Analyze the stark difference between Episodes 4-6 and 1-3 in terms of the lack of a Han Solo-type character. Perhaps Harrison Ford's acting carried the first three films, but the absence of this sort of character weighed heavily on the other films and put the burden on Hayden Christensen's Annakin. If the same would have happened in 4-6, Luke Skywalker would have had to carry the weight, and it doesn't appear he could have pulled it off. The Han Solo story and characterization appears to have added more interest for the audience, leaving Luke's grander story in the background, where it effectively progressed.
Great article idea. Han Solo is one of the most important parts of the original trilogy and the prequels put less focus on the archetype and more on comic relief, mostly from Jar Jar. – Austin Bender9 years ago
I've always thought that Anakin's characterization would've benefited a lot more if he'd started off as a swashbunkler-esque rogue young man, instead of a whiny little child. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
I think there is some truth to this. However, I think the larger problem with the prequels is the poor writing, campiness, and bad acting, with the exceptions of Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, and Ewan McGregor. Ewan McGregor's amazing performance in Episode III almost single-handedly rescues the film. It is also less campy because of the dark tone. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
Interesting....but the prequels had more problems than just that it was missing a scoundrel. Wrapped within that character is humor, risk, adventure, etc. Luke was the perfect angel, it seemed, so Han Solo was more fun? The prequels lacked characters like Han Solo who we cared about. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
Absolutely. The prequels also lacked something worthy of fear. The robots were comical, as were the Trade Federation. Darth Maul LOOKED scary, but almost to an exaggerated sense. – damfer219 years ago
With the increasing abundance of resources to help writers create, publish, and advertise their works, comes an increase in new less experienced authors. It seems that everyone who wants to be an author can! This gives people, who otherwise would never have written a book, the opportunity to share their stories, but how does this affect the quality of literature? How do we decide what is worth reading?
Accidentally submitted the revision before I was finished and can't edit the revision. Writers in the title shouldn't have the apostrophe. There are also a couple grammar mistakes in the body of the post itself. – nsnow9 years ago
This is interesting! Would be good to explore how although anyone can now write, becoming an author and making a living out of it is a lot harder than before. It's quite paradoxical but does make sense, and would be interesting to research. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
Things to consider:
Websites like http://nanowrimo.org/ that motivate people to write their book in a month. This gives people a community of motivation and also a written commitment to finish books they may usually have never started or given up on.
Amazon's self publishing gives author's a free way to publish the books straight to ebook format. They no longer need to go through the hoops of a publishing company and/or editors.
Bookbub provides advertising of books and coaxes people into reading them since they are free or reduced price. All these loopholes can let lower quality writing filter out to the public without being corrected/fact checked. – Tatijana9 years ago
Great topic. It may be worth going into some success stories of self-published authors too, such as Hugh Howey's Wool series or the evolution of Scott Sigler's Ancestor from free audibook to current TPB. – mattdoylemedia9 years ago
This is an amazing idea, and one's answer to it really depends on what you think the goal of writing is. Some more traditional, ivory-tower, "Great Books" viewpoints on literature is will probably be really frustrated at lots of subpar, self-published authors, since the goal is to produce technically excellent literature with sweeping, universal themes. However, if the goal is self-expression, and the ability to understand other people, then having a multiplicity of voices is wonderful, because it lets underprivileged writers, who might not have otherwise had a voice, get heard. – thekellyfornian9 years ago
I think this would have to focus on the many avenues of publishing and less on the actual act of writing. Everyone has always been able to write, but now we're in a time when Amazon and other websites allow you to publish your work and sell it. Also, maybe mention the most commonly purchased genres from self-publishing. – Austin Bender9 years ago
There has been 7 high grossing film titles for the Fast & Furious sequels. Look into the appeal of these films and maybe even go deeper into a psychological understanding of the viewers of the film.
Great franchise to analyse. Franchise went from mindless racing movie to heist movie to being a film franchise that prided itself on a diverse cast that genuinely seems to get along with one another. It could also be potentially responsible for the current rise in car culture. – Austin Bender9 years ago
3D films have been dropping and out of vogue since the 1950's and have, in actuality, been experimented with prior to even then. But are 3D films really a viable mainstream form of film making, or are they simple a novelty act that evolves with each new era of moviegoers? This article takes us through the history of the art form and discusses how successful 3D films and 3D elements actually are in comparison to their 2D bretheren.
