Topics

Social media has evolved quite swiftly. We are able to watch the news on Facebook, while also reading and analyzing the opinions of others. On Instagram, we are able to view our favorite celebrities and their daily lives. Then there's Snapchat, which has become a new medium for communication, interaction, and pointless "snaps" of our activities taking place at an exact moment.

Is this a good or bad thing? Have we grown closer to one another through the advancement of this form of news and communication or are we simply becoming obsessed, lazy, and judgemental?

Anyone who has played this game knows that the developers did a fantastic job. Anyone who has both walked the streets of Paris and played this game has most likely had their mind blown. I am the latter, and also a student of French language and History. The accuracy with which a Revolution-era Paris is depicted not only thematically but geographically accurate to an incredibly detailed degree. If anyone out there is a Revolution buff and enjoyed this game, aidez-moi!

It seems like every new release these days is either a reboot, a revival, or a sequel. That's all well and good for those of us who grew up with the original media and are now more than happy to see it return, but is this trend perpetrating the longevity of the series we love, or is it robbing the next generation of too many chances to form their own unique experiences with new media?

Analyze the juxtaposition of nature, magic, and technology in Tom Siddell's long-running (12 years so far) webcomic, Gunnerkrigg Court. How does Siddell allow these three to coexist, and how does he allow them to clash? Does Siddell favor any of the three? How are these elements connected to the two main characters/settings (Antimony and Kat, The Court and the Forest) and their respective flaws?
(link)

A superhero is defined as a "benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers." Batman essentially has no super powers. He can't fly, run abnormally fast, or anything spectacular. There is clearly a very distinct line between Batman and what is defined as a superhero. On the other hand, he can perform better than an average human. Batman is a great character because people can look up to him and realize that its possible to be like him. It gives hope to the readers of the comics. He inspires the audience to believe that they can have a great impact on the world, even if they don't have any super powers. Regardless of his impact on his fans, Is he really a superhero or not?

Kurt Vonnegut once said that "every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water." But can some characters, like some people, be partially passive elements in a story? The orphan who doesn't care who their parents are, the divorcee who makes no attempt to salvage their marriage, the hero that saves the world because..they do. Is it possible to have a compelling story with such characters playing a central role?

Have we, as the 21st century audience, begun to read into literature through a pattern we've created ourselves? It seems as though we are often taught that there is a set pattern of symbols that we often apply to teaching and learning any piece without considering whether it is of any relevance, stating that the author "may be saying…" Should context, thus, still be considered crucial in reading into a piece of somebody's work since it is our only valuable piece of information; the only one given to us for certain about the author's thoughts through their background? Is it the only way of veritably analysing somebody's work or should there, rather, be left some thought to the reader's imagination?

Symptoms of prequel-itis, in TV shows specifically, include 1) pointless cameos and foreshadowing for the sake of fan service and 2) backtracking to keep the plot from progressing "too far," which would result in the show ending. Examples of victims include Gotham, Smallville, and Merlin.
What I don't know about, and what I'd be interested in reading, is possible cures for this problem. I am unfamiliar with the Star Wars cartoon prequels, but I'm told they do a better job, so they may hold answers.
Another possible piece of this topic is causes of prequel-itis. Why do prequels exhibit these problems so often? Is there something inherently problematic with prequels in general?

Chris Carter, upon making the main concepts of the show, ensured that the two main characters would be in opposition of one another. The series includes character Dana Scully, a skeptic, and Fox Mulder, a true believer. The juxtaposition of each of their characterizations adds to the series conflict. By creating both external and interior conflict, the writers create an intriguing and thought provoking series.

They are everywhere, revival after revival. Gilmore Girls packed in 6 million initial viewers nearly 10 years after its not so ending ending for A Year In The Life. Boy Meets World sprung to life 20 years later with a new generation and over 5 million initial viewers in Girl Meets World. Full House was revived almost 30 years later a little bit fuller and with 14.4 million viewers in its first 35 days on Netflix. I believe the secret to these successes are the millennials. It's been repeatedly noted that millennials crave authenticity and TV revivals are swimming it. Getting a second chance to meet with characters you grew up with is like reconnecting with an old friend. Older millennials crave this sense of familiarity in a world they no longer understand. However on the (not so) opposite hand we have the later millennials. While it is still about authenticity for them it's more about feeling like they are apart of something, fitting into a "generation" that doesn't quite belong to them. Why do you think TV revivals are so important to this generation? Is it just because they've seen everything on Netflix and need a new show or is a deeper, more heartfelt search for somewhere to fit in?

I'd like to hear someone explore the fan interest in World War II, but rather how it crosses over into Japanese animation and graphic novels. I have noticed that there has been a growing presence of WW2-inspired anime and manga such as Kantai Collection and Girls und Panzer. I think it would be worth discussing the Japanese view towards their own role in WW2 and how this view has led to a different handling of the subject in Japan. In many anime and manga, one can see that there is a hesitation to portray Axis-aligned countries strictly as villains. Often times, I have seen Axis-countries being portrayed from a neutral position like in Girls und Panzer and Axis Powers Hetalia, or WW2-esque settings being entirely re-written and replaced by alternate settings like in Strike Witches or Sora no Woto.

This is more so a piece regarding what comics happened last year and what comics are rolling into this year. Say "Paper Girls" and how the storyline is going to go from the ending of the series. What comics were good that are hopefully (or already are) better than last year. It's not a year in review, as much as it's a year in review and how it's going to bleed into 2017.

