Analyze the relationship between Spy (2015) featuring Melissa McCarthy and the James Bond film series. In what ways has the comedy evolved? How has the woman's role changed? How has the man's role changed? Is Spy a parody of James Bond, or does it simply share motifs? Do you enjoy one more than the other? Why?
I think most of the humor in Spy comes from parodying the tropes of James Bond movies and other action films. Jason Statham's character in Spy is a parody of the characters he plays in most of his other films. I would also be interesting to look at Knight and Day, which seems to linger on the border of serious action movie and parody. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
Would you consider the character played by Melissa McCarthy a new type of the feminist heroine? True to say, her portrayal of the heroine in Spy is somewhat satirical, but it does give the whole picture a breath of fresh air. – Helga1018 years ago
There are many websites trying to give tips and tricks on how to make a viral video, but is there really a formula? What are the first few 'viral videos' known on the Internet? What type of content goes viral, and what lengths do people take to make their video have 'viral content'?
Mentioning White and Black Hat SEO techniques are probably worth adding to the discussion. – Jordan9 years ago
One thing people might do is focus on YouTube, because it's the biggest video-sharing platform on the internet today. Viral videos could be found on eBaum's World, Newgrounds, and albinoblacksheep. It may also serve to make a distinction between viral and popular. Channels/users that regularly get a large amount of hits are hard to go viral since their footprint is always that big. On the same token, people should look at viral users such as Fred/Lucas Cruikshank, people that are one-man teams that took off at the beginning of YouTube. – John9 years ago
It seems we can't go a week without another superhero movie being announced or the latest comic book adaption coming to life. I understand it's profitable and popular, but is anyone else excited for film projects outside of the Marvel/DC universe? What movies are you excited for? Or, if you absolutely adore superheroes, what are you looking forward to (beside the Deadpool movie)?
I like going to a movie about once every month, if not more. And so even though I'll admit I'm losing excitement for the next super-hero movie each time one is on the horizon, I have no intention to stop attending each that comes unless there's a particular one I really don't care for. I can say for certain that I am anticipating "Guardians of the Galaxy 2," because up until now that was the coolest movie I've seen besides "Star Trek: Into Darkness." I'm looking forward to "Batman V. Superman." I'm hoping "Captain America: Civil War" will be a stronger and more engaging film than "Age of Ultron." And I'm extremely curious about the "Doctor Strange" movie. Beyond those, though, I'll be more interested in seeing all the new Star Wars content, most especially "Rogue One," after "The Force Awakens" of course. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I don't think so much 'overdone' as lacking in variety, so as to say the domination of Marvel has rendered many of its sequels upon sequels carbon copies of one another. Which is why 'Guardians of the Galaxy' was such a great fresh breath of air. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
I think the reason there are so many superhero movies right now is that, in this day and age and instability, we like to see people with superpowers able to handle that danger, even if we can't do it ourselves. We all see ourselves as heroes. I think that if writers/producers/directors/etc don't get their act together the genre CAN be overdone, but I also think there are infinite ways to portray heroes and their struggles. Personally, I'm not tired of them at all. (Civil War makes me both intensely worried and very excited. I really love Captain America.) – Winterling9 years ago
There are quite a good sum of movies that I take great personal interest in. I love superhero movies and although they are without a doubt some of the most popular films to arrive in decades, but I don't think that they impose upon other projects. Personally, I am intrigued by the recent success of The Peanuts movie and desire to see how Schulz's timeless characters transferred to the big screen, also Spectre, The Good Dinosuar, Creed, and of course, Star Wars episode 7. I think that movies are such an incredible medium and there really is a lot to be excited for in terms of upcoming projects both superhero related and non superhero related. So to answer your main question, perhaps superhero movies are overdone a little bit but that doesn't prevent them from being good or ruining other movies in my honest opinion. – BlakeZamora9 years ago
Superhero movies have always been present in cinema. If I had to say so, I'd say they'll always be present - or at least for a substantial amount of time. The only real reason people are stopping to ask if superhero movies are overdone is because of the recent incredible success that superhero movies are experiencing at the box office. Iron Man, The Avengers, and Guardians of the Galaxy are all examples of successful films at the box office. It's very possible that people are trying to capitalize on that, because it's relatively easy. You have these characters (whose personalities and designs are already created) and plots that have been fully played out in comics. It makes sense to go after superhero movies if you have the resources but lack the creativity or the drive to create your own characters and plot, and that could be where a lot of these movies are coming from. Are a lot of these coming out of major studios? Yes. Are they from major directors and production studios? Probably, but it seems like easy money because it's the in thing to make, and the consumers think it's in. – John9 years ago
Many of the overall tones, plot arcs and points are reused; but this over usage can be found in any genre, not just when it comes to super hero movies. I think there's a large outcry for variety, things that 'Guardians of The Galaxy" bring and 'Deadpool' promises to have. – KatieLouise9 years ago
A unique approach to this topic would also be to examine the difference between superheros and "real" heroes. Recently, movies such as American Sniper, Bridge of Spies, and the upcoming The Finest Hours all celebrate real mean committing acts of heroism for their country.