Honestly, unless the human eye is able to evolve to a point where it can withstand fake immersive 3D, I don't think 3D has a real future as the next step in theater evolution. VR will expand greatly in the next decade or so, allowing any number of mediums and applications to make use of it. But it will only be able to be enjoyed for reasonable lengths of time by those who do not contract headaches and bloodshot eyes from using either polarized glasses, or double-screen headsets. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
You could talk about how some films use 3D as a gimmick, and how other films like Avatar uses 3D to enhance the experience. I also think it would be worth while to talk about how long the 3D craze can last. For animated kids movies for example, parents don't want to pay extra money for 3D. 3D TV's where predicted to be the new big thing, but almost nobody bought them. It would be interesting to analyses the longevity of 3D in films – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Both good points. On the standpoint of it being a gimmick, I do wonder personally if using it sparingly (such as 'Freddie vision in Nightmare on Elm Street 6' works better as it doesn't overdo the effect. The headaches are also a good point because they're what prevent me from seeing modern 3D films. – mattdoylemedia9 years ago
I feel The Hobbit films would be worth mentioning and how the 48fps enhanced the 3D. Explore how other advancements affect 3D in films. – 44jeanette449 years ago
I agree, I think The Hobbit films would be a unique point of comparison. Great topic, would be interested to see where someone takes this. – emilyinmannyc9 years ago
3D will most likely always be a thing, and covering the history will probably show that, but if critic and movie-goers opinions are gauged, it seems to be that we are entering a time when no one really wants 3D at the cinema. – Austin Bender9 years ago
I have heard that 3D movies do very well internationally, even though here in the states they are commonly seen as a way to flush 2 more bucks down the toilet.
It is not as much of an "event."
I wonder why that is. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
In my opinion the situation is somewhat similar to when we switched from black-and-white to color - the technology was available since the beginning of the 20th century but it didn't really pick until the 50s and 60s. It was magnificently advertised purely for the spectacle, people thought it was awesome blah blah blah - and eventually things calmed down and color simply became another tool in the filmmaker's toolbox - no longer a novelty just to "flush 2 more bucks down the toilet" as Candice Evenson puts it.... – jmato9 years ago
There is great unbalance between the popularity of works of prose and works of poetry in today's world. Everyone and their mother has read a novel or two, and you might even hear them recommend one. Poetry, on the other hand, seems to be something hidden from mainstream conversation and even recognition. I can go on naming celebrated contemporary authors and novelists, while the only poet I can think of as being worthy of "celebrity" status is Billy Collins. That is not to say that there are not skilled or renowned poets today, but it seems that neither they nor their work are nearly as recognized. Why might this be?
I'm curious about this too. I'm an English major, and I regularly read novels for fun, but I almost never do that with poetry. I don't know if it's because poetry is just plain harder to read than novels (and has that always been a thing? or is it just a modern development?), but maybe also because of one being seen as more "academic." Most people's first introduction to a novel is something fun like Magic Treehouse, but most people first introduction to poetry is probably like analyzing sonnets in high school English class. I actually hadn't even read anything by Billy Collins until this summer - and that was because I had a friend give me a collection of his poems, and I just decided to read it for fun. It probably also has something to do with the fact that novels 'feel' more accessible because they're more similar to film and other modes of storytelling, but also because poetry isn't even really concerned with storytelling a lot of the time? – thekellyfornian9 years ago
This is awesome, I love this topic. It is extremely unbalanced in todays world, and I frequently hear people saying they don't write or read poetry because it is "too difficult", or they think it's silly. I see a lack of appreciation in some readers and even writers. I am sad to see it is not being recognized in contemporary culture, so I would be interested to see where someone takes this. – emilyinmannyc9 years ago
it is because of strong and rich prose fiction of your culture. novels, short stories, and drama they have really strong annals but in my country poetry is so strong and rich all of the people know about poets and poetry even though the ancient ones.they memorize poems but they know less about prose. as I know ancient cultures have rich poetry history. it will be more amazing, if you consider these points that I have mentioned. – Elahe Almasi9 years ago
This really, really needs to be addressed!! – Tessnoonan9 years ago
Poetry tends to be difficult to understand. It requires more patience than prose. Social media has shrunk our attention spans, making it less likely that people will read anything, let alone poetry, which typically must be read several times to fully appreciate it. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
Good topic! I would like to think about "reading poetry" under the influence of interpretation. How the interpretation (poetry critique, texts trying to explain poems...) can ruin or help our interest on poetry? – laricouto9 years ago
It is confusing....If social media has shrunk our attention spans, I would think that poetry (rather than novels) would fit that medium. It just isn't taken seriously. MUSIC
is. Poetry has become more of personal expression, rather than a storytelling medium as someone else mentioned. That could have something to do with it. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
Poetry in books and on the page may not still have the popularity they used to, but I think the rise of slam poetry is something worth noting. – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
It's that time of year again, the perfect time to cuddle up with a cup of something hot and binge out on horror movies. Much has been written about zombies and vampires reflecting social anxiety regarding mindless consumerism and disease; let's take it a step further and analyze movies with (anti-?)feminist themes. What do we learn about the pathologizing of young girls in "The Exorcist"? Or, to take a newer horror film, is the vampire in "A Girl Walks Home at Night" a rogue feminist? The possibilities are endless, and bloody, and endlessly bloody.
