The new HBO series 'West World' is a striking example of a deeply philosophical reflection of the world we live in. It poses questions regarding the existence of God, who or what is he? Are people able to 'play' God? Is there another world, one which is invisible for us? Or maybe countless dimensions? Are our everyday lives just a meaningless form of existence or is there a deeper meaning to everything? The series suggests that everything happens for a reason and people can, after all, control their own destiny.
Such an interesting topic! The TV series Westworld has gone much further than simply being a remake of the 1973 movie. In the series, we follow human characters but, most of all, we follow the robots and we sympathize with them. We mainly see their perspectives and, sometimes, we even identify with them. The consequences of such a directorial choice are complex. Robots are not presented as others anymore. They have feelings, memories, and back-stories. They are continuously updated in order to satisfy the clients better, in a way that reminds us of the way in which we continuously need to adapt ourselves to the ever-changing external world. Even though these robots are depicted in such a ‘human’ way to us, we also see them treated as objects, as goods by the clients and by their creators. Still, even within their oppressed and objectified position, these robots manage to control their own storylines. In this way, the old motif of the struggle between creator and creature –which recalls Shelley’s Frankenstein– is explore in a new, existential way. Can individuals escape determinism? Can we rewrite a story that has already been written? If not, is there a meaning in our lives?
– CostanzaCasati8 years ago
Discuss the friction between players of Pokemon Go and organizations that ostensibly work to preserve public spaces within cities. How did the two groups mitigate these frictions?
Could you explain how Pokemon Go works against people trying to preserve public places? Do you mean how that the game encourages a disproportionately high percentage of the population to go to specific places they wouldn't go otherwise? What's the danger in that? – Benjamin Brandall8 years ago
We all admire the new techniques and special effects in movies we see in the cinema, but is there actually any value in them? You walk out of the cinema with your eyes full and your head empty. Are movies adopting a purpose just for entertaining? Films from the past, like Luc Besson's Leon, or Blade Runner, or even Forrest Gump carry lots of food for thought, a vast emotional landscape and deserve to be called true works of art. Can we say the same about movies nowadays?
I totally get where you're coming from, but treating this as a symptom of "modern cinema" seems like a bit of a generalization. True, the issue has become grossly more inflate with each passing year since the 1980s, but that's only really one side of the industry, the flashy Blockbuster market designed for mass consumption. Let's just look at one year for a moment, 2014: sure, the box office was dominated by Transformers 4, The Hobbit 3, and Guardians of the Galaxy 1, but this was also the year of Boyhood, Whiplash, and Selma, as well as (in my opinion, two of the best films in recent memory) Leviathan and The Best Offer. Perhaps the issue isn't that all contemporary films are saturated in special effects, but rather that the films which employ extraneous spectacle with little substance consistently out-gross the more artistic films, which may say more about audiences than filmmakers. In fact, this very subject was handled expertly in Birdman (also from 2014), which made great use of special effects to enhance its artistry while simultaneously satirizing the current state of the popular cinema. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Depends on what one means by art, I would tend to agree with you that a lot of movies don't seem to have any substance outside of the over-the-top special effect sequences, action movies in particular. Keep in mind though, that the people working on those special effects more than likely have computer design and art backgrounds. When looking at it from that standpoint, movies like Fast & Furious, The Avengers, X-Men, and so on, are more art-based than The Piano or Forrest Gump. The problem or question at hand, is whether or not studios are choosing more special effects filled mega releases over thought provoking 'works of art'? – MikeySheff8 years ago
I find that although films such as Independance Day: Resurgance do exist, wherein special effects are all the film has to offer, many a time, VFX aid storytelling in films today, and even blockbusters can remain compelling films despite the use of set pieces full of special effects, examples being Edge of Tommorow, Captain America: The Winter Soldier/Civil War, and Ex Machina, a film which used very expensive visual effects to tell a particularly intelligent and compelling story. – JacobSe7en8 years ago
This is a great topic. I think that the Hollywood film is the general type that appears in cinema today where there is flashing and violence and different uses of special effects to keep viewers interested. It seems that films these days are focusing too much on this aspect and not on the emotional aspect and I think this really takes something away from the culture of cinema. – alexadoiron8 years ago
There are lots of bad movies out there, especially when one gets into sequels and part three, four, etc. In opposition to this, there is some great fanfiction written that by far surpasses a poorly made, poorly written movie. Think about "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" and what a disappointment that was to the franchise. There are fanfiction stories out there which are much better stylistically and storyline-wise.