While the heroes of the the Marvel movies are usually credited with "saving the world," these stories still invariably take place in the U.S. or are an immediate threat to the American way of life (first Captain America movie). In what ways do the similarities and differences between these two types of film commentate on American patriotism, idealism, and our ideas around the whole construct of what a hero is. – arharrison9 years ago
I think superhero movies are most certainly overdone however I enjoy the the fact that there are now consequences to every action that takes place in these different universes. – UnDeRsCoRe9 years ago
I do love the superhero films. I have never read any of the comics, but I try to catch most of the movies. Arharrison brings up an interesting point above. The comparison of real life heroes to superheroes. I wonder if the superhero films provide an example or a way of thinking about power, justice, etc that we can learn from and apply to the way we think and act as human beings and citizens. – joshuadistel9 years ago
Analyzing the French movie "Amour" is possible to interpret it as a tale about death and love. Or, what makes us being loved or able to love. My suggestion is an experiment on write about the movie "Amour" focusing in his title and going deep in the issue of death, living, and love trying to ask "what is love?" in a specific horizon that the movie is revealing to us.
I think this movie has more than enough to go on regarding this topic; it's excellent! Although conversely you could do a head-to-head comparison of it with 'Intouchables', another French film which discusses disability but with a decidedly more positive spin on things. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
Calvin, this sounds awesome! Two movies so deep in feelings and interpretations. Great idea! – laricouto9 years ago
When analyzing the French movie "Amour" it is possible to interpret it as a tale about death and love. Or, what makes us being loved or able to love. My suggestion is to focus in an experiment on writing about the movie "Amour" focusing in his title and going deep in the issue of death, life, and love, trying to ask "what is love?" in a specific moment that the movie is revealing to us. – larissacouto9 years ago
Sampling has always been a big controversy in the music industry, especially since the emergence of hip-hop and electronic music. Numerous legal actions by the original artists have been taken over the music where their music is sampled. Is it a legitimate technique in creating music, or is it ripping off another artist's composition?
It might be worth mentioning the length of the sample. To my understanding when copyright comes into play the amount of the music sampled is important. This is an interesting topic. I would update the title so the first letter of words is capitalized. – Jordan9 years ago
One weird instance of this I've found in a few rap songs are samples of a Japanese Jazz artist named Yuji Ohno, who's written and composed music for a popular anime series since the late 1970s. I've found 3 distinct rap songs that use samples of his music as the base track and part of the percussion. And I'm assuming these artists used his music perhaps because their usage of it would not easily get back to Mr. Ohno's record label in reference to the unlicensed use of the songs. I'm also not sure how these rap artists even got a hold of Yuji Ohno's music in the first place, since I had to know about the guy before I could find out how to buy his music, and then I had to import it all directly from Japan on either CD's or Vinyl. So it's not really all that easy to find or hear his music, and especially not in the late 90s or early 2000s when these rap songs were made. Jazz from the 70s also seems to be the big thing to use in a lot of rap if samples are involved, at least if you want to hide your samples as much as possible. Many of those songs can be really indistinguishable from each other. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Tough one. I believe basically almost everything is creation. But it would be hard for me to say the original artist shouldn't have rights to their original work. But at a basic level, I think that breathing new life into an old sound or idea is art in and of itself. – Tatijana9 years ago
I think that sampling music can add interesting nuances to a song, and I'm actually a fan of it in hip hop and rap, which constitute the basis of my familiarity with sampling. In addition to contributing to the creation of a multi-faceted and nuanced work, I think sampling also has the potential to breath new life into songs that have transitioned out of contemporary culture as products of a different social milieu. As a result of looking into songs that are sampled in the work of Kanye West (to name one artist in particular), I feel like I've been able to rediscover songs that otherwise would have been lost to me. I also feel that sampling can add complexity to the song if we think of it as an influence upon the work of the artist who incorporated the sample. – csheehan9 years ago
Stars of young adult book adaptions often become cast in later work as similar roles. Depending on the quality of their work at the time, these actors can sometimes get a bad reputation. Take a look at high quality films with these actors/actresses – like those who were part of the Harry Potter Franchise, the Hunger Games, Twilight and Divergent. For example, Camp X-Ray with Kristen Stewart and Silver Linings Playbook with Jennifer Lawrence have been well received by critics.
