Discuss why social media negative or positive influence young adult's self esteem
What examples of pop culture do you mean? Could this include YA films like Divergent and Star Wars and how this affects the psyche of YA? – Kevin8 years ago
This is a good line of inquiry, but really broad. Narrow in on some particular aspect of pop culture so you can build a better argument with solid analysis. – albee8 years ago
Hmm...interesting question. I'm now trying to think of any songs, movies, or shows that have impacted my self-esteem...I automatically think of "in a negative way" but I realize that there are probably a lot of things that have impacted me positively. I think focusing on one of these sides would be very interesting and much more effective. – skohan8 years ago
It seems like there is a distinction between pop culture and social media. You might want to pick one or the other. If you want to focus on self-esteem, social media might be a good one, and think about the idea of cyber bullying. It could come in several forms, but people on the internet are notorious for saying things that they wouldn't in person. – AbeRamirez8 years ago
I agree with AbeRamirez, the writer should consider selecting either pop culture or social media. If they choose the former, it would be worthwhile to discuss how role models, fictional characters, uplifting songs and films inspire people and make them feel more confident. However, these same things might also create an impossible standard, which most people are unable to attain thus making them feel inferior and less confident. If you go the social media route, you could talk about interpersonal connections fostering a sense of community that makes someone feel loved and/or respected in a way that's beneficial to self esteem. However, as AbeRamirez suggests, you could talk about cyberbullying. – IsidoreIsou8 years ago
I agree with the latter two comments. Targeting pop culture as it is would be too broad a topic. Since you've already funneled it down by using social media as an example, I suggest you just stick with that one aspect. My input on this is pretty much stating the obvious: more often than not, the effect is negative. More young people tend to compare themselves to others, resulting to low self-esteem and newfound frustrations. – Elizabeth Ruth Deyro8 years ago
This is a GREAT topic that is very prevalent in today's society. It seems as if one's self-confidence is becoming more dependent on the number of likes they receive. Bullying is also a growing issue here. – hmccraw8 years ago
I think social media is distinct from pop culture because the user is more directly involved with the former. When your post gets a like or a hit, it's a dose of dopamine, and when you go ignored, there's a sense of sadness, like you haven't been accepted. – ScottyGJ8 years ago
It sounds to me that you are blending social media and pop culture. Although they intertwine, there is a distinct difference. i think that you should talk about social media in reference, but focus on pop culture. – SamLuckert8 years ago
I agree with the former comments that pop culture and social media should be separated. In regards to the latter, I believe social media in today's society is largely tied to an individual's self-worth, which can be incredibly harmful. In measuring ourselves based on how many likes and comments we receive, we measure our worth based on others' opinions of us or attention to us. However, Isidorelsou raised a positive use of social media, which is when we can form friendships online that we might not form in real life, and how we build our real-life friendships through interaction on the internet. – melmollyrose8 years ago
Eliminate the words "pop culture such as" just focus on Facebook. Change "influences" to "influence." – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
Moe, Larry, and Curly (forget Shemp, Joe Besser, Curly Joe) made movies between 1934 and 1946 and still are popular today. Almost anywhere in the country a TV station is running Three Stooges short movies. A song called "The Curly Shuffle" was made in 1983. Sam in the TV series Cheers frequently referred to the Three Stooges. MASH had an episode in which three Korean doctors were referred to as Moe, Larry, and Curly. A movie was made in 2012 and one is scheduled to begin production in 2018. Why is there such an enduring affection for these three characters more than seven decades after Moe, Larry, and Curly made their last short movie?
I'm watching Inuyasha for the first time and as a biracial person, I identify a lot with his complicated relationship to his race. He's half human and half demon, but is always trying to squash proof of his human half by overcompensating his demon half. He experiences negative stereotyping because of his identity and though I'm only in season 3, it seems like Inuyasha's struggle with identity will lead to him being forced to "choose" one or the other.
