Topics

I am no sport fan, but I do like watching a good half time show. Yet Sunday's game had the female dancers and singers do a lot of sexual suggestive dancing. While I under stand that is the type of dance people do today, I could not help but wonder does this go against feminism? (The fact that the girls are half naked, and are to dance in a way that flaunts their bodies to charge the male audience) Or is it empowering? (Allowing the women to dresss whatever they want to wear and do whatever they want to do.) What do you think?

At the time I loved the new Star Trek movies. They were exciting, full of space travel, linked to nostalgia and full of "larger than life" characters. However, a re-watch of these was almost as painful as re-watching the Fast and the Furious series; instead of vivid I realised the characters were one-dimensional, stereotyped, almost all white and when I actually took note of the ridiculous 70s dresses of the women, actually quite insulting.

Now this realisation did not occur randomly, this was the result of returning to re-watch the films after completing the TV series Star Trek Discovery – and what I discovered was that the films lived up to the franchise (hated by fans, full of over blown situations and lacking the depth of storytelling in the shows). Now with the launch of Star Trek Picard I am blown away by the commitment to storytelling in both the shows. The focus is on personal growth, the difficulty of sticking to your convictions, taking responsibility for your actions, understanding the complexity of dealing with people (human and alien) and it is committed to showing diversity.

I think there is a lot in the new Star Treks that is showing the way forward for all TV – in a post MeToo world, in a post Black Panther world, it is not acceptable to continue to show narrow stereotyped, outdated and offensive perspectives. We often talk about the power of pop-culture and mainstream entertainment because it does offer a platform to not only reflect the world, but offer paths to change. This is a lot of lauding and pressure to place on a set of sci-fi TV shows, but I think Star Trek has more to teach us, even if it is just a better commitment to storytelling. What do you think?

This is a topic that I constantly am grappling with as I have seen it done in good ways and have seen it done in very, very bad ways. How much insight can an older white man give about the black experience during the 1960s? Of course, it's easy to just recount history, but is there anything emotionally informative about this? How can a privileged white male know what it's like to be a minority? I personally feel like it's more intriguing to learn about experiences first hand. For example, I'm taking a discourses in disability class taught by a blind professor.

After the widespread critical success of Breaking Bad, it appears to me that many other shows popped up that carried the same type of quality, not just of filmography and acting, but of writing as well. Take for example, the Walking Dead, West World, Game of Thrones, just to name a few. Few shows can boast the same critical reception of Breaking Bad, but before then, the most well written and high-quality show that comes to my mind was the Sopranos, which even then falls short of the same quality. In my limited observation, it appears that TV shows, which had traditionally been regarded as lower quality and lower complexity than film, theater, or literature, experienced a boom in both the quantity and quality of its TV shows. Does this observation have any merit? Am I making assumption based simply on my own, limited experience with TV? Did Breaking Bad really change the quality of TV the viewers have come to expect? What other, perhaps more minor or hidden effects did the success of the show have on the industry?

Avenue 5 is a recently released HBO touted as sci-fi comedy, as was Orville, however, the difference is astounding. A5 appears to be taking a more "reality show" approach to storytelling. The cinematography moves between constant vignettes that hone in on the various character groups, and then multi-character scenes are shot in an often long framing to appear as the fly on the wall while you watch characters shout over each other in a very "naturalistic" dialogue approach. The focus so far seems to be on the lack of competence of everyone involved. This reality/sit-com approach is especially unusual in sci-fi and even though Orville began with elements of this it rapidly became a Space Opera with focuses on moralistic decision making and character growth. I'm not sure if we are going to see that occur on A5. But does that matter? A5 appears to be offering a new take on sci-fi which could open the genre wider to further hybrid versions. A deeper analysis is needed to look at what A5 offers the genre.

Seems like a significant amount of older films that are historically important/culturally significant have some serious problems in the context of today. For example, Carousel perpetuates the idea that domestic abuse is normal and okay. How are these films useful to us now– can we look back on them and appreciate them for what they are/were, or is that problematic? How should we talk about these films now?

Though I’m French, most of the books I’ve read are foreign novels, and by foreign, I mean Americans (except for Harry Potter and a couple of other exception, but not that much), while the books I have to read for classes are French and especially French – or French-written – classics. It made me realize that I don’t really know classic books from other countries – I might have heard of them, but I’d never read them – while using American contemporary novels in my essays isn’t the best way to have a good grade! I was then wondering… quite a few things!

Pell-mell: How domestic and foreign literature is tackle elsewhere in Europe, elsewhere outside Europe, in the USA, in the UK, for instance? Are there contemporary foreign books – French books for instance – that are famous in the US, the UK, in Sweden, in Brazil, anywhere outside of its original country? What define “classic”? Does it depends on the country, or is Goethe’s concept of “Weltliteratur” (basically, global literature) real, widespread? To what extent time define whether a book is a “classic”? And, finally, any reading advice concerning foreign classics?

[I’m not quite fluent in English yet, so I hope it was understandable, and not too messy!]

What DC and Marvel seem to differ between is style of superheros, the way in which they exist. Superman for instance is basically invincible and is also almost always right and just, which is part of the appeal to some people. While if you take Tony Stark from Marvel he has human faults and characteristics. There are many other characters that could fit into one category or another between the new universes. However, with Captain Marvel in the field now some say that she too is just too powerful, not relatable. Take the difference between Inhuman and Human archetypes of comic book/movie characters and explore why people find such interest in one or the other, is one more entertaining, or emotionally connecting? Are 'human' characters more emotional to the reader/audience because of the relatability? Or is the 'inhuman' character more appealing because it plays to people's wildest dreams and fantasies?

