Masaaki Yuasa is one of the most celebrated directors in anime today, and for good reason. His dynamic, fluid style of animation, which creates a look and feel of real movement in all of his projects, is unlike that of any of his peers. He often applies his style to odd narratives with odd art styles, which serves to accentuate the difference between the work that he produces and that of his contemporaries.
To what extent is his dynamic style of animation integral to the stories that he chooses to tell? Are the manga versions—in cases where there are such—sufficient in and of themselves, or are his animations more whole works? Are they fundamentally different? What commonalities exist between disparate entries of his canon such as Mind Game (2002) or the Tatami Galaxy (2010), Devilman Crybaby (2018) or Ping Pong (2014), his contributions to Space Dandy (2014) or to Adventure Time (2014)? Yuasa seems to be concerned with growth, change, and self-overcoming, but is this interest expressed in his style as well as in the plots that he works with?
The manga Hourou Musuko (Wandering Son) is about two transgender youths, and their struggles with adolescence. I'd be interested to read an analysis of the manga and how it handles these themes. Perhaps commentary on the influence of Japanese culture on the way the representation is handled, and also how times have changed in that respect too (as the manga began in 2002).
Compare and contrast the dystopian worlds of the film, Minority Report, and the anime, Psycho-Pass, and the conflict of predetermining criminal acts and passing out judgment against people who have not committed crimes, yet. PreCrime implements a system where potential criminals are apprehended according to the psychic abilities of the "precogs" while the Sibyl System measures the mentalities of the populace and calculates the likelihood of individuals committing crimes according to their "Crime Coefficient" index. How do these stories depict a future where judgement is passed before the crime even happens? What is the significance of the protagonists–John Anderton of Minority Report and Akane Tsunemori of Psycho-Pass–and their journeys as they gradually realize the flawed nature of the system they believed in?
if someone should choose to tackle this topic, i think that it could also be interesting to include an analysis of predictive policing––arguably a precursor to the systems in these imagined dystopias––which has been slowly growing in global influence. – ees5 years ago
With the recent announcement of Robert Pattinson in yet another Batman movie, the question should be asked: how many Batman movies do we need? How many times can you re-tell the same story in different ways and it still be interesting to experience? Are movie studios latching onto fandom/nostalgia to the point of having a negative effect on the original character?
I definitely would highlight how new movies especially remakes in the Marvel Universe have a purpose. Do these new movies change the interpretation of character's story and personality? Or is because the movies are all the same it has a negative effect not only on how people enjoy the character but on the movie company (in this case DC Comics) itself? – reschilke5 years ago
I feel like there have been an excessive amount of Batman movies, but they are there to appeal to the younger people who have not watched the older Batmans. To those who have been around since the first few, it will seem like too much. To those who haven't been around long enough to be interested in the most recent one, it will be very exciting to watch a new Batman film.
I do feel like studios are latching onto fandom/nostalgia but I don't think it has a negative effect on the original character. It gives people different ways of thinking about the character. You can watch all the movies; take what you like and leave what you don't. – Maiacara5 years ago
I think you are hitting on a very important topic, namely that there appears to be a trend (at least in the western world) for safe, reliable narratives that do little to shift us outside of our comfort zone. As much as the cinema going public may ask why don't studios make new and different movies, the reality is that most such movies fail at the box office. Producing a new Batman movie, a Joker movie, more Marvel movies etc... guarantees studios revenue and ultimately those studios are answerable to board directors and share holders. If we, as the cinema going public continue to pay money for these movies, studios are going to continue producing them and we sadly will soon be bereft of original ideas and exciting stories. – davidwhite5 years ago
Yep! It sure does seem like Batman movies are getting done and perhaps overdone! – autenarocks5 years ago
I think it is interesting to see how new adaptations will change key points of stories, like the retelling of Sleeping Beauty in Maleficent, but I do think another batman movie is likely to exhaust the story itself. – KeahMurdoCH5 years ago
There are only so many sequels to a number of movies, and "Batman" is a very good example of that. More creative ideas need to be expressed, and different movies produced, rather than the constant re-makes, re-boots and sequels to films. – WSSfan5 years ago
These are wrong questions. "To Need" is an irrelevant and inappropriate verb to talk about movies or any artistic production. Do we "need" a new Batman movie? What does that mean? On the other hand, assuming that a new Batman movie is going to re-tell the same origin story is unjustifiable. If an idea is profitable, the film industry is going to exploit it as much as they can. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Analyze the representation of Asian LGBTQ individuals in literature, preferably with a focus on 21st Century works (examples might include How I Became a North Korean or The Book of Salt). Delve into how one's concept of identity can be challenged by being a part of the queer community and also the Asian diaspora.
