Kickstarter is a company/website that helps people get funding for projects in various areas like arts, technology, crafts, etc. Several Kickstarter projects have been started by fans to pay for creations of extra seasons of their favorite shows. There are a few problems that anime lovers in the states run into:
1. My favorite manga never got turned into an anime even though it should have. 2. My favorite anime is older and is no longer being sold due to licensing. I can't seem to find it anywhere and I'd really like to own it. Or I can find it and it costs a fortune because it is rare. 3. Anime/Manga never got translated to English at all, so fans over here are missing out. Do you think kickstarter can help remedy these issues? How can we make people aware of kickstarter campaigns so that they can donate? Are there any other issues that kickstarter could potentially solve for US fans?
Make this article your own, my intention is to use it to spread awareness so that maybe we can get more content in the US.
This would only work and be true if a particular distributor was willing to take on the risk and the challenge of adding it to their production schedule. Because in the case of anime licensing and distributing, it doesn't matter if it CAN be crowdfunded for those sparse individuals who want a particular release, it matters who's going to put up the campaign, and have the facilities and the know-how to get the title re-published and printed. Not just anyone can set up a Kickstarter for a re-release of a particular anime. So not only would fans have to still get the permission of the rights holders of a show to re-establish a license with a new entity (if the Kickstarter is successful), but you would also have to convince an American publisher to get involved who would want to take on the job of gathering all the assets together: most importantly, seeing if the previous distributor still has their former disk IMGs available in a storage somewhere, and still has their DVD covers, promotional material, original English dub recordings, and so on. Discotek Media has successfully done this quite a few times already, so I've been putting my money on them that if a particular show I used to like is out of print, they'd be the mostly likely to revive it, even without a crowdfunding campaign. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Yeah, I know and agree. I think what you'd have to do BEFORE throwing it up on kickstarter, is a fan would have to take the lead and contact these companies formally. They'd need to get estimates on how many dollars/etc it would take to complete the project. It's hard work, but it's the necessary first step. I think if people were more aware of it and REALLY loved something, they'd at least ask the question. And if a few successes were had, this could become a more popular way of getting these types of projects done. This topic is "can it help." So you point out a very big hurdle against it. – Tatijana9 years ago
Maybe you could change Kickstarter to crowdfunding. There are other sites that do the same thing such as IndieGoGo. Expanding this to crowdfunding allows whoever writes this the ability to expand the field of works that have succeeded in the past which leads to better resource materials. – Connor9 years ago
Done. I was not aware that this was a term or that other sites like it existed. Thanks. – Tatijana9 years ago
There's an anime crowdfunding site which managed to create a limited release for Creamy Mami. I forget the name but if you Google you should be able to find it. Actually making manga turned into an anime would have to be something in the Japanese market? – Jordan9 years ago
It was called Anime Sols or something – Jordan9 years ago
Glade's Museum of Feelings is a limited-time exhibit currently open in Manhattan. The Museum is interactive for the patrons who visit, and the exhibit itself is influenced by social media, allowing its light display to serve as a "mood ring" for the city. Looking at the implications of this exhibit would be interesting. This exhibit speaks not only to the way technology and social media is changing how we consume art and media, but how marketing does as well. The museum is not only an artistic experience, but a branded one. Does that impact the validity of the "art"?
This seems to be a form of art, in which the artistic expression comes from the audience, not mainly from the creator. In doing this piece, this shall need to be emphasized. – JDJankowski9 years ago
The whole idea of "art" has been in question for over a century, ever since Duchamp's exhibit of "The Fountain." Historically, the museum has functioned as a way of 'branding' a work as art, even though some of the most interesting art projects exist outside of the (proverbial) museum's walls. JDJankoswki's point speaks to this view, too. Take a look at Duchamp's article, "The Creative Act": http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Smith_Kim/2007/Fall/INF385H/Duchamp_CreativeAct.pdf. – revfigueiredo9 years ago
To the untrained eye, the cartoon series Animaniacs may seem like a bunch of base toilet humor (literally). However, this was a highly sophisticated series with everything from pop culture to political references, musical theatre parodies, lessons in American history, and even some more serious shorts. Explore this series as well-crafted children's entertainment.
Not to mention that is actually known for deconstructing comedic cartoon tropes, even I didn't know that till I was older! – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
In any form of art, whether it be film, poetry, or literature, some of it is very abstract. So abstract, that some people assert that perhaps it is lacking in actual meaning. Many students in an Intro. to Creative Media class I am taking has postulated that David Lynch's films are void of meaning because they are so abstract and ambiguous. Is this something that should be thought? That simply because we cannot conceive of the artists' intention that perhaps there is none?