I often wonder about the significance of female characters as the protagonists in horror films. I remember reading Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell talking (somewhat shamefaced) about how, as college students, they thought Evil Dead would be scarier if it was so frightening, it would make a grown man afraid - hence, the rare male lead (Ash Williams). The contradiction of placing a woman in the role of "fear" (weakness) while also being the "hero" (strength) in the horror genre is very interesting and would be sure to generate a lot of conversation. I think about Alien, Scream...the female protagonist is often abused and exploited, but in the end, she is the one to makes it out alive. This certainly says a lot about cultural views of women. – risserca9 years ago
Great topic. I do think horror movies sort of reflect societies views on women, like the mention of The Exorcist and such. – Austin Bender9 years ago
This is interesting, I would be interested in seeing a point of comparison between the representation of women in American Psycho and The Quiet Ones. Another intriguing analysis could be in the early horror cinema, like Tod Browning's Dracula and other horror films of the 1930s. – emilyinmannyc9 years ago
I've never fully considered this before, but it might call into question the female presence in low-budget campy horror to add aesthetic appeal and remain in the background of the plot, but also the demonisation of female sexuality in things such as vampire movies. – OliviaBurgin9 years ago
I think it has much to do with innocence. Either innocence is something that should be protected from demons or innocence is terrifying when it is tainted by evil. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
Why is music such a strong tool that is frequently used in films? I have always found music in movies to be great, but I am starting to realize that music is found in so many different types of film and range from dramas to animated films. Disney for instance thrive off of a successful soundtrack, but then a film like Perks of Being a Wallflower also thrives off its musical choices. My question could probably be answered with one word, but I want to know some deeper reasons people think music helps create magic in movies.
In Music History, we actually had a class devoted to this topic! (In fact, much of our course was devoted to the psychological effects of music)
Music has such an effect on our perception; it's such an emotional thing. One very basic example is that minor music is often automatically perceived as sad, major as happy, etc. It automatically creates an emotional response, and the composer's musical choices often suggest certain themes or ideas (i.e. more bombastic music is often perceived as "masculine", while more legato and lyrical music is perceived as "feminine" - certain musical instruments are often gendered, as well).
Music is necessary in film because it conditions the audience to feel a certain way. It promotes an emotional and psychological response, regardless of the film. It can help us empathize with a character (perhaps it's indicative of the character's own emotional state or struggles). It can create suspense or set the mood (i.e. many movies set in Asia will have music with a Western perception of orientalism). It can also "bend" time... have you ever watched a scene without the sound? It can turn horror movies into very long, boring things. Music tells a story on its own; it naturally supports the visuals of a story. This is a HUGE topic, actually!
In regards to your specific examples, think about how music is used in each of these situations. Disney movies have music that often serve as monologues; we get a peak into what each character is feeling in a moment (of course, they have instrumental music that is valuable as well). If I remember correctly, The Perks of Being a Wallflower had more mainstream music, which was appropriate to the setting of the movie. It also had themes that coincided with the movie's themes. Each musical choice in a movie is so carefully chosen; it completely impacts our reactions to characters and events (i.e. would we like a hero as much if he was accompanied by a villain's music?).
