Douglas Adams' foray into detective fiction, with his iconic twist of science fiction and extremely British absurdist comedy, was a novel called Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and its sequel, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. These books have been adapted into two TV shows, one on BBC4 and one on BBC America. The books and TV shows are all quite different from each other; even the character of Dirk Gently changes a bit between adaptations. Compare and contrast the book(s) with the TV shows. Why did the shows change so much? Is there something "unadaptable" about Adams' original work?
When consuming television media, do you find yourself gravitating more towards the hero or the villain? To whom do you more relate and why? What are your criteria for determining who you're rooting for? This is an extremely subjective question, but often stories are not presented in nuanced ways that fully do justice to all the sides.
A good example is the "Karate Kid" franchise. The first three movies are set up to tell a one sided story following Danny, and until recently, that story has gone unquestioned. With the inception of Cobra Kai" lends more dimensionality to the narrative; it shows how the rivalry between Danny and Johnny still exists, but has changed, and allows for a more nuanced understanding of the story as a whole.
I suppose what I'm asking is how do you determine whether the hero is actually "good" and the villain actually "bad"? Do you hold heroes and villains to the same standards? How, and why?
this topic may benefit from being opened up to matters of broader philosophical stances. like who are the bad guys in Star Wars, the Light side or Dark side wielders? Jedi or Sith? Can Dark siders be good guys? Jedi can certainly be bad guys (dark Jedi), as has been seen in legends.
Another potential would be analysis from the intuitive background info, and putting one's self in the "villains" shoes. For example, was Sharpei a true villain in High School Musical? her attitude was bad and mean spirited, objectively, but she had the right to be angry, self-conscious and confused that her adeptness she trained her whole life for (theater performance) was suddenly under harsh question. A true "hero" would step up to the challenge graciously, but would a true human? probably not. – adhyuki2 years ago
I think this is a really good topic and one that I've been thinking a lot about myself. I think it's really important to look at the character's past as well as their environment, as that would help us understand what makes one a hero and the other a villain. I think it would be useful to look at this topic through a more psychological perspective in order to put yourself in a character's shoes and analyze their past. – dashatsymbalyuk2 years ago
A look back at this series, the TV movies and ideas of how the story could have been concluded (include both official words and speculations).
What a classic series. I think it would be good to focus on how this show influenced others such as Dollhouse among others. – Joseph Manduke IV9 years ago
Arguably, the war on poverty in America (President Lyndon B. Johnson), though one of its goals was to break the cycle of dependency, in fact did the opposite by creating incentives and decentives that penalized work (raises led to loss of benefits) and rewarding nonmarriage.
Hollywood tends to take it a step forward, by focusing both on the war on poverty the religious exploitation of blacks during The Peculiar Institution. As a result, popular black sitcoms, such as Good Times and What's Happening! specifically from the 70s (a key era in black empowerment) focused on the idea of being good (morality v immorailty). By appealing to the message in The Willie Lynch Letter of focusing on the woman and using her as a buffer, these shows keep the main black family from taken advantage of opportunities because they may be somewhat "immoral." (see episode 4, season 1 of Good Times for an example).
What is your take on this idea?
Question on your framing, you say that one of the goals was to break dependency where are you basing that off of and secondly you draw a conclusion that it rewarded nonmarriage, where are you pulling that from? And what frame of reference are we using with regards to the "immorality" of black families? – Sunni Ago2 years ago
Great question. These are ideas that are connected to the war on poverty. Part of the Great Society was to break the cycle of dependency on the government and create tax payers out of those it considered tax eaters. Nonmarriage was rewarded through women losing certain benefits if they married or if the state found out a man was living in the house. Immoral as in if I have to gamble (shoot pool) for instance, to pay rent, why is this considered immoral? If I have to cheat a little to get by, why is this a bad thing and why are the mothers of the shows used to convey this as being immoral, leaving the families in perpetual poverty. I hope this provides clarity. – Montayj792 years ago
Interesting topic. I wonder how sitcoms like Diff'rent Strokes, The Cosby Show, or Family Matters might fit in, since they tended to portray Black or mixed families as more middle class or even wealthy/upwardly mobile? That is to say, were these the logical "next step," or were they too idealized? Did they gloss over poverty too much? – Stephanie M.2 years ago
They could definitely fit in or stand on their own as a new topic. The Cosby Show came across my mind as I wrote this question out for sure. I think these shows tried to portray a different side rather than focus on the stereotype of poverty being all there is. – Montayj792 years ago
Analyze recent queer relationships as they are represented in a few mainstream TV shows (Atypical, Heartstopper, And Just Like That, L Word Gen Q, etc). To what extent are these relationships and characters homonormative? Homonormativity is the tendency for queer relationships to model goals and expectations on normative straight relationships (monogamy, goals like marriage and childrearing, citizen/rights-based activism, for example). Is it possible for mainstream TV to present compelling alternative queer characters and plotlines or is the form destined to churn out homonormativity?
Really interesting topic. I'd be particularly interested in the ones that set themselves up as queer - e.g. The L Word - and how they actually engage with queerness. – metacohen2 years ago
Thinking that this could be a very collaborative and all-inclusive piece if it comes to fruition. Being a heterosexual white male and not having knowledge on this topic makes my engagement with your potential prompt limited, but it does seem like a truly compelling topic for that reason. You could certainly take an educational yet relatively opinionated take on this in order to inform but also to make a firm claim on the way you believe mass media as a whole (specifically in TV and film) could move with this issue. – matthewmcgovern2 years ago
Evaluate how Bridgerton reimagines British society to fit its narrative – consider issues such as race, gender, and class dynamics.
Nice topic, but I think it's too broad. Try narrowing it down by choosing one or two of the issues you raised and expanding on them in the actual article. – Stephanie M.2 years ago
Perhaps an exploration on historical accuracy vs. historical authenticity? A lot people like to criticise the casting of diverse actors as being "historically inaccurate", but what does that say about society then and now? – alexmulvey2 years ago
In the past it was common for TV series have seasons with 20 episodes. This has changed in the past decade or so. Now it is more common for shows to have 6-15 episodes. For example, The X-Files was a popular show in the 90s that had 9 seasons with 20 or more episodes each. When it was rebooted in 2016, the following two seasons had 6 and 10 episodes respectively. This shows the change in episode numbers according to the times. Discuss why this happened and what factors played a role, such as streaming, globalization, changing attention spans, busy lives, intended audiences, etc. Was this a change that occurred due to differing consumer needs or production needs? Was it due to the changes in how television and media is consumed?
Interesting observation, and I think it might be due to a number of the things you mention. For one, streaming allows people access to a plethora of series and movies, thereby potentially limiting their "attention span" for one series. In addition, since there are so many series being created, perhaps production needs are inadequate. – LibraryLass2 years ago
Netflix fantasy series Shadow and Bone are based on five books written by Leigh Bardugo. The first three are part of the so-called Grisha Trilogy, and the other two (Six of Crows) follow a different group of characters years after the events of the first three books. Showrunner Eric Heisserer said he wouldn't have written the show without them, so the article could explore their particularities and why they're so endearing to the story and the public.
I think part of the charm of the crows is that they are already an establised friend group. The characters didn't have to get to know each other as Alina did with the Grisha. It meant we could get into the action way sooner. On another note, the Crows are technically 'the bad guys; it is always interesting to see their perspectives – hannahclairewrites2 years ago
I agree with the establishes friend group. There are no character developments being made when characters interact with each other to become friends, rather, they are already aware of one another. – hafsakhan3102 years ago