Maybe the artist finds it funny that there is no meaning his meaning is to show that people find meaning in anything? Or maybe he has no meaning, but it's meaning is a study on what people come up with? I honestly am not the hugest fan of trying to find meaning. Poetry, literature, film, I think it's all how you perceive it. If it evokes emotion in you. If you find it clever, relatable, beautiful. What's more important: what the author meant? Or what it means to you. And honestly, unless an author specifically says what he means, it's all speculation anyway. And from that standpoint as far as scholarly analysis goes, everyone's opinion is valid and all opinions can be discussed. – Tatijana9 years ago
Lynch's films are surreal because their narratives are essentially dictated by dream logic. They usually have so much meaning (too much for some) that they can present a very difficult challenge for a mind unconditioned for the processing of such abstractions. His idiom demands a special discipline, much like learning a foreign language. Because his films don't conform to mainstream methods for conveying ideas they can seem too far beyond one’s capacity to process and that leads to frustration, resulting in unfair pronouncements of his work being “void of meaning.” As an artist myself, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a piece of work completely “void of meaning.” A piece of art may have meaning that’s inane or pedestrian, but just placing oneself within the process of producing something stimulates meaning. Even if that meaning is simply, “I create, therefore I am”
– kublahken9 years ago
I don't know if this a direction you'd want to go, and I don't have much knowledge in the way of film critique. But you could, exploring meaningless, bring up existentialism. Citing Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Foucault, and the like, could help explain the meaningless portrayed on screen. You could even maybe start with Derrida and explain his beliefs about language being a fruitless endeavor that doesn't actual convey anything of ontological substance, just concepts that lead onto each other. Then, you could move to Camus and absurdism and explain how, once seeking meaning is thrown to the wayside, the viewer and artist are free to enjoy the pure aesthetic value of the subject or piece being viewed. Like an art informed nihilism or something. haha – PGJackson9 years ago
Team Starkid is a University of Michigan based theater troupe that specializes in parody musicals that they later record and post to the popular website YouTube.com. Though the characters are usually portrayed by people of the same gender as the characters, occasionally the actors within the troupe "gender bend" characters. Gender bending is the portrayal of a character in a gender that is not one's own or that of the character. Lauren Lopez is a woman who has played characters such as Draco Malfoy, an ex-military sergeant, and a young boy in some of their productions. Joe Walker is a man who played Dolores Umbridge in one of their productions. Lopez' portrayals are often seen as more realistic whereas Walker's were intended to be comical because of his gender. Why is a woman allowed to realistically play men and yet a man playing a woman is considered a running gag? Consider gender roles, gender rules and coded norms in the Team Starkid comedy dynamic.
I completely agree with your questions and concerns here. I've often found that when men try to portray women, unless under very particular circumstances, it is intentionally done in a humorous manner, and it is received as humor, as well, by the audience. In some instances, I have seen men portray a female role with tactfulness, respect, and a sense of authenticity--like Dustin Hoffman in "Tootsie"--by otherwise, very rarely. I myself have explored trying to portray a female character accurately, through voice and movement, and in a way that does not simplify the visage of a woman to cliches or stereotypes, unless the character itself is more flamboyant and such. But I think the main reason why men portraying women is approached and received in a comical way is because many people are still not comfortable seeing men of any sort embrace their feminine sides, whether they be gay or straight. And when it is embraced openly, it's usually regarding a male's portrayal of a decidedly drag-queen styled female character, with a very load, boisterous, or colorful personality, and thus it still becomes something to either laugh at or laugh with. But when it comes to subtlety, or grace, or even commanding authority as a female character, either men just don't do it very much, or it has yet to be part of many productions. In terms of what I would prefer, if I ever find myself performing as a female character (one of my passions is acting and voice impersonation), I would put an enormous amount of effort into capturing the distinct elements of what makes a woman sound like a woman, but then also approach the character herself as something aside from the fact that she is female, unless her character is defined in some capacity by those qualities. I think one has to open up, let down their guards, and be mindful of all their feelings, before they can either portray, or appreciate a female character, as a man. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I personally have never heard of Team Starkid before. But considering how open this topic really is, you might consider broadening the scope to include other examples of the double-standard in media. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I happen to love Team Starkid and have noticed what you're talking about. The cross gender roles, I think, tend to be less for gags, and more for character interpretation. Like with Lopez's portrayal of Malfoy in A Very Potter Music or Commissioner Gordon in Holy Musical B@tman! versus Walker's version of Umbridge. I actually think Walker was cast because of his previous ability to turn a thoroughly villainous character such as Voldemort, and not only redeem him, but cheer for his happy ending. But this is an interesting investigation question to be pursued given the theatrical nature of the performances, which is where this should fall. – artemis8229 years ago
I would suggest that when talking about gender bending in Team Starkid productions, one explores the use of camp as an aesthetic. – Cmandra9 years ago
Why did silent films exit the market? Why were they popular to begin with? The Artist (2011) was an attempt to revive the genre, but it did not change the movie industry. Is it a matter of moving pictures ceasing to be novel, and therefore a movie without sound is just not enough to capture our interest?