These are just some examples, but I hope they give you an idea of how music can be an effective tool in films! It could be quite interesting to compare/contrast the music of two very different films (such as a Disney film and The Perks of Being a Wallflower) and look at how each impacts the viewer's perception. Alternatively, you could look at what these movies would be like without music. Would they have the same impact? – laurakej9 years ago
One aspect of this question that might be worth exploring is the relationship between music in film and, say, MTV. Footloose, for example, was one of the first movies for which a soundtrack comprised of new songs was promoted on MTV before the movie's release. Prior to that, most live-action films utilized popular songs that, because of their widespread consumption, could be counted on to evoke a given emotional response. The success of Footloose as a film was largely due to its soundtrack's promotion on MTV. And sense then, the use of music in film has changed. How then, has the further evolution of the music industry (including but not limited to MTV) affected the use of soundtracks/scores in film? – arharrison9 years ago
Wonderful topic for one of the most important aspects of film. A well compiled soundtrack or well-made musical score can really make or break a film. – Austin Bender9 years ago
Music sets the tone, and it gives an opportunity for characters to show what is in their hearts. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
The show is surrounded around Meredith and Derek's relationship and without the core characters it's hard to stay engaged. With Derek out of the show, the basis of the plot seems demolished. Should the show have ended after his death? Do you agree with how the plot continues after he dies? What makes him so great that people would question whether or not the show should have ended after his death?
As someone who still watches the show, I think the dynamic definitely changed after his death. From the very first episode, it was all about him and Meredith. I don't think the show should have ended just because there still are a lot of other characters. For me, the way he was written off was horrible. It felt so rushed and I hated it. For example, Meredith pulled the cord before anyone got the chance to say goodbye, something I don't think would actually happen. I also did not like how the show skipped ahead a year. It was just rushed and I don't think Shonda wrote him off in a proper way. I think just his and Meredith's relationship is a reason people would question if the show should have kept going. Theirs was epic, something we have been following since the beginning. – diehlsam9 years ago
The show has undergone so many changes through its seasons that this moment wasn't the show "jumping the shark" because it has jumped the shark so many times (and still I keep watching!). I think that the show simply has a different purpose than it did in that first season, where clearly Derek/Meredith's relationship was central. Now, it is focusing on the ensemble cast more, and so it could, in theory, exist past Meredith even being on the show (after all, the "Grey" in Grey's Anatomy doesn't need to be Meredith--the hospital is named that now, too). I think this is where the show is attempting to head, although whether that is a good idea, I'm not so sure. – cray03099 years ago
Current TV shows watched by children are constantly compared to children's TV shows in the early 2000s and 1990s. It is said the latter has more substance. This topic asks the writer to compare two television show from different generations. "Girl Meets World" is a continuation of the popular 90's show "Boy Meets World". It picks up with the daughter of the main character from Boy Meets World, Cory, and his childhood sweetheart/wife Topanga. Analyze the difference of themes and how the themes are handled in each show. Take into account the difference of society and maybe even technology at the time of each show's popularity.
"Girl Meets World" isn't a reboot. It's a sequel. – FantasticMrMac9 years ago
It could also be interesting to consider if there are any differences in reception of the two shows, as Boy Meets World originally aired on network television on ABC, while Girl Meets World airs on a cable channel geared towards children and tweens, Disney. – Marcie Waters9 years ago
I think one thing that can be analyzed for sure is the role of Cory and Topanga in either series. Analyze them being adolescents to adults, and then analyze how that plays out in their daughter. What aspects of each does she most resemble or inherit? – itskaella9 years ago
Even though it is really important to analyze the differences between the two shows, it is also important to analyze the similarities between them. Of course we can point out how much of an impact technology has made on this generation, but what has stayed the same? For example, the interaction between student and teacher. Do the teachers still scold the children the same when they do something wrong? I remember all the times Mr. Feeny would scold Cory and Shawn when they did something wrong. Point being, it is good to see the differences but don't forget to include similarities. – alyssa7179 years ago
This should be interesting. I think both shows are drenched in the era they were created in and it should be interesting seeing what exactly that means. Depending on what angles this goes, it might be wise to bring up the current world events that were going on at the time. – Austin Bender9 years ago
Live-action shows from Asia, AKA dorama. People who were previously interested in anime and Japanese/Asian culture in general are beginning to cross over into watching live-action dramas (a lot of which are now adapting popular anime today). It may be interesting to explore from a more cross-cultural perspective, given that anime does not necessarily represent all of mainstream Japanese culture and social norms.