Very good idea. In particular, focusing on the likes on Radcliffe and Watson edging out into more adult but still relatively commercial fare, comparing it to the more 'edgier' approach of Grint. Also looking on whether they've transitioned into supporting roles or kept doing lead roles would be interesting. Kristen Stewart's given some good sterling work in the likes of The Clouds of Sils Maria and Still Alice in supporting roles, so that'd be interesting to look into. Jennifer Lawrence I think you could also explore how she was already an established up-and-comer before The Hunger Games, with an Oscar nomination under her belt and a role in 'X-Men First Class' – CalvinLaw9 years ago
Thank you, Calvin Law. I was worried the title may not have reflected the subject matter clearly enough but it sounds like you don't see any problems with it? – Jordan9 years ago
I think that this would be a very interesting topic. However, I feel as though most of the Young Adult Film Franchise Stars that you are referring to are really still very popular in the media, and most people already know where they are now. For instance, Jennifer Lawrence is everywhere and is currently starring in the Hunger Games fourth movie along with the rest of the Hunger Games cast; so I think it is a bit too soon for a "Where are They Now" for the Hunger Games. Twilight star Kristen Stewart is also everywhere. She is starring in a bunch of movies this year, and tabloids all still comment on Robert Pattinson, Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe, and of course Emma Watson. I think maybe if you focused on a "Where are They Now" for older movie franchises such as Die Hard, The Matrix, The Chronicles of Narnia, Star Trek, Star Wars, Indiana Jones,etc. or maybe change from movie franchises to TV shows ( I think that would draw a great deal of attention) then your topic would have a lot more success. – GretaCordova9 years ago
That's a good point! I guess it would be up to the author as to which franchises to focus on. – Jordan9 years ago
Years ago, gaming was considered a much smaller, niche hobby, mostly for introverts and "nerds." Now, the gaming industry is on a rise, both financially and socially. Analyze the factors influencing why video games have become part of the "mainstream." How do different video game styles (i.e. MMOs, point-and-click, etc.) help catapult the gaming industry into the mainstream? How do they encompass diverse social groups and bring them into the industry? Does the movie-like quality of games nowadays play a part in the mainstream, too?
gaming is life at times of depresion – GanjaKing04209 years ago
Very interesting topic!!! I think that one of the reasons games are more mainstream is because of the sheer multitude of diversity in gaming now. Back in the day you had fewer companies and fewer programmers and fewer games. Now we can make specific games that appeal to specific people which entices more and more people to play. I think you have to at least mention *shudder* facebook games. These low commitment games give the opportunity for normally not interested people to pick up a game. It doesn't take much time, thought, etc. If you leave it for a week, you aren't tragically behind everyone else. And as for the movie-like quality. Hands down agree. I had my mother walk in on me playing a game during a cutscene and she actually stopped to watch thinking it was a show haha. Not that she'll ever pick up a controller, but at the very least it intrigued someone who usually wouldn't bat an eye. – Tatijana9 years ago
When an actor is cast as 'onseself'–as in, in a role very similar or even directly resembling his public persona–does that diminish the artistry behind the performance?
Interesting idea, CalvinLaw. It might be worth expanding on this in the title after a ":". Also, are there some specific examples of theater or movies you were thinking of, or would you like to leave that up to the writer? I hope this helps. – Jordan9 years ago
Probably leave it up to the writer, it's a vast topic to explore so some freedom might be appreciated! – CalvinLaw9 years ago
Likely yes, it does diminish it. Because playing yourself, likely as a cameo, can usually lead to mugging, quoting famous lines of yourself, or just being rather dull. Although in some unique cases, I've seen biopics where actors portray people from a persons life, even though they themselves knew the person in question. So rather than play themselves, they play more integral characters, which allows them to contribute more to the project. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I'd actually take the side that it enhances the role. Who better to play you than you? The actor would know all the motivations and thoughts of the person they are playing. I would however note, that acting in a role like this is dangerous... Playing who you are repeatedly shows you limitations as an actor and also would keep you locked into the same role and forever seen as the one role. And people tend to get bored with these sort of actors. – Tatijana9 years ago
A great one to look at (popular in the UK but perhaps not so much elsewhere) is <i>Extras</i> by Ricky Gervais. It had lots of famous people (Patrick Stewart, David Bowie) playing versions of themselves that went against the public perception. (Patrick Stewart in genral does quite a lot of him-but-not-quite-him roles.) – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
in most cases a cameo of yourself only enhances the public persona because people enjoy recognizing parts of the real world in film or tv. – thereisnojosie9 years ago
This is a great concept. I've always wondered if the actor is truly playing their own self or just who they think they are. To be completely honest, I think this may delve into a deeper concept of who we define our own self as and whether it is who we are or just who we think we are. Anyway, back onto the subject, no, I do not believe that an actor or actress playing himself or herself ruins and/or diminishes the artistry of acting. I believe it may even enhance it and bring it to a new level. One in which the actor or actress may even become confused with who they really are. Think about it, an actor or actress plays a number of different characters in a given time. When they play the characters they are paid to play they become the character. Some may slowly roll into the character and some might dive in head on. Regardless, the actor or actress becomes the character and sometimes they lose their own self in order to play the character. With respect, take Heath Ledger for example. A great actor who played arguably the best joker of all time as well as many other roles that are and will be very well remembered. However, the argument could be made that he "lost" himself by taking on the role of the joker and became the Joker. Who really was Heath Ledger and who would he have been after playing the Joker? Would he have changed? Would he have known who his own self was or would he have to recall and push to retrieve who he was after taking on the dark role. The world will never know. – shaynezamora9 years ago
I've wondered about it... Well, like in the Goosebumps movie the real R.L Stein makes a cameo while his "character" is actually played by Jack Black. Why is that? It could be that they were looking to make him younger or because the acting skills were more important.