I think silent films were popular, because that was all they had at the time. It's a matter of better technology. I'm sure even back then had they had the option of non silent films, the non silent ones would have been more popular. It's the equivalent of having kids that are used to 3D online video games having to play older video games. Although maybe some still enjoy them, they'd still have a preference for the newer stuff. That said, the movie Wall-E still did pretty good. It's not completely silent. It still uses sound, music, and some minor words to set a tone and tell a story. That said, maybe it's still possible to make "silenter" movies, but I think the story would have to be well thought out and it would need to be visually stimulating. Basically, a lot of thought and time would need to be put into its development, and for most people it'd just be easier to make a none silent film where the story can be told in words. – Tatijana9 years ago
I'm not sure I agree with your claim that The Artist was an attempt to revive the genre of silent movies-If I remember correctly, sound was used in a key moment (at the end, I think?). I saw it more as a design and movie-making choice. I do think that an interesting topic could be the use of sound/dialogue in certain movies--Cast Away, for instance, has a significant chunk of time without dialogue. When is the lack of sound effective in film? – cray03099 years ago
It feels like you really should have done your research before bringing up this topic. Because this shouldn't be the place where you get your historical facts checked. If anything is to be clear about how the movie industry developed, and really any technological breakthrough, it is that when something new and exciting comes along that changes the industry enough, it will become the default. When motion pictures came around, people thought it would be a fad, a passing fancy. But that was only because they thought you would sit in a theater, watch some stuff you could see any day out on the street, and then leave. But then people started telling stories with it. Then they started editing the footage so that it cut between camera angles, and it cut back and forth between two simultaneous strings of events and action. So it started to take off. Films became longer and longer, they became bigger and bigger. And then eventually, a few people came up with how to record soundtracks on record, and sync it with the moving pictures. The Jazz Singer wasn't the first to do this, but it popularized the idea in the minds of the producers and the public. Suddenly, every film began incorporating sound as best as it could, despite the loud camera equipment. Only a few directors, especially Charlie Chaplin, seemed stuck in their ways, and refused to go to sound for several more features. But by the mid-30s, everything was sound, because it just seemed so natural to tell a story where people could actually talk, and you could hear everything that they said. Thankfully, that didn't mean the ability to tell a story without words had gone away. Plenty of directors did masterful work with nerry a word a dialogue for most of their pictures' run-time. And quite a few films still do that today. "The Artist" was an experiment, a unique vision to want to tell the story about the transition into sound pictures through the use of a nearly silent one. But to be honest, it was a tough sit for me, because I like to have sound in some respect. Sound effects are an integral part of storytelling now. They are so subtle sometimes and so powerful, that to have no sound and just music feels like a missed opportunity. So maybe if the film had more sound effects (despite their thematic use at certain points), it might have been easier to watch. But just about any director today could tell a story without dialogue, that's what most of their job is all about. So I really think you're asking the wrong questions here. Silent films didn't use to be popular. That's all their was. But they fell out of favor because sound became such a natural inclusion. Trying to bring them back as they were, though, is a tough sell, as I've said. Because all their is is music: no talking, and no sound effects. Which can make a movie feel very claustrophobic and empty at times: in my opinion. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Film has generally been a medium for innovation - whether it be for better or worse. The silent films were popular in the 1920s, because that was the greatest point of innovation in that time. The industry was mostly or entirely composed of 'talkies' by the 1930s. I would question your assertion, regarding "The Artist", because that was an attempt to be - pardon the pun - artsy. This film, further, was very much an anomaly, in the respect that it was a silent film. This would be better suited by far as a review of the movie "The Artist"; and as such, I believe a rejection of topic may be warranted. – JDJankowski9 years ago
@JDJankowski We don't publish reviews on this platform. – Misagh9 years ago
I actually did an article that incorprated some of this topic: films were orignally silent because they developed naturally from Melodrama, which was the most popular form of theatre in the era just before/during the dawn of cinema. There are still many elements of both melodrama and silent cinema is the blockbuster, but as Jonathan said it has evolved. https://the-artifice.com/are-blockbusters-melodramatic/ – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
I think so. Many people have to be over-stimulated and entertained to watch a movie now, and silent films are not the most stimulating to people who cannot understand the mastery and artistry behind them. The Artists was terrific, we need more like it. – luminousgloom9 years ago
I really think it depends on the audience and the overall thematic content of the film. I think many animated films can forfeit dialogue and still retain a stimulated and engaged audience. Recall, the first half hour or so of Wall-E. – Moonrattle9 years ago
With the upcoming reboot of the Ghostbusters franchise with an all female main cast, what does this mean in terms of a more feministically diverse story-telling ability. Is this just a way to pacify those that are fighting for more women to have leading roles in a genre that is dominated by men, or can this be a springboard for the next gender flip on classic characters told in a way that conveys that these stories are wanted by audiences across the board?
