Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet has been blamed for many teen suicides. More recently, the Netflix show, 13 Reasons Why, has faced the same accusations. Is there a casual relationship between the depiction of teen suicides in movies and television and actual suicides in teens? And if so, would the causal connection merit censorship for utilitarian purposes?
I think that one's decision to commit suicide,taking into account the proper context, is an expression of our Free Will and it is a brave one. – AntonioFarfanFiorani5 years ago
The way I see it, although teen suicides might be influenced by the media, that will never be the ultimate cause. A show like 13 Reasons Why, even if it may glamorize suicide to some young people, probably wouldn't have that effect if the kids watching it weren't already troubled. The answer is not more censorship but a focus on improving the mental health of young people before they become depressed or anxious. – Debs5 years ago
Alex Trebek's announcement of pancreatic cancer shook Jeopardy fans and resulted in an outpouring of love and good wishes on social media. Fans rejoiced when earlier this year, Trebek rallied and achieved borderline remission. But recently, he has hinted he may step down from Jeopardy in the wake of his cancer and treatments. If this were to happen, could Jeopardy survive? Discuss the changes the show might undergo, whether some might be overdue, and how much Trebek's presence has made the show what it is today.
Sad news for Jeopardy fans. But the show will live on, and even though Alex Trebek may not be the host, the core values will remain the same. – Lava00835 years ago
Stranger Things became a surprise hit, with a story line that was neatly wrapped up by the end of the season. The plot was well-rounded, the characters developed, and everything seemed to return to normal. However, the popularity of the show led to the creation of seasons two, three, and soon four which, while still being good, have not received the same level of praise as season one. Are second seasons worth the risk of tarnishing the legacy of a show?
I think the discourse around Stranger Things is really fascinating because second seasons also bring new influences and characters as well. For example Season 2 includes Max and Billy who are key additions to the group and change the dynamics of the group in different ways. Looking at Season 3, it sometimes feels like a radical departure from Season 1 and 2 with its Russian/Cold War themes and Red Dawn influence. – Sean Gadus5 years ago
Good question. It makes me think of the television format as we know it, too. That is, has our culture outgrown seasons in the traditional format? Do streaming services and tons of network originals mean we need more content or less? – Stephanie M.5 years ago
The massive outcry against GoT's last season centered not only on a rushed job of tying up loose ends, but in particular of Daenerys Targaryen's turn towards genocidal tyrant in the last season. Was this turn simply more male dominated writing casting female leadership as stereotypical depictions of a hysterical woman who could not handle the pressures of ruling when her BFF was executed, her dragon baby shot out of the sky, and her silver fox butchered (all before her eyes)? Or was this turn perfectly aligned with the nature of power that GoT had been warning from the beginning? Is there anything redeemable in Daenerys' legacy after such a fall?
I think Dany's tyranny had been foreshadowed in her "blood as right to rule," plotline dating back to the start and really began to show in Season 5 when she showed a proclivity towards acts of extreme violence as a leader. While the ending was sloppy for a number of reasons, it would be perhaps harsh to assume that her plotline was playing into "hysterical woman ruler" tropes when a) her family history as a Targaryen made this a distinct possibility from the beginning (as they say, the gods flip a coin on those: given that John was the other one and he was not a genocidal despot, this was likewise foreshadower) and b) she wasn't shown to be "hysterical" so much as falling victim fo the "game of thrones," that the average citizen cares not about (as discussed very early on). The warning had absolutely been there. I think her legacy is mostly in her assistance with defeating the White Walkers and unifying various factions with John's assistance; but in the end, she became just as her father, The Mad King had been.
– benjamindmuir5 years ago
This is a good and complicated topic. I don't want to be that person, but Dany's full name is spelled "Daenerys" for anyone looking to write on her. :) – Emily Deibler5 years ago
Emily- fixed that. Thank you! – williamnolen115 years ago
I think this is a super interesting topic to explore, and something that we can now more rationally analyze since some time has passed since the finale and it's easier to do a retrospective. I think this one will really boil down to whether or not you think this has in fact been set up from the start. In the final episode Tyrion listed out all the reasons why we should have seen this coming; should we have, or was that a convenient excuse for the show runners to use to wrap up the show? I think it would also be worth trying to explore what fan response would have been if her character had been male. It's easy to try and claim that some of her behaviors were just hysterical, but a male character in the same position could get away with the same behavior and no one would have questioned it to the same degree I feel. – InvertedMobiusStrip5 years ago
This is a really awesome topic. I think everyone was too focused on the ending not being what they expected/wanted, that they had to make it a social issue. There’s tons of evidence foreshadowing Dany’s insanity. But you could also make an argument for the other side. Definitely explore this! – galogsdon5 years ago
The ending of American Horror Story: Apocalypse left many fans of the series divided. Some praised the ending while others condemned it. To settle the issue for the latter, watch the ending (as well as the entire series if yet to be done) and share how it could have come out more thought-provoking.
It might also help to broaden the scope and question whether the bait-and-switch plot at the end of episode 3 helped or could've come in a different part of the series. On one hand, it came early, but on the other, one's commitment to the conclusion might be undercut because they became immersed in one story only to be given another. – Emily Deibler5 years ago
Love this. I would definitely be interested in some series-wide comparisons for context. What made other seasons better, and why? Also, consider what metric you'll be using to judge "good, better, best". Will you use tv ratings, IMBD ratings, or critical reviews? What numbers or objective facts can you use to enhance your argument? I love AHS but didn't like Apocalypse so I'd be very interested to read this. – Eden5 years ago
This is great. I would love to hear a variety of takes on potential alternate endings. – lilliankasulis5 years ago
It seems like increasing numbers of scientists nowadays (especially the popular scientists) seem interested in using their credentials as scientists to push political points. For instance, many popular science blogs contain articles about trending political topics like climate-change protests or neurodiversity. The problem is, it sometimes seems like these individuals care more about pushing their political agendas than about the actual scientific basis behind their ideas. For instance, they may dismiss out of hand solutions to the problem of climate change that are not popular in "green" activist circles. They may also ignore aspects of human behavioral ecology, such as the evidence that humans are naturally tribalistic and suspicious of unfamiliar people and behaviors, to push the idea that bigotry is a conspiracy that people are simply being "taught."
