The She Does Podcast features conversations with creative women making their mark in the field of media. The series has showcased creative professionals from various different industries, from Kirsten Lepore who's written and directed an episode of Cartoon Network's Adventure Time, Academy Award nominee for Winter's Bone, Debra Granik, and Mary Coleman, the Senior Development Executive at Pixar Animation Studios. Why is it important to tell share the success stories of women in creative fields? For inspiration? Does it encourage more women to do so?
Note: This podcast is available on iTunes and at shedoespodcast.com I am not affiliated with them in any way, just found the series very interesting.
I think it does good for aspiring young women in these fields. As someone looking to go into creative media, I find She Does extremely helpful. If you want to do a further indepth look into female focused organizations, Film Fatales is a nationwide group that provides mentorship among female filmmakers. I'm a member, and it's been really helpful just to know that there are people in my city that I can go to for help whenever I need it. – marsthebard9 years ago
Liz Gilbert's "Magic Lessons" podcast is similar. Just a heads up. :) – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
I definitely think, especially when I see a lot more male film directors, that having a podcast where women speak of their goals and accomplishments in creative fields does encourage other women to pursue what they want and engage in fictional narratives. – Emily Deibler9 years ago
I think its extremely important to share the stories of women in creative fields. It tends to be a very male dominant career in terms of leadership. Promoting the experiences and successes of women who have excelled is extremely important to help inspire future generations. – ericaty9 years ago
Explore how the MMORPG game Runescape approaches the study of different in-game cultures within the plot of the game. In this game which features a large fantastical world with many different kingdoms and cultures, how are some of the ways in which the quests and activities encourage a respectful study of different cultures?
Because this is certainly not a phenomenon unique to Runescape, it's essential to talk about how other games --- and other forms of entertainment media --- do this as well, and to identify how, exactly, Runescape does things differently. – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
While it might be helpful, I don't know if this is "essential." Runescape is an enduring game with many examples. There could be volumes of pages written about this phenomenon in other games, but I think it would be best to make it specific. – Cmandra9 years ago
Meme's are interesting "new" ways to express oneself. Some can be funny, stupid, or very deep and political. One can find one and share it or make one and share it, etc. Analyze the impact and/or the efficiency of memes as political art for communicating ideas.
I really like this topic. Meme and internet language has become almost universal, and has traversed its way into daily, even political conversations. We'd have to dive into the origin of the meme, which could be a tricky thing to find in this finnicky internet. – CHRISagi9 years ago
Very interesting topic. Memes are a great new way to express oneself because they can be understood throughout any language. Memes change often, though, so they can be hard to follow – carleydauria9 years ago
A discussion revolving around how horror films are more than just about how scary they are and that the scare factor does not solely define a movie as a horror.
There are films that are visually/semantically not horror films (Alien is THE example) yet the arc of the film strongly resembles that of a horror film.
Horror films usually have some sort of political/social/cultural message to them. There was an Israeli called "Rabies" (or "Kalevet") that had incredibly strong political viewpoints about it's home country wonderfully summed up by the last line in the film, "Country full of shits."
Of course, this could be taken to include how horror movies should also be scary and how that is still an important but not integral aspect to the genre. Also the concept of how what we are scared by/how scared we are is more subjective than objective would be an interesting point for discussion.
I love this topic idea. I feel like "scary" in modern terms tends to deal with "how many jumpscares are there," which is a technique typically misused in many contemporary horror movies. There are many movies as you mentioned that create a certain atmosphere (Alien; Silence of the Lambs) to the point that while they don't traditionally get labeled as horror (sci-fi; thriller), they have a certain tension and resonate on certain visceral levels of both the audience's and the characters' fears. This is similar to how a lot of people didn't see "The Babadook" as scary because it didn't have many jumpscares or scenes where it openly showed the monster, but it relied on dread and the topic of suppressed grief. Similar to how the movie you mention deals with politics, sometimes horror movies are terrifying because of what they reveal about humanity, i.e. Psycho. I'd also say that this goes back to Ann Radcliffe's "horror vs. terror" debate and the issue of ambiguity and unclearness. Unclearness creates terror, but it seems obscuring certain elements like not revealing the monster or not having obvious jumpscares can make viewers impatient or have the movie be seen as "not trying to be scary enough." For this topic, I'd definitely look into what "scary" means to viewers and if that element is necessary for an effective movie. Or can "scary" be wielded effectively? – emilydeibler9 years ago
I forgot to add in the main body of the topic that also the "monster" within a horror film can also represent fears of nations, societies, governments etc. For example, in the film "Them!" giant ants attack an American city and they are portayals of the fears of nuclear and atomic bombs, both those used during WWII and the testing of such weapons done in some unpopulated space in America.
