers that are being nostalgic. Perhaps one of the reasons is that a lot of new comers to the Nickelodeon production team were 90s kids? Maybe. I personally don't know who's I charge and how new they are so I could be wrong but it's worth looking into. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Nick has it's own nostalgia channel now and that is something too, it's like we are keen on being nostalgic 2015 /2016 are all about reviving dead shows, twin peaks is coming back from the 90's and x-files came back from the 90's. it is like the 90's shows are making a comback and they are even talking about having a hey arnold! movie and then a movie with all the old cartoons like rugrats, hey arnold! etc., it's a good way to start to get us to buy series' dvd's haha because that is def what it makes me want to do right now. But, what does it do to us as a generation to see these shows and see the people in these shows grown up and what does it do for the kids who did not know these shows existed and how this is the first show they are going to see and have as full house grown up, instead of as little kids, it is so weird to think about! – scole9 years ago
It's also worth noting that in the 2000s, Rugrats already sort of came back when All Grown Up aired. And as a spin-off/sequel of some sorts, it was actually not that bad at all. I'd say, as a generation, shows like this would rekindle anybody's old love, and make newcomers curious to what the original was all about. Only makes things better. It's a smart move by Nick. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
With Nickelodeon running it's 90s channel, The Splat, I suppose you could say that it's a way of keeping the 90s kids' youthful spirit alive in a way, similar to how Boomerang was aimed towards the Baby Boomers as a nostalgia television block. It seems too soon to be presenting a 90s nostalgia block, but with the fast culture and growing technology, the industry will always rise to this occasion of feeding these audiences what they crave. – Sean Navat Balanon9 years ago
Anime is mostly known for filler, but sometimes, even books or movies, TV shows or anything else, can have filler too. This article would examine such instances and how they were received.
Did no one catch the obvious problem with this topic before they approved it? How is Anime "mostly" known for filler? A prominent trait of Anime is filler. But Anime is "mostly known" for filler," it's mostly known for crazy hair, loud screaming, school girl sailor outfits, and magic. I get the intention of the description, I just find the opening line misleading and poorly phrased. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
With Anime, filler episodes are more or less obvious because there's likely source material (manga or light novel) that it's being based on. For, say, Western, live-action TV shows, what would be a "filler" then? I think it would be important to first define what a filler episode is! As for the second part, I'd imagine most audiences don't like fillers. But in the case of a show like Gintama that's both innovative and meta, fillers can actually be a highlight! – txl9 years ago
I think better wording for this would be that most Anime is notorious for having fillers, most of which is uninteresting and bleak, rather than it is known for fillers. Then again, as mentioned previously, some do fillers right. So open up the discussion to which Anime had good filler arcs and why that was, and what needs to be done in order to make fillers more interesting and engaging. – andreacr8 years ago
Sometimes, an Anime ends before it's supposed to, or it ends in a poor way, a way devoid of any meaning. Surely it's not just a decision on the part of the directors to discontinue it without giving a coherent ending. Anime like Pandora Hearts, Blood Lad, and Darker than Black gives that sort of vibe. Why does this happen, what options can a viewer explore if they want to satiate their hunger for more?
Some animes end because the viewer rating expectation is not fulfilled. Pandora Hearts is still ongoing as a manga, so technically it didn't end. It just wasn't funded in that medium. – Jill9 years ago
Yes, and that's sort of what I'm talking about. I know the manga is ongoing, but what caused viewer rating to go down? Why not give the first season an open-close ending and leave whether or not to continue on how things look later? – SpectreWriter9 years ago
This wouldn't have anything to do with how Gangsta ended? Because... that ended on a cliffhanger from what I heard. – DustinKop9 years ago
Often money or lack of money is the primary reason anime's end prematurely. Furthermore, the ratings for the anime could be too low to justify continuing. I think that the manga versions can sometimes be more successful than the anime, and vice versa. – Jiraiyan9 years ago
I agree with the previous comments. As with any series, even Western, live-action shows, anime end because of poor ratings. It's all about the bottom line! – txl9 years ago
Analyze the 2015 hit anime series, Death Parade, and discuss the meaning of the afterlife according to the series. What are the rules of the afterlife and the beings that reside within it? Talk about the concept of good and evil, what is deemed to be right and wrong and the effect that it has on the characters in the future.