In the three days after its Netflix release, "Stranger Things" rocketed to number 26 IMDB's top 250 shows. Marketed across the internet as a well-casted, spooky, nostalgia-perfect program, the description inspired a cross-internet search for movies, television shows, and assorted media that has been marketed for its "nostalgic" value and their close ties to the 80s and 90s. The majority of the hits were produced in the past 20-30 years (Clueless, Grease), but many instead are recent productions taking place in that time period (It Follows, Stranger Things), falling into decades not old enough to be considered "period pieces" but also clearly not modern age.

Examine this category of film and television, its cultural appeal, its widespread success across the western world, and determine whether or not "nostalgia" is being appropriately applied to these very specific decades, or how media of these categories might be alternatively described.

There could be an exploration into video game series that release new games every year. It can be an investigation into whether or not consumers are tired of annual releases and how game franchises can suffer because of annual releases. Assassin's Creed is a perfect example because its games have either been hits with gamers or disasters such as Assassin's Creed 3.

How has the use of color in literature changed, especially in more recent works? Our tv shows and movies are closely edited, digitally graded, and dominated by blue and orange. We over-edit our "candid" photos, dimming the colors to look retro or cranking up the contrast. Do we see a similar trend in written descriptions?

Has the symbolism behind colors changed? Has the use of certain color symbolism been reduced as the result of changing trends?

As our literature becomes divided into increasingly smaller genres and subgenres, is the use of color similarly divided? Thrillers will always be "darker" than romances, of course, but are there other trends in symbolism, shades, etc?

Criticism is often associated with siloed sections of academia. Yet with the advent of YouTubers such as MatPat, Rap Critic, Nostalgia Critic, and Todd in the Shadows, criticism has become more accessible to mass audiences. In choosing YouTube as a primary vehicle of disseminating their criticism, what changes do critics like these bring about to the genre of criticism itself? Is this a form of entertainment? If so, how does this entertainment value alter how this criticism functions? Has this shift made criticism more accessible? This topic seeks to investigate questions such as these to pinpoint the effects YouTube has had on criticism as a form of academic discourse.

Throughout women-centered literature, hair is a popular symbol and motif. The Bible consistently describes hair as a woman's source of beauty and glory, even her vanity. In classic novels such as Little Women, hair serves as a symbol; Jo March cuts off and sells her hair, her "one beauty," to help her wounded father. In so doing, she symbolically casts off immaturity and vanity in favor of womanhood.

The trend persists in modern books such as Anita Diamant's The Red Tent; women brush, braid, and stroke each other's hair during crucial moments throughout the novel. Women whose hair is forcibly cut or shaved are consistently shamed, and they mourn the loss as if mourning a person. Male characters often stroke, twist, or otherwise fondle love interests' hair as a form of non-sexual intimacy. Even in fairytales and children's lit, a young girl's hair is often pointed out as a defining trait.

Using the examples listed and/or any others you are familiar with, examine why hair is so important in women-centered literature. Have attitudes toward hair played a role in the shaping of females and feminism? What about the lack of hair for female characters who have cancer or other conditions? Are the perceptions and usages of hair in literature changing, and are our perceptions of womanhood changing with it?

TLC. formerly known as The Learning Channel, has become a place to watch voyeuristic shows. That alone is disturbing, but what's more disturbing is that many of these shows seem to exploit women. What Not to Wear, which ran from 2003-2013, performed makeovers on infinitely more women than men, and while Stacy and Clinton were encouraging toward their contributors, one could argue the message was, "Women can't get away with dressing less than their best, ever."

What Not to Wear is not the only example. In five seasons of My 600-Lb Life, the vast majority of obese contributors have been women (as many as 80% in a 10-episode season). Counting On focuses on Jessa, Jill, and the other Duggar women instead of the Duggar men, playing up the girls' pregnancies, weddings, and other "traditional" activities. Toddlers and Tiaras featured airbrushed, enhanced beauty pageant participants as young as 2-3 years old.

Using these examples and any others you might like, discuss whether TLC is in fact exploiting women over men. If so, do they mean to do it, or are they just trying to net a bigger female audience? Is that a form of manipulation and if yes, is it okay? Why does TLC not seem as focused on men, men's lifestyles, or the self-improvement of men who might be overweight, sloppily dressed, etc.? Is TLC promoting or demeaning traditional women's roles such as wife and mother, and if yes, why?

Few can watch a movie like Starship Troopers, and take it seriously. Most military satire incorporates some degree of jingoism and intensity to make a political point–but all these films run the risk of offending real people who sacrificed everything for their countries. But what if you place a movie in space? Make the adversary some alien–like a bug, gremlin, or otherworldly thing? Is sci-fi military the ultimate vehicle for satire?

"Gashapon" is used to refer to capsule toy vending machines that are popular in Japan. People are able to see which characters are featured in a machine, but won't know who they'll get until they put in money. Multiple mobile games from "Pocket Mortys" to "Puzzle & Dragons" use this system, where premium currency will offer a chance to obtain a rare and powerful character at the cost of getting an entirely different character. What is it about this system that gets players to spend their money once or multiple times? How many of top-earning mobile games use this system? Is there a "good way" or "bad way" to implement this system in a mobile game?