Along with this the "monster" can also be representative of sexual repression of certain groups (homosexuals I think is one example) of people; I believe Robin Wood wrote something regarding this that would be incredibly helpful. – Jamie White9 years ago
Along the same lines of what Emily wrote, it seems these days that a "good" horror film incorporates a lot of gore, jump scares, and violence. I don't think a horror film has to have all of these, but they do have to be scary in SOME way to be billed as a horror film. That being said, horror, like violence, can be implemented into a film in a purposeful way without making it simply spectacular or gratuitous. It's about balancing between cringe-worthy and necessary. – Christina Legler9 years ago
Considering most Renaissance art is actually 'fan art' of the Bible, what place does the upsurge in artistic renditions of pop culture have in the realm of 'high art?' Can the culture of online artists thriving on Tumblr and DeviantArt create traction in academic circles? The same could be asked of fanfiction — writers all over the world write novel-worthy offshoots of popular characters and stories. How can these creators of the 21st century gain recognition outside of the internet and their respective fanbase? Will it ever happen?
You'll also want to talk about whether fanfiction could be considered literature. The question here appears to be: can art that imitates art be considered art in its own right? – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
This is a fascinating topic! I have to say, I'm kind of surprised that there isn't much scholarly interest in fan art, considering there is some academic discussion regarding fanfiction and fandoms. I think one thing you need to address is the legal aspect of this topic. Fanart and fanfiction are technically illegal, since they are derivative works. Many fanfictions are tolerated by authors of the original work, but only under the condition that the fanfic writers stay non-commercial. Some authors don't tolerate fanfiction at all. Same goes for fanart, I believe. So yeah, the illegality of these works might be a big reason as to why they don't get much attention, so it's worth looking into that. – ericg9 years ago
I would say that a focus on either the art or the fictin would be preferable. Otherwise, this runs the risk of being too fleeting, and stretching across too many topics. – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
Very intriguing! I agree with ericg, there is the legal side to fanart and fanfiction to consider as copyright issues do restrict the artists and authors' ability to share their work. But in a way, both fanart and fanfiction are becoming their own categories in art and literature. Now instead of just talking about the two individually, you could compare fanart to fanfiction. How are they developing? Does one seem to have a higher popularity rate than the other? Another question you could ask is: why choose fanart/fiction? If the individual is as talented as they are, what drives them to choose to create something fandom-based instead of an original work? These would all be interesting points to explore. A side note, if you do decide to write about both fanart and fanfiction, I would revise your title, something to the extent of: "The Artists and Authors of Fandoms". – Megan Finsel9 years ago
Generally, a discussion on what Netflix-exclusive shows do differently than their network counterparts.
You have shows like Senses8, Orange is the New Black, Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Master of None, Bojack Horseman and etc.
What do these shows prove differently than shows that are on network television like How to get Away with Murder and Scandal, even Grey's Anatomy. Shows that show the grittiness just like Netflix shows, but in what ways do they differ in what type of grit you can use on network television shows compared to Netflix where creativity is the producer and directors own.
Is this really a fair topic and question to bring up when all they have is two shows? I mean, you can't make any sort of conjecture or hypothesis off of just two instances or examples... really for anything. So why try to do it with this? Besides which, I think you bring up potential concerns and issues for any series that exists out there, either online or on network television. And Netflix has produced far more shows than just the Marvel ones. And from what I've heard and gathered through osmosis, they're all pretty stellar and solid productions. So I'm not quite sure what the interest in discussing the disappointment in Jessica Jones from this particular angle is all about. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I feel like I haven't seen enough negative feedback for either show to make the assumption that the Netflix Original shows are declining. Both of them are only into their first season and (as previously stated) there are only two shows to discuss. It's way too soon to make an assumption like this. – Reese23419 years ago
I agree that a) there are only two (not that long as of yet) shows available and b) the critical consensus I've seen as been pretty positive, so I'm unsure if there is enough evidence to suspect a decline. The only way would be pitting Jessica Jones against Daredevil, but the former is strong and engaging (having watched it all soon after it premiered). They have their issues, but those seem minor. I wouldn't call Jessica Jones a step down at all. Maybe you could form a similar topic concerning Netflix originals (these shows; OitNB; Sense8) in general? Not sure if this has been done, but I'd be curious to see a discussion on what Netflix-exclusive shows do differently than their network counterparts. Anyway, best of luck! – emilydeibler9 years ago
that's actually a really good topic choice (i'll change it to that), thank you @emily you rule!!! :) – scole9 years ago
Hey, no problem. Best of luck! :) – emilydeibler9 years ago
When gamers play video games, it is common that they begin creating their own narrative, or story, through the game. For example in Fallout 3 it is common that players will horde certain items, or wear certain armor for their own reasons. I played Fallout 3 as a samurai, only using a sword and wearing samurai armor. I created the narrative that I was a samurai in the world of fallout and played according to that narrative, restricting the use of guns, stimpacks and anything else. I've created this note to hear your personal narratives that you've created in playing video games. Have you created your own back story to your character in Skyrim, or only drove red cars in G.T.A. Leave me a note!