Hi, are you talking about Indiana jones and the crystal skull? Because my assumption from my own viewing and from late 80s and present day reviews of Indiana jones and last crusade was that it was an incredibly well received film by fans and critics. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Hi, yes, sorry, I did put the wrong film in my post. I guess it was just so awful I tried to blot it from my memory altogether. In all seriousness though, I do agree with you that The Last Crusade was a good film, and well-received. I go to a lot of conventions and I don't think I've ever heard a positive comment about "Crystal Skull." Thanks for pointing that out. – NoDakJack8 years ago
I was also devastated by the latest Indiana Jones movie, and I agree that fans often have far more substantive story lines than Hollywood does. It makes us pause and wonder what they were thinking. My guess is that there is a big difference in purpose between the film industry and fanfiction. What drives each of those forces is what ultimately makes or breaks the stories and characters we all love. Maybe an in-depth look at how we can bring fanfiction to the forefront as a well of valuable script ideas would be interesting. Actors, production companies and ticket sales corrupt even the most ironclad franchises, whereas fanfiction is created with the purest intentions of paying tribute. – wtardieu8 years ago
When reviewing the popular television show, American Horror Story, it becomes apparent that the female characters play stronger roles than women in typical horror films. Rather than playing the "damsel in distress" who falls victim to the villain, women in American Horror Story act as the strong heroin-or bloodthirsty killer. Explore the roles of female actoresses throughout the seasons of American Horror Story and compare them to female roles of horror films. Analyze the ways that American Horror Story challenges gendered social norms. It is also important to observe the role of transwomen in American Horror Story: Hotel. Select a specific season of American Horror Story and discuss the differing viewpoints of women and transwomen compared to what a male viewpoint might have been.
I believe you meant "actresses" in the third sentence, right? Make sure you fix that if possible. – Diego Santoyo8 years ago
Yes, "actresses" is correct. Thank you so much, I must have looked over that typo. Do you happen to know how I can edit the topic and fix the mistake? – Pyper Brown8 years ago
4th sentence - you mean "heroine," right? The strong heroine..... – pfurnish8 years ago
I think this would be a neat topic to explore. Lady Gaga's character in the last two seasons would be a very interesting road to go down, just because of her extreme blood thirst in both season 5 and 6. – Charlee Ownby8 years ago
Many people say that they've "read" Tolstoy or Camus (or any host of other writers). But if the reader in question is a monolingual anglophone, how can they have "read" a Russian author? or a French-speaking one? When someone has "seen the movie" of something (like one of the Harry Potter series), they don't generally get credited with also having "read the book" even though the one is adapted from the other much as a translation is worked from the original. What's the difference? Why do popular ideas about translation allow for almost seamless "knowledge" of the "original work" while ideas about adaptation do not?
That is a really interesting question. Personally I find a great difference between the original text and its translation (I know English,Bulgarian,French and a bit of German and Russian). Reading the original Les Misérables or Ана Каренина (Anna Karenina) can't be compared to anything else, simply because however good a translation may be, the author precisely chose which words and phrases to use and sometimes they can't be translated in any other language with the same effect and meaning. That doesn't mean we must first learn another language in order to read a book, but the experiences may be different. – Kaya8 years ago
The point of an adaptation is to allow people who do not speak that language to enjoy it equally. Not all words translate perfectly into other languages but the reader is still able to read the story and picture it in their head almost the same as a person of another language. Comparing this to books and their movies may not be the best comparison. Often times a movie will simply base its plot around a book and not follow the whole story. Movies often must skip chunks of a story so as not to have a ridiculously long movie. A translated story does not tear out chunks or just base itself around the plot and steal the title. A translation is meant to be equally written for people who speak another language. I enjoy this topic very much. It would be very interesting to read the opinion of others on this. – SoodleSavvy8 years ago
SoodleSavvy, the reason I make the comparison is because translation often DO tear out chunks, add others, and rearrange things—but present themselves as if they don't. – pjoshualaskey8 years ago
