In past decades, children got their television "diet" from specific shows on specific channels, or program blocks on one or two channels tailored for them. Today, our children have an endless list of shows to choose from thanks to streaming services and 24-7 content.
One example of such content is YouTube Kids, a network of channels that are given new content daily, sometimes several times daily. Some of this content is positive, but just as much if not more is allegedly detrimental to kids. Writer and artist James Bridle, for instance, gave a TED Talk for YouTube that, while three years old, has 4.8M views. His TED Talk posits that YouTube kids is actually dangerous to kids' mental health and development.
Examine this TED Talk as well as other sources, such as the Momo controversy from the late 2010s, or certain shows and videos on YTK. What content is the most detrimental, and why? Is there anything parents, guardians, and tech experts could do to make content more educational and child-friendly? Perhaps most importantly, what exactly is the draw of YTK, and why do so many adults welcome its content, questionable or not? Discuss.
You should look into a youtube channel called "How to cook that" by Ann Reardon. She does debunking videos (normally 5-minute craft kind of videos) and discusses the implications of having these dangerous videos widely accessible to children. She also discusses the legalities of these videos being on youtube in the case that someone is injured following a video. – scampbell3 years ago
I think youtube isn't a very informative platform for today's generation – Olivergoodwin2 years ago
The original Addams Family series graced our televisions in the 1960s. The show was already an adaptation of Charles Addams' successful comic strip, but has since spawned a series remake, a cartoon, two live-action movies, one animated movie, and a musical.
Netflix is now set to stream yet another addition to the Addams canon. However, this one is a bit different, in that it focuses mainly on daughter Wednesday. This makes sense, as Wednesday seems to be one of the family's more popular members. But, why is she? Does this have to do with Christina Ricci's treatment of her in the live-action films? Is it her personality, or a way she stands out in her already unusual family? Explore these or other facets of Wednesday and her popularity. You might also consider comparing/contrasting Wednesday with similar unconventional female characters, to see whether they have or haven't achieved Wednesday's popularity.
Firstly, I have loved the Addams Family since I was a child. However, as I view Wednesday Addams as an adult, I find that she is most realistic and, remarkably, the most real to herself. Similar characters comparable to Wednesday could be Janice Ian from the movie, Mean Girls. Although she is an outcast to the rest of society, she expresses herself in the most authentic way possible. Characters like Wednesday create an appeal for viewers who aspire to be as shamelessly authentic in the real world. – KatJSevillaa2 years ago
In the new Death on the Nile (adapted from Agatha Christie's book), they made a number of changes to ensure the work was better appreciated by a modern audience. This included changing certain motives and secrets for characters (having a former kleptomaniac instead have a secret lover, for example) and adding a romantic subplot for the main character. Regardless of whether one thinks these changes work or not, I wanted to open up a discussion on why we feel the need to modernize old stories (even bringing some into the modern day rather than keeping them set in the past), and if these efforts help our understanding of these stories. After all, movies tend to be made for a wide audience. There is a risk that many viewers won't understand what certain decisions or plot elements imply, because they don't have a knowledge of the time period it was originally created in. Changes are made to 'translate' the work for modern audiences. But on the other hand, it can easily go too far and attempts to modernize can remove beloved parts of the original work.
This could be an interesting larger discussion, for instance the modernisation of Shakespeare's works. – Sarai Mannolini-Winwood2 years ago
I think that one reason why certain stories lend themselves to modernization is that at the time they were written they would have seemed "modern" to begin with. A lot of the technologies and cultural references used by Agatha Christie would have been considered modern, even cutting-edge, at the time her books were written, and it's only nowadays that they seem old-fashioned or "period." This was also the reason why the BBC decided to set its "Sherlock" series in modern times. Sherlock Holmes would have been considered a "modern" detective at the time the novels were originally written, and so, paradoxically, the best way to honor its original vision is to tell a version of the story set in modern times. – Debs2 years ago
Updating language is always a good reason to 'modernize' a story. Without the ability to actually understand Shakespeare, for example, people might be mislead into thinking it's high-brow classical storytelling instead of a collection of dick jokes stuffed into a thriller jacket. – kgy1212 years ago
Nice topic, but it feels a little broad. Try narrowing it down. For instance, you could do a whole article on the language issue alone. – Stephanie M.2 years ago
It may be of great importance to end the article by drawing a line between the elements that are essential to protect an art piece's identity and the elements that can be changed in response to time, place, and culture without altering its identity. – Samer Darwich2 years ago
One unavoidable problem is the change of thought with time. The core of the old story was based on The Times and social environment at that time, but now The Times and social environment we are living in have undergone great changes, and the core of the ideas conveyed are sometimes difficult to be accepted by the contemporary era. – Bruce2 years ago
Interesting topic, I think it would be helpful to point out that this is a common theme even as far back as middle ages. New texts would be written based on older texts of the same story and adjusted to suit whatever social or religious climate that was prevalent. While the modernization of text to film is new, at its core modernization of stories is not. – KayleyBingham1 year ago
True crime is a quintessentially American genre of television, literature, and more recently, podcasts. The fascination with the dark, disturbing, grotesque, and downright deranged have been entrenched in American media since Truman Capote's In Cold Blood captivated audiences in the 1960s. While true crime has its benefits: revisiting cold cases and even identifying murderers, rapists, and other such criminals, where is the line between seeking justice and becoming a voyeur in a victim's tragedy? Can there be an ethical consumption of true crime when it has been transformed into casual brunch conversation and a quirky pastime? What does the growing popularity of murder podcasts (notably mainly hosted by 30-something white women) say about American culture?