Analyse how the wildly popular Critical Role series shows storytelling in action. How does a story so heavily dependent on improvisation remain emotionally impactful and coherent? Is there one author in the DM, or a multiplicity? How does the role of chance inherent to DnD change the narrative process?
Possibly a look at how a reader is made to engage with some texts, such as ergodic texts (https://www.articleworld.org/index.php/Ergodic_literature). Compare with how the DM's audience of players must engage with and shape the world they play in? – liamjblackley5 years ago
It is widely believed good art-style is the one that is most pleasing to the eye, while this true to certain level art-style has more to it then beauty. Art-style when used properly can do more than just make an anime look beautiful . It can be used as a tool of visual communication and world building. For example the wacky art-style used in one piece perfectly complements its odd unrealistic setting, it also gives a good insight into the characters(Ussop is a liar hence has a Pinocchio nose,Sanji has tall legs signifying his use of legs as his weapon of choice). On the other end we have death note, it has a more subtle and realistic art-style suggesting grounded story,its grey tones are similar to that of neo-noir suggesting the vibes of the crime drama it is. So in this light exploring art-style as a tool that can perfectly compliment and complete the story is some thing that needs to be done.
You may want to consider the works of Masaaki Yuasa, which are all heavily stylized. From Ping Pong (2014), to the Tatami Galaxy (2010), to Devilman Crybaby (2018), the use of color, art style, and dynamic animation style are all vital to the storytelling and, a case could be made, to the setting itself. This is most striking, in my opinion, in The Tatami Galaxy (2010), which uses color and stylized representation of the setting (through photographs on top of drawn panels) to striking effect. – C.W.B. Bryson5 years ago
I'm curious to see people's opinions on this as I feel many series recently have been cancelled whilst they are still succeeding. Furthermore, shows have been cancelled with no real reason, for example, One Day at a Time was not an expensive series to film, it was popular and including really important issues that most tv series are not currently mentioning.
I can't quite remember where I heard it, but on a podcast I was listening to I heard a pair of critics say that Netflix focuses on getting new subscribers rather than ratings like normal tv stations pay attention to. And because they'll get more subscribers from creating a new interesting show that people have to see, they focus more on making new content than adding to their own content. – jefishere5 years ago
Gillian Flynn's debut novel "Sharp Objects" received a lot of mixed attention when it was released in 2006, but it was popular enough to recently be adapted to the screen by HBO as an eight episode mini-series that aired in 2018. With Amy Adams in the lead, she was tasked with delivering the difficult narrative of a woman processing great mental and physical trauma, and doing this through a visual medium is often shocking and difficult for audiences to endure. I found myself looking away during particularly graphic depictions of self-harm, and each time Adams's body is put on display, with the plethora of words written across her in scars, I found myself gritting my teeth and squinting.
I haven't read the source material, but I imagine that the impact of a traumatic story of this nature would be more impactful through film or television, and my experience with the series (I was fully glued to the screen, binging the entire series) has driven me to ask – is this type of portrayal of the procession of trauma primarily beneficial for the general public? I imagine that the answer would be close to the consensus of shows like "13 Reasons Why" that are controversial because they can simultaneously help raise awareness while also triggering some viewers, but I'm particularly interested in this mini-series because it is far more graphic (due to the HBO platform, I'm sure) and handles the processing of trauma with greater complexity.
I would like to see this topic explored with a specific look at the "Sharp Objects" mini-series, but references to similar visual narratives would be great as a basis of comparison and/or evidence to support the benefit or harm of depictions such as these.
Most of us have heard about the two biggest companies DC and Marvel when it comes to comics. But what about the growing industry of comics written by people who are not professionally working in the industry (at least not in the traditional sense)? Now more than ever, there are people writing and illustrating their own stories and publishing them online through sites such as Tapas and Webtoons. What kind of implications does this have on the online comic book industry? What are some comics to recommend? Why is the webcomic so important today?
Perhaps you could mention the popularity of webcomics on Instagram as well? The hashtag #webcomic has over 1 million Instagram posts. – Sophie Bouey5 years ago
If it's not too far outside the scope of what you are thinking of it would be interesting to include discussion of how the adoption of the internet in personal homes really allowed for the birth of the webcomic as a hobby to arise. Also discussion of where the comic writing and drawing skillset came from prior to the birth of the web movement. It would be interesting to spotlight what the hobby was before it came to the web platform. – rivennz5 years ago
Analyze how that in recent movies and TV shows, there seems to be an increase of inclusive characters and current event topics that make a temporary or permanent appearance in these shows and novels. Some people believe that this shows that society is moving closer to accepting and including everyone equally; others believe that some shows or movies do not need to be inclusive all the time, or current events do not always need to be tied into everything.