Fascinating topic. I would definitely be intrigued how games that allow more free roaming affect the gaming experience compared to games with less customization and more restrictions on roaming and character design. That comparison would be interesting to break down. For me, I would create certain characters with certain belief systems in Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. Same with World of Warcraft--such as creating a character who refused to kill animals. – emilydeibler9 years ago
I'd explore Mount and Blade Warband, which is a game that has basically no plot but lots of organic storytelling that just occurs through playing. – MattHotaling9 years ago
This may also be interesting to consider. Behavioral scientists talk a lot about the role of unscripted play in children's lives. For example, is playing in a sandbox better than playing a video game? Minecraft, of course, throws a wrench into their arguments. But this concept of player-created narratives --- which are often "challenges" for adult players --- poses a new question: can unscripted play be found in a scripted environment? – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
Could be worth correlating this to how all the narratives are in part 'self created' - the audience makes meanings themselves out of words on a page, pictures on a screen or sounds in their ear. This also can echo the current article about choice, or the illusion of it, in games like Bioshock. I would stay away from gimmicks you give to the story and focus on the anatomy of the extent to which you always forge your own path when playing a game, no matter how unscripted it is. Compare one extreme to the other - how does the gamer contribute to an absolutely linear story, and what do they gain (or lose) when things become less scripted. Also, approach the full breadth of gaming. There's a temptation to only discuss roleplaying games, but not too long ago 'gamers' were making narratives out of Space Invaders and Street Fighter, and they still are today. – JekoJeko9 years ago
It would be wonderful if games would take into account "self-created" characters and allow the player more customizing options as well as personal developments for each characters. I am an avid Fallout and Elder Scroll gamer, but most of the time I feel disappointed with the lack of personalization - and I must accept that my character's story only exist in my head. To answer your thread, I never really constructed an identity for my Fallout characters mostly because it seemed like there wasn't a lot of room for backstory. (FO3 you're literally a fetus - I mean adult when you leave the vault and FNV, you're shot in the head) Although, those narratives allowed me to create a character alongside the growing plot. It didn't go much further than I am ALWAYS a lady in Pre-War sundress killing people with a melee weapon. Now, I did create an elaborate backstory for my Skyrim character where she ran away from home because of growing imperial forces, the death of her husband and was caught thieving on the border- but she didn't care because she wanted to go to Skyrim anyways. And Skyrim is the sole example of me creating an entire identity and backstory for my character mostly because I accidentally created a pretty Nord. – spiringempress8 years ago
Analyze how Shonda Rhimes incorporates events that are happening in America today, such as black lives matter movement, gay rights, women rights, etc. in the tv show Scandal.
It's almost frighteningly common to meet someone now who plays enough videogames to the point that they've worked it into their head that they want to make games. But there's a very strong difference between playing games and making games, and the pleasure gained from player experience does not directly mirror that of game creation experience. Hours of coding, of 3D animating, or time spent smashing fists against the keyboard in the periods of "crunch time" where designers, programmers, and artists push themselves through hunger, exhaustion, and and frustration to complete a game on time is not in any sense similar to smashing and bashing heads in Skyrim or smashing into cars in Forza.
But, if one disagrees, highlights the pleasure and satisfaction that comes with the completion of a game, of a creation of work(art), then it becomes in our time period very important to understand just how you're going to make a living making games.
Step 1: If you're not making games, start making games. What does this imply? Do painters, writers, musicians, singers, and athletes perform at their best if they aren't doing the thing it is that they do? Making the claim of being a writer means nothing if you don't consistently write. The same goes for making games.
Step 2: Connections & Networking You may not know it, but so much of the production and design of games relies on cooperation between a very large team. The artists and animators do not live in a separate building and do as they please; they communicate with the designers, to make sure they're following the design document, they communicate with the programmers, to make sure they are creating within the realms of possibility, and they are communicating with each other, so that they're all creating the same thing, with the same feeling, and the same soul. If you don't have communicative skills, you need to acquire some. Can you go introduce yourself to a stranger without your hands shaking? If not, my strongest recommendation is to go get a serving job, or something in the service industry, where you are interacting with customers on a daily people. The way to get good at communicating with people is, shockingly similar to the philosophy behind getting good at games, communicating with people. Investigate local video game communities near you. The IGDA (International Game Design Association) is a national organization within the United States with branches in nearly all major cities.