pjoshualaskey, I think that would be another wonderful topic asking why some translators choose to tear out chunks and rearrange things. In this case, however, I feel that a true translation or adaptation is not meant to be changed and people who rearrange works from how they are written have not done their job correctly. This may also be a question that has no right answer because of how many ways opinions may vary. – SoodleSavvy8 years ago
To me, the question is both tricky and simple at the same time. I agree that movies based on books and translations of books are two quite different ways of 'remaking' a book. A movie director sometimes wants to develop a book plot into something new, to extend it or make it shorter just so the main idea could be conveyed, or even change the genre - options are infinite here. Also, the obvious difference between books and movies is that while reading, you direct your own movie in your head, and it doesn't work vice versa. A translation of a book is still the book. The mechanism through which your mind perceives it is not like the one you use to perceive movies. However, the relationship between a book and its translation may be pretty much like the relationship between that book and the movie based on it in regards of the unavoidable alterations that happen in the process of both translating and turning the book into a script with further filming. The result will always differ from the original act of reading the original book, no matter if the director wants to keep the plot just as it was written or not, and no matter how hard the translator tries to stick to the original. Well, if the translator transforms the words and expressions way too much and clads the book in their own style, then it's an entirely different book, of course. The fact is that it's impossible to make the translation accurate enough; after all, we're talking about pieces of art here, not scientific articles or medical documentation - translating novels and translating that kind of stuff are too drastically different fields of work, we know that. Each language obviously has its own semantic colouring to one and the same notion, especially in the realm of epithets, metaphors, idioms, leave alone puns and culturally motivated lexis.
So, in both cases - with a translation and a movie - the book cannot really be interpreted to remain as it originally was, in my opinion. And the difference and the similarity of a translation or filmmaking in relation to a book are viewed through disparate aspects: the mechanism of perception, the impossibility of conveying the unique nuances of one language by the means of the other, the way a director or a translator wants to transform the original story etc.
But the main similarity may be in keeping the originally desired effect, the purpose, the atmosphere. And that, I think, is the most important thing when the question is if you know what the story is about. – funkyfay8 years ago
There are a lot of issues with this topic, many of which have been very well-stated by those above me. I just found it interesting that you happened to choose Tolstoy and Camus as your two examples, given that the both wrote in very clear-cut, didactic, realist prose that left very little up to interpretation of the translator. I could maybe get behind this topic if it were strictly about poetry (and you had used authors like Pushkin and Baudelaire as your examples). The art of poetry is, after all, much more contingent on the specificity of words and the music they make when placed together in a certain way, making it arguably immune to direct translation. With regards to Tolstoy specifically, if you read his works in the Maude translations, you're reading versions that were made under his own watchful supervision at utmost appreciation. He's quoted saying of them, "Better translators, both for knowledge of the two languages and for penetration into the very meaning of the matter translated could not be invented." He even want as far as to say for some of his essays that the Maude versions were presenting the works "for the first time in its true form" given that the Russian censors would not allow him to publish the works without numerous edits that distorted his meaning. That being the case, it would be fair to say that reading such versions would give you access to the true Tolstoy. Yes, obviously there are bad translations out there (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/), but the onus is on the reader to do their research and pick the one that best suits their needs. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Would this mean that literary translator's work is useless and their profession does not matter? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Consider video games, such as the Sly Cooper series, that require a single player to take on the role of multiple characters. What implications do games that force players to utilize different gaming styles and strategies have for encouraging teamwork and collaboration, especially in young players? How do in-game biases towards particular characters, such as Sly, who can do far more than Bentley or Murray, affect the way players think about leaders, followers, and capabilities? It might also be interesting to consider the benefits and detriments to having single players learn this alone, rather than in a multiplayer game that requires more than one real people to collaborate for success.