– Candice Evenson9 years ago
They still have to do a performance, though. I mean, there is a script they have to follow, and lines to memorize. That is still acting. – T. Palomino2 years ago
A dystopia is commonly an unpleasant or bad place commonly due to totalitarian governments. In the Anthony Burgess novel (or the Stanley Kubrick film), the protagonist and his friends terrorize innocent people, but this doesn't appear to support an actual dystopia. There is a government who isn't overbearing, there are prison systems, and it is stated that there is a sufficient educational system. It seems like an average future – portrayed through an unreliable narrator, the criminal Alex. The story gives the interpretation that criminals are too prevalent in the society but there are only two gangs and most other characters are living their lives. Compared to most dystopian literature, the concept is inverted along with the protagonist who is normally an underdog rebelling against their government. Alex doesn't mold a bildungsroman or feel like an underdog rebelling against the unruly. Analyze and interpret the dystopian elements and the contradictions within the book/movie and define if this can really be called dystopian or if it is actually a parody or something else entirely. Would this be a satire or parody? This is considered a black comedy so there is still humorous aspects to consider.
I like the idea. I'm not sure parody is quite the correct word--maybe satire or something similar--but the idea behind it is very interesting. – nsnow9 years ago
It's interesting that you say that, I originally brought this topic up to one of my professors as a satire and they said that it would be less of a satire and more of a parody. I agree with you, and would love to hear more opinions in regards to which would be a better term for A Clockwork Orange. – Connor9 years ago
Just looking at the definitions, parody's goal is comedy and humor through imitation and exaggeration. I wouldn't call Clockwork Orange a comedy or humorous book/movie. Satire uses humor and/or exaggeration to criticize a concept, which I think is closer to what you are getting at. Both words are closely related and I could see an argument for either one. – nsnow9 years ago
Agreed, although A Clockwork Orange is classified as a black comedy which I know isn't as common in American works but has been popular among Kubrick's other works (ex. Dr Strangelove). I look at it as more of an inverted version of dystopia showing that the common dystopian story can be flipped and more horrific (sounds more satirical to me in that sense), but I can see both sides. – Connor9 years ago
It can sometimes be difficult for reviewers to be objective because nostalgia clouds their perception, so it would be worthwhile to look at anime from the 70's and 80's that still stand up in time. This would include doing research on popular titles from those time periods and watching them. The ANN Cast "Top 80's anime' podcast might be useful to refer to. To anyone who wants to write this particular piece, since the project is enormous, I would like to collaborate. I will likely send a PM as I have seen quite a number of series from this time period (Urusei Yatsura, Maison Ikkoku, Ranma, the Mobile Suit Gundam film compilation trilogy, Dimension Fortress Macross…) and it could make the process easier.
Wait? So if you post a topic here, you CAN take it for yourself? I thought the point was to offer topics for others to pick from. And then if you want to write something you yourself came up with, you just go and start writing it. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Yes, I think that is still the case. I just thought I'd put this one because I'd like to collaborate with other writers on it. I think I'm allowed to do that? – Jordan9 years ago
I'd love to contribute to this article. I'd have to say Rumiko Takahashi's and Osamu Tezuka's works definitely have to be up in the list. – coriandres9 years ago
That's awesome to hear, Coriandres. Thanks for volunteering. I can't seem to find the button to PM you. Are you able to PM me and we can figure out what shows we should divide between us and that sort of thing? You can snag the topic and I can message you through what I've written as I go. – Jordan9 years ago
Marvel and DC have been in the comic scene for decades, they have made huge impacts on comic readers everywhere. Not only with their ability to draw in the reader, but to make characters that stick with them forever throughout their lifetime. That being said, what does that do to the other comic book publishers such as; Image Comics/Vertigo Comics/Wildstorm Comics/Dark Horse Comics/Boom! Comics etc. Most of these comic publishing companies don't make superhero comics, they make other genres of comics books. I know some comic book buddies that don't even know half of that list exists.
Knowing that, what do you think this does for them? The love for superheroes will never cease, but with the approaching years to come do you think that readers are going to switch to other genres and give up on the cliche superhero plots? There are some really good comics out there in the wavelengths, Paper Girls being one of them.
Do you think readers are going to make the adjustment and start giving these comic publishing companies the credit they deserve?
Or keep on going with superheroes?
If you agree, do you think these publishing companies will get movie rights and start making even more comic films that don't have to deal with superheroes?