I don't think this topic needs such a long description to explain it's intent or areas of discussion. Something half as long should be able to get the point across. Besides which, I'm sure their must be more than two Steps to making a game and having the right tools at your disposal to do so, whether those be physical, digital, or social tools. And the points you bring up are extremely similar to the production of an animated film or a live-action film, be they a short, a series, or a feature. Also, a discussion like this should include the struggles that a lone programmer will go through to produce a game by themselves with only mild additional help from a few extra artists (who are likely communicating with the lead developer long distance), a composer or sound effects editor, a producer possibly, marketing professionals, so on and so forth: but basically involving only one key creator and programmer who's building the game from the ground up in their own house. FEZ was like this, Undertale was like this. Minecraft was like this I believe. And so was Five Nights At Freddy's 1 through 4. A lot of the same rules apply, but there's far less collaboration going on simply because of each developers particular circumstances. Though whatever the case may be, they all should be capable of collaborating if the opportunity presents itself. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
There are a lot of articles and documentaries floating around the internet about this topic, most of which say the same things you are already saying. Firstly, I think you need to make a distinction between indie developing and developing for companies like Naughty Dog or Ubisoft. Both, I believe, ascribe most to your first point, actually making games. Whether you wish to be a programmer or an artist, I think you should highlight the importance of portfolio and practice. One may have to gain experience working on other projects before developing one's own idea. Another large aspect of getting a game traction is to create an interested team and fan base, both of which require inspiring leadership and practical means of accomplishing the end project. – CHRISagi9 years ago
When does one side, or both, start to confused platonic affection for romance. Can one maintain a healthy friendship with the opposite sex with out developing feelings? If they do develop, should you live in silence, cut the relationship, or confess?
This is a fascinating topic, and it speaks a lot of how relationships between men and women are handled in writing. In real life, when both men and women have a friend of the opposite gender, other friend always hint at you like that friend automatically. Why is this? Why does their automatically have to be romantic implications? You could talk about how writing and other forms of media have reenforced this mindset that men and women are better off as lovers than just friends. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
I think a lot of what gets confused as "specific affection" is simply a very affectionate personality. Both men and women are capable of being extremely polite, helpful, and generous; and yet those feelings can easily be mistaken by one or more persons as genuine attraction or flirting. But it's usually unintentional. It therefore falls to the other person to make reasonable judgements about this seemingly affectionate person, and to rationalize if it really is flirting, or just enthusiasm and politeness. People can also find other people a joy to be around, and can develop a "strong" platonic attachment to them like one would with a sibling. So sometimes it could get rather confusing unless you are honest with each other, and you talk these things out openly. In my case, I am always looking out for a relationship, but I have yet to meet anyone whom I'd genuinely like to ask out for coffee or something, and yet I've had a few people show an interest in me, because they appreciated all the nice things I tried to do for them. I've often been the shoulder to cry on, the person with good advice during tough times, and that can be a comforting quality. I completely understand how the other person feels about me. But I can't in good conscience reciprocate their feelings, nor would it be fair to me to go out with them just because I feel sorry for them. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I also find it really irritating that people still refuse to talk openly about how they feel, and allow their (perhaps misplaced) feelings to be bottled up so much, that if they do finally talk about them, it might make things really awkward forever after. I dislike this idea of "signals," and "secretive gestures," or hints and clues. Things that are all related to flirting, but that only serve to confuse people if they are done unintentionally, and are read incorrectly by the other person. So if one really thinks there could be something there, then it might just be best to talk about it openly. Or, if you feel, or can see that the other person is pursuing other people, or building a life and a career that doesn't look like you could fit in it, perhaps its better not to say anything. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Any article to the contrary (which is, of course that men and women can just be friends) would probably generate a lot of hate and controversy. Finding or understanding that someone is attractive, same gender or opposite, doesn't mean it will interfere with the relationship. So what? They're hot, that doesn't mean you're attracted to them as a person. That's exactly why we as humans don't run around in a giant orgy. The question itself is far too broad. Any given person can attest to being friends with the opposite sex all their life and never developing romantic inclinations. Maybe a more specialized direction like: is it easier to be friends with the opposite gender once you're in a relationship? It sounds silly and is kind of sexist, but I've found that in myself. I didn't have any male friends until I got a boyfriend, now almost all my friends all also males and there's nothing awkward about it. Does having the notion that "nothing can ever happen" make people more socially compatible, knowing no awkwardness need arise and if it does that it doesn't have to mean anything? – Slaidey9 years ago