In Richard Halliburton's 1927 book "The Glorious Adventure" the reporter explored Greece, Italy and the Mediterranean in attempts to follow the paths of Odysseus of "The Odyssey" and Lord Byron's escapades across Europe. What other fictional of historic "Odyssey" could one go on? Explore this idea in writing and explain why one would want to make this journey.
The writers of the Beat generation, including Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, and several other men, have been called many things, from revolutionary to obscene, profound to self-indulgent. Though feminist backlash notes the exclusion of women from the movement and the misogynistic attitudes towards women advocated in Beat literature, many are willing to overlook this criticism and focus on the widespread influence of the Beats. This could lead into a conversation about art as art versus art as social statement, and the social responsibility of artists. Notably, the Beats are seen as opening the door for the hippie movement, which certainly espoused feminist ideologies. Perhaps, in the long run, feminism benefitted from the Beats opening the door for a counterculture. Perhaps not. But given the lasting romantic view of the Beats and the pseudo-revival they've experienced with recent film adaptations including Howl and Kill Your Darlings, their messages are worth scrutinizing.
I think a closer look at the Beats is necessary before judgment can be passed on them as Misogynists. I don't mean to imply they were not, of course. Kerouac certainly had moments where he objectified women, though I do not see this as damaging. The Lost Generation, albeit named by a woman, were certainly more misogynistic than the Beats. We should probably look at this group as moving a step closer to losing this negative attitude toward women. – damfer219 years ago
Analysis of King Lear that focuses on Lear's downfall and what is the morally correct course of action. In other words, do the characters of King Lear owe Lear help out of his situation or is he personally responsible for pulling himself out of the problem? In what ways must people take control of their own lives and destiny? In what ways do the people in the society owe fellow human beings help out of unjust and/or dangerous situations?
I'm assuming this is in regards to Cordelia's banishment - it should be noted that Lear is older and mentally fragile. It is also common in Shakespearean tragedy to have an event where it inevitably ends without resolution if not more suffering, meaning that taking responsibility or being assisted will come to the same or similar conclsion. Speaking about character responsibility seems hard to do when the character in question is unstable. There might be a better way to rephrase this question so that it is more fitting but Lear is basically unable to take responsibility of his life, actions, or destiny. – Connor9 years ago
I am speaking more about the Fool and Kent, both of these characters know Lear is losing his sanity and both know that he is leading himself to his own destruction. They both say that Cordelia's banishment is the best thing to happen to her, but they both stay by Lear's side until the end or their death. It is the idea that they are responsible for Lear rather than Lear responsible for himself. – courtlynn9 years ago
So are you asking why Kent and the Fool remain by Lear's side and why do they feel entitled to help him even though he is no longer king, especially Kent being banished for giving his opinion on Cordelia? The responsibility predicament seems more complex in that the situation is unique and has to be addressed as such I think. Maybe be a bit more concise in the topic? Not to mention this could be expanded beyond Lear if not specified to characters such as Edgar/Poor Tom who do not have a sense of control over their situations. – Connor9 years ago
Woody Allen is a jazz musician himself and always feature jazz soundtracks in his films. Analyse the use of soundtracks in Woody Allen films. How do they add to his style, to the characters, to the narrative, to the atmosphere? How do they vary in his American films and in his European films? Share some titles!
Do you think narrowing the scope to specifically Woody Allen movies cuts off fertile ground for criticism and analysis? Just off the top of the dome: The Coen Brothers, Tarantino, Romero, Woo, and Burton strike me as directors/writers whose music selection is as, if not more, important to their movies as the acting, script, etc. Could the topic be expanded to include a critical discussion of the ways specific genres of film (noir, western, comedy, drama, etc) use specific genres of music (jazz, country, rock, pop, etc.), or would that confuse the issue? – Bo9 years ago
That's true but that would mean an extensive and very long article, whereas focusing on one filmmaker in 1 article allows more depth in the analysis. A series of articles could be done like that - one on Tarantino, one on Burton... But I know a lot of people have already written on these directors and their taste in music, whereas the interest in Woody Allen's soundtracks is lower. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
I do agree with Rachel, this is such an extensive topic on its own that adding more would probably hurt the articles overall effectiveness. – Austin Bender9 years ago
I am no sports expert, but it seems to me that esports suffer a greater frequency of cross-continental player transfers than "real" sports. It could make an interesting article to examine why this happens, is it just because there are less restrictions? Unable to speak for other esports like StarCraft etc., it's apparent in League of Legends that a great deal of players on NA teams did not originate in North America and transferred over from a European or Korean (etc.) team. Last season I believe is was OMG, a Chinese team, that transferred over to NA entirely and played for a split before returning back. How are teams' regional identities so flexible? Also seen often is a player from another region which transfers to NA but is unable to play due to "credit card complications." Why does this happen so often, and ultimately is it worth the risk? I've seen far too many times during LCS that teams lose because they don't get enough practice with their core lineup because of complications and an inability to play since there was a transfer issue. Examine this issue and assess the pros and cons of cross regional player transfers.