I was considering suggesting a topic like this myself, but I didn't quite know how to word it. While I am anxious to see how the new (all-Female) Ghostbusters will turn out, along with the recent announcement of a female-centric Ocean's Eleven, I'm concerned if this is going to help or hurt female actors. Because on the one hand, taking one thing that is well-beloved--like Ghostbusters--and changing it as they have has brought on a lot of negative speculation and sexist backlash, which I think would not be quite the same had a female-centric film of some other nature been announced. However, this sort of thing could be the launching point for female-centric films, or films with more female leads in the future. But what will need to happen is this Ghostbusters film needs to present a dynamic between the female cast that is really magnetic, engaging, and lovable, just as the chemistry between the original cast had been, and yet not make it a carbon copy: otherwise, it will feel like a knock-off, and it won't allow the actresses to be set apart as their own characters. So I am both very hopeful, and concerned whether this film will get the results it hopes for. But I am all for films or shows with female leads, because nearly every single one is amazing. "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind," "Kiki's Delivery Service," "When Marnie Was There," "Kill Bill Vol. 1," "Coraline," "The Sound of Music," "Anne of Green Gables," The Legend of Korra," just to name my favorites. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Also don't forget the female Expendabelles hanging on the rumor mill. – wolfkin9 years ago
I love the Percy Jackson series. I love what it did for introducing kids to classical mythology, I love Percy and Annabeth so much as characters, and I love the cabin system of sorting kids. However, I am really interested in how Riordan took the content of classical epic (gods, battles, mythical creatures, heroics), and infused them with what is, in essence a very modern story of a misfit kid struggling to fit in and find out what he's good at. Does Riordan borrow from epics like the Odyssey or the Aeneid in terms of style or characterization, or only in providing the window-dressing for what is just any other YA tale? Specifically, I'd be interested in seeing a character comparison of Odysseus and Percy Jackson, and ways that they are similar or contrasted, whether directly or indirectly in the series.
Personally, since you brought it up, another angle would be asking whether Riordan borrowed from Greek Mythology. Having said that, I do not see any objection with examining Riordan's works with the Odyssey, or the Iliad (though probably less with the Aeneid, because it is Roman in origin). As such, I would consider expanding the topic to include the aforementioned Greek Mythology, but have no problem with the topic as is. – JDJankowski9 years ago
I mean, obviously Riordan borrows information from Greek mythology in general, and given that his second series, Heroes of Olympus, tries to hybridize Greek and Roman mythologies, I'm sure there is some borrowing from the Aeneid in his distinction between a typical Greek and Roman hero, culture, and ideal mindset. What interests me is to what extent Percy's characterization as an impulsive, affectionate, dorky middle schooler is utterly alien to the tone and kinds of characters we find in traditional examples of Greek mythology, like the Odyssey. My gut response is no, the people in the Odyssey are larger-than-life heroes, which is an interesting analysis of how we just use flavoring from other cultures to tell the same kinds of stories that fit our culture. However, Odysseus isn't the paragon of heroism or virtue - he lies, gets lucky, conveniently forgets about his wife, accidentally makes way too many enemies, has a smart mouth etc. I think the two of them could be more similar than we give them credit for, which would also have interesting implications for the series. – thekellyfornian9 years ago
I think you make a very good point about the story here and though it has been a while since I've read the Percy jackson series, I do remember it being a bit of a leap from the classical myths. In Greek Mythology there is a lot more adult themes that appear which is why I think Riordan has tones it down for his series. I do think it is a great idea for him to add in more illusions to different Greek myths, but as these stories are meant for young adults, he needs to be careful about how he goes about including them. – laurenintheclouds9 years ago
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back, it was meant to be. People have a hard time understanding that though, and instead want to possess other people. What are some reasons, we feel the need to "own" other people? What are some examples of these reasons being acted out in various pieces of literature. For example, in "A Picture of Dorian Gray" we see two characters fight over Dorian's friendship. There are several examples of them trying to keep him away from each other. Perhaps, one wants to possess someone so that they can feel needed and loved completely like the witch who wishes to keep Rapunzel locked away in a tower. Or maybe your author didn't finish writing your favorite story exactly how you wanted it. You decide to lock him in your house until he finishes it "correctly" as in Stephen King's "Mercy". And of course there is the obvious. Love. We can find many references to wanting to own someone just because we love them.