The Sly Cooper series is one of my favorite video games from my childhood. I had never thought about that aspect of it before though. You're right that Sly Cooper is the main attraction of the games. He's the cool, suave guy who picks pockets with ease and gets the girl. Bentley and Murray have smaller missions by comparison but are nonetheless important to Sly's success as a thief. They take a backseat to Sly's visibility as a leader and hero, which tends to be an underrated quality. That doesn't make them "followers" just because the spotlight isn't on them. As kids, there's often a huge stress on becoming strong leaders but it's important to evaluate what actually means. As gamers, we're given control over each character in the Sly Cooper series at the precise moment when we need their strengths in that given situation. Sly's good at stealth, Bentley at intelligence and hacking, and Murray is the muscle. They rely on each other's individual strengths to function as a team. That's a different type of teamwork than as you say, multiplayer games, and it also functions differently than the turn-based systems that have been used in games such as the Final Fantasy series. There are certain implications involved in that which are worth exploring. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
While I do think single player games can incorporate and introduce teamwork to the player, it's multiplayer games that involve the player in better teamwork scenarios. With single player games, I can learn and build on how I work as a player in said games. But when those games place me into a multiplayer setting with real people beside me, compared to when I'm fighting alongside AI characters, I feel like I'm contributing to the cause instead of doing everything on my own. The sense of teamwork without real conversation isn't there for me. The feeling of making a difference isn't in my heart or mind or eyes. With real people by my side and in my ear, talking with me when I talk, I have a feeling of a team player, as someone who is actually accomplishing something for the good of others. – JRG8 years ago
YES 1000x
With the new and developing world of competitive video games, many games like Battlefield, Call of Duty, Destiny, League to Legends, and many more, these single player games where their is an objective, many people can make these games more enjoyable with the addition of team based things such as Esports, which is competitive sporting by professional gamers, which take mainly single player games and turn them into team based games. – dff50888 years ago
Analyze how the names of each of the characters in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (Charlie Bucket, Augustus Gloop, Mike Teavee, Veruca Salt, Violet Beauregard, Willy Wonka, and so forth) reflect the characters' roles in the movie. Explore the way in which the names hint at each of the characters' defining characteristics, how the names directly relate to the themes present in the story, what ultimately happens to each character.
This topic makes me so happy. Besides the obvious (Mike TEAVEE, Willy WONKa), I found the name Veruca Salt absolutely fascinating. Although all I know of Verruca is that it's a wart on the sole of the foot (just like Willy Wonka said, actually), I've wondered if Dahl just wanted to name a character something unpleasant, or if there's another significance. Salt, however, has always reminded me of the Indian Salt Tax. It was a very very expensive commodity at one point (this is what led to the Salt March in India), and could that be a reference to how rich the Salts were?
Gloop phonetically is a very obvious reference to gluttony, and Violet literally violet at the end, but I haven't been able to come up with much else for the other characters. It should be interesting to see what the comments here throw up! – JayBird8 years ago
There are some scholars and linguists who have wrote papers on Dahl’s neologisms and wordplays. Besides the names of the kids who won the golden tickets, the names of Wonka’s rivals are also very meaningful. – T. Palomino2 years ago
A question that has been brought up quite a few times in my literature classes is how to change the canon to include more diverse literature. First, we need to define what makes a "classic" a "classic." Is it that they were written so long ago and people still read them? Or does the novel hold something else entirely? Another aspect I have noticed when reading or browsing over deemed classic novels is how male dominated the canon is. Yes, we have Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters and Alcott and Harper Lee, but overall, female authors are few and far between in the original canon. White male authors dominate. Why is that? How does the dismantling begin? Does it need to happen or should we simply leave the canon well enough alone?
Another question to add to the list of why "classics" are dominated by white male authors might be: to what extent do the market forces acting on and created by a publishing "industry" leave the canon relatively untouched by anyone outside the DWM (dead white male) zone? – pjoshualaskey8 years ago
Discuss the career and works of Simpsons-animator, children's author, and web-comic artist, Liz Climo ((link) . What factors may have led to her success? What is it about her simple, one to two panel comics that makes them so cute and heartwarming? Are there aesthetic standards within the often-neglected form of one/few-panel comics by which her work may be critically evaluated? Where is her place within the long tradition of this form, among artists such as Hank Ketcham, Bil Keane, Gary Larson, Dan Piraro, and countless others? In what ways has her online presence contributed to her work and distribution, as well as the contemporary cultural understanding that comics in the 21st century can exist in spaces beyond the "funny papers"?
In analyzing Breaking Bad I noticed some themes starting to develop throughout. Walter White is anti-welfare, anti-immigrant, and anti-government in nature. I understand that Vince Gilligan has claimed he aimed not to make a political statement with Breaking Bad, but given today's context we can extrapolate our own meaning out of Walter's actions. Tell us what you think of Walter White. Is he a far right extremist?
Rod Serling's classic anthology series can still be recognized by many people over 50 years later. This series about the strange, supernatural, and the macabre had a huge impact on the way we create television shows and how to tell them. With anthology series making a come back I think its important to look back at the creation of the show, its many setbacks and revivals, and what the future is for Twilight Zones and shows it inspired.
