Our current culture has it's fair share of 'strong female characters', but Veronica Mars is one who stands out. That's not because she makes speeches about making her own decisions, it's because she's the one getting stuff done. Rather than just reacting to what happens to her, she is the one making moves. Not just for one climatic moment- she is ALWAYS chasing down a case, getting a favour, asking the first question. She is the one people go to for help, she is the one you want on your side, because she is really good at what she does. The point is, female characters saying 'this is my choice' while deciding between love interests is not nearly as empowering as watching Veronica seeking out her own cases and succeeding by her own skill.
Discussion doesn't need to be limited to Veronica Mars. Other characters like Jessica Jones, and (sometimes) Emma Swan (OUAT) show proactive competence. There should definitely be comparisons to characters like Elena Gilbert (Vampire Diaries) who, while brave and occasionally proactive, still lapses into long periods of being rescued and only choosing between other people's plans.
I am a huge fan of VM, she is a very interesting character that is positioned uniquely within the female archetypes. She is a great one to examine that not only does she represent the gumshoe archetype, but that this is met on every level - she has flaws, she has her own code that does not always align with what is legal, she is driven by internal motivations. I agree also that JJ is a good representative of the similar type of emerging female archetype. A great discussion to be having. – SaraiMW7 years ago
she definitely is a strong character and is often overlooked in favour of more popular characters. Definitely, an important issue to discuss. – Ishita6 years ago
LOVE Veronica Mars and still upset with how it ended (or was cancelled). She was headstrong, super witty, hilarious, stubborn and in demand. And I mean literally, people would seek her out and she would help out but only on her terms and I loved that about her. I just admired how clever she was. – teyadonna6 years ago
It is not news to anyone who has been paying attention that the current era of television programming, on the legacy broadcast networks, cable channels and streaming services, is a golden age. But an exploration is warranted of how long this creativity can be sustained. At some point, the bubble has to burst, and a reduction in the number of high quality shows will have to decline as a result. Particularly relevant in a year when numerous critical and audience favourites like House of Cards, Veep and Game of Thrones are all ending.
This seems like a very interesting topic but you'll need to check a couple things before you commit to it. First, you'll need to prove that the outgoing shows aren't being replaced by other critical and audience favourites (there's no issue if they're being replaced at the rate they're wrapping up). If this is the case, you should try to support your hypothesis with historical precedents (ie. Has this happened before? And if so, does the current state of TV look similar). – Ian Miculan7 years ago
I think this is without a doubt a timely article considering "golden age" is such a conversation starter. In order to make your article unlike the others, I think you need research. For example, maybe make a deep comparison between television today compared to sitcom shows in the 70s or 80s, when they were widely popular with the American population. Did those end? Perhaps they just overpopulated and, as you say, the bubble had to burst. – Emily7 years ago
I think the end (as we know it) will come when there is simply too many good tv shows that no show will be able to sustain a sizable enough audience to fund itself. People only have enough time to watch so many tv shows, and the more there is, the more that people will have to miss because they're too busy – fantasticfools6 years ago
John Belushi was a comedic talent above and beyond the ever constant flow of aspiring young actors. His antics were delivered with masterful ability in both television and film. His contribution to comedy, acting, and singing set the image for future actors to emulate. So, is it safe to say that Chris Farley was merely following the mold set by others or that he added his own specific brand of skill to a familiar venue? Consider the factors that play into developing the unique performer, while simultaneously pointing out the distinctive traits of the personality. Does comedic talent necessitate a lesser or more pronounced counterpart, much like Laurel and Hardy in order to cultivate the creative juices? How much of an effect does audience have on delivery and captivating tension? Are props, musical score, setting, and dialogue vital to the production or simple accessories of the process? Does the climactic spectacle require a "Who's on first?" dialogue as the one coined by Abbott and Costello, or is it merely the chemistry between the characters?
I feel like you are in need of a stupid and futile gesture. – nolarmade696 years ago
With a focus on the tentative new Prison Break reboot, this article would discuss the effective and ineffective aspects of television reboots and when and where the line should be drawn and the show should be over.