Maybe think more about what lens you want to look at this from. Is the possession used to drive plot/conflict? Or is is used in a psychological sense to build characters? – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
I think marriage and the language/rituals surrounding it might be a more convincing form of ownership for the theory that love leads to this desire for ownership.
I also think that Dorian Gray, at least from the friendship angle, is maybe not such a great support, though maybe you could convince me (but it would take a bit so maybe just focus on one literary work especially if it is more of a stretch). – KateC339 years ago
That's just one probably bad example. My topic also doesn't have to focus on love. I'm trying to get people to think about the many reasons a person may want to control or "keep" someone and find examples of such reasons in literature. Maybe someone wants to befriend or marry someone else for power or money. You could even find a book involving kidnapping as "possessing this person" could lead trading them for money. Just get creative with it. In fact, I'd not use love as an example because it's obvious and overdone. – Tatijana9 years ago
I do like the psychological angle that you are taking. You may find that it is more worthwhile to narrow your literary focus to just one of your aforementioned works (personally, I would go for a more classical piece of literature, but that is my personal preference). But this seems to be fine as is. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Other pieces of literature that would work well with this theme of possession and love: -A Doll's House (Nora is owned by her husband and treated like a child until she realizes that her personal growth is more important than her duty to others)
-Merchant of Venice (Portia and the probably-gay-Antonio fight over the affections of Bassanio by trying to make him the most indebted to them) – thekellyfornian9 years ago
Maybe it would be good to consider the ways in which people take possession of others in specific physical senses. How do the body parts interplay with the reasons for desiring possession? – jilltcundari9 years ago
"We accept the love we think we deserve" - Stephen Chbosky. That being said, perhaps 'possession' in a friendship is a matter of perspective. To one who has never experienced a genuine friendship, being owned might just be second best! Interesting topic. – SuzetteA9 years ago
Are there any theatrical animation studios who you thought did better work when they transitioned to television in the 1950s and '60s, whether for weekend cartoons or television commercials? If so, which ones and why? For example, how does THE BUGS BUNNY SHOW of 1960 compare to the Warner Brothers theatrical cartoons of 1960? How do Terrytoons' television commercials for Piels Beer in 1957 compare to the studio's theatrical cartoons of 1957? How does the DISNEYLAND tv show compare to Disney's theatrical shorts of the 1950s? How do Paramount's tv cartoons for King Features Syndicate between 1960 and 1961 compare to its theatrical work of the period?
Are you raising this question because you want to know which studio had better animation on television compared to others, or better concepts and stories? Because a misconception to be aware about is that most television animation is outsourced to 3rd party companies who work by contract. And so while I think it has been obvious that back in the 1980s and 1990s, Disney had the strongest and most successful tv presence along-side their theatrical productions, most if not all of their tv work was outsourced to Japan and Taiwan. They contracted a fantastic Japanese studio named Tokyo Movie Shinsha (TMS), to create the first season of "Ducktales," "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers," and the entire short lived series "The Gummie Bears." They also animated the first season of "Inspector Gadget" for DiC. But after those initial seasons, the animation quality dips off quite a bit, because Wang Film Productions began taking over as the sole studio, until periodically, you'll see much more expressive and skillful work by Disney's Austrailian Branch pop in here and there, especially with the show, "Timone & Pumba." So basically, you need to be more clear about what you're really trying to get at with this question, and what you expect people to be researching and talking about when they write this article. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Thanks. I'm talking about theatrical studios that produced for television while still making theatrical cartoons. For example, how does THE BUGS BUNNY SHOW of 1960 compare to the Warner Brothers theatrical cartoons of 1960? How do Terrytoons' television commercials for Piels Beer in 1957 compare to the studio's theatrical cartoons of 1957? How does the DISNEYLAND tv show compare to Disney's theatrical shorts of the 1950s? How do Paramount's tv cartoons for King Features Syndicate between 1960 and 1961 compare to its theatrical work of the period? – drchrisp9 years ago
Okay, then you MUST state that you are talking about a TV presence from that era. Because when I read this, I thought you were referring to things like Dreamworks making films like "Kung Fu Panda," "How to Train Your Dragon," and "Madagascar," and then creating TV shows based on those properties. Or Disney making "Aladdin," "The Little Mermaid," and "The Lion King," and making TV shows based on those, as well as any other original series that followed along-side. Being that you want to talk far more specifically about a time in early television when these studios were still doing all of their animation "in-house"--which allows for a much more reasonable and accurate comparison--you should make the time period very clear in your topic description. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
An analysis of psychopathology as a plot device (particularly in horror films), a phenomenon I've come to identify as "sexy slasher" movies, and humanism (or lack thereof) in depictions of mental illness in mainstream television, films and books.