And even so, do you think they would make any money if they did start to make other genres of comic films?
Is there some particular reason that 2016 will be the "migration" year? Personally, I see DC and Marvel as the gateway publishers. I started with Batman graphic novels, then getting into the Batman monthly issues,and branching out into Wonder Woman New 52 (Azzarello and Chang) and Green Lantern before I picked up Saga, an Image published comic. I can't say I would have gotten Saga without first getting into DC, but man am I glad I did. It is important also to keep in mind that Marvel and DC use publisher owned characters, compared to Image and Vertigo which are creator-owned books and characters. The ownership allows for some more risks and deviations from what the big wigs would see as popular; it allows for more "art" (not that DC and Marvel can't have literary books, just that it isn't as often or easy with their characters). – nsnow9 years ago
All things being equal, comic books attract a certain audience; and different genres of comics have a specialized audience that is a subset of the whole of the comic book audience, with relatively little crossover. Barring a profound cultural shift, I think the status quo shall remain relatively intact for the foreseeable future. – JDJankowski9 years ago
There are many heroes that adhere to a strict "no-killing" rule and there are several heroes that absolutely don't. For instance, Batman and The Midnighter. Analyse which approach makes more sense from an idealistic standpoint as well as a pragmatic standpoint.
This is a fascinating concept, but terrifyingly broad. Maybe you could pick two specific heroes to contrast? Batman versus pretty much anyone else? I have Trigun on the brain because I just finished it, but a contrast between Trigun and Wolfwood would be interesting, especially because they are both mitigated versions of other's more extreme philosophies (Ren and Knives, to some extent). Also, the show definitely seemed to priviledge Vash's perspective, but, as the viewer, I'm still not sold that he's right, even in his fictional universe. – thekellyfornian9 years ago
I think adding the "Yes-Kill" rule to a character adds the ability to really flesh out a character. Most characters who kill are not unaffected. Usually they deal with moral issues and regret. A character with a "No Kill" rule, would not have these issues and therefore it'd be harder to flesh out the character and make them feel real to readers. Not to say it doesn't work, it just evokes a much different type of connection. – Tatijana9 years ago
I think it's interesting some of the greatest characters for DC do not kill and the best character, in my opinion, for Marvel, The Punisher, does. A lot. I find that interesting because typically one associates DC comics with a grittier feel and Marvel with a brighter tone. Maybe an examination of each universe and the prevailing philosophies of the leading heroes? – Bo9 years ago
I think examining the moral question--examining those situations when it is justifiable to kill for the sake of the common good--would be of great importance here. For instance, despite his no-kill stance, would it be better for Batman, in some instances, to kill in order to prevent more harm (e.g., should he kill the Joker)? – Luthien9 years ago
It's all about personal philosophy...Are you asking about what would make a character who doesn't kill kill someone? To protect those they love...
Or they will always find another way.
-Rurouni Kenshin
-Aang ,Last Airbender It is a very heroic and philosophical ideal, but can be perceived as a weakness. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
I recently watched both of these films, and I am really interested in how they might relate to each other, and what they say about individual justice. Both films involve a dark, complicated, rather twisted pursuit of revenge by someone whose wife was murdered and is failed by the law. In Law Abiding Citizen, the protagonist is brilliant, analytical, and always miles ahead of everyone else, until the last scene. However, in Memento, you pity the protagonist, because he seems very helpless and manipulated by those around him, until the very last scene, where he asserts his autonomy. It would also be interesting to look at how favorably the film portrays each man's brutal pursuit of justice, whether in how disturbing the inciting moment is, or how sympathetic their character is. To what extent is this personal pursuit of justice permissible, or even admirable? What does it do to the people who try to carry it out?
Very interesting. You could also look at how the performances of Gerard Butler and Guy Pearce are so interestingly differentiated, Butler's more overt and scheming approach that's gradually brought down by the efforts of Jamie Foxx's character grounding him in the harsh reality of the world, whereas Pearce's enigma is constantly on the move and confusing the viewer, playing on our sympathies before ruthlessly tearing them all to shreds in that final scene. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
It is interesting how at the end of Memento it is no longer about revenge for Leonard, but about the possibility of meaning. Memento reveals how essential memory is to identity. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
Why are we so fascinated with time travel? Time travel movies offer film makers unique possibilities, yet they also inevitably create confusing and contradictory plot malfunctions. Someone should consider the role of time-travel in such films as Back to the Future, Looper, Edge of Tomorrow, Project Almanac, Groundhog's Day, Interstellar, Primer, Star Trek, Predestination, The Butterfly Project, Men in Black 3, and About Time. Which films simply use time-travel as a convenient plot device and which actually make it integral to the story? Why do some directors fail to account for obvious plot holes introduced by time-travel?