There are good and bad aspects of rebooting franchises. The main beneficial point to rebooting a franchise is to provide a fresh retelling of the narrative, either through a modern time-period, a different genre/tone or simply from a new revisioning of the character in its respective universe. Good examples of reboots are Marvel's Spiderman: Homecoming and Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Spiderman: Homecoming revisited the origins of the superhero, presenting the character at a much younger age than previously explored, his teens, and aligned his motivations with that of the already established Iron Man, so it was a natural fit. The Dark Knight trilogy bounced off the critical and commercial failure of George Clooney's Batman movies, and presented a much more gritty and realistic tone for the Batman character, unlike anything previously explored in cinema. The key point I am trying to make is, the restrictions on reboots should be a fresh vision of the character from a plot-perspective, in order to preserve their narrative integrity, not to update it for the current year or development of special effects. – Gliese436B7 years ago
I lover Prison Break and would love to see it go forward with more episodes. I think it depends on the series in terms of adaptations. In some ways reboots and great ways to update an original series. In other ways, everything is an adaptation. It can all be very derivative. – Munjeera7 years ago
I loved the first instalment of Prison Break so much but I am disappointed that they are rebooting it. I think a good aspect is to compare how other shows have rebooted themselves and if it has worked well. What I have found is that whenever a show or movie tries to do better then the original story-line, it always fails. Everything within the reboot will be criticised and deeply judged that it will seem hard for the show to continue with this. – Dana6 years ago
Rubber necking is the macabre desire people have to slow down near car-wrecks to see what happened. No desire to actually stop and help, but a twisted urge to see the gore and horror of an accident. I think shows such as 'UnReal,' 'You're The Worst' and 'Flesh and Bone' rely on the same instinct. They include trying terrible things perpetrated by truly terrible characters, and not in a genre way such as horror or fantasy, but in a real life manner. The psychological damage these characters constantly present in their real lives is so disturbing to watch, and it is of course inevitable that their lives are a series of car-wrecks. The question I have is why are we so engrossed by this? What is it about seeing truly terrible acts of people acting in completely psychologically unhealthy ways that means we can't look away from the screen?
Good question, and extremely relevant topic. I've asked myself this many times. – Stephanie M.6 years ago
In 1968 Andry Warhol wrote that "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes". His prediction has come true with the popularity of so-called reality TV. But how real is reality TV? Can anything with a camera pointed towards it still be called real, or is it an alternative reality?
This sounds like a great topic considering people like the kardashians are becoming famous these days. – theOne2347 years ago
Great question! Reality TV is highly edited in order to produce a story line. For example, Master Chef and My Kitchen Rules are both reality shows about cooking, based on the concept of competition between non-professional cooks. But the story line of MC is one of growth, collaboration, support, self determination and success of the individual etc all the stuff we yearn for; MKR is based on conflicts, back stabbing, drama, failure etc all the stuff we despair. They are both high ratings because they tap into the everyday elements of our lives. While that is usually the core of why these shows are entertaining which the producers clearly leverage, we ought to examine how the audience is socialised in their consumption of these shows, and how producers inadvertently or perhaps purposely produce narratives that bind the audience with the reality actors through their edits - examination of the sociology of reality TV shows. – lienpham7 years ago
These is quite a broad topic, you could try breaking it down and focusing more so on a specific genre of reality TV. – ninaphillips277 years ago
Pick one type of competition show, or dating show, or "documentary" live-in show. Try to find what the directors sell you. Compare things like Hell's Kitchen to The Great Britih Bakeoff, America's Next Top Model to Face-Off, Naked and Afraid to America Ninja Warrior, and so on. – IndiLeigh7 years ago
A little bit of a silly topic this one, but I have been pondering the power of the cliche. For a long while in film, television and literature a lot of discussion was engaging in creating original art – to the extent of pushing away from the cliche. Ensuring that regardless of what would or would not work for the narrative, the most important factor was ensuring that it was not a cliche. Have we now pushed far enough out that the cliche has become nostalgic? What I thought might be interesting is having a look at what cliches still have juice to squeeze (star crossed lovers) and what others need to remain in the dead and buried (man of the house).
I think that the popularity of the cliché can be attributed to the popularity of memes. Clichés are very something that become very meme-worthy. – tygarrison6 years ago
Everybody loves a story from the POV of the hero–the one whose moral compass points due north, who sacrifices him or herself for others, who puts others first. Most can't resist the appeal of an underdog or a comeback kid–i.e., the geeky kid who gets bullied in Chapter 1 but kicks the bullies' butts in Chapter 10 because by then, they've discovered their inner strength and gifts.
Despite these truths, there is a definite explosion of antagonist-centered stories out there, whether in movies, books, or television. The trend isn't new; you can find it in fairytale spoofs like Seriously, Cinderella is SO Annoying! But lately, antagonist-centered stories are far more developed, giving their evil (or formerly evil) protagonists real development and character arcs.
Look at some examples of this phenomenon, such as Disney's Descendants, the character arcs for Regina, Hook, and Zelena in Once Upon a Time, etc. Do certain genres lend themselves more to this type of arc, and why (as you can see, it's huge in fairytales–but why)? What does it take to do this kind of story right? Do you believe antagonists or villains always need their own stories, or should we be content to let them be evil (and in what cases should we leave them to their evil)?
Try and find some more obscure examples of where antagonist-centred stories work and where they don't work, don't just stick the mainstream titles. This might help either prove your case or highlight why it might not work (depending on which way you go with this) – AidanGuagliardo7 years ago