Mental illness is quite a broad spectrum. Perhaps choose to focus solely on psychopathy in horror films (or something similarly narrow). It would also be interesting to analyze what these portrayals do to aid or challenge the continuing mental illness stigma. – Laura Jones9 years ago
I find that many movies are consistent with characters with split-personality disorder (archaic name I know :) ), schizophrenia, or sociopath characteristics. The Silver Linings Playbook touched on the drama's of Bipolar Disorder and it's related spectrum. However, I feel that many say these depictions of mental illnesses are indulging in the stereotype. Although true in some cases, I would venture to say that most films and literature are now playing so much into the stereotypes that there seems to be the adverse effect happening. The stigmas are being dramatized to the point that they're proving themselves to be invalid and disproportionate. – rmadisonhaymore9 years ago
I can think of a couple of horror movies that have mental illness as a plot device, but not so much to mock people with mental illness. If anything it is just used as a way to create a sense of fear of the unknown in viewers. Also with a huge push in getting rid of mental illness stigma in the past decade, like rmadisonhaymore mentioned in her post, films like Silver Linings Playbook, I think that mental illness will be portrayed in a better light as a way to continue to reduce stigma and humanize characters with mental illness. – pallasngai9 years ago
In doing this topic, an examination of One Flew over the Coo-coo's Nest will be vital in some form, so have some mention and analysis of that. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Think deeply about how movies such as Inception, Interstellar, or Memento get people to think over and over again about the outcome of the movie, and if they have the same exact thoughts as the movie director had. Movies like this use the depth of the mind to extract a thought-process that evokes a sense of confusion and disbelief. Do movie director's do this on purpose, or is just the viewer thinking too deeply about the outcome or plot?
I believe movie director's do this on purpose because that is the point of movies, to take you to a reality you have never been. To make you think like you have never thought before. That is why we go to the movies. – haleycorkery9 years ago
I agree with the previous comment. I feel it adds a sense of uniqueness to the movie, making it into an evolving event that adapts and changes to each viewer. To go to the same movie with someone and both of you leave with totally different interpretations is incredible to achieve, and almost presents the movie like a gift for you to covet or hate based on your perspective. It also lays ground for great debate with people who saw an ending differently. – KyelandJ9 years ago
I agree that it is the director's intent. I think people like Christopher Nolan purposefully leave things ambiguous to create a conversation about the film. On the other hand, though, look at David Lynch. He uses film as another medium for artistic expression. Something like Mulholland Dr. cannot be explained, yet people desperately try to make sense of it, but if you were to ask Lynch, he would probably say that it's like an abstract painting which is open to various interpretations, all of which are equally correct. – Jon Rios9 years ago
It is definitely the director's intent to confuse viewers and cause disbelief. This leads to people rewatching the movie, discussing it with others and most importantly, thinking about something they never have before. Film makers that create such mind benders aim for something more than just an ordinary popcorn flick. They aim to make something truly memorable, a work of art. Something that affects you, that speaks to your very soul (or just your mind). – JosephSmith499 years ago
It would most certainly be the director, as the general plot twists that you are thinking of (such as that used in Gone Girl) are the type that keep the audience captive to the movie, and add to the style, and plot of the same. – JDJankowski9 years ago
The question I propose is who influences who? Does the media influence the people or do the people influence the media?
Many people believe people influence the media because the media shows the people what they want to see. That is not always the case.
I recently began to realize that it is actually the media that influences the people simply because the media chooses what the people see. I am sure this is not intentional, but how can the people know what side to choose if they are not getting the full story?
In defense of the media, they only get so much time to present the story, and they must choose what to write about. They must pick what the most important information is, which is not always what others feel is most important.
Theorists go back and forth on this, and the question still stands. Who influences who?
I think it's both in the sense that people react to scandal and shock and controversy. That's what they watch. Because of this, the media needs to generate views and ratings so they give the people these types of stories. Unfortunately, these stories often exaggerate and leave out pieces of information that could help debunk whatever side the story is siding with. I think the thing to remember is that everyone has a motive and some sort of propaganda they want to push. So while I think it's a little bit of both influencing both. I think the bigger issue is is it okay to show stories a certain way to incite certain reactions? Is it okay to show news in a way that makes our opinions for us? – Tatijana9 years ago
Both cases can be tricky to communicate. The media definitely has a lot to do with how society as a whole is shaping America, but have the people forced the media to partake this way? The media only reflects what the people want to see.
