The last season of Game of Thrones has garnered significant audiences as well as criticism in its handling of the fates of its female characters. However the abuse of Westerosi women for ratings has not been a fresh take from the showrunners. Analyse how the use of sexual violence and patriarchal narratives disguised by capitalist feminism has always led to the bitter defeat of the women in Game of Thrones.
It expresses an ironic reality that we live in. An aspect that woman empowerment highlights upon. But after all, it's just a show. – Zoran5 years ago
I really like this topic. Keep in mind one could go back to the very first episode of season one to get a sense of the misogyny and brutal treatment of women as predictors for the series' final portrayal and fate of female characters. In this sense, the show has always seemed to me to retain a very 1970s feel in its use and abuse of women as disposable commodities. – MarkTodd5 years ago
I see a lot of people countering this argument with evidence like "Sansa became queen of the North as an independent country, and Arya got to go explore a new world all on her own, so the women weren't treated that badly" but I have to agree with this topic. If you take every woman in the cast and summarize their story arc, they were not treated fairly or with respect as individuals with potential to make great stories. – MissAila5 years ago
I am part of that 1% that has never seen or been interested in GoT. At first it was because I thought it was all explicit scenes and that was the premise of the entire movie because that first season oomf, very hard to even get passed the first episode. Not my type of genre. Then I realized that the plot line is actually interesting. Instead of watching, I looked through recaps and understood what the story was through that. Not the words of a fanatic, but even I was disappointed by how they painted the characters. If we focus on the women specifically, we were given poor character development (rushed for Daenerys) she was made to be the villain so quickly. Sansa and Arya deserved so much more. Arya defeated the night kind for crying out loud and all we get for her closure is that she goes exploring. – njavaid5 years ago
Good idea for a piece, but keep in mind that some of the show's characters, Arya in particular, escape or carve a place for themselves outside the patriarchal power structure. She is the ultimate special forces operative--solo, brains over brawn, the only one in the battle against the White Walkers to learn (via the famous scene in the library) to learn about her adversary in order to penetrate their ranks--how else could she have maneuvered into a position to kill him? Unfortunately, the only logical conclusion was her own self-expulsion--she literally did not fit in any Westeros order and needs to find/explore her own brave new world. – barbarafalk5 years ago
At the end of the final season, Tyrion's motivation for choosing Bran as the new king begins with this line: "There's nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it. " And this line summarizes how the writers have failed the women of Game of Thrones--particularly Daenarys, who by all rights should have been Queen. When you think back to the earlier seasons (and when you read the books) you get a clear sense of the larger story from the perspective of many different characters. In fact the novels are organized around events told from the varying perspectives of the major characters. We can see the world through the minds of Cersei, the Starks, Tyrion, Daenerys, and others. But, when you compare this narrative strategy to the final season, it's clear that the narrative loses this quality and predominantly focuses in on a few narrative perspectives: Jon's, Tyrion's, and Jaimie's. For this reason, we don't really know why Daenerys chooses to burn King's Landing to the ground because we are never privy to her perspective. We are only told that she is "mad" and are forced to accept it. And when the characters reflect on Daenerys's past actions, her reasoning for her actions aren't included, her perspective is erased. And in that sense, Daenerys's story is stolen from her--rewritten by those who would rather see Jon on the throne because he is thought to be the "rightful heir." Thus, the power of story, indeed! On a final note: George R. R. Martin makes it pretty clear in Fire and Blood that the rightful Targaryen ruler is always the one with dragons. – bsumpn5 years ago
Both the comic and TV series "The Umbrella Academy" include the a robotic AI that looks and acts like the mother of the Umbrella Academy children and a hyper-intelligent chimpanzee that acts like a mentor/sidekick/Alfred character for the children. The comic series minimizes the role of Mother, however, while it maximizes the role of intelligent chimpanzees. We see chimpanzees all over the Umbrella Academy comic world taking on every role that humans normally do.
Why the difference between the two, and why do either of them include these figures in the first place? Why do the children have a robotic mother and a chimpanzee butler? How did these characters come about in the logic of the comic/series and why? What does the elimination of their backstories mean for the TV show/comic series?
There is a common belief that when time travel is used in a television show, it’s because the writers wrote themselves into a corner and can’t find a way out, so they introduce time travel, a tricky element to handle. Some use it as a panic button and expect their audience to just go along, while some do give it some thought. Analyze some examples in popular culture and discuss whether or not there is a good way to handle time travel. Possible examples include Rick and Morty, The Flash, and other science fiction and fantasy works.
This is a great topic which I would love to see written in depth! This is a thing that is always bugging me in movies, for example the use of time travel in the Avengers: Endgame, which had a lot of unanswered points and hardly believable moments and slippages. Another great example would be Looper where the story is, in my opinion, extremely powerful.