I'm assuming that this would be applied to scenarios within books? For example, one could do a comparison between books and analyze which offers a more "realistic" representation of the male/female relationship, or how this representation has changed throughout time in literature. As just an analysis of the possibility of men and women being "just friends", I wouldn't think that the content would be suitable for this platform; if someone takes this topic, be sure to tie it in to one of the categories so your hard work isn't rejected! – Laura Jones9 years ago
Along with books, one can examine how this idea is also present in movies or tv. I personally think it would be interesting to show how this idea is reinforced in both literature and tv/movies. – Afasciano189 years ago
Not really a fan of this question as it is exceedingly heteronormative. If anyone were to write this article, they'd have to take the LGBTQ+ community into account. – CHRISagi9 years ago
This is an interesting topic but I have to agree I think it's looking into things over-analytically. I have plenty of female friends and I don't grow the desire to date every single one of them. Plus after you've been in a long relationship you start considering is it worth going trying to be romantically involved with certain girls over others? Not always the case as much as you may think. – SidMot9 years ago
Might be worth it to look at this from a philosophical perspective - particularly modern philosophers who deal with love and sexuality...possible suggestions:
"The Promise of Happiness" by Sara Ahmed
"The Will to Change" by bell hooks
"The History of Sexuality" by Michel Foucault
"I Love to You" by Luce Irigaray
"Works of Love" by Søren Kierkegaard (not really modern, but still pertinent) – SonoftheSpaceman9 years ago
Kinnikuman is the name most people would be familiar with from the dubbed version of its second anime entitled "Ultimate Muscle", not knowing that it is a sequel to Kinnikuman. One would wonder why it has not been released in North America as it moves like a typical shonen story. However, during the times of Japan's naivety compared to today regarding anime, Kinnikuman presents some questionable imagery that would be baffling and unintentionally insulting to other countries. Should Kinnikuman be allowed to have a proper North American release? Or should Kinnikuman be lost from the public eye except to the internet culture and online fandoms?
I'd look into G Gundum for more examples of anime racism that is mostly harmless – MattHotaling9 years ago
With the rise of progressive animated shows for children and adults these days such as Gravity Falls and Steven Universe, a lot of praise has been spreading around for how entertaining the shows are for balancing heart, development, and comedy. However, there seems to be a vocal backlash towards shows that doesn't live up to the expectations of the people who enjoy progressive shows. If an animated show is comedic without much depth or drama, it is garned as idiotic and for some reason, deserves to be hated by many even though those shows never really harmed anyone. This article would discuss the progression of animated shows through time and make comparisons between shows that are different in their presentations. And determine if they truly are meant to be hated, or are just getting attention from people who are not their intended target audience.
Do you have any examples regarding purely comedic shows that get a vocal backlash. Because I would argue that there are some specific shows out there right now that are purely comedic, and they don't serve much in terms of either good humor, or good taste. And thus somewhat deserve a certain amount of negative press for not putting enough concerted effort into making at least a generally entertaining show. For instance, "We Bare Bears" is by and large a purely entertaining comedic series. It doesn't aim to be anything more, and it does not try to have more than a basic moral message in each of its episodes, if they have one at all. But a purely comedic show like "Pickle and Peanut," is just pure garbage by comparison, and offers nothing of wit or substance to its potential audience. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Basically what I mean is that "We Bare Bears" is an excellent series that fosters good gags and humor. Whereas "Pickle and Peanut" does not. Now what does this say about comedic and even gross-out cartoons of the past? Well those shows still have their moments and their audience. But it was also a different time, and they were perfectly fine in their own era. Today, though, I don't think you can quite present the same kind of gross-out content without upsetting far more people than back in the 90s. And I personally can't stand most of it because honestly, its really unappealing. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I noticed that the tag for this is Teen Titans Go, and while I can see why some would call is idiotic, there might be more to it than that. The reason I can see for Teen Titans Go getting so much backlash is not because it is being comedic; rather, it is because it had a serious predecessor that ran incomplete. There are many DC fans that feel like Cartoon Network is mistreating their DC shows. Teen Titans, canceled; Young Justice, Canceled; Green Lantern Core, canceled; it might be that Teen Titans has been running so long while these other shows got canceled while they were arguably of a higher quality. People that want to see serious ideas in animation will probably steer clear of We Bare Bears and Uncle Grandpa because those are label as comedies, while Teen Titans Go came from a line of serious animations. – garland419 years ago
Some weeks ago, there was an episode of the Walking Dead that appeared to serve as a commentary on real world events. It was a story of one group of people, reduced to an almost primitive cult-like state, driven to attack another segment of society that endeavored to hold on to current notions of civilized existence. This group that faced attack was comprised of survivors living in a kind of gated community somewhat untouched by the horrific realities of the outside world.