Half-demon characters are fairly memorable in anime, and it's usually a big deal when it's revealed. I'm thinking Rin from Blue Exorcist, here. Even looking at Yusuke from Yu Yu Hakusho and his discovery of demon heritage could be tied to the concept of "passing" or even embracing one's culture when it's been erased from your history.
I feel like this is a really good insight and for someone who doesn't watch or read a lot of anime/ magna this could be a different way of looking at 'cultures' through media. Cultures here being the demon vs human culture – ambermakx6 years ago
With the rise of technology over the last decade, horror movies and the horror genre have drastically changed. Is this because of lazy writing and producing that relies on cheap jump scares or is it because modern technology has ruined the terror of isolation?
One reason why horror movies worked so well in the past is because the technology we have today did not exist. You couldn’t just whip out your smartphone and go on Google Maps. If you forgot your wallet you had no money, period. You couldn’t pull out your phone and paywave instantly. The characters had no one and nothing to rely on except themselves.
So what are your thoughts? Watch any past horror movie and pretend it’s set in 2018 and I can guarantee you the movie would be over within the first half an hour.
The fact that advanced technology exists does make an interesting point, but maybe what also could be explored is the shift in storytelling. What are the differences between the characters and topics included in past and present horror films? Do modern horror films rely on too many clichés, or not enough? – Gabby6 years ago
Horror movies have definitely changed with the rise of digital tech, but I would argue that they're nearly as prominent in the mainstream as they were during the 80's horror boom in terms of sheer output. There are even horror movies that make explicit use of the internet as a catalyst for horror, like Unfriended (2014), Megan is Missing (2011), and The Den (2013). This isn't to say that those are good movies necessarily, but they still manipulate the technological advances of the day the same way Scream (1996) and One Missed Call (2008) used early cell phones, and The Ring (1998) used VHS tapes. There are also recent, successful horror films that still make use of the terrifying sense of isolation that cell phones eliminate, like Get Out (2017), Split (2016), and The Babadook (2014). Smart phones and the internet can be obstacles in terms of building tension, but they can also be assets. We live in a world where abduction, trauma, and even allegedly supernatural occurrences still befall people regardless of their access to mapquest or emergency services. We still have weak points; it's the horror writer's job to find and exploit them in fiction. – TheCropsey6 years ago
This is an expansion on what Gabby and TheCropsey stated already. I'd agree that there is an increase in cheap/lazy horror movies but I don't think they are necessarily dying. In fact, I think they are on the rise again. With films like Get Out (2017) and A Quiet Place (2018). There are plenty of other films, but these are two strong examples of well-crafted horror films in the new age. I think it is important to consider the reasons why there are more horror films succeeding recently. Technology inhibits telling horror stories the same way as the past, but that doesn't mean they can't adapt. Some films even play on this. But other films like the two I listed earlier, along with It Follows (2014) and others, can work even in the confines of technology. The shift in storytelling is important, since some horror films can still work even if based in a different time period like The Witch (2016). There are a number of factors to consider, and this topic can easily work, I think it just has to cover how horror has shifted storytelling tropes and ideas for a 21st century audience. – Connor6 years ago
I don't think horror movies are dying. Rather, they're being reinvented for audiences familiar with the genre. We've become quite used to typical elements of horror (e.g. supernatural creatures, out-of-shot shadows) that we've vicariously speculated on how to defeat them. While technology can limit that sense of isolation, there are other ways it can pronounce terror. Reliance on technology can ratchet up a false sense of security before it all goes the hell. I agree with what's been said already; horror is in the storytelling. It's up to the writer to decide if they want to write a horror movie that only checks the boxes, or one that goes beyond that, and craps on our hastily built failsafes. – Starfire6 years ago
I do agree. Horror movies aren’t the same and they either aren’t scary or they are remakes of originals. – 2klonewolf6 years ago
Technology itself can actually provide a sense of horror that was not present in previous decades. I think of Black Mirror's emphasis on isolation, misplacement of identity, dehumanization, and other horrific symptoms of advancing technology. Definitely lots to work with if you're willing to evolve with the times. – Heather Lambert6 years ago
It might be interesting to consider the pros and cons of technology and cgi in horror movies. Yes it can be overdone and over saturated depending on the type of horror movie but special effects have improved drastically over the years and now some costumes and special effects are what make the movie. If you look at the original Friday the 13th with Kevin Bacon's horrible fake neck for his scene I for one am thankful technology has improved since then. – Emily Murphy6 years ago
Seinfeld ended oddly, it was difficult to feel as though the main characters were likable, Medium ended with a feeling of completion, and The Sopranos ended with a feeling of ambiguity (essentially choose what happened). Is there a good ending? Can they be done differently?