– Kaya5 years ago
This is certainly an interesting topic but it will need to be kept in mind the different kinds of time travel portrayed in media. So shows and movies have strict rules on the subject, like the Flash where time is described as fragile, as opposed to Bill and Ted in which a time machine is used with no apparent consequences. Still an article I want to see written. – Unquotable5 years ago
It would also be great to see where it's done well. Like Safety Not Guaranteed and Back to the future, where the narrative is constructed with time travel in mind, as opposed to the plot device to get out of a jiffy. – Lousands5 years ago
I think it is important to look at the physics involved; ideally, fictional time travel (and travel through space as well) will not violate rules of physics (and my understanding is that some time travel is thought to be possible, at least in theory). – AlanLibert5 years ago
I think its interesting how in Endgame, the film discredits multiple other films usage of time travel being incorrect or violating some law of physics. But I think another time travel film that can be added to the list is one that was mentioned fondly of in Endgame: Hot Tub Time Machine. While it plays off as being a college teen-style comedy film, the original point of the film is for everyone who goes back in time to repeat everything that they had done the exact way that it had happened, which of course fall apart half-way through the film but at the same time, when they arrive back they discover that the changes they made helped resolve their previous struggles at the beginning of the film. – Kevin Mohammed5 years ago
Game of Thrones demonstrated that shows can be bigger than the movies being watched in the theater. With the ending of Games of Thrones, it seems like networks are investing more and more resources into big event shows. Netflix has The Last Airbender and The Witcher in active development, Amazon is working on Lord of the Rings show, and Disney has its Star Wars and Marvel shows that promise to have the production value of the films. With Game of Thrones' massive success, are big budget blockbuster shows becoming the norm?
This is a very interesting topic! I hope you would also discuss the consequences if these kind of shows became the norm--what might the repercussions be for small budget shows, fantasy lovers, or cable tv networks? What might be the pros/cons of this becoming the norm? I'm super stoked to read this. – Eden5 years ago
On Last Week Tonight on May 4, John Oliver commented that HBO is f****d after Game of Thrones finishes. He may be overstating it, but he brings up a good point: the landscape of TV is still changing. It had to change when streaming came into the picture, but now it's changing with the arrival of bigger and bigger quality TV. The Sopranos was a different kind of show. Then The Wire. Then Breaking Bad. Mad Men. And now Game of Thrones didn't just up the ante; instead, it went all in. Supposedly, the latest season cost $15 million per episode. If that's the going rate, a 10-episode season of a television show will cost $150 million. Can streaming services keep up with such costs? Does their business model even allow for such costs? I know Netflix is worth around $20 billion, but $150 million for a TV show season is the cost of a blockbuster movie that can expect to make way more than that through theatrical releases, etc. Can Netflix really see an uptick directly linked to such an expensive production that makes the $150 million outlay worth it? These streaming services are going to have to make a lot of changes in their models, methinks. – ChadW5 years ago
This is a very interesting topic! I hope you would also discuss the consequences if these kind of shows became the norm--what might the repercussions be for small budget shows, fantasy lovers, or cable tv networks? What might be the pros/cons of this becoming the norm? I'm super stoked to read this. – Eden 2 weeks ago – cwlsmelbourne5 years ago
Streaming services are changing the way we view media. There are currently several key streaming services (Netflix, Hulu,) and some currently planning services/recently launched services (D.C., Disney). What are the benefits and downsides of streaming services, when compared with traditional cable or broadcast television? Compare the benefits and downsides of both styles of media consumption and creation.
One of the most interesting topics relating streaming services, particularly services like Netflix and Spotify, is that these companies are pre-revenue. Just last year, Netflix spent almost 10 billion dollars on content, which is even $2 billion more than they originally intended to spend. Spotify is the same way. They’re spending large amounts of money to gain access to more music, while also trying to grow their subscriber base. Neither of these companies are making money. They are playing the long game. They know in 10 years they’ll have so much content that they won’t have to spend billions of dollars each year—they will already have a ridiculous amount of entertainment to offer new subscribers. I think this is a great strategy, and it definitely benefits the consumer. We are lucky enough to live in a golden age of TV, where high quality programs are being released left and right. Netflix and Spotify are the pioneers of the streaming industry, And I can’t wait to see what each company has in store in the future – shanethewriter5 years ago
One of the benefits of streaming services is most definitely the convenience. There's nothing like the feeling of booting up the Netflix app and watching a movie/show you are invested in from the comfort of wherever you are. There's also the exclusive content that can't be seen anywhere else because other networks didn't want to invest in it. The biggest downside is that nothing lasts forever on a streaming service, not even the exclusive shows produced in house. Netflix's most viewed shows are licensed shows like Friends and The Office, but Warner Bros owns Friends and NBC owns The Office, two networks that have their own streaming services in the works and are currently trying to take those shows off Netflix. Netflix exclusive shows like Sense8 or One Day at a Time, the type of shows that aren't offered anywhere else get canceled because of the lack of viewership. Marvel shows that were Netflix exclusives like Daredevil get canceled because of the emergence of Disney+. There's also the fact that there are a lot of streaming services in the works where it'll get to the point of being just another of cable television – cbo10945 years ago