This one episode could easily be seen as a commentary on our fears of the other, about the encroachment of medieval fundamentalism and our relationship to modernity (as a sometimes violent counterforce). The attackers in this episode had a religious zeal for delivering death as way of providing an answer for the "civilians" ills. Those that survived the onslaught wielded modern weaponry (in contrast to the attackers who were armed only with sharp or blunt instruments, painted faces and madness). Those who lived within the city limits (as it were) and imagined a safe life of homemaking simplicity were cut down while the people trained in the art of killing (even those who first tried to use non-lethal methods) survived.
Obviously, the tradition for the Zombie film as a symbolic experience was set by Romero with Night of The Living Dead (Vietnam) and his follow-up Dawn of THe Dead (consumerism). With The Walking Dead we appear to be in The Age of Terrorism.
The Monster is alive and well, and, as always, is us.
Over the last few years, I've been thinking about graphic novels and comics beyond a "medium." Last year, /Critical Inquiry/ released and issue dedicated to comics and media that include a variety of articles from academics and industry icons (e.g., Chris Ware) that are looking to push the boundaries of the art and aesthetics of the genre. For example, Ware has been pushing (and practicing) a view of graphic novels that plays with the idea of the physical object of a book containing the narrative–this, he notes, is something he's been thinking about as digital comics have become more popular. One of the more interesting projects I've seen recently is by Özge Samanci: GPS Comics ((link) She's also written an article for the International Digital Media and Arts Association exploring how to move graphic novels from discussions of medium to genre: (link) While I dig the idea of comics as a genre, I wonder if there would be a way that we might talk about graphic novels and comics as a aesthetic method rather than as a medium or genre. Thoughts?
I was about to say, "Hey, I took a class on this!" But then I realized. Hmm, for thoughts on how to approach this, maybe the post could start out talking about the concept of comics as a medium (there's also that article where the author examined comics as a language), and then go into why the aesthetic method may be more fitting. There's the GPS comics you mentioned above, as well as the "Building Stories" box of narratives we looked at in class. I'd be fascinated to see someone take this on. Also, there's Topffer's original goal of comics as an accessible education method to consider. – emilydeibler9 years ago
Thanks, Emily. I taught that class. :) – revfigueiredo9 years ago
The fifth instalment of Metal Gear Solid being received with huge praise, take a look over the series and how sexuality, and particularly queer masculinity, has influenced the action. Metal Gear Solid has often, somewhat surprisingly, included queer masculinity, from Vamp in the second instalment to the Extra Ops incident between Snake and Kaz in IV. Explore the place of this, and what it brings to the overarching story and characters.
This new show appears right after AMC's hit show The Walking Dead and tells the story of a Clipper (assassin) named Sunny and his role in the dystopian world called The Badlands. What makes this show so interesting and unique is the variety of different genres it could possibly fall into. It has elements of a classic Kung-Fu movie, bringing us back to the great days of Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan, but it also incorporates elements of magic and other-worldliness that can only be described as fantasy. This show can also be labeled as a dystopia because the setting is very similar to our world and is supposedly set post-apocalypse. This series has the potential to reach a variety age groups: those who are older and appreciate the classic nature of a great Kung-Fu film and those who are younger and enjoy the current phenomena of the dystopia and fantasy genres. Could this menagerie of genres be the television of the future or is this simply an appeal to a wide variety of popular genre fads? How does this show use the varying genres to separate itself from more popular dystopias/post-apocalyptic stories like The Hunger Games, Divergent, and others? Is this a way of creating something unique out of the dystopian genre or is it simply another body in an already over-crowded genre?
What about the show should the focus be on? The interplay between a mish-mash of eastern discipline and action (and choreography/cinematography), American Southern restoration period aesthetics, and medieval feudalism (possibly the common ground between the east and west)? Should it be focused on how this genre is rarely used in television, if at all? Why now? Why go so heavy in kung fu on such an experiment (which seems to be a worthwhile payoff, quality wise at least)? Should it focus on an Asian male actor leading a prominent show, hearkening back to the legacy of Bruce Lee, who brought kung fu to the west more successfully than anyone before him, and to whom all subsequent kung fu/martial arts movies owe a debt of gratitude to? On the otherside of that same coin, why is it that Asian male (and female) action stars get pigeon holed in kung fu master roles? Basically, the prompt needs to be more than just "here's the show and some back ground; write something about it." But yeah, great show. – nsnow9 years ago
It seems like television shows always end the seasons with cliffhangers. But why? It's been a long time since JR was shot and it had people talking for months to try to figure out who was responsible. Do cliffhangers matters anymore? Shows like Misfits managed to have satisfying endings with minor cliffhangers and were able to come back the next season with new stories. What purpose do cliffhangers serve especially in our constantly fractured TV landscape in America it's become common to break seasons in half just to have a winter finale and then a end of the show season finale. Wouldn't no cliffhangers better serve shows like the recently cancelled The Whispers or The Event both of which ended in cliffhangers that will never be resolved. Contrast to show that didnt end in cliffhangers like the miniseries turned full TV show The 4400 which was originally a miniseries that had a satisfying ending. And when it turned into a full series to my recollection ended with a cliffhanger.