What are some examples of those podcasts hosted by middle aged white women? – T. Palomino2 years ago
With the success of the Disney limited series Moon Knight, it has no doubt thrown Egyptian mythology into the spotlight. But despite all the amazing visual effects, and the dazzling scenery and action scenes, how accurate is the portrayal of Khonshu and Ammit? Does marvel stick close to Egyptian mythology, and portray the gods as accurately as possible, or have they adapted the mythologies to suit a certain audience? Just like the other myths and legends of the Ancient World, Egyptian mythology can be quite complicated, and even through the passage of time, the gods themselves can be adapted through mythology to suit new purposes. The MCU is no stranger to portraying gods, as we have seen Thor, Loki, and various other gods from the Norse mythologies. So how close is Marvel's portrayal of the Egyptian gods, and how have they managed to stick to the ancient script?
I would suggest comparing the MCU to Norse mythology, as well. Making Hela a daughter of Odin instead of Loki, for example, was an interesting choice.
The biggest challenge in writing this article would be determining which sources to use. It's not like we're comparing the Captain America movie to what really happened in World War II. The "canon" of mythology is very loose and fuzzy. Still, might be fun to see what we can come up with. – noahspud2 years ago
Analyze the ways in HBO series succession follows a traditional tragedy structure in both the Ancient Greek sense and Shakespearean sense. A tragedy is a play based on human suffering, primarily concerning tragic events that befall the main character. The intention of tragedy, as understood by Aristotle, is to provoke catharsis in its audience. Catharsis is a release of emotions that comes with seeing others undergo painful or unfortunate circumstances. It is the pleasure of intense emotion with the relief of not undergoing the suffering oneself. Both Greek and Shakespearean tragedies tend to focus on the downfall of a protagonist who holds a high position in society. In the case of Succession, the main character, Kendall Roy, is the son of the CEO and founder of the largest multi-media conglomerate in the world. The plot itself is reminiscent of King Lear, as Logan Roy ages and must consider which of his three children is fit to take over his immensely successful business as he ages (though whether or not he is actually willing to give up his position of power is uncertain). Kendall's dreams of taking over the company are continuously derailed, no matter how hard he tries he is denied this one desire that he believes to be his birthright. Are there other aspects of Shakespearean tragedy that present themselves in the show? For example, there is considerable comic relief throughout the whole show, a feature not present in Greek tragedies. Is it more like one than the other? In what ways does it differ from these archetypes, and what significance do these divergences carry? Many consider it to be a comedy, how does the entwining of genres contribute to the complexity of the show, and the message it sends to its viewers? How does it merge traditional media with the problems and techniques of modernity?
Tragedy had elements of comedy from the time of the 16th to the 19th (maybe very early 20th) centuries. Vice verse as it pertains to comedies. – J.D. Jankowski2 years ago
Alex Russo in Disney Channel's hit TV show, "Wizards of Waverly Place" (2007-2012), is well loved for her constant antics: pranking her brothers, breaking rules, being lazy and selfish but ultimately having a heart of gold. Why is it that audiences adore "rule breaker" characters? Is it because they can do and get away with things that the rest of us in reality cannot so we live vicariously through them? Or is it because to be good all the time is boring? What other films and TV series star rebel protagonists and why are their immoral actions so appealing to viewers?
The main reason I think we see so many rebel characters is because it is an easy way to introduce conflict into a plot. – Blackcat1302 years ago
I'm not sure delinquents and rebels are always the "best" kinds of characters, per se, but I think their appeal taps into wish fulfillment. Most kids hate where they go to school, and most adults hate where they work, and so the idea of being able to just flout the rules and do what you want is super appealing. This is especially true if, as often happens in these kinds of stories, a character breaks a rule for the greater good, and by the end of the story everyone sees how right they were all along. – Debs2 years ago
It seems as though, a lot of the time, the audience's perception of a character in a story is colored less by things the character has actually said or done, and more by how another character (who is usually a main character or simply more popular) views them. For instance, in the original British Office, Tim, a salesman, spends most of his time bullying his fellow salesman, Gareth. However, because Tim is more popular and gets more screen time, audiences just assume that he is the "nice" one and Gareth "deserves" to be mistreated when there's no real evidence of this. The same series also includes a corporate higher-up named Neil, who is made out to be "mean" simply because he doesn't get along with David, the main face of the show. What are some other examples of this phenomenon from TV, or media in general? Are there any characters who seem to be especially unfairly judged? Do they (or the people judging them) share any particular traits in common?