What are some specific examples of this phenomenon? Are any outlets particularly known for this? On the other hand, are any outlets better than others at avoiding politics and sticking to the science?
A tricky subject indeed. Let's not forget that there are very few 'scientists' who can afford to self-fund their work. They have to go where the money is and quite often that means politically motivated agenda. 'Climate change' is a good example - it's a big earner! So, when questioning why some scientists appear to pushing a certain political agendum, then follow the money trail. Who or what is funding them and why? Deep research is essential. – Amyus5 years ago
Amyus makes an excellent point. I would also encourage you to consider the historical reasons why some scientific issues have been "politicized" and for which agendas. How did climate change become a "political" issue, and who has benefited from it as something worth debating upon? Also, instead of comparing news outlets, which we all know have specific target audiences that they cater to, I would look to multi-agency scientific studies. – Eden5 years ago
In the last few years the film/TV rights of roughly 90 different fantasy and sci-fi books have been bought up, with many of them having potential to see the light of day. Interestingly, TV seems to be overtaking movies for adapting fantasy. This may be due to the success of Game of Thrones, but I think it is also about the form itself, which allows a longer and more detailed story to unfold, opposed to fantasy movies that tend to leave out a lot of detail and feel rushed. TV in general seems to have lost the stigma around it, allowing for more nuanced adaptations that rival even the best movies.
Definitely mention The Expanse in the article somewhere. I believe it was also marketed as "Game of Thrones in space." I also agree generally in the assessment that with space operas and epic fantasies, TV shows allow for more details and decent pacing. – Emily Deibler5 years ago
I feel like it largely has to do with the fact that many fantasy works tend to be long-running series, and unless you want to cut a ton of material it's just easier to adapt series as TV shows than movies, or even a series of movies. – Debs5 years ago
Fantasy is much more suited to TV than film. In TV you can have whole episodes devoted to a particular element where you might get seconds of screen time in film. – LauramourFromOz5 years ago
A comparison between the original Doctor Who series and the new reboot of the series. What are the main differences between the audiences, the actors, the writing, and the story lines. Is the new version of Doctor Who more mainstream than the original or will the original forever be considered a classic.
I would say there is a definite difference between audiences, at least at the time the original aired. – nsnow9 years ago
Doctor Who used to be only a cult series that was mildly known in different countries with varying notoriety. Now it has become a world-wide phenomenon and has an audience of millions, a lot of whom are teens and 20 year-olds. Only 10 years ago, not many people really knew what Doctor Who was outside of die-hard fans who caught it periodically PBS here int he states. The writing is also far better in terms of consistency between individual episodes, and across seasons. The actors on the other hand, have always been good. Like so many people say, no one has ever played the Doctor wrong, and no one cast has ever been wrong for the part. People will have their favorites, and plenty will have their problems with the 6th Doctor, but he is nonetheless, personality-wise, a version of the Doctor that is warranted and believable in amongst all the other personalities he has had. It is also very clear that the sets and FX are far better, although some instances can still seem quite laughable and even a little rough on the CGI, especially in the original 9th Doctor season. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think it's more popular now because some of the doctors have been highly attractive haha. Totally just my opinion, but what the doctor represents in the newer ones (note that I haven't seen the older ones) to a single girl is worth touching on. Like Amy Pond waiting for him to save her, and all the girls got to experience new things and live outside of time. What girl wouldn't want the doctor to come scoop her up for such adventures. Again, no idea what the old ones were like, so it's possible this was a common theme throughout. – Tatijana9 years ago
I think the idea of the Doctor taking on a companion who is a woman was partly about that concept, but it wasn't nearly as "romantic" or romanticized as it has been with the 9th, 10th, and 11th Doctors. I suppose the closest comparison would be the 3rd Doctor, because he was quite the heroic, knight-in-shining-armor figure who could not only fight with his mind, but with his actual fists. He had a sense of the regal, but also of the Robin-Hood in him I think. So in terms of "attractive" doctors, he was the most similar to the 10th or 11th versions, even if he was far older and more rugged in the face. Also, a lot of the classic fans kind of hated the fact that the newer Doctors were so young and even baby-faced in terms of their attractiveness to younger audiences and women. I don't really mind that aspect at all, I just take issue with it when the women themselves are incredibly selfish and ego-centric about their relationship with the Doctor, and what they expect from him. It's makes them very unlikable as protagonists. But when they're more like Amy was after she married Rory, then the Doctor's companions were fun to ride along with. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
In "Day of the Doctor," the "War" Doctor seems shocked when he witnesses 10 marrying and kissing Queen Elizabeth I. When he asks, "Is there alot of this in the future?," 11 responds, "It does start to happen." I think this represents the most stark contrast between the classic and modern series. Rose and River (and even, to a lesser degree, Clara) show the romantic heart of The Doctor, making him easier for human audiences to relate to. For The Doctor to know love and loss, it connects him to us in a deeper and more meaningful way, making him more like the gods of old rather than the separate, isolated Christlike figure of the original series. – TheHall9 years ago