On the anime front The Girl who Leapt through Time, The Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya and also Steins Gate also talk about time travel. I'm happy to add my own thoughts to the discussion as well. – Jordan9 years ago
A simple answer is that time-travel, and the nature of relatively, is an ever advancing series of theories and understandings. We may never truly know how it all works, why it works, or what it's full limitations are. The two prevailing theories in regards to time-travel plot holes are that either 1: if you go back and change the past which changes the future, this new future is a fractured timeline that is separate from the original, meaning a different universe. Or 2: if you change the past, that past directly affects the future, and there's only one linear timeline. "Back to the Future" actually considers both of these theories to be one and the same. But who's to say that the timeline Marty found himself in after the events of the first film is actually the same universe he left from? A few other theories to consider are that A. if you go back and try to change the past, you are not actually messing with time, but are a direct participant in it, because the universe "wants" you to change the past. And B. Anything that you attempt to do in order to stop something from happening, no matter what point in time you are, the universe will conspire to stop you, or will conspire to cause you to do something, no matter how hard you try to avoid it. Yes, there are obvious plot holes in some cases, but you'd have to get pretty creative and perhaps even technical in a discussion on this in order to really cover all of the possibilities regarding the logic and methodology behind creating a time-travel concept, and how it applies to a linear story. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Of course time travel as we like to think of it is entirely impossible at this point in our history. Time is relative all over the universe, and time is always going forwards. There are ways to speed up time: to speed up the flow of it relative to another location. But we have yet to fully discover a direct way in which something or anything can travel backwards in time, let along a phone-booth, a police-box, or a Delorean. So all time-travel plots are completely fictional to begin with. The only logic we can really give them is logic that is likely archaic by this point, but only makes sense because we are naturally taught to understand things by a "cause & effect" relationship. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think people are so obsessed with time travel because we as human are so full of regret. I'm willing to bet most of us don't easily "move on" so to speak. What if scenario's plague us, and therefore, it's pretty natural that we obsess over the idea of going into the past and undoing all the things we regret or messed up. – Tatijana9 years ago
I believe time travel has continued to be a popular motif in contemporary film because it is one of the notable science fiction concepts that remains an impossibility in today's high-tech world. – mcmarkowitz9 years ago
Interesting...one might say that the story-telling potential for time travel outweighs the need to correct plot holes. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
The comparison between Avengers Assemble and Avenger's films.
Avengers Assemble is a cartoon television show aired on Disney XD. It started in 2013 and was created by Stan Lee himself. Look at the comparison between the two and how the personalities are either constructed better in the cartoon series, or they lack abilities that you see in the films.
You can also get down and dirty to a depth-by-depth analysis of each character and how they are similar or different between the two the show and the film. You can also think about how Avengers Assemble can show a lot more analysis of personality traits because it is a TV show, that has at least 26 episodes. There is two seasons currently and it is available on Netflix.
Was the 2013 series REALLY created by Stan Lee? I know he's the big guy for Marvel, but wasn't the show along with the other ones now from Joe Quesada and Jeff Loeb? Stan Lee as I understand would just be the producer. – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
the avengers as a whole. not the entire show; the show was produced by a bunch of people. I was just naming Stan, for reference as to past avengers personalities if they didn't just want to focus on the films and the avengers assemble and wanted to contrast the comics as well, but I meant to say "the avengers was created by Stan Lee himself" then again it probably would still sound like I was saying it was created by Stan Lee; didn't catch that until now! thank you! – scole9 years ago
Self-publishing has become a new and exciting industry with great opportunities for a lot of writers. As a writer though, I often feel conflicted about the pros this has for myself but perhaps the cons it has for the greater literary world that I love. Does the flood of self-publishing depreciate the quality and opinion of the works being produced? Is this actually beneficial for the literary world or is it harmful?