There needs to be a clear basis to how you judge a "good" ending. The sources you choose will need to include audience and critic feedback, as well as research to understand how networks vs streaming cancel their shows. This could be a really interesting read if it takes the time to analyze the above concepts. – Nicholas Bennett6 years ago
I think it will be helpful to consider what alternate endings some of these shows could have had. If they had had another ending would they have been more coherent or consistent as series? Some of these criteria might make sense. Did the shows subvert not just expectations but consistency as well. How much were the showrunners aware of their ending before the show was well underway? – Zander Jones6 years ago
It might also be useful to discuss how important (or not) an ending really is. Does a fantastic series become instantly ruined with an unsatisfying ending? Should the ending pander to the audience or serve the story and characters faithfully? It would also be interesting to consider the opposite argument. Can a slam-dunk ending make-up for a sub-par series? It would be important to analyze the type of series and what the end game is for a sit-com versus a thriller like "Lost" or "Breaking Bad." – zbalog6 years ago
Make sure to explain criteria for what is good, bad, etc.. but really interesting topic! – Sean Gadus6 years ago
Analyze what idea of masculinity is shown in Disney films where princes are portrayed. What are the negative or toxic ideas of masculinity that are shown and what are some examples that may criticize toxic masculinity.
I think disney wants more princesses. They wants girl to feel empowered and portrayed more as heroes and not only men can be heroes too. They want more heroines. They want Girl Power. Disney doesn’t show a lot of masculinity. I feel like the only prince movie that made was Aladdin but he wasn’t a prince. There was a princess who was Princess Jasmine. I think disney shows masculinity as a man being the true love kiss when really its not always about that and they showed that on Frozen. It can be close relationships like sisters loving each others. What if a disney princess was with a girl not a guy. – 2klonewolf6 years ago
Great topic! It's true, Disney has been spending a lot of time on their princesses, and while that is definitely a good thing, there is plenty of room to evolve the princes as well. Where's the artistic prince? The gay prince? A prince CRYING, for goodness' sake? It would be great to include a section at the end on examples of how Disney's portrayal of masculinity could improve. – Heather Lambert6 years ago
As a rule, I don't see Woody Allen movies. That's fine because I was never a Woody Allen fan to begin with, but removing all problematic people and their creations from my media consumption is difficult, particularly when it is old media no longer on the air. Do I stop watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer because Joss Whedon gaslight his wife and is not the feminist he proclaims he is? Can I no longer enjoy That '70s Show reruns because Danny Materson allegedly raped five women? I stand with these women, but I also deeply love the media of their accusers. What lines do we have to draw now? What media can we still enjoy even with problematic people involved? How do we enjoy it while acknowledging what these people did?