I think the cliff-hanger ending (of seasons leading up to the finale) merely try get a rise out of the fans. An example of this was the finale to the third season of House of Cards. But I would not want a cliff-hanger at the finale of the series itself. – luminousgloom9 years ago
Cliff-hanger endings have always served the same purpose: to get people talking, and to convince them to come back in droves for the next season to see what happened. Only in hindsight, if a show gets cancelled before a cliffhanger is resolved, does it seem like a pointless inclusion. But it wouldn't quite be the same if that cliffhanger had been resolved. Some shows can thankfully set things up to end on a good note if they get a memo early enough in advance that their show will be cancelled, which is what happened with "Brisco County Jr." But if it pops up inbetween seasons, then no one can do anything about it, like what happened to "My Name is Earl." – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think it depends. I think you can still have a satisfying show without cliffhangers depending on your genre/show style. I don't think it's necessarily bad to use them though either. It generates intrigue and talk. It allows the viewers to involve themselves in the story even though it's not currently airing and they are waiting for the next season to start. I kind of like the excitement personally. And I like to think and scheme and wonder instead of be handfed the story passively. But again, I think some plots lend better to being consumed passively vs. actively, so I think it's really up to the writers. That said, obviously from a monetary standpoint, building hype and buzz usually generates revenue which is always the goal. – Tatijana9 years ago
"Only in hindsight, if a show gets cancelled before a cliffhanger is resolved, does it seem like a pointless inclusion." --- I think it's the other way around. It's always a pointless inclusion and only in hindsight if they don't get cancelled does it seem like brilliant forethought. I don't think that cliffhangers really get people talking like they used to when a television show was a unifying force. --- "And I like to think and scheme and wonder instead of be handfed the story passively." --- There's still room for ploting and scheming. There's just no reason to stretch it out over the season break when no one knows for certain if they'll be back. If you KNOW you're back there's room to argue for cliffhangers but take Scream Queens for instance and Harper's Island as well. Both of which had active communities trying to ID the killer while the show airs. It's not the end of show talk if you talk week to week. – wolfkin9 years ago
There really hasn't been a cliffhanger phenomenon quite like "Who Shot JR?." It was really the first, and best example of what the cliffhanger is for: to raise awareness and word-of-mouth regarding a show in order to draw more viewers. Since cliffhangers are used now with such frequency, they have lost their initial punch. However, every now and then, it still works. When Rick Grimes and his group of survivors were captured by cannibals at the end of Season 5 of "The Walking Dead," it did lead to a huge audience for the next season's premier. I think, at this point, what cliffhangers do best is to speak to our own addiction to anticipation. Waiting months to resolve hanging storylines feels almost like that post-Thanksgiving anticipation for Christmas morning. – TheHall9 years ago
Pop music is bland, simple in technique, hollow in intention, and infectious. It's what many people want to hear because (most commonly) the message behind it is so broad, that almost everyone can relate to it on a basic level. Often times the musicality of pop music is also far from complexity and artistic craftsmanship; many pop artists do not compose their own music or lyrics. Because of these reasons it would seem that Pop music, as an art, is somewhat soulless. Is this breed of simple minded music slowly killing deep, musically rich songs and bands?