I don't know too much about all the details behind self-publishing, but I believe it is a good thing for the literary world; the writers and the readers both. It is good for writers because it is an accessible option. Everyone is protective of their writing, and many are insecure about sharing it (at least in the beginning). When one can self-publish, it is easier to stay anonymous. And it helps to develop a portfolio for up-and-coming writers. It is a good way to show the publishing industry serious work ethic by finishing and sharing a work with a wide audience. Hopefully, if they take good care to copyedit and proofread the work, the industry will also see potential in the actual work, too. Readers are advantaged in the sense that they, too, have more access to more writing. The only disadvantage might be is if there is a lot of poor writing, it might waste their time. But, I think one can determine early on if they like a text they are reading, and can skip along to another work if they are bored, frustrated, or uninterested. Since cover art is a less elaborate option (if it is an option at all), and since it is, in truth, something that will draw buyers towards a certain publication, writers have to work harder to create something interesting and well written. Hopefully, 50 Shades of Grey is a rare exception of poor, self-published writing that turned into a best seller. – Laura Bowman9 years ago
I myself have questioned how self-publishing will effect both the quantity and quality of materials being published. I personally am not a fan of the self-publish movement. While publishing houses should not have absolute say it what is interesting to mass readers I still feel they serve as a good crowd sourcing and screening. I feel having your work published my HarperCollins goes a lot farther than Amazon publishing. Should it be that way? I feel yes. This publishing house is a leader because it has produced best-sellers right and left. They have the platform to take a book and make it popular just by it coming from their house. We need more publishing houses to start rising up and creating their brand. This would create jobs and give writers a medium for their voices. Self publishing is great, but if it never makes it past Amazon online is that the best it can do? No, it needs a team behind it to make it soar. The literary world has become so segmented, with readers sticking mainly to their genre and publishers, yet if a dedication is formed to a house, and not just an author, they will experience a myriad of texts. -Sarah Patterson – sarahpatterson9 years ago
I've spoken to English professors and writers who generally agreed that self-publishing wasn't necessarily a bad thing, and could be an asset to writers later seeking conventional representation. In the modern era I think it's helpful to get any exposure possible. – merrittcorrigan9 years ago
Self-publishing has rocked the literary world and has pros and cons that you could consider addressing in your piece. Being able to circumvent the publishing companies can lead to the question of what types of authors and subjects these companies support. Unfortunately, the pool is not as diverse as it could be. African Americans, American Indians, and Latinos are some of the most under-represented demographics as characters in the literature that gets published and as authors that get published. So, are publishers hindering diversification (albeit, because they know what will sell) and is self-publishing a way to spread pieces by or about under-represented demographics? Literature can really spread cultural awareness, so it would be interesting to see the rise in self-publishing take advantage of the opportunity to do so. – moepsen39 years ago
And how does one go about advertising? – Candice Evenson9 years ago
I think self-publishing can be a positive means by which important information can get to the general public. Though I find myself relying upon reviews on sites such as Good Reads and Amazon when making decisions on self-published books, my position as a social scientist also informs me that self-selection bias (i.e., those who care the most - hate it, love it - are usually the ones who take the time to review) can occur. A book that may be quite good could get a horrible one-star review from someone and then it's dead in the water. Do authors with the means (be it monetary, connections, advertising, etc.) to circulate novels "in exchange for an *honest* review" have an advantage over those who do not? These are the thoughts that swim through my mind when I contemplate self-publication. Does anyone else have experience with this? – lrremi019 years ago
Especially in the digital era, there are so many new publishing avenues, and publishing was already a very rapidly changing business. Self-publishing in less expensive routes could allow, as mentioned above, for more marginalized voices to enter the literary field. However, there's also the question of quality. One poorly edited book too many could turn people off to reading other self-published works where the authors spent more time finetuning everything. It'd be difficult to make a conclusive statement because quality and reasons for self-publishing are incredibly diverse, but it's worth dissecting. – emilydeibler9 years ago
With Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl and Agents of SHIELD currently on the air and with more in development, analyze what is making the superhero genre attractive for TV. Discuss the difference in viewers between shows and networks and if that is a hindrance to some of the programs.
I think Daredevil is the perfect example of a superhero show because it doesn't/hasn't yet overcomplicated things by trying to merge with other series' plotlines. I am finding it difficult to muster enthusiasm to get into Arrow, The Flash etc. because it just seems such a hefty commitment. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
i completely agree with the above comment, i watch them all, but you have to start from the beginning or else you'll probably be lost. the flash and arrow are huge commitments! also, Gotham you can't forget about Gotham. That show is marvelous, and really proves what a really good superhero show can do. – scoleman9 years ago
I think that this is a good topic. To elaborate on what could be discussed, I think it would also be interesting to hear if the crossovers between shows would be ideal and encouraged. If so, should the networks do them more often? One of the shows on the rise is Legends of Tomorrow, which from my understanding is almost entirely taking characters from Flash and Arrow and combining them into a team. Good or bad idea? – Danny Phantom9 years ago
One thing that I like about superhero shows is the antihero. For example, Oliver Queen. He's not your typical, do-good superhero we often see. He's willing to kill people if it comes to it, something not every superhero is okay with. I like the darker side of superheroes. Another new superhero show that's taken over is Jessica Jones. She's also not your traditional hero and she's a badass. The show is dark yet the plot isn't over complicated and easy to follow along. You're always rooting for her. Gotham is another good show, also. – diehlsam9 years ago
Something I've been thinking about lately is how competitive getting published is. Novelists who want to write a "less accessible" kind of story may find themselves struggling with finding an audience, or even an interested agent. Meanwhile, the list of national bestsellers is filled with novels that, generally, play it safe. For instance, The Girl on the Train is regarded in its promotional material as another Gone Girl. Would the former have been written the way it was or even be written at all if the latter didn't precede it? Are the heavily publicized novels becoming too homogeneous? And how is this reflected across genres?