this is really interesting -- especially since our society has become more sensitive towards social issues and calling out problematic behaviour. – Pamela Maria6 years ago
For me personally I have chosen to draw the line at money. I will continue to watch or read or play whatever media as long as it doesn't put money in the pockets of the abusers. If I have already bought a book I feel comfortable rereading it, but I will not buy more books by that author. I will watch reruns on TV, because my watching them has no bearing on how much money an actor gets. The works haven't changed, but it would weigh on my conscience if I continued to put money in the pocket of people who have done such wrongs. – kungtotte6 years ago
This is such a relevant topic which defiantly needs more traction! I have thought about it before but I guess it is also the viewers own opinion on how they decide to consume the media and in what capacity etc. I love Buffy and That 70's Show but knowing these facts it puts a halt on their new projects for me and personally I have to consider if I really want to see their new ideas etc. – ambermakx6 years ago
One staple cliche in anime and manga over the decades has been the tsundere/tsundere childhood friend. Disregarding the sometimes odd definitions of childhood friend (eg kids who met on one day once), the portrayal of excessive violence against male characters for either perceived or minor transgressions is almost always played up for (groan-worthy) comedic effect. The reverse is only rarely seen, and is thus certainly seen as less socially acceptable. What social phenomena contribute to this strange view of violence?
A good point. I think that is largely due to the tradition of women being viewed as more delicate than men. I can't explain the sociology behind that.. lol. Perhaps, the fact that women are associated with fertility and child birth. Men are have been accepted as the protectors or "shields" throughout history. This is definitely not to generalize genders, and attach any tropes. Everyone is an individual, but I think those facts have a lot to do with why it is always the tsundere girl beating up the guy, and not the other way around. It would be a bad look if the guy was always beating on the girl. A great entry! – Kibishii5 years ago
Since its release in 1976, the academy award winning Rocky has received six sequels (Rocky II-V, Rocky Balboa, and Creed). The original Rocky was a relatively low budget film focused on a down in his luck boxer with an extraordinary chance to prove his worth inside and outside of ring. It was hailed for its underdog story, acting, and its iconic training scenes. The subsequent sequels often opted to forgo many of the ideas and the low budget style found in the original film. Sequels sometimes included cartoonish villains and other elements that would be out of place in the grittier original Rocky. When Creed was released in 2015, it received near universal acclaim for its story and acting (especially by Stallone and Michael B. Jordan in the title role), which focused on a hungry fighter working to prove his worth to the world. Like Rocky, the film was a character study of a box working to confront his issues within and outside of the ring. Is Creed the closest thing in style and tone to the original Rocky?
I just watched the movie and it is one of the best boxing movies out there and I can't wait for the sequel. – VELOSportsUK6 years ago
No other anime (or TV show in general) that I have seen has developed characters as perfectly as Cowboy Bebop. The most amazing part is that it does it via episodic storytelling. Most episodic shows (think most crime shows like CSI), focus on one-and-done plots as filler while maybe having a subtle arc occurring in the background. Cowboy Bebop has no filler. Every one-and-done builds connections between the characters, reveals details about pasts, and develops each character until the incredible climax. What makes Cowboy Bebop so successful at this, and why have other shows struggled to do it?
I have yet to see Cowboy Bebop but I have heard many great things. I want to start it soon. Two other anime's however I believe is worthy of great character development would be Naruto and One Piece. – danderson6 years ago
The difference between Cowboy Bebop and Naruto/One Piece is that Bebop is almost entirely episodic outside of a couple core episodes and it is only 24 episodes. Naruto and One Piece have hundreds of episodes to cover the journeys of their lives whereas Bebop can't, it has to cover backstory through the episodic adventures that culminate in the series question episodes in the twenties. Naruto/One Piece can have actual filler episodes as well because of how long they air for. I think it is interesting in comparing this to shows like Law and Order, since most of the stories affect the leading cast. I do think there are other shows and films that can detail a character's arc/personality and it would be important to detail how some shows succeed and others fail in this regard. – Connor6 years ago
How important is the soundtrack in a film? The selection or creation of soundtracks is big business in the movie industry, but how important really is it? Movie goers today are fairly savvy creatures and understand that particular scores match particular scenes. But what happens to a scene when a contrasting score is played to the expected tone of the scene? Does this change the entire "feeling" of the scene or can it offer a more complex examination of traditional representations of emotion in-situ? What happens when no music is used in an emotionally wrought scene? Or what happens to scenes when music is removed – are the scenes still able to portray the emotional depth of the moment?