Consider comparing TV show characters' dynamics and demographics from early 2000s to now, and even looking at how the dialogue between these characters has changed. What did someone say on TV 10 years ago that we cannot mention now?
While addressing this issue take note of tokenism. It's especially apparent in sitcoms from the late 90's and early 2000's. Have we moved past token characters to more nuanced and genuine ones? If so, where is it done well? – Zuzia5 years ago
It's a firm belief of mine that there should be a reason behind what race/gender/sexuality you choose to make a character, because it should have a significant baring on their personality, experiences, and reasoning. Avoiding the trap of tokenism by not having 'the gay character' or 'the black character' is important. Write to make a good story - don't write to fill a fill a hole because all you'll do is shovel shit. – Jacob J.5 years ago
This article could touch on the reaction to inclusivity. Does affirmative action make us look at media with certain individuals with more respect, understanding and normativity or does it cause us to assume they only achieved that position because they look/identify a certain way? – Emiris5 years ago
I was born in New York though I have always held European citizenship. I have noticed after viewing mostly European films and a few series over the many years I have resided here, that after returning to watch an American series, there is overt political propaganda in the story lines. Perhaps, this was always the case to an exten, but I did not notice it as a child. However, now it seems the messages are clear and I find that it is often unhelpful propaganda which tends to divide people rather than unite or bring a sense of well-being. Certainly it is not the only contributing factor but do you agree that Television is contributing to the societal divisiveness and strife the United States has been facing for decades?
I haven't watched TV in years for (partially) this reason. Of course every story needs a theme (as it is THE MEssage), but I would agree that contemporary media is becoming more divisive as writers lash out at perceived threats. Especially since the current administration is the most divisive in recent history, it makes sense that the state of american politics is reflected in the media we produce. – Jacob J.5 years ago
This topic could use Orange is the New Black as a reference (featuring LGBTQ ideals), or the newer The Society (featuring Socialism, deaf actors and stereotyping male power as problematic). Perhaps comment on the overarching political tilt and what it seems to want to achieve. – Emiris5 years ago
Debate motion: This house prefers a world where climate change is a conspiracy, but people still believe it.
How has this been reflected in futuristic sci-fi films or series (take Stargate for example) that portray theories about the future etc.? Did people believe in the effects of climate change more in the past than today and why?
Edit for clarification: Though this is the first topic I've introduced I thought it would be better to keep it open to interpretation. The primary aim of this topic is to encourage you to think about how current day problems facing society were reflected only as conspiracy theories in old movies. From this, determine if you think people took issues like climate change more seriously when they didn't exist or weren't as prominent.
You've marked the all the rejections as revised, but your topic has not changed since. Please add more context to the topic and tighten your thesis. leaving an open-ended question to have a topic "open to interpretation" does not help someone who is potentially looking to write this topic. – Pamela Maria5 years ago
Discuss the representations of climate change in old films and its real-life implications on society – TheAuthortoria5 years ago
The source of people's disbelief in climate change is wilder than we first think. Many of these people are flat-earthers. Many believe the government is lying to us about everything. I spoke to one who wonders why affluent property investors are still investing in homes that apparently would be destroyed in the next few years – surely they'd know the truth, she thinks. It requires a complete transformation of someone's frame of reference, not just a change of opinion. – naseemrad5 years ago
You mention Stargate - which fascinates me. Can you make the connection between Stargate and your topic more explicit. – Elpis19885 years ago
Recently, the online outcry over the horrific design of Sonic and the very poor execution of Game of Thrones' final season lead to a) a total redesign of Sonic commissioned by the film studio and b) over a million people signing a petition request a complete re-make of the final Game of Thrones season. This seems to be a new trend; people massing online to demand corporations adapt a piece of art (I know it seems a bit iffy to call the Sonic movie art, but hey, what else is it?) post production to suit consumer needs. What does this trend signify? How could it go wrong? Should we really have this power? Is it democratization, or making us somehow even more subservient to capital? Could be cool.