A couple of similar shows to consider would be The Outer Limits and Black Mirror. The Outer Limits being a show that premiered shortly after the Twilight Zone and Black Mirror being a contemporary show on Netflix having just recently released its third season exemplify the huge reach and influence The Twilight Zone has had over the years. It would be really interesting to see just how many Twilight Zone-inspired shows there have been over the past 50+ years and when they were most prevalent. – JustinBakie8 years ago
What are some of the ways that Eastern characters are created differently from Western characters? What are typical strengths of anime characters, and what are typical of Western animations? Weaknesses? Consider other design elements, such as coloration, body style, and so on.
Anime characters usually expression their emotions more passionately, both in terms of facial expressions and actions. – RadosianStar8 years ago
I'm actually doing a presentation on this for class. A good way to show the difference is by focusing on one piece of the character in. Both styles and comparing and contrasting. By this I mean you can talk about head shapes and explain hey arnold and family guys football shaped heads even phineas and ferb. Then you can talk about eye shapes. This topic has infinitely possibilities in comparisons because America alone has so many differences in animation. – tinydetective8 years ago
It could also be helpful to examine western characters whose designs were influenced by eastern characters, and vice versa. Explore how these influences affect the presentation of these characters and make them stand out from animations which are either characteristically eastern or characteristically western. – Abby8 years ago
With the recent release of the acclaimed Civilization VI it would be interesting to look back at long lasting grand strategy series and the value it holds. Each iteration of the series has players building an empire starting at the beginning of human civilization and developing over thousands of years into the Space Age. This allows players to experience concepts such as culture building, technology development, military growth, and handling diplomacy as your empire changes over time. With this article I'd like to explore how the various games handles these concepts and how the choices in game allow the player to learn first hand about history and how our world developed and changed over time. It also would allow insight on how Civ VI handles these themes in particular.
I look forward to seeing this written, I learned a ton of history and facts by reading the Civilopedia in Civ2. Not sure how the modern games have handled it but I think there was always a lot lacking in how civilization actually started and expanded. Smaller groups were assimilated into larger ones or banded together to deal with threats; cases where settlers struck out to found new cities as part of the empire were far rarer. – Sboother8 years ago
This topic calls for an analysis of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, specifically in regards to how both wealth and poverty are portrayed within the novel. How do the rich live in East and West Egg as opposed to the poor in the Valley of Ashes? What is implied by this portrayal? What can readers learn from Fitzgerald's portrayal about attitudes about class in the 1920s?
Wealth and poverty have always been tangled together in the landscape of the class struggles of the 1920s. The way they are depicted in the novel is a brutal, realistic representation of the realities of the time. – Kaya8 years ago
Provide examples of films which employ strong narrative and plot to engage the audience, while using one environment to do so. Films such as "Devil," which take place inside of an elevator still use establishing shots and surrounding environments even though the bulk of the movie is shot inside of an elevator. Think about extreme dogmatic approaches such as "Exam," "12 Angry Men," or "Rear Window," and provide evidence of how these films illustrate an outside world, without ever leaving their singular environment.