I have no idea what Esports are - is it just the name for a certain type of game? This is an interesting topic and has a lot of potential given it is fleshed out enough. – Jordan9 years ago
I'd be less interested in the "pros and cons" article, and more interested in a "what does this mean for e-sports and the post-internet world as a whole" article, but I like the topic. – Christopher Vance9 years ago
Look at Dutch Angles in cinema. Say what they are, and then have a little think about why they are pretty much just jokes now. Could be an intresting progression. A good place to start would be old horror movies (obviously) and then move on to other stuff. I know Decker season 3 has a lot of them.
Though they're definitely scoffed at a lot now, I think a piece in defense of the dutch angle could also be interesting. There are contemporary examples that are not seen as tacky or passe, such as the sparing (keyword) use of dutch angles in The Dark Knight. So perhaps an examination of what makes a dutch angle effective vs. laughable and why would be more nuanced, rather than assuming they are always bad now. – ElizabethMcCauley9 years ago
Good to see another "deckerhead" is on here. I think this is interesting, but can be combined with other examples which are often derided, such as jump cuts or speeding up footage or whip panning. This would support a contention that no technique is less or more worthy than any other technique, but is dependent entirely on the context. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
Recently, a popular character was killed off in The Walking Dead. When popular characters are killed off, there is often a lot of backlash from fans. How does this affect a show's success? Does it turn fans off? Or are they pulled in even further by the unpredictability of the show?
It would probably be helpful to note that shows like Heroes and Lost were at first applauded for their frequency of character deaths, but in Heroes case it is often credited by fans as one of the reasons they quit watching. – Austin Bender9 years ago
Another very popular show that does this is Game of Thrones. Both the Walking Dead and GOT have strayed from their book/comics when it comes to deaths and that is something that bothers the readers who watch the show. – diehlsam9 years ago
I think there are a few different things to consider, here. Part of it is the marketing of the show and the target audience: is this an "arc" show with larger, connected storylines, or an episodic show meant to be feel-good and regular? Is the death played up (Who dies on this weeks episode?!) or is it treated as just another plot point? Was the death meaningful to the plot, relevant to real-world problems (actor lost their contract, etc.), or thrown in as a "surprise" ending to an otherwise dull episode? What I suppose I'm saying is this: the context and presentation is what defines the worth and reaction to a characters death, and it would be interesting to see some examples explored in terms of their real-world consequences. – Christopher Vance9 years ago
I think it would also be important to maybe talk about the aspect of how fans themselves might have a roll in who stays and who goes. For example in Lost, the fans disliked the characters of Nikki and Paulo so much that the writers decided to kill the characters off the show. – BlueJayy9 years ago
It depends on exactly why a character was killed of a show but when it is a very well loved character, fans tend to not look at the reasons and get angry. There are realistic aspects to consider, such as a shows budgeting and the actor themselves and what other work they are involved in. Then there are fictional aspects to consider and maybe their death was necessary for the continuance of the plot, maybe that was their purpose. Unfortunately, people do not take the time to look at these reasons and when a favorite dies, the show becomes dead to them. – ktartaglione9 years ago
An interesting sort-of exception to this is possibly Doctor Who, which "kills off" its main character every few seasons in a sense, but keeps him eternally alive in another sense. Sure, the Doctor is "regenerating," but he's the same character. It's only the actor (and the actor's take on the character) that changes. It would also be interesting to look into how that particular situation affects audience perception. – AnneKopas9 years ago
Gilmore Girls is a TV series that aired from 2000-2007. This series is a comedy/drama and is based around Rory, and her mother Lorelai Gilmore who live in a small town called, 'Stars Hallow'. This TV series ended with a lot of questions in regards to what happened to Lorelai and Rory, and in regards to Luke getting together with Lorelei. There are said to have four revival episodes to finish up any stories that didn't finish up in the clearest of ways. Do you think these four revival episodes will be enough to satisfy the audience? Or did you think the series finale did a good job finishing up all of the stories?