Sound tracks and scores are incredibly important. Music is a storytelling cue that develops and plays on our emotions and reactions. We have a natural, human response to music, regardless of how savvy we are as viewers. If look at a film like Star wars, which used a orchestra instead a 70s style disco or funk soundtrack, the music sets the tone throughout the film. Similar thinks occur with The Dark Knight, Schindler's List, and more recently Black Panther. – Sean Gadus6 years ago
Every major broadcast network has at least one or two live TV musicals in the works for the next few years, and will this help to normalize musical theatre for the masses, or steal the magic. Hamilton has helped to usher in a different era of musical theatre, but is it drawing the elitism out of the art form, by facilitating the creation of broadcasts like this?
Interesting topic. The rising popularity of these live TV musicals certainly merits further critical exploration. That said, I take slight issue with your choice of the word "normalization," as it implies that musical theatre (i.e. an artform that, at least since the 1980s, quite literally exists for bourgeois consumption and merchandising) is something esoteric. Musical theatre has always been prominently positioned within the mainstream, and is one of the few forms of theatre to which that label still applies; I really don't think that television is a necessary mediator for acclimatizing the general public to the concept of musicals -- they're not exactly broadcasting Edward Bond or Sarah Kane. Perhaps there are better ways of approaching the subject. Two come to mind: 1) Aesthetically, regarding how this televisual intermediation affects the performance's fundamental theatrical elements. Is liveness enough to constitute "theatre"? Does the audience on the other side of a screen genuinely care if what they're watching is live, or are they missing out on the potential virtues of cinematic editing? Is there an appeal to simply knowing that the show is theatrical, even when not experiencing it in an actual theatre? If so, what and why? How does this differ from simply making a film adaptation of classic musicals? 2) Economically, regarding how television distribution allows a wider audience to experience Broadway productions (whose tickets are quite expensive, not to mention inaccessible to those living outside of New York and other major metropolitan areas). This, I believe, is more in line with what you may have meant by "normalization," as it allows people who otherwise would not have had a chance to see these plays an opportunity to see a version of them in performance. I see potential for an analysis of ratings, sponsorships, and funding models as a means of assessing the financial success or failure of this new distributional tactic. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
Interesting topic....and definitely one worth exploring. One of the fascinating aspects of the theater is the confined environment and this type of unity within the crowd. One performance will not be an exact replica of another---part of what makes the theater so unique. A crucial component of theater is the fourth wall--the impenetrable invisible barrier between the audience and the actor--which, ironically feels breached during a televised performance?
I would have to disagree with the idea of elitism and broadcasts as analogous, especially due to the high-cost of the theater today, and making this once enjoyable, frequent venture, less common among 'average' folk. The price of tickets are astronomical and really is a disservice in a society that supposedly upholds the importance of a cultured society through the medium of art. – danielle5777 years ago
I love reading anything about theatre, especially musicals. In your suggested analysation though, be careful you're not looking at two separate topics here. Hamilton has indeed created a new generation of theatre-lovers and reinvented the genre of musical theatre. And live TV musicals have done this in their own way too; perhaps the discussion is more pointed towards where the future of musical theatre is heading, or, what is attractive about these refreshing works to a modern audience? – OJames7 years ago
This is a really good topic.I think TV broadcasts can make theatre a little more accessible, it can introduce the theatre in a similar way that Hamilton has introduced theatre to new audiences. It also comes without the cost of making trips to the West End or Broadway. You don't really lose the elitism of theatre because you still have the west end and broadway. Perhaps the focus is on the future of musical theatre, there is the live versions (And I don't think they will ever really go away), tv broadcasts and things like Todrick Hall's Straight Outta OZ on youtube. – RJRStClair7 years ago
I love the concept of theatre becoming more accessible to the public through TV broadcasts, but it would be interesting to also consider how this topic might also harm or stagnate theatre as an art form. It's true that more people would be able to see shows, but the shows that pull in the viewership numbers TV networks want will probably be already-popular spectacle musicals or reboots of classics. Would smaller, newer, and weirder shows get a chance to shine? Would straight plays be given some airtime, or would the definition of "theater" switch wholly to musicals in the eyes of the public? Also, as people have pointed out before, the experience of watching a taped show and being in the theater are very different. Not necessarily a bad thing, just something to consider. – ohnomegan6 years ago
In TV shows like The Vampire Diaries, The Originals, True Blood, Teen Wolf, Supernatural, Being Human and Grimm, supernatural creatures are presented as gruesome murderers but they are still seen as attractive and desirable to a primarily teenage audience. Where did this phenomenon originate? Who started it? Why is this true? Is there a gender bias in that these creatures are seen as more attractive to a female audience more than male? Is it only vampires, werewolves, angels and witches that are seen as sexy or is it other creatures too?
