TV

True Blood is a television show that uses mythical characters as symbols for both past and present events. One of these that stands out to me is when the Vampires are given the right to marry, this would be a symbol of Homosexuals being given the right to marry one another. Another one is that the Vampire's curfew has been lifted and in many countries (such as Australia) the indigenous had to fight to get the same curfew as everyone else. In one episode you see a burning cross and the in the opening credits you see a boy with what looks like a KKK costume on which as both strong representation of the KKK.The thing that has made people tune into the show week after week is the mythical creatures and the story lines that are being used to demonstrate these symbols.

Judging by volume, it seems easier to write morally ambiguous screenplays. Such screenplays also seem to benefit from the default of events being meaningless or random in a meaningless or random existence (e.g., Tony Soprano's series-ending "dirt nap"), while works regarding morality as objective, ala Breaking Bad, must convincingly explain actions and repercussions without the easy shrug of "stuff happens." If we set the Way Way Back Machine to say, a century ago, the bar of acceptance for atheistic works was high, but today, its bar for justification seems awfully low. Whaddya think about that, my friend?

Analyze the issue of the show's main characters being involved in law yet acting above it (i.e. through murders, blackmailing, theft). What are the implications of this hypocrisy and how can this form a commentary on modern society or human nature? How is the show so appealing despite the characters going against simple black-and-white laws most people have been raised to instinctively follow? How can we condemn real-life criminals, yet root for these fictional ones as they do the exact same thing? Do the characters' backstories inform and alter our perspective of them, humanizing them so it becomes more difficult to see them as villains?

Analyse the way David Simon's 'The Wire' (2002) and Vince Gilligan's 'Breaking Bad' (2008) portray the War on Drugs and the efficacy of policing. Would be interesting to compare representations of surveillance, public policy and drug communities (i.e. how the centrality of drug trading affects social, economic and cultural structures in Wallis's neighbourhood in 'The Wire' v. Jesse's town in 'Breaking Bad'). Might also be useful to look specifically at the first seasons and compare the way policing is represented as a response to political zeitgeists in each show and how methodologies have changed. For example, 'The Wire' came straight off the back of 9/11 which is cited heavily in the first season as the reason behind the lack of police resources and subsequent thriving of illegal drug pedalling.

NBC's critically-acclaimed but fairly short-lived television series Hannibal is an adaptation of Thomas Harris's novels featuring the psychiatrist-cum-cannibalistic-serial-killer Hannibal Lecter. Although initially structured as a prequel to the first Lecter novel, Red Dragon, over the course of its three seasons the show became an entirely different animal, adapting pieces of all four of Harris's novels about Lecter (Red Dragon, The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, and Hannibal Rising) to form a whole that's very different than the sum of its parts.

How does Bryan Fuller choose, combine, and discard very different plot threads from the books into one cohesive series? Does he? Are his methods effective, or is the show's plot line a muddled mess?

Choose a celebrity or multiple celebrities and discuss the phenomenon of celebrity appeal in America. Do celebrities have an obligation to use their popularity and appeal to speak out against things like global warming and war? Also, their great and often rapid accumulation of wealth, should this obligate them to support social justice causes, and in what ways? Some clear examples to discuss are Dicaprio and Pitt or even Mortensen and Michael Moore. Recent developments revolving around the presidential inauguration and celebrity refusals to participate, could provide good points for discussion.
One more point for discussion would be to evaluate the effect that certain celebrities have had on the social or political causes they've endorsed, in our contemporary moment or in the past.

With the revival of the beloved show "Gilmore Girls," watchers get another chance to see what their favorite people of Stars Hollow have been up to. It's no question that those who loved the show before still love the show after watching it over again. However, and with much regret, after enjoying the seven seasons once again, along with "A Year in the Life," some viewers can't help but question some of the choices the Gilmores make. From homewrecking, to bullying, to cheating, to using, being rude, and somewhat cruel at times, they still somehow manage to make audiences love them. What distracts us from these events? What makes watching it so enjoyable? What qualities redeem them? Why do we love them?

13 Reasons Why was hugely popular and important YA novel written in 2007 by Jay Asher. In 2017, it received a 13 episode Netflix adaption, which has renewed interest in the story. How did this story change, develop, or grow in its transition to the screen? Were these changes effective, or did they hinder or distinctly change the overall story or characters?

Take us through the changes between the netflix series and the book that inspired it.