Have you heard of the Hitchcock film called "Rope" (1948)? The whole film takes place within an apartment and relates to a murder. Hitchcock shot the film by shooting for periods lasting up to 10 minutes, there are only 6-8 visible cuts in the film. It is a really interesting idea that I think is in line with what your topic is examining. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Interesting topic! Even though the focus here is on films, it reminded me of how certain web series are filmed. For example, the YouTube series Carmilla used this tactic of single spaces while at the same time illustrating actions that happened outside for viewers. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
Yep, tv serials work incredibly well with this topic, especially the ones that are able to create drama with the same singular space. Take Louis C.K.'s Horace and Pete, and you might want to look at Dogville. – Matchbox8 years ago
Another film that could be interesting to include is Locke. It takes place entirely in a car, and the plot is moved mostly by the phone calls the character makes while driving. – Marcie Waters8 years ago
Another approach to this topic might be the transition from stage play to the big screen. I can think of several plays that take place in a single location but once they were made into films, the story lost that part of itself as the producers, etc. decided to take the cast outside and around the town, so to speak. – NoDakJack8 years ago
Excellent topic! I feel like this topic can also lean towards dogmatic approaches in literature. I immediately thought of Chuck Palahniuk's novel "Haunted"; the scenery is unchanged while the chosen narrator captivates you with a gruesome story from a journal. Perhaps the topic can address the transition from literature to film and how it distorts or maintains the dogmatic atmosphere? – Pyper Brown8 years ago
This makes me think of this film called 'Manderlay'. Even though its not EXACTLY restricted to one small confined space, it does keep itself to a large field. Although the field has props (in the form of a bed, or some stairs), the film has NO sets apart from these props. Everything, from the house to the trees, must be imagined. – JayBird8 years ago
Dig this topic! I recently watched 'Man in the Wall', an Israeli film by Evgeny Ruman, which I thought really nailed the single setting approach. The whole movie takes place within a couple's apartment; the plot develops by the different people who enter and exit the apartment and the various kinds of exchanges they share. The dialogue and atmosphere are super intense - which I think is a necessary strategy when working with only one place. There's something kind of unsettling about single setting narratives because they have to rely SO heavily on mood. – nicolenaudi8 years ago
Analyze any presidential speech from a current nominee or former president. What made their speech successful and what could they of done better? Review their rhetoric and how it is relevant to the situation. What is being said, who are is the speaker's audience and what is their purpose? Are there specific events that have caused this speech? (Ex; Bush 9/11 Speech or Eisenhower's Little Rock Speech) use specific evidence to back up your claim with reasoning.
Lloyd Bitzer's "Rhetorical Situation" could be a useful reference for someone doing this kind of analysis. – Matt Sautman8 years ago
This has become a popular trope in television. Shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead are in many ways based on the suspension created by killing off starring characters on a regular basis. Why has this become so common, and why does it appeal to audiences? Is this a positive or negative thing?
It may also be intriguing to investigate this from a show-runner's perspective. Are there advantages when writing stories to killing off characters? I'm thinking of things like story cohesion and budget concerns, but I'm sure that there are more reasons than just those. – Matt Sautman8 years ago
The killing of beloved or popular characters is a trope that has developed in recent years as a response to years of "invincible" characters typical of shonens or a lot of Western television or movies. It seems that there is little in the way of struggle, because it always seems evident that the main characters will triumph in the plot. Even so-called failures in these mediums are boring because the character will always regain confidence. Deaths of characters are far more permanent and damage the characters far more, leaving interesting shifts in tone, characterization, and plot far more open-ended. – shadedfall658 years ago
I don't really think it is necessarily a trope, in fact its strength when charcters don't have plot armor. In a show like Game of Thrones, which is still largely based on books Martin started writing 25+ years ago. It's also fair to point out that the worlds of TWD or GoT are very dangerous and crazy universes and it would be silly if characters didn't die often. – ivanly8 years ago
I think it is also interesting to look at when characters are killed off. Are they killed in the middle of the season? Are they killed in a cliffhanger at the end? Are they killed to create suspense for next year? To hook readers into a new season? The timing of deaths in T.V. is very important to the effect it will have on the audience. – SeanGadus8 years ago
It's interesting that one show in particular, Orphan Black, has been hesitant to do this (major spoilers ahead). On the one hand, the fact that Tatiana Maslany plays almost every major character on the show makes this sensible--Orphan Black simply doesn't have to deal with turnover of actors like other shows do. On the other hand, though, it would be easy to kill one of the clones, because Maslany would still have a job and all of the other ones would survive. In some ways, the fact that no major clone on Orphan Black has died yet could be a strike against the show, because the stakes are arguably lower than they are on a show that makes a habit of killing off characters--even when Sarah or Cosima or whoever seems to be in trouble, viewers can assume that they'll make it through fine because there's no precedent for a clone dying. Then again, the first time that a clone does die (should that happen), it will likely be even more shocking and devastating because it was put off for so long. – mrgawlik8 years ago
I believe that what made The Walking Dead so powerful it's first 3 Seasons was the grounded human element of the show. It was a show about mere mortals in a crazy world. Character deaths on The Walking Dead used to be a regular occurrence, and weren't dwelled on for too long because of the fact that in a world with so much death going on, the characters would have to learn to deal with such heartbreak quickly. I feel as though recently it's become every other show out there. They've made a big deal about random characters we barely even know dying. They've made marketing campaigns out of deaths. It's annoying how loud and obnoxious the show has become. I remember when the dialog sounded unrehearsed, and natural. I remember when characters died, a small funeral happened, and they moved on. I remember when I could name the amount of characters alive on the show. They need to scale the show down in my opinion. Make it simple again. – FamousWolf8 years ago
This is one of my favorite topics because there's so much going on around the world and television has been such a great entertainment for individuals and families for so many years. From reality shows to scripted no matter how busy I am I love the fact that I'm able to DVR my favorites and go back and enjoy them alone and with my family. – PrettyBigDeal38 years ago
A show like Walking Dead shows how unpredictable the apocalypse can be, so obviously people are going to die sooner or later. One of the most important aspects of a character death is the aftermath; what are the repercussions? How does it affect the other characters going forward? This is a rather significant part of Walking Dead, especially after that Season 7 premiere. If you have your audience outraged and heartbroken over the death of a fictional character, then that means you've done something right. Death, when done the right way, can be a positive thing for TV shows that call for it. – joegonzo9138 years ago
Edgar Allan Poe is widely known as the first, and the best horror story writer. The way he describes the tortures of his stories uses such a wide range of adjectives in a way that horror movies today just can't seem to recreate. Is there any proof or validity to the statement that he is the best at his craft?