Who started it? I think we can all safely say Joss Whedon with the saucy romance between Buffy and Angel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This allegory for danger and teenage rebellion by being attracted to a "bad boy" is definitely a trend that resonated with audiences. – Dimitri6 years ago
I feel that this trend definitely goes back quite a few decades. The vampire soap opera, Dark Shadows was one that certainly found a footing with teenage audiences of the 60's and 70's – LX4Tumbla6 years ago
I would say that the love for the supernatural could date as far back as the Vampire age of literature and story telling such as Dracula or Frankenstein who's books were later made into movies. There's something about the unknown or the impossible that lures teens and those alike into the genre - the fantastical ideas of the paranormal and abnormal appeal to teens who don't feel normal themselves. – KiaraB6 years ago
From a film history perspective, I think one could connect this to the advent of "teenagehood" that came in the late 50s and how crucial B-list films were in the teen lifestyle. Horror films were quite popular at drive-ins, and as horror has always played upon society's paranoia within the time period, the fear of human difference could have played a role. Looking at something like Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the films to influence that could be good for this analysis, too. – Nicholas Bennett6 years ago
I think people with supernatural powers are in disguise and want them to be human like as possible but that is not the case. Making these characters so called attractive will make the audience love then more or hate them but also love them still. I think that is what producers want the audience to feel. They want sympathy for the characters not hate. – 2klonewolf6 years ago
Compare the box office success of movies with the rising prices of tickets and concessions. Is a really great movie worth the price for a "luxury" experience of reclining seats, Real-D 3D movies, and now food delivered to seats? Or are movie theaters just trying to stay in business while competing with online streaming services.
Perhaps add to this a look at how smaller independent theatres are also staying in business? – SaraiMW6 years ago
Given home theatre experiences, Cineplex does have to compete with offering a different type of viewing. Of course involved with this is the increasing costs of movies. But the deals keep com8n* so it looks like the death of cinema has earned a stay for another season. – Munjeera6 years ago
Maybe discuss the cultural history of movie theaters? For my part, I know that trips to the movie theatre were a staple of my early life, and it makes me more inclined to pass that to my own children as well. – ValleyChristion6 years ago
I'm not sure. I feel like they would have more business if they charged less. Maybe you could add features they could add to compete with online streaming services. – theWreader6 years ago
I would love for this topic to be explored, and I think a huge discussion point is the rise of Moviepass and such payment plans, that draw more people to the theater for a monthly fee. Also would be interesting to bring up Netflix wanting to buy theaters. – calvinIGH6 years ago
This is a difficult matter, especially since it's Hollywood and the MPAA that dictate ticket prices. Theaters barely make any money on tickets and thus have to charge exorbitant fees at concessions. I would thus say that the only films worth seeing in theaters are those you have a strong interest in; otherwise, wait for them to come out on Netflix. – LaPlant06 years ago
This will certainly be Donald Trump's legacy: He elevated it to a level where it cannot be ignored. But all tweeting is not the same: Some tweets carry more impact than others. Is it only because of who is doing the tweeting or is there more to it? Are there ways of tweeting where the one tweeting can increase their chances of it mattering? Part of issue here is developing a method to study the impact.