I would love to write on this topic as well. Death Parade is awesome haha. But when you say the rules of the afterlife according to the series in relation to the western view of the afterlife (heaven vs hell) or in terms of reincarnation? (Like how the characters can relive their lives if they win) Also, I think you should also maybe consider the middle ground of good and evil, or the idea of the spectator, as seen through Decim. He isn't good or evil but seems to have some sense of morality? – kmjp9 years ago
Going on the Arrow sub-reddit there seems to be several "who's in the grave?" everyday. I suggest having a definitive roundup of who could be the person theorised about so much. Whose death would have the biggest impact on the show? Are Felicity and Thea in the clear now that they've survived near death experiences? The writers/show-runners say Felicity is not in the grave, but could her body be elsewhere and the Felicity in the car with Oliver be a hallucination much like Shado was in the flashbacks. What about Oliver's son? He seems like the next character the show is teasing to die after Malcom told Darkh about him. Would a character the audience has seen maybe just two times leave a big enough impact on the viewers? Would they even go so far as killing off a child? Even with its somewhat darker tone, Arrow still doesn't seem like the sort of show that would do this.
This should aim to be the definitive piece for the "who's in the grave?" theories. Which characters make sense? Which characters don't?
Prime candidates: Diggle, Laurel, Felicity, Thea, William Hawke and possibly Quentin Lance. Finally, is this who grave talk taking away from the rest of the show? This seems like a tunt to get the fandom in on speculating who is going to be killed off when this could have been handled as a surprise death.
Since The Curse of the Black Pearl, Pirates of the Caribbean has been a major franchise for Disney. However, ever since the end of the original trilogy, it's sort of lost its original flair. Should it continue? What should Disney do to revive interest when the fifth one does come out? Why make more?
Maybe detail a few of the major flaws from On Stranger Tides, and how the series has gotten worse from it's premier to it's latest flop. – luminousgloom9 years ago
I was surprised at how... flat and lifeless, and even copycat-ish "On Stranger Tides" both looked and felt in comparison to the Gore Verbinsky trilogy. Nothing about the production looked or acted authentic, and it seemed as if everyone was simply going through the motions in an attempt to recapture the same magic. Almost like the film could have better served as a TV special rather than a theatrical production. However, I think the two key flaws here are the director and the writer(s), as is quite often the case. A more imaginative writer and a more stylistic director would greatly improve the chances of Pirates of the Caribbean regaining its former footing again. I absolutely adore the first three films, almost all equally, because when it comes to movie magic, and great movie-going experiences, I just can't think of anything more perfect and indicative of the concept than Pirates. Pirate stories in general are pretty damn awesome. So I'd love to see them do more if they can make it work. Though, it might actually be nice if they moved away entirely from Jack Sparrow, and created a new lead character who's also a Pirate of some unique background, and gave him a new crew of misfits. That might allow the franchise to revive itself. I love Jack, I really do. But Johnny isn't going to be young and fit for much longer, and I really don't want another Indiana Jones 4, where we keep the same actor around just because they were the coolest part of a franchise. Yes, you will never be able to truly replace them, but you can at least try, or create a brand new character who can be played by someone with a bit more youthful energy. And for Pete's sake, can we please go back to the grimy, greasy green color grading? "On Stranger Tides" felt like the whole movie was lit with flourescents, and it was just too darn pale. Like... that's not what a "Pirate" movie should look like. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Agreed, completely. Changes in directors made the Pirates movies feel more like a removed special, something far removed from canon into something else, something foreign to the Pirates magic. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
I hated the opening scene too. It was too slow, too bizarre, confusing, and shoehorning Jacks dad in again was unnecessary. The opening to Pirates 2 was much more quirky and entertaining. I also never fully understood why Barbosa looked so bad by Pirates 4. Was it all like... a side-effect of his ressurection, where he's hyper-aging and decaying right before our eyes? I don't get it. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
What about its original flair is missing? Maybe clarify on that. I can see how they are sort of going a different direction with the series now, but I did notice that Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley will be back, which is actually really confusing. Try adding your thoughts on how they remove and bring back characters. – kendalld9 years ago
From the first film, Pirates of the Caribbean has basically focused on the inherent code of piracy. But there's a moral dilemma here. Does it defend piracy? Does it deplore it? What message does it send to kids who watch the movie? In the end, are the British Royal Navy really the bad guys?