I think this is an interesting topic but maybe a bit more of an argument for a topic.
He's given a lot of credit but there's a number of other writers that are thrown around as "best". Like Shelley, Lovecraft, Stoker, even King. Maybe an article detailing Poe's influence – ivanly8 years ago
Examination of the criteria for good horror might be different for some. Poe is not so much the master of gory details as he is a master of suspense. Many of the deaths in his stories are slow and anticipated. This, as least for his fans, is more horrific than a stranger in the bushes with a knife. It is also his use of first person narrator, where we are often trapped in the mind of the killer, that sets him apart, at least in his day, from others. Perhaps the idea that instead of being the victim, the reader feels like they are a helpless witness, is more terrifying, and therefore more powerful horror. Are there horror movies that utilize that device much? Even if there are, it's not as easy to slip into the killer's mind in a movie as it is in prose. What might make him "the best", is that the device doesn't translate to film well enough to rival him. – wtardieu8 years ago
I think we also have to take into account regionalism. Was Poe only known in America or did his influence span to Europe and other regions? Are we narrowing the scope to only America or broadening it to include other areas of the world? I, personally, wouldn't classify Poe as a horror writer, rather I would say he's a suspense, thriller, or psychological writer. His stories are not full of blood and gore, but the supernatural and the psyche. His works challenge readers to think beyond the comfort of their own mind, and a psychoanalytical reading would be a good fit here. There is also the question of how the 19th C. defined horror and how is that genre defined now? Does Poe still fit in with that genre, or have his works moved to another area of literature? – krae298 years ago
Edgar Allan Poe was a genius. But I feel like a lot of what he wrote wasn't so much 'fear inducing' as 'disturbia inducing'. Was he the best horror writer? Not to me, in as much as he wasn't strictly 'horror'. Was the first? Possibly, because he ALSO wrote horror in addition to much else. Are there other horror writers in the English language who surpass him? Perhaps, but they all DEFINITELY owe him a strong debt. – JayBird8 years ago
Recently Cartoon Network has begun the downward slope towards the employment of playing back to back 11 minute episodes of their shows; along with this, they have also lost a great number of quality shows that started with the discontinuation of Teen Titans in 2006 and Young Justice in 2013. With the loss of shows like Teen Titans, Ben 10, Young Justice, and Star Wars: Clone Wars from Cartoon Network, have we seen the last of well animated television from the network? Exploring this topic would also need to include the success or failures of such shows as Adventure Time, Regular Show, Steven Universe, and so on. It should also include an introspective comparison between the differences of audience, plot, and animation style.
I think with any decade there's hit and misses and its important to not let nostalgia lead to an obvious bias. Growing up in the 90s I had mostly exposure from cartoons from the 80s and the 90s. There were certainly great ones but also stinkers looking back. All the shows you listed as the classic era are all from 2000s, which I think would be the weaker era if any. Shows like Adventure Time and Steven Universe actually felt like a Renaissance to me with how they handle continuity, character development, and mature relationships and themes. – ivanly8 years ago
A great video on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUwiYrOmAuM – m-cubed8 years ago