I just noticed a number of graduate students on this site. Here's an opportunity to structure a course. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
Another point: Structuring a course. There's no reason to simply follow the chapters in a textbook. Determining how to structure lectures and discussions can be tied to your particular research interests--which leads to publications. Talk your interests out with your students, let them see how you start to develop your original thinking. Students should not just see the end product, but how you got there. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
Another important element to address is the absurd number of bot accounts found on Twitter, and how these influenced and perhaps continue to influence conversations. – LaPlant06 years ago
What qualities of audiobooks do you feel are inferior or superior to reading hard copies? Do you think being able to use your hands or exercising while listening to a book is useful, or do you prefer the feel of holding a physical copy and focusing your vision on the words rather than on your surroundings?
I think the medium is very important here. Though audiobooks force you to follow at their pace, the added benefit of voice-acting creates a new way to experience the story. Audiobooks can be enjoyed in groups, while books are a solo experience. It's all about preference, and how you choose to enjoy the novel. – joshuahall9 years ago
I think most people would prefer the actual hard copy of a book. Sometimes, however, this isn't a luxury. If I'm driving, for example, audiobooks are great. – Alexis9 years ago
I enjoy reading a book first and the, if I really enjoyed it, listening to the audio version to hear another person's interpretation. I agree with Alexis as well, when driving or in the gym, audiobooks are great! – Catherine Conte9 years ago
I think it is impossible to divorce this topic from those who have disabilities. – rhettrichx9 years ago
I tend to remain partial to the antiquated form of reading. But, this article could tip the scale for either of both camps. Audio books certainly offer physically active people the liberty to incorporate reading into their daily activity. However, paper books offer pictures that amplify the reading experience, probably in the same way that voice actors can. It will be interesting to see how this dual themed composition evolves. – L:Freire6 years ago
Listening to narrations can be extemely useful when you're otherwise busy, or it can supplement your own simultaneous reading. I found this to be true especially when reading longer texts (like Uncle Tom's Cabin), as the combined audio and visual elements seem to enhance memorization. – LaPlant06 years ago
But this is all a matter of preference. What does it matter what I prefer or "think" is a better option for reading? – T. Palomino2 years ago
What is living, and what does it mean to be human? Analyze themes of existentialism through various anime series; this could include series such as Evangelion, Haibane Renmei, or Ghost in the Shell.
I think this topic could use some narrowing down. For one thing, existentialism can mean a lot of things, so maybe one should focus on a specific field within it. Second, it'd be good to pick a select few titles to examine in detail instead of discussing the topic more generally, so that the article avoids becoming scattered or meandering. Also, it would be interesting to include some thoughts regarding existentialism particularly /in anime/. Are there approaches to the topic that can't be found in other media? Does it provide any unique explorations or perspectives? Or does it perhaps cinematically/animetically execute the topic in ways that are exclusive to its audiovisual language? Essentially: what distinguishes anime's take on existentialism as a medium? – blautoothdmand7 years ago
I agree with blautoothdmand. Perhaps you should focus efforts on Ghost in the shell and the construction of the women. Philosophically you could use Simone De Beauvoir and "The second sex" and Sarte for Existential backing on what it is to be human. You could also use Donna Harraway's Cyborg Manifesto to bridge the gap between the female and her sentience. – Lousands7 years ago
As soon as technology introduced the idea, movies have been wrestling with what to do with artificial intelligence. Once they are thinking on their own, do they have rights as a sentient being? This is seen very clearly with Data in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Series. It is also seen in animated films such as Astro Boy when the audience comes to see the robot more as a real child. The list goes on: AI, even Terminator 2 as the audience mourns the first Terminator's demise, iRobot, Dark Matter (a Netflix series) etc. Since this is a very real part of our future, the varying views on this would be interesting to consider.