This topic is based on a tumblr post (or tweet I can’t remember) that I saw saying “actual play D&D podcasts have done more for POC and the LGBTQ community over the course of a few years than the film industry has done in its entire existence.”

I think it would be interesting to examine what’s so appealing about actual play shows (The Adventure Zone, Critical Role, The Broadswords, Dimension 20,etc) that draws in underrepresented groups.

This article would delve into the notion of exploitative game design. For example, game devs will make virtual products that can be bought with real world money (such as gems, crates, keys, etc.), yet these products have no actual value. Basically, the prices of these products are arbitrary, being made up based on the developers' whims.

App games are notorious for such practices, trying to incentivize the player with the need to buy these products to get further in the game in terms of buying more time or status/rank. I mean, who wouldn't want another chance to beat that insanely hard Candy Crush level or get that one super OP weapon/character in an RPG?

Do you think this is okay ethically? Does there need to be legal action? How can people be made aware, or do they know and just don't care if they're being exploited?

One of the important and rather interesting aspects of Joker is Arthur's position of an unreliable narrator. He invents an entire relationship with a female character in the film, which makes the question of his paternity that arises later even more interesting, with questions around whether his mother did the same, based on the reaction from the Waynes when he attempts to investigate.

Arthur's lack of reliability also seems to suit the typical murky origins of the Joker character, as having appeared out of nowhere and not really having a clear "origin" compared to the other characters in the DC universe.

Explore the use of unreliable narration in the film. How does it contribute to the film's overall message? If there weren't these same questions in the film, how would the film have changed?

Feel free to draw on other examples of unreliable narrators in film or fiction, or on other depictions of the Joker for examining this.

There's been much criticism regarding the later seasons of Game of Thrones, as they began being almost completely original instead of adaptive. But the final season in particular has drawn a considerable backlash. I think it would be beneficial to conduct a 'postmortem' of sorts into the final season of Game of Thrones: why exactly was it inferior to prior seasons and what could be done to avoid the same pitfalls in the future?

When reading a feminist novel, or one based on that movement, if differentiates greatly between the gender of the author. Women, I find, speak more passionately about the subject, and are willing to stand up and ridicule the opposite sex with great meaning and intention. However, when a man is writing a book about feminism, it's through an entirely new set of eyes. He may or may not judge the patriarchy as harshly or express similar views, even though it's the same concept.

The Walking Dead comic series shows various groups of people trying to form new societies in order to survive the zombie apocalypse. Examine the different types of societies in the show (Woodbury, The Kingdom, The Hill, Terminus, etc.) and how they form and sustain their societies as well as the flaws that inevitably lead to their downfall at the hands of the Walkers.

It's almost a cliche at this point that the central characters in any story are rarely the most interesting ones. More often than not they tend to be relatively bland, and the story grows out of their interactions with a cast of more interesting side characters. However, every so often a protagonist will end up being the most interesting character in their story. For instance, in Osamu Tezuka's "Buddha" manga, the Buddha is actually one of the more well-rounded and relatable characters, even given that the legends about him tend to paint him as an almost perfect, untouchable being. What are some other examples of this phenomenon, where the main protagonist really is the most interesting, or one of the most interesting, characters? What is it about them that makes them so interesting?

The early forms of comedy in mass entertainment (vaudeville, the Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges) were unapologetically absurd. They embraced silliness. We see that tradition in more modern British comedy (Monty Python, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore). And yet, American comedy seems to suffer from an unwillingness to be silly, as if silliness is somehow beneath us. There are notable exceptions of course (The Simpsons, Steve Martin's early standup), but, by and large, we seem to be mired in a bog of socially relevant comedy, or rigidly responsible satire. Where's the silliness? Is comedy allowed to be funny for funny's sake? And here, I'm referring mostly to film and sitcoms, not to stand up comedians who are as varied in their style as they have always been.

Explore the nature of personal identity in Toni Morrison’s novel “Beloved.” This could include the nature of the character Beloved, notably in her relationships with other characters (most importantly Sethe) and her opaque origins. Additionally, the book can be examined for commentary on the dehumanizing effect of American slavery on African American identity, and how this effect lingers, thus making “Beloved” resonant.

With The Mandalorian being so successful, what other examples of a protagonist concealing their identity have really struck a chord with audiences? Obviously, an intriguing trait in terms of mystery, are there any other reasons why this has been successful in The Mandalorian? Moreover, what's the purpose of using a masked hero? What changes when the main protagonist is unmasked? Is there a downside?

Demons are quite common in anime, whether it's the sexy Sebastian Michaelis from Black Butler or the lovable Inuyasha from the anime of the same name. In fact, demons are more common in mainstream anime than angels. And when they do interact, it's usually the demons that come out as the good guy. Why is that the case? What appeal do demons have? What are some other portrayals of demons?

Note: You can focus on just humanoid demons, like Sebastian and Rin Okumura from Blue Exorcist, or you can expand it to include Inuyasha and creatures like Kurama from the Naruto series. For an additional challenge, you can also include interactions between angels and demons, like Sebastian and Ash/Angela, and compare the characters.

Particularly following their purchase of 20th Century Fox and their gallery of successful IP, Disney now stand to own the primary market share of global box office. Many critics are decrying the ‘Disney-fication’ of culture as the death of diversity, a crushing blow to independent production, and the continuation of a soulless future of endless sequels and franchises.

Is this, however, a fair approximation? Are Disney simply representing what audiences have sought since the birth of the blockbuster in the mid-1970’s and the arrival of the high concept in the 1980’s? Is the jewel in their crown, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, not simply the ultimate expression of audiences’ desire for cinema to be the ultimate escapist entertainment? Are Disney destroying originality or simply reconfiguring the way we engage with culture and media?