– Whitaker9 years ago
It would be both; you are referring to a media loop. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Does the media shape what the people see? Or is it their corporate sponsors? The other day I engaged in a brief experiment, spending a few hours watching both FOX News and MSNBC. The stark contrast of their reporting appears to be directly linked to their stark contrast of corporate sponsors. In television's infancy, the news was meant to be "informational programming." I fear Ted Turner did more harm than good with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle. – TheHall9 years ago
Analyze and discuss the more adult themes and issues in the recent Disney movie "Inside Out." This includes subjects such as depression, anxiety, self esteem, personality identification, memories (long/short term and the concept of the subconscious), and differentiating emotions within the self, especially the imbalanced ratio of generally happy to general sad emotions.
I think you could also look at this psychoanalytically in terms of repression and the 'return of the repressed'. We see that Joy controls a couple of memories that are initially believed to be entirely happy, but then we see that there is more to these memories and that there is some other emotion connected to them. That hockey team memory is the one that really comes to mind. The sadness that Riley felt in losing the game/feeling responsible for the loss is not there at all, all we see is her team suppoesdly celebrating with her. But later on we find out the whole truth to the memory and that there is some repressed sadness there. – Jamie White9 years ago
If you ever played an online game, whether it was a platform based shooter like Call of Duty or Halo, to popular MOBA games like League of Legends or DOTA 2, you most likely have come across a "toxic" player. While the general definition can vary from person to person, but the general consensus is that it's an incredibly rude person who will most likely use inflammatory language, otherwise known as the "I f'ed your mom" guy.
Why do people act like this? This stems from internet anonymity. The idea of cyber bullying and the mysterious veil the internet provides. While this is an issue all of its own, it is worth talking about in the context of gaming.
While not always the case, run of the mill cyber bullying is a premeditated action, adding the element of gaming can enhance this. In competitive gaming, adding the adrenaline can make even the most mild mannered person can succumb to creative (or lack thereof) name calling. I consider myself a laid back person/gamer, but every now and then if I'm playing League of Legends I find myself saying in real life, or rarely in the in game chat, things that I wouldn't normally say, and I can get away with it because it's such a fleeting moment without any real punishment.
This topic can explore anecdotal evidence, psychological analysis of why things like this happen, or even if it's really a problem in the gaming world at all, and it's just some friendly and competitive smack talk and that people are just too sensitive.
I would really find things that argue both points of view for this topic. Yes, being anonymous has something to do with the slamming, but what else goes on in a person's mind in these types of scenarios? – BethanyS9 years ago
There are definitely psychological reasons behind this. The level of accountability someone will face is absolutely a factor involved in how an individual chooses to act. Also, because they don't have to physically seen the person they are hurting, it is very easy to dehumanize and distance themselves from feeling any sort of empathy for the victim. – krystalleger9 years ago
It might be beneficial to explore anonymity on the internet outside of gaming to help support your argument. So long as the potential exists for anonymous comments to exist after any medium within the internet ( youtube videos, online articles, image sharing galleries) there usually will be, with any luck, the toxicity you are describing existing. If you need help thinking of examples of this, consider the online website for a local community newspaper - if anonymous commenting is possible, you quite frequently find all sorts of nasty, hateful, ignorant comments from people you are quite sure would never act that way in your local supermarket. A specific one I am thinking of is 'The Eagle Tribune' of Northern Massachusetts... I welcome you to go take a look for yourself. Just go look at some puppies and cute kittens afterwards. – TylerBreen9 years ago
I would be very, very interested in reading this article after the idea is flushed out. There are a lot of factors and different games bring different kinds of toxicity. I've definitely been exposed to a plethora of toxic players in several MOBAs, FPSs, and other games. While those are usually verbal (or typed), there are even ways to grief without text or voice, such as picking on one player, repeatedly taunting them, endlessly squatting, etc. It would also be interesting to decide and explain whether or not there is a difference between toxicity and bad sportsmanship. Does toxicity stem from that? Are they completely separate? Food for though. – carp0009 years ago
Hyperbole and a Half. Let’s Pretend This Never Happened: A Mostly True Memoir. Humans of New York. Even Dog Shaming. All of these are blogs turned into books—although some are more successful than others. What makes for a successful transition from blog to book? How has this changed publishing (for better or worse)? Should prospective writers be writing in blogs, in the hopes of building an audience base and working towards a book deal? Or is this a fad that will play itself out?