Since seeing these responses to Sonic and GoT, I had a very similar reaction, and I would love to see this topic explored more fully. I think the question of creator vs audience power would provide the best, narrowed focus if someone chose to approach the topic with depth instead of breadth. The pressure of the audience can be intense for creators, especially when they are working with franchises that have such a large following, and I imagine this has an impact on the process of creation and final quality of the art itself. Artists compromising their visions to cater to the demands of the large portions of the public could set a dangerous precedent in which art becomes more of a product with the intention of making the most money by reaching the most people instead of reaching them with a new perspective, idea, or story that means something more than the dollars and cents. Excellent topic! – Aaron5 years ago
Part of the reason GoT ended the way it did was to showcase the tyrannical nature of power, regardless of gender, with Dany representing a feminist sentiment and, though valiant in her acts, ultimately becomes corrupted by absolute power. Maybe touch on how even though this message may have meant to be informative about absolute power corrupting absolutely, it was still a political message that made the show seem weak in the end by focusing more on a political angle. This could also comment on overarching moral in good stories vs. political ideals. – Emiris5 years ago
Part of marketing is the driving up of hype, but in fact little active promotion is needed by many films and TV these days as most fans drive the movement with their own social media discussions and excitement. But is this proving detrimental to the work? For instance, with the close of the saga 'Game of Thrones' the hype and expectation around the wrapping of the series was incredibly high, with people taking time off work/study etc. to catch the "on time" release on Netflix around the world. But what seems to have come out is a post malaise of criticism about the ending that for some may have soured the entire show. Now is this a fair state of affairs? Was the ending really poor or is this simply a reaction to heightened expectations that just can not be met?
It would be interesting to explore the fan expectations, hype and marketing surrounding the completion of 'Game of Thrones', 'End Game' (throwing as hugely hyped film into the mix) and 'Big Bang Theory' (maybe even look back at other colossal series ends such as 'How I met your mother' and 'Breaking Bad') to examine how their completions differed and seemed to have resulted in a very different spectrum of responses from fans.
What makes an ending great? How do you manage fan hype? Can anything live up to a finale expectation?
This is really awesome and what you wrote shows how much you really like. – Markh325 years ago
I love the question you pose at the end of the first paragraph. Was it really that bad of an ending, or did we have unbelievably high hopes? It definitely gets the reader thinking about the topic. Personally, once I got past the disappointment the ending actually made a lot of sense. The other examples of shows are good to include as you're appealing to different genres. It will allow more readers to think about the questions you're asking in context to shows they enjoy.
– briannat5 years ago
Around WWII the television began to become more and more welcomed as a member of the average household in America. In the 1950's the television became the primary means of influencing public opinion on world events and politics. Later in the 90's we see the reflection of the culture surrounding television programming in postmodern writers like Don Delillo and David Foster Wallace. How have the infusion of the passivity of television-watching culture influenced the literature of subsequent decades? How has the expectation of the average reader been affected by this mass incorporation of this form of media in the average household?
You could also mention the shortening of people's attention spans, and could tie in the influence of social media here too. – Andi5 years ago
Disagree. I believe it was during the Cold War, not WW2. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Also, I feel like some sources and examples would support and illustrate your claims. – T. Palomino2 years ago
The sub-genre of comedy that focuses on shocking sexual depictions, over-the-top jokes, and hyper-unrealistic scenarios seems to be going strong in 2019. Films such as American Pie (1999), Superbad (2007), and The Hangover (2009) cemented a place in the medium for these narratives with all of their try-hard humor and problematic treatment of identity (homophobic and misogynistic jokes galore!). Weaker off-shoots began to form as quick cash-grabs for studios looking to ride the wave of the main-stream comedies noted, and now the market seems to be saturated with them.
My interest with this sub-genre has taken shape after watching Blockers (2018), a film in which two up-tight parents (Leslie Mann and John Cena) team up with a laid-back father (Ike Barinholtz) to prevent their daughters from having sex on prom night. While Mann and Cena have more obvious motivations – not wanting to see their children lose their innocence – Barinholtz's goal is more nuanced. He's fully convinced that his daughter is gay (something she is still unsure of herself), and he is concerned that she is being pressured by her friends to have sex with a guy in order to feel accepted.
The set-up is the perfect representation of the interesting dichotomy that this film, and similar films in the sub-genre, present. While the plot is filled with ridiculous humor that is overly vulgar, graphic, and inconsistent, the "heart" or "message" of the film is clearly a positive one. In the case of Blockers, it's incredibly blunt in addressing identity politics to differing levels of success, but I believe it would be hard for the audience to walk away angry with the normalizing way in which the gay character is casually accepted by her friends and family, acknowledging the next stage of inclusive progress needed in the U.S.
My question for this topic is – does the graphic, vulgar, shock comedy sub-genre have the potential to encourage social acceptance, or is it a futile attempt that should be abandoned since the sub-genre has been pigeon-holed (by the creators and public) into a category of film that is designed to profit from being anti-politically correct or overtly offensive to shock the audience? I would love to hear additional thoughts on this topic as well as more titles that may fit into this small movement of shock comedies that are grappling with socially positive themes.