In your first sentence you don't want to have "and intention" followed by "and infectious", the double use of and is unnecessary and unattractive. I would request you fact check the popularity of pop music because I don't buy that is is the most popular genre. Your final sentence is looking at the issue entirely wrong, music is meant to enrich the world, every piece and ever note, even popular music has something to bring to the table. Looking at pop music as completely useless is very narrow minded. – alexpaulsen9 years ago
I feel like this might be more band/artist specific. I can find plenty of examples of non pop stars that have simple music. I will give you that a lot of pop stars don't really write their own music, but I won't give you that there is no soul behind it. Plenty of popstars have songs that really hit home for them and you can see it in their faces when they sing them. I'd actually argue that other types of music kill my soul. Pop music lifts it up, makes me happy, makes me want to dance. Some other types make me angry, make me depressed, or make me thoughtful. I don't think any music is bad. I think maybe we as people need to stay away from thinking like "if it's popular it's not cool/good/etc." and "being different is the coolest, no one should want to be the same." Maybe things are popular, because they are good and its what the general public likes. That said. Your topic can still be fine. Focus maybe not so much on it killing our souls but the differences that go into them. Or maybe just focus on their complexities. For example pop music uses a less broad singing range thus making it simple (I'd expect this to be the opposite honestly, but give example of what makes it simple.) Pop music uses computers instead of instruments. I wouldn't consider this simple. Honestly, I could probably learn a guitar quicker than I could learn to mix beats on a computer that are new and sound good. But you get the picture. Focus on the differences and not on one being better than the other. – Tatijana9 years ago
It would also be worth touching on how pop has changed over the years and who the forerunners were. As much as I prefer rock and metal, there are some legitimately talented pop artists who go beyond the simplistic rules. Perhaps tie the article into reality shows like X-Factor too? – mattdoylemedia9 years ago
One thing to look at for this topic could be harmonic simplicity, bad (and often damaging) vocal technique, simplicity in general, and auto-tuning (and the subsequent lack of the "natural" voice). However, it could be worth looking at the good qualities of pop music. Why is it popular in spite of this? I agree; perhaps the lyrics are simplistic enough to relate to many people. Perhaps it portrays certain societal ideals. Does it make people "feel good"? Do they feel better about themselves listening to it because many people would be capable of producing music of that quality? Also, perhaps they use other musical techniques that appeal. For example, the drummer of the Beatles focused on creating different timbres by hitting the cymbal in different places. Maybe the repetition is appealing because we get to know the song more intimately. I'm not a fan of pop music in general myself, but I think there are good reasons that people are. It could be worth exploring those. – Laura Jones9 years ago
Cliffhangers can be frustrating, but often times they engage the reader's creativity in thinking of a new ending for the story. Other times, the author plans to write a sequel or continuation to the story, and he/she hopes that the reader is frustrated by the cliffhanger enough to buy the continuation. When I was in seventh grade, we were given an assignment: to write an ending for the story "The Lady or The Tiger." The original story was great, and the cliffhanger was extremely frustrating, especially since we wanted to see what the protagonist would choose for her lover's fate! – AdeleLai9 years ago
How does the HBO series Game of Thrones subvert the typical depictions (or lack thereof) of non-white characters in fantasy epics?
This is a topic that has been deeply explored, think about what deeper/new/unique take on this idea you can suggest. – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
I have not seen this topic explored in depth on this site. I have searched for articles on here but cannot find them. If it has been explored on this site, can you point me in the right direction so I can see how it has already been talked about that I may nuance the question. Otherwise, if this discourse is happening elsewhere (and I am aware that it is) I would love for an author on this site to consolidate the information, make an analysis, and bring the discourse to this community. Please advise. – Cmandra9 years ago
I definitely watch GOT and think, "Man, someone really needed to read some Edward Said." I think you could write quite a lot about the depiction of the Dothraki (especially how they are meant to be inspired by Genghis Khan and the Mongols, but lack a lot of the nuances of that culture), of Essos in general, of how Dornish characters are depicted. There are also female characters of color with influence and agency in the books who are excluded from the show, such as Arianne, Alayaya, and Chataya. I'd be interested in the bigger picture as well, of how this compares to high fantasy lit as a whole. – emilydeibler9 years ago
To say that POC is something new in the fantasy genre only shows one's own lack of reading. Authors like Ursala K Leguin and others have been writing POC for decades. – MattHotaling9 years ago
The topic specifically refers to the HBO series and not the book. I would like to clarify that this topic refers to "depictions" of non-white characters in TV and film media. – Cmandra9 years ago
Analyze how plays that make the audience interact with the narrative may affect those who attend, perhaps in comparison to "normal" theater experiences (a clear boundary between the stage and seating). An example that could be explored is Punchdrunk's Sleep No More, an immersive, site-specific play where the audience members are free to roam different rooms to collect pieces of a silent narrative derived from Shakespeare's Macbeth. For the audience, how does this set-up possibly open up more possibilities when it comes to experiencing play narratives?
I like the plays to be more spontaneous. A play with a predictable ending is almost boring. – shadowformality9 years ago
I would suggest that the writer focus on plays which are being re-invented through the use of inclusion so that there is something to compare the different methods to. Richard Schecner's 1970's production of Mother Courage is an excellent example. – Cmandra9 years ago