I think that wanting to be a bestselling author can stifle you. The more you have to consider your audience and your books acceptance the more you are going to deviate from your true story. Then again, maybe if you are a really good author maybe you can still find a way to push boundaries and yet be accepted? And the will these copy cat safe best sellers even stand the test of time? I'm probably getting too far off topic now... – Tatijana9 years ago
While this point of view may be naive, I do think that good stories will get written and distributed to readers who are interested, with the right marketing of course. However, I do think in some genres, such as mystery, it can be easy to want to closely imitate the tropes or signature twists of particular authors. I would make sure to do a lot of research about marketing and sales when writing that topic so that any expressed opinions are well informed. – mmg19959 years ago
We shouldn't forget that published literature is an industry. I think that when an author's book is promoted as similar to another's, it's a way to ride off of a success that's already been attained. If they are genuinely similar, couldn't it be a case of people trying to take formulaic approaches to novels in order to make bank? The need to make a living affecting the quality of the product? On the other hand, what about writers (who are usually avid readers) being inspired by popular novels? It follows that something that becomes popular is more likely to influence people. – DapperHologram9 years ago
This is a very interesting topic! But I think like most mediums, most things cannot stand "on their own" and instead have to be reflections of something earlier. It's unfortunate but I think there can be some useful scholarship concerning it. – aykaykay39 years ago
NaNoWriMo, or National Novel Writing Month, is a real challenge that is not for the faint of heart. Every November millions of writers from across the globe sign up and announce to their social world that they intend to stagger through the 50,000 word gauntlet. Why do so many writers fail to follow through, and what are some of the success stories of those who do?
This is a very interesting topic to me, since I am currently participating. I am already behind schedule :( . For me the issues are time, loss of interest in my characters/plot, "writer's block, and the feeling that what I'm writing is pure garbage. – Tatijana9 years ago
I understand completely. I`m doing my first one. I was dead tired that last two nights, but I forced my way through the 1667 words needed to stay on track. I hope you hang in there. Just write anything. Editing while you write will kill your creativity and your drive. That`s what make NaNo so great. Good luck. – SWBiddulph9 years ago
One of the things about NaNoWriMo is that it is often forgotten that it is more about quantity than quality for the one month. One of the biggest issues, something that I've done, is think that every sentence has to be perfect before moving forward. This, along with many other factors, could be what makes so few complete the task. – Austin Bender9 years ago
I like this topic; again, I'm interested since I'm also participating this year. Time commitment is probably a big one, as well as self-doubt. I think I heard a quotation from a well-known author once that summed it up nicely; he said that he either thought that he was the best writer in the world or the most talentless (it might have been John Green). Anyway, I think that sums up the plight of the creative writer very nicely; you're constantly plagued by doubts that you're not good enough (although, arguably, that's the side of you that pushes you to improve). – laurakej9 years ago
It's also important to consider the question of why so many people outside of NaNoWriMo fail to finish a novel. Taking too long to get through the first draft can burn a lot of people out. Given that the publishing climate is always in flux, time to write a novel can affect one's ability to pitch it successfully. If nothing else, NNWM helps to build the discipline required to actually get from the first to the last page of a draft. – iatakpa9 years ago
Actually, iatakpa, your response is the one I was looking for. That's the real nugget of NNWM--finishing something for once. Take a 50,000 word rough draft and turning it into something worthwhile is a whole lot easier then writing the 50,000 words. Good point. :) – SWBiddulph9 years ago
I think many writers fall through because of writer's block. In hindsight, writing 50k words seems like something you could easily do in 30 days if you stay on top of it, but once you get writing, you sometimes hit that wall. It becomes discouraging. I did NNWM once and I finished it, but it was challenging. It did teach me, however, that writer's block is an illusion, that the objective is to first get words on the paper (however ridiculous they might sound), and then later fix what you wrote. – Christina Legler9 years ago
Well, aim high and see what happens. I have not done NNWM because the time commitment, but I can see the advantage of cracking down and just writing as much as possible, whether you finish or not. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
As someone who participates and leads a region, I'd be intrigued to hear the reasoning and see if there's a common trend. I do think discouragement and losing passion around the halfway mark are issues NaNoWriMo participants face. Once you get yourself muddy with an idea, it can get harder to see the path to a 50K first draft. Priorities shift and excitement wanes. You start thinking of plot holes and want to reread, edit, and fret, which takes up much time and energy. – emilydeibler9 years ago
Lots of fans argue about the female characters of Angel the series, the spin-off of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The main reason for this is that many of these characters are put through a torturous storyline and killed off in order to further the character development of the male characters. Is there any merit to this?
I don't think killing off a character is enough to make it not feminist nor does a torturous storyline. What things in particular make their deaths/torture anti feminist or feminist? A lot of the male characters don't get off very lucky as far as storylines either. I would definitely include specific tortures/deaths that demeaned the value of women in some way. – Tatijana9 years ago
I think Angel did many things that could be used to argue whether the show is feminist or not, but I'm not 100% sure that the killing off of female characters is the biggest one. Then again, I have not seen the show in ages, so I might have just forgotten. – Austin Bender9 years ago