Great topic, it could also be worth it to mention Netflix's track record with reviving older TV shows, like The Killing and Arrested Development. Also, it should be mentioned that from what I've seen, Netflix has still declined to comment. – Austin Bender9 years ago
I think if done correctly 4 episodes is enough. I think the show def. left with a lot of unanswered questions. At least for Rory. I think we could assume Luke and Lorelai get together...but ... what does Rory end up doing after gallivanting around? I think this is going to be a tough feat though. The people who watched this show are all grown and many of us have come to terms with the ending and invented our own versions of what happened.... so we might be a little hard to please. Then again, a lot of us have also rewatched the series, so maybe this opens the story back up and also reminds us all that we didn't get a real ending. – Tatijana9 years ago
Horror as a genre has evolved so much since the first stories were written. Today Dracula would be considered tame while during the time it was written, it was considered too scary. The same with Camilla, one the first vampire stories which predated Dracula, it was even more scandalous since it involved a lesbian vampire. Today we have the writings of Stephen King and Dean Koontz that reach far out of most people's comfort zone.
It seems that society has a whole has become desensitized to the fear of horror writing. Is it because we are subjected to it so much?
Are you suggesting writing a piece which examines the way society has become desensitized to fear? Or a study on the way horror writing as evolved alongside societal norms? Or maybe neither of those things? Can you provide a bit more information on what it is you'd like to see done with this interesting idea? – Bo9 years ago
Thanks for the note! I went ahead and updated the topic based on your suggestions. – Hpfan289 years ago
Interesting...Personally, I think it is the topics that do appear feasible in horror movies, which inflict the most terror in a viewer's mind. For example, yes, Dracula would be tame, because most of us do not believe in vampires, especially one's that morph into bats, sleep in coffins, etc. Yet, when the bad guy is recognizable, the viewer is more likely to place themselves into the role of the tormented victim. This is similar to the discussion of terror versus horror. Terror is when a fearful object makes one nervous or upset, but does not arose heightened emotions because it is so far from one's realm of existence. Whereas horror is closer, tangible, believable, and instills fear because it exists within a viewer's realm of existence. One of the scariest movies is "Silence of the Lambs," due to the psychological content and the reality of serial killers.
In regards to us being desensitized...I think if a good horror movie was made, people would be frightened, especially due to being subjected to paranormal one thousand and twenty. – danielle5779 years ago
Interesting, I would recommend mentioning the increase of jump scares in modern, mainstream films. – Austin Bender9 years ago
The sometimes-acclaimed and popular FX TV series "American Horror Story" recently opened its fifth season, Hotel. It has many of the hallmarks of doing TV right, and yet my experience tells me that, like HBO's "True Detective" or any number of vaguely mysterious contemporary shows, "American Horror Story" (AHS) is often adamantly defended by viewers who cannot entirely pinpoint why it's good.
I lost AHS at some point during its second season, Asylum. I tried the third, Coven. I recently picked the show back up to test out the fourth season, Freak Show, as it arrived on Netflix streaming. While I enjoyed Freak Show more than I have any of the seasons following the first, it suffered from the same messy narrative hodgepodge that defined the others (and perhaps defines Hotel). How is it that so many elements and character arcs work? In Asylum, you layer horror atop horror, for instance, when it certainly seems the series would be more coherent and powerful with one or two.
From memory, in that second season, you get an old asylum (sufficiently disturbing), layer on a set of Catholic nuns (again, sufficiently disturbing), layer on demonic/Satanic possession of a kid (right), layer on a transfer of that possession to one of the junior nuns (terribly disturbing), layer on a Nazi eugenics doctor in hiding (um), layer on that the Nazi is breeding scifi monsters and interacting with aliens (what?), layer on an interracial couple and alien abduction (…), layer on a serial killer who decorates his home with human remains (wait), and so on. Add, of course, that the show tries to keep you invested in roughly the same number of characters as the number of the episodes in the season.
How does it work? I don't think it does. Can the skeptics be convinced? Should they?