This would be a great article I'd love to read. I'm sure lots of people on this site would like to know whether writing on a blog is worth it and if it would in fact get them and audience or book deal? Research the stories of the aforementioned blogs and rate how successful each was, why, and how they could have gotten more popular. Are they getting book deals or just self-publishing? What markets are being targeted? – Slaidey9 years ago
I am interested in the relationship between creative and commercial endeavors when it comes to blogging, writing and publishing (particularly as a blogger and aspiring author myself). This subject material is definitely relevant and that's why I decided to comment on it -- intriguing stuff, for sure! – emich139 years ago
There are so many bloggers out there right now, that it does take a specific writer with a specific writing style who writes a specific topic in order to stand out. It's literally like trying to find a needle in a haystack or rather, a writer in a pile of writers. – kennylim9 years ago
When Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk announced the subject matter of the hit show's newest season, horror fans rejoiced. Allusions to Kubrick's modern classic, The Shining, were scattered throughout the promotional campaign. Now, we're seven episodes in and it seems they may be taking it too far. When do allusions to someone else's work become straight up plagiarism? Was it really necessary to recreate the iconic carpet of Kubrick's hotel?
In one of the most controversial novels of the 20th century, D.H. Lawrence explores life, love and sex along Connie Chatterley's journey to physical and existential reawakening. In his depiction of the life of the mind and the industrialized world, particularly his prediction of what the world would be like 100 years after the writing of this work (e.g. ~2030), how accurate do you all feel Lawrence's prediction of the potential destructive nature of the industrialized world to be?
Opera houses are closing all over the world. Audiences are becoming increasingly smaller (and older). There is also a certain stigma surrounding opera, possibly because it is now considered somewhat elitist. Opera has been around since 1597; is it possible that this art form is no longer relevant? Is it doomed to die out entirely?
I don't know of any sort of stigma attached to opera per se, but this may be something that is demonstrable. Also, you may wish to look at the emergence of atonal music, and see if you could find any correlation - there may not be, but I think it is an avenue worth investigating. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Most opera is tonal, actually, especially the ones performed regularly in major opera houses. It might be worth a look, though! However, it is possible that the average ear is no longer used to complex harmonies or vocal acrobatics in music, which could be why people are less interested. Perhaps it also has to do with attention span; popular songs are usually around three minutes... is three hours just too long for a modern audience?
I personally find that there is a significant stigma surrounding opera. Most people assume that it's terrible without ever having listened to it or seeing one. It seems that it's not "cool" to like opera. In my music history class, we discussed that classical music and opera is now considered somewhat classist and elitist. Perhaps this is because people seem to dress up to go, listen politely and wait their turn to clap (instead of the general freedom of audience reaction in a rock concert, for example), and often pay large amounts of money to go. That's not even considering things like lavish sets/costumes and the years of training and discipline that the performers must have to reach a level where they can perform in an opera or symphony. I'd be curious to read an article about this! – Laura Jones9 years ago
Opera goes through periods of popularity and non-popularity. Take Thatcher's Britain, for example, where high art was very "in" and other forms of performance such as musical theatre sought to mimic opera (les mis, phantom of the opera, and other "pop-eras") In writing this article, one would benefit from talking about where opera has been and the circumstances under which it was popular in order to unlock its future. I, for one, guarantee, it will not die in our lifetime. – Cmandra9 years ago
I agree with Cmandra. The overlap between certain musical theatre and opera is interesting. Why is Le Miserables so popular but Carmen is not? – Peter Prevos7 years ago
There are many ways in which the original Star Trek predicted aspects about the future such as the communicators which mimic cell phones. I would like to find out from Trekkie purists how Gene Roddenberry got it right.
Something to consider is that Star Trek has done this as a whole, not just with the Original series. There were many devices in both Voyager and TNG that predict future technology, such as tablets, comm systems, AI computers, and holograms. Perhaps you could compare and contrast each series and their different technology predictions. – Megan Finsel9 years ago
I would like to see an article on the original series since it was 50 years ago or around there as a sort of anniversary of the series when it started Sept. 8, 1966. A kind of homage to the ideas as well as technology that Roddenberry envisioned. One item that comes to mind is the international cast. It is so unusual to have that kink of diversity in terms of a TV series in that time. Referring to specific episodes would also be great when they encountered alien technology that was "ahead." – Munjeera9 years ago
Did Star Trek predict the future or create the future? Are there any modern technologies (i.e., the flip cell phone) that just might have been influenced by Star Trek? – sophiacatherine9 years ago
Finding out what Star Trek influenced in terms of tech would be interesting. I heard that NASA did get some ideas about space technology from Star Trek. – Munjeera9 years ago
Many of those futuristic inventions would not have been possible without people like Tesla.
"We are whirling through endless space, with and inconceivable speed, all around everything is spinning, everything is moving, everywhere there is energy. There must be some way of availing ourselves of this energy more directly. Then, with the light obtained from the medium, with the power derived from it, with every form of energy obtained without effort, from the store forever inexhaustible, humanity will advance with giant strides. The mere contemplation of these magnificent possibilities expand our minds, strengthens our hopes and and fills our hearts with supreme delight." Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) – L:Freire6 years ago