I've seen nothing but severely conflicting opinions on whether the Marvel films are going in a good direction or not. Audiences appear to be either diehard fans of the entire franchise, or completely disillusioned about the direction of the films. Despite this, there's a continuously large following, and I'd be interested to know why.
This is definitely interesting division to explore. It might be worth digging into why a similar but largely more negative split is occurring in the DCU as well. Is there something about these comic book worlds that especially lend themselves to diehardness and division? – JustinMoir5 years ago
"The Office" is such a widely known series that it is almost impossible to have a conversation with someone without referencing a joke or moment from the show. The internet is littered with Office memes, and people joking about only ever rewatching the series. People put Michael Scott quotes in their bios, their yearbook quotes, and their Tinder profiles. Why does this show, which has just as many cringy, immoral, distasteful, and insensitive jokes as it does sweet and kind moments, speak to so many people and demand a large role in so many peoples life?
I would love to see this explored more fully because I certainly fall into the category of "The Office" fans that you reference, rewatching it and using it as background noise for years. A couple of points that I would like to offer is that it seems like people relate to the mundane setting of the show that allows them to project hilarious moments and observations onto an office setting that they may have thought in the past but never stated. This deeper connection to the setting or overall atmosphere that the setting creates has the potential to provide escapism for people trapped in very dull work environments by finding the humor in less dynamic work places (obviously, not for everyone). Lastly, I think it's important to recognize that the immoral and distasteful jokes you note are usually presented as critiques since they are coming from characters that are lovable in some way but clearly presented as twisted personalities that should not be imitated. Younger or less critical viewers may be negatively influenced by these moments, but I would argue that that's not the intent (and I acknowledge that intent only goes so far). As I said, I would love to see this expanded because "The Office" is a piece of our zeitgeist that is thriving across generations since the early 2000s with its presence on Netflix. – Aaron5 years ago
"The Office" is not the first of it's kind to produce these outcomes. Pop culture references have been a long-term epidemic similar to reading the latest books or sharing the latest news and gossip. The normality of Netflix and additions to tv series provide individuals with a way of relating to others to feel accepted - this is most prominent in a digital environment which provides a social sense of reality that people potentially lack in their everyday mundane lives. – TheAuthortoria5 years ago
As Aaron stated above, I think The Office provides escapism for those who find themselves dragged down by boring and tedious corporate working environments. While the U.K Office used more dry and drawn out humor, the U.S Office failed to emulate this in season 1 and the writers instead went with a more upbeat, albeit unrealistic approach of an office environment. This does correlate more with U.S values, which are usually more optimistic and persevering. The characters in my opinion are what make the show. It's no surprise that Michael Scott and many of the other characters would be fired for various actions and interactions, but that's one of the show's advantages. It's an exaggerated take on the typical, American corporate work place inhabited by distinct and generally likable characters. The distasteful jokes are also done well imo because they're from the characters' distinct behaviors, who are portrayed as in the wrong and not to be emulated or praised. They're often sourced from their flaws. The Office also isn't the only show to have such type of crude comedy, see It's Always Sunny, Family Guy, South Park, etc. – ImperatorSage5 years ago
Characters who hold political office have been portrayed for television in a number of cases. Take those in the White House for example, whether it is House of Cards, Madam Secretary or The West Wing. Shows like these often capture corruption, tie in to real world events and provide some insight into the work of government. A recent study (link) showed how Argo and Zero Dark Thirty changed respondents view of government and others (link) have also explored the connection between political T.V. fiction and political engagement. Does this empower us, deceive us or inform us as political actors who vote, commentate and follow real world politics?
May I suggest also taking a look at political satire. There was an excellent British comedy series titled 'Yes, Minister' (and its follow-up series 'Yes, Prime Minister'), which was not only hugely popular with TV viewers, but was frequently acknowledged by members of parliament to be uncannily close to the truth, concerning the blunders made by government. In many ways political satire can tell us a great deal more about the true workings of government. I'm sure there are American series that deal with the same. – Amyus5 years ago
I definitely would consider tying in the actions of Edward Snowden, who released top government secrets to the people to show that our government was doing questionable things, and some of those actions have been bases for movies and popular TV shows. Shows like Castle, about the NYPD and other aspects, highlighted quite frequently the corruption in political positions and even in the police department as well. These shows offer real life scenarios that could easily occur or are occurring at this moment. Definitely something to consider looking into! – reschilke5 years ago