One of the benefits of streaming services is easy accessibility. Traditional cable and broadcast television could only be accessed in the one place. At home, in the lounge or the bedroom, or wherever the TV was. Streaming services can be accessed only more than one device, including more than one portable device. Should you have a lengthy break between meetings/classes but not too lengthy that you can leave the building? Whack on the next episode of the show you're binging. The biggest downside to streaming services and in particular to that easily accessible aspect is the addiction that comes along to it. There is virtually no effort in starting a new TV show or movie and that can sometimes distract some from the real work they need to do. – olivialocascio5 years ago
I think that although the convenience of streaming sites is a benefit, it can also be a disadvantage. With so much convenience humans become lazy. Instead of having the fact that there is nothing interesting on TV at a particular time to encourage us to go do something active, we always have an excuse to sit and just watch a screen. – HannahTurner5 years ago
Streaming services, even ones like Amazon Prime Video who still use advertisements, are the next step in the evolution of the television medium. It allows for more personalization of the viewing experience: namely, letting the viewers choose what they watch instead of programming it for them. More importantly, it allows for more controversial, hard-hitting content which the old corporate controlled system prevented. I just wrote a paper on Rod Serling’s legacy in television and censorship. I agree with him that artists shouldn’t be dictated by corporations. They are two different worlds. – KennethMay5 years ago
A downfall of streaming is definitely the issues of acquiring content. The best example I can I think of is Spotify’s spotty content; unfortunately you can’t get every single album or single on Spotify, especially movie albums. This promotes users to spend money on another subscription to somewhere like Apple Music or going out and purchasing the album or single physically or digitally; in some cases purchasing isn’t an option either, creating a rift for the streamer. – roraruu5 years ago
here's a helpful podcast by freakonomics about this for whoever takes this on: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/spotify/ – emaglio5 years ago
I am interested in this topic. Maybe here there are already many articles and people focusing on that? Maybe several people that know good books, articles related to anthropomorphization?
Do you have a specific idea or question about animal studies and cartoons? Maybe, why cartoons tend to anthropomorphize animals, or what the history of cartoons with animal characters is like? These are just examples. Once you have a specific idea or question in mind, try searching this site using the magnifying glass icon at the top of the page to see if other articles or topics have been written about this idea. Good luck! – Eden6 years ago
Thanks for the hint. I am interested in all kinds of questions related to this topic but specifically, I have an interest in how anthropomorphization affects the perception of animals and how animal stereotypes are showed and created in cartoons. I am pretty sure I will find some information for those questions, here. – JustinaVonDanzig6 years ago
I would be more specific with your topic. Because right now I feel it's a little too broad. – BMartin435 years ago
I'm not sure I see the issue: animals and cartoons. Is this about Bugs Bunny or the Lion King? This needs a major rewriting. – Joseph Cernik5 years ago
As other people have mentioned, I would make this question more specific to one or two cartoons or works, like ThunderCats, the Animorphs book series, etc., and discuss one main issue with anthromorphization. For example, "Manimals: The History of Anthropomorphization" or "Bunnies and Cats and Dogs, Oh My! The History of Talking Animals in Saturday Morning TV." – Devon5 years ago
I think it would be interesting if someone familiar with philosophy or moral theory could dissect some of the main thematic elements in the television series "The Good Place". Main character Eleanor awakes after death in heaven, only to realize she isn't a "good enough" person to belong there. She receives lessons from a former ethics professor, which she attempts to apply towards her daily life to become a better person. The show quotes Kant, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus, among others, and offhandedly mentions topics like moral particularism and utilitarianism. While the show takes these moral lessons in stride, it doesn't do much to unpack them in the context of the show's characters. Moreover, while much of the show focuses on the question, "what does it mean to be a good person?" I think there are other philosophical questions the show hints at, like what heaven or hell really is, and in which scenarios we can or should put ourselves before others. What questions about morality and ethics does "The Good Place" raise, and why should they matter to lay audiences? How does this show make these topics accessible to viewers, and why should it matter?
I also think dissecting it under different ethical theories that can include Deontology, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Consequential Ethics. That would narrow it down to specifics in order to truly understand the types of characters on "The Good Place", and why they have ended up where they are. – Amanda5 years ago
From Don Herbert who starred in “Watch Mr. Wizard” (1951—1965) to Bill Nye who starred in “Bill Nye the Science Guy” (1993-1998), we see that science could be explained in ways which do require a degree in science. How do we look at the impact of these shows? Both Herbert and Nye have had some degree of prominence beyond their shows. In the case of Herbert, by the mid 1950s, there were several thousand Mr. Wizard science clubs, and, in the case of Nye, besides appearances on TV shows such as “The Big Bang,” and “Dancing with the Stars,” Nye has been prominent in addressing creationism and global warming. The legacy of these two individuals can be studied to address making science a topic that is not simply left to scientists.