I think this topic could dip into real life exams such as with AI and even the creation of Sophia -- a real life AI who was even granted Saudian Arabian citizenship – Pamela Maria6 years ago
Wow--I didn't even know about that! I find that most responses, at least in the film industry, have been fearful about this topic. There's so much to discuss here! – tclaytor6 years ago
An additional suggestion. Look in to Ray Kurzweil and his Frankenstein like 'Transhumanist' agenda. It may not be a case of 'Once they are thinking on their own', but once we have been forcibly fused with AI (as Kurzweil wants), will we still be sentient humans in our own right? Now, where's my sabot? – Amyus6 years ago
The films Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, are focused on the concept of what it means to alive or "human". It is the one of core theme of both films. – Sean Gadus6 years ago
Since before "The X-Files," was cancelled, there has been a steady rise and vested interest in TV programming focused on the supernatural and unknown. From the CW's popular line up that included "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Charmed," and the Buffy spin-off "Angel," to more recent shows like SyFy's "Being Human" and AMC's "The Walking Dead" and "Preacher," television has been pulling away from more common sci-fi programming that once focused and explored future and other realms. Why is there more attracting to exploring the unreal in the real world?
I think this is a really interesting topic to explore. One angle to delve into may be that people portray extreme shades of ourselves with supernatural beings, and we've moved more and more into this area because the mystique is not only enrapturing, but it's also a way to reflect upon human nature by exploring these characters and worlds. – gabyelan8 years ago
Were I to write this piece, I think it would be useful to delineate different sub-categories within the genre (such as those more fantastic and those more rooted in reality), and discuss how the treatment of the supernatural differs across those categories. – Allie Dawson8 years ago
Discuss the history of CGI, it's greatest accomplishments, as well as comparing this method of filmmaking to more realistic props that were used in the older age, as well as today (Nolan films being a huge point of reference). As well as cosmetics (LOTR v The Hobbit Trilogy) and shooting on location or on set (The Revenant) and how each of these mediums have their ups and downs, and which one produces the better film for select genres. For example, could we even produce an Avengers film solely using real props and make-up? Or are big blockbuster films like that doomed to be plagued by CGI?
A good topic and there are some really interesting discussions undergone throughout the development of CGI and the pros and cons from different directors. – SaraiMW6 years ago
One cannot mention CGI without Jurassic Park and how it can be used in conjunction with animatronics. – platinummad6 years ago
I believe a good path for this topic would be to focus on a certain genre, such as action or horror, etc. And compare the effect of CGI vs traditional stunts or props/make up. I think a narrower focus would allow for a more in-depth analysis – Sery8016 years ago
I think when a film uses real props, it adds more of an imaginative feel to a movie. For example, a lot of 80s movies like the Goonies, The Lost Boys and so on, have a different kind of feel to them because of the hand made touches. I think it makes things feel more realistic even though that is the whole purpose of CGI. It also makes viewers feel that a lot of personal time and effort went into the movie. Not that CGI doesn't take an extreme amount of time an effort, I just mean that it adds more of a personalized effort. It seems as time goes on the industry, it is relying on CGI more and more. Realistically, I think CGI is going to be the way the industry goes whether we like it or not. – Melissa6 years ago
CGI is an inevitable and unavoidable part of the big budget film making experience, especially in sci fi and fantasy films. I think what is more important is how filmmakers are using CGI in ways that doesn't detract from the film. George Lucas, one of the founding father of digital cinema (Look up the Star Wars prequels and you will see how many technique ILM helped pioneer for better or worse), talked about how CGI should is used to tell a story and how it really isn't different from practical effects, because they have the same goal: to help tell your story. – Sean Gadus6 years ago