Swashbuckling and looting on the high seas have always captivated readers. Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island told tales of seafaring outlaws that filled their days by having endless adventures. Their missions included visiting islands seeking riches, battling vicious savages and fighting the oppressive British Navy. The lifestyle of piracy was not entirely anarchistic because loyalty was carefully measured using laws; these supported by an honorable self-governed system. The pirate code of conduct was a way to punished captured enemies as well as providing a necessary social contract between the captain and his crew, an accord that if broken, resulted a stroll off the plank regardless of their rank. More importantly, why was this society revered or even respected by audiences? Is it the little guy taking on the big bad government? These were killers, rapists, etc. It seems odd that we vilify modern day Ethiopian pirates with machine guns yet Europeans are romanticized? Is only white piracy glorious? – Jason0527149 years ago
I believe in one sense the film also shows people's perception of what piracy was during the colonial era. For those who approach to write this particular topic, it would be essential to understand what were some of the circumstances that gave rise to piracy in this time period, and why people misunderstood pirates. – aferozan9 years ago
I don't think the film, in any way, actually condones the act of piracy. Because at no point do we ever see the "hero" pirates, actually steal anything of value (in large quantities anyway) from any innocent bystanders, towns, villages, or rich people. Barbosa's crew ransacks Port Royal because he's desparate to get back all of the gold pieces that belonged to the chest of Cortez, which had cursed them all. But after that point, not a single pirate is seen actually doing what Mr. Gibbs referred to as "a spec of honest piratin'. We DO, however, see them go on adventures, duke it out with a few ships through cannon fire, find ancient treasures and maps to yet more treasures, and involve themselves with curses and magic. All of which are perfectly acceptable things within a fictional story and universe. Yes, they are pirates. Yes, pirating is entirely and morally wrong. Yes, the British Navy and Lord Beckett are actually in the right (for the most part) but are portrayed as the antagonists, simply because we are meant to side with the pirates because our protagonists are with them, and we do not wish to see them die at the hands of this manipulative, egocentric, and pompous businessman. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Also, I completely disagree with Jason052714's suggestion that only white piracy is glorious, or can be glorified in media. Clearly there were numerous ethnicities involved in the Pirates films, and who were part of many different crews. I took to liking each and every pirate in those films because of how entertaining they were. Their race never changed my perception of them. In fact, the films never once gave the impression that race mattered at all when it came to Pirate comradery or the Pirate laws. Everybody on each crew seemed pretty swell with each other. So in this way, I don't think race is the reason we don't glorify modern piracy: it's the fact that older piracy has been heavily romanticized by 19th century literature, and 20th century media. The pirate is an explorer: an anti-heroic figure with no rules and no life obligations. They simply go where the wind takes them. And much like Jason and the Argonauts or Sinbad the Sailor, Pirates have been known to encounter legendary mythical beasts and hazards which made their search for "burried treasure" all the more magnificent to read or learn about. Modern pirates have no such romanticising of their exploits, except perhaps among themselves, and maybe certain people who appreciate what they do for whatever reason. But this would have likely been the same back when Pirates really existed. You would have had a majority of people completely against their actions and existence, but a select few who thought they were a magnificent bunch: mostly likely because the pirates themselves were spinning tales about their travels just like any sailor worth his salt might have done once they reached port after each trip. In modern time, and modern society, however, we have much less room for appreciating people like them, ironically or romantically, and no reason to even romanticize the waters of our world, because we know so much more about them now. Ultimately, there is simply too big of a difference between the image of Captain Hook, Black Beard, or Jack Sparrow, and some angry guy on a rusty metal barge holding an automatic weapon in 2016. The time periods aren't the same, the circumstances and worldly awareness of society isn't the same, the costumes and vessels aren't as imaginative or majestic, and their choices of weapon don't leave the same visual or fanciful impression. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I don't think the films so much defend piracy as much as it romanticizes it. It creates this opposition between Barbosa's crew and Sparrow's, and adds in the British Royal Navy as additional pressure for the protagonists, but if they weren't defending themselves from these two groups of people, they certainly would not be volunteering at homeless shelters and reading to the blind. Because the films romanticize Sparrow's group, it keeps the film from actually having to deal with the moral dilemma, especially since Barbosa's group is dehumanized when they are exposed as being living-dead.
As for the message it sends to kids, the films were rated pg-13, or at least the first one was. The fact that it is a sort of period piece displaces it from modern times to the point that the kids in the audience of the series might not recognize any content in the film that could be applied to current-day life.
The only thing, that occurs to me at the moment, that might affect kids watching these films is gender roles. Although the main male characters do not seem as violent as the enemy, Will is often driven by this need to keep Elizabeth safe, which is stereotypical for male roles. But Elizabeth does not play the role of the typical damsel in distress, and throughout the film, and the entire series, she finds clever, sometimes cunning ways to save herself. I'm not sure how that ties into the theme of piracy, but it does sort of perpetuate the stereotypes of males as the protectors, or seeking revenge, or being violent and courageous by nature, when, obviously, men vary a little more beyond that. – Jenn9 years ago