TV has seen a bit of an emergence of female antiheroes in recent years. Some examples include Rachel in UnREAL, Nancy in Weeds, and Claire in House of Cards. Antiheroes have traditionally been male, so it is a breath of fresh air to see women characters that don't always act within the moral boundaries society has normally expected of them. Discuss the appeal of female antiheroes; are there any limits to the archetype? Is it easier to have male antiheroes?
Good topic! Perhaps one of the women of Game of Thrones could be added as an example too? – Ben Hufbauer8 years ago
Women of GoT is a valid suggestion but I'd just like to say I think that they should be left out of the article for simplicity's sake. They would cloud the article too much with speculation and there are far too many. Lets maybe keep it easy and focus on female anti heroes as main protagonists in modern realistic dramas? Just to keep the genre specific. If it went all over scifi, fantasy, crime, etc. this article could become too huge a task lol. – Slaidey8 years ago
Jessica Jones may also be an interesting character to explore. – Laura Jones8 years ago
Regina of Once Upon a Time comes to mind, although she may no longer fit the antihero mold since literally separating herself from the Evil Queen. Or does that actually make her more of an antihero? Anyway, she tops my list. Now that I think of it, Zelena might fit, too. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Compare the narrative similarities of season six with the Netflix revival. A lot of the same conflicts were set up, Rory not being fully committed (to Yale or a stable job), Rory and Lorelai fighting, Luke and Lorelai fighting, Rory and Logan's relationship. Amy Sherman-Palladino seems to have re-set these pins again so she can knock them down the way she initially intended. Does the time jump affect the intended narrative in any way? Does it even matter?
I also found this very interesting. In a discussion with a friend about it she said originally Sherman-Palladino had wanted Rory to be pregnant at 21 but ended up holding off. (I'm not sure if it was due to actor preference or what specifically changed her mind) But I do think in a way she used this final season to bring back the generational challenges that have always circled the Gilmore family. I think the time jump affects the narrative because it snaps us back into a sort of reality. We were originally left on a high note with Rory not settling and striving to achieve her goals to be a journalist. Now we see that some things don't change and our fate catches up with us eventually, no matter how much we may run from it. – Julianne8 years ago
With popular book series titles making their way into television, authors seem to be forced to make a switch between writing long-form prose and writing with the television audience in mind. Does the narrative change, for better or for worse, when an author is acutely aware that the next book will be formatted for episodes rather than novels? George R.R. Martin's celebrated Game of Thrones series is a prime example of how an author feels the pressure of a viewing audience baring down as opposed to writing novels at a leisurely pace. What effect does this have on the story, characters and plot when an author is pressed to satisfy an episodic format at a mainstream pace?
Interesting topic. I think J.K. Rowling's Fantastic Beasts screen play is another good example of an author moving from writing for readers to viewers. – C8lin8 years ago
Would be very interested to read this article, as at the moment I cannot think of another TV show besides GoT where the writer of the books also wrote episodes for the show! – Sonia Charlotta Reini8 years ago
Given that there are some creative licenses taken in the dramatization, does the humanization of the current British monarch make her more likable, respectable, relatable? Or less? Does the dramatization work in favor of public perception of the British monarchy or not?
The scripted nature of television, when framed as reality TV, creates a paradoxical viewing experience. For those who know a show is scripted, there needs to be a theatrical suspension of disbelief, and those people will inherently react to it in a different way.
When we're aware a show is scripted, it's even possible to ignore that and get swept up in it as if it's either 100% real life, or just gripping fiction.
Does reality TV need to be scripted because real life is too unpredictable and boring? Do we try and force ourselves to believe fiction or scripted 'reality' tv storylines for that reason?
Netflix has just announced a new adaptation of "Anne of Green Gables," Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" is finally under production for Starz, and both the TV adaptations of "Zoo" (James Patterson) and "Beowulf" have received excellent reviews after the most recent seasons. The the question arises: are film and TV studios running out of original ideas and content. Is the media bound to fall into the trap of making mainly adaptations of already created content, or is there hope for up and coming authors who wish to create new, potentially never before seen shows and movies?
I'm fascinated by this topic, mainly because I'd argue just the opposite. Certainly the lack of original content in mainstream cinema is prevalent today, but that has contributed in ushering in this new Golden Age of television that we are currently experiencing. Between HBO, AMC, and Netflix, we've seen some of the most original shows in recent memory: from The Sopranos and The Wire, to Mad Men and Breaking Bad, to House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. Like TKing, I hardly see how a new Anne of Green Gables adaptation represents the end of all of that. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Furthermore (re: your edits), though TV has been a breeding ground for innovative original content in the past decade or so, it is also presents creators and audiences with the ideal format for adaptations of novels. One of the biggest complaints that people always have when a novel is a adapted to film is that the book is better, the reason for this typically having a lot to do with the limited scope and timeframe of a film (seldom exceeding three hours), which cannot ever scratch the surface of a five hundred page book and barely lets you connect with the characters on the same level as you would as a reader. Television is therefore a much more suitable format for translating the experience of a book into an audio-visual medium, because it goes on for longer, is more easily divided into chapters, and can go into greater detail with each character. The best example of this that we see today is Game of Thrones; the ASOIAF series would have inevitably failed if each book were turned into a movie, but with a season per book, it's become one of the most popular and critically acclaimed shows of all time. Considering what Brian Fuller did with Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter novels - which can be described only as alchemy - I'm excited to see what he has in store for American Gods. Obviously, your point about Anne of Green Gables has merit (because that particular story has already been adapted enough), but I think we should be embracing the potential of TV adaptations of novels, having reached this period in which the art of television has become equal to that of cinema. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Please disregard the word never in my previous note. I should never have written never. – Tigey8 years ago
Be careful with this topic as one, it has been written a lot, and two, does adapting really mean running out of ideas? An adaptation requires a tremendous amount of creativity and fresh ideas to make it interesting. Plus art since the beginning of the world has always been about adapting ideas - you can never really create something completely new, without being inspired by others works or the world around you. Is Baz Luhrman's Gatsby or Romeo + Juliet just pale replicas with no character or creativity? Has he ran out of ideas on these films? I personally don't think so! :) – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun8 years ago
Adaptions also guarantee some sort of audience, so the TV/film adaption won't have to connect to completely new viewers. Even though the adaption may not be great, people will still come to see it because they already have some sort of attachment to it – ckmwriter8 years ago
It's a common conception to think that film and TV studios are running out of original ideas and content because of all the remakes and adaptations we have seen lately. However, I believe that all of the remakes and adaptations bring something new to the table. The people in charge of remaking or adapting something, have to make the piece of work relevant today - they have to modernize it. Moreover, not only do they have to attract the fans of the original piece of work but a new audience. So, I believe that once something is remade or adapted, it's a new piece of art - it has become original in a sense. Those studios are taking a story/idea that already exists and are making it their own. – simplykrizia8 years ago
An in-depth analysis of the popular TV show The Office and how it rises above mere entertainment to become a genuine, nihilistic examination of everyday American office workers and the meaning they can find in their cyclical lives.
Don't forget, The Office originally started out as a British TV show, established by comedian Ricky Gervais. However, I think comparing how successful the American Office and how it became so much more popular than The Office UK. It's probably also worth exploring the style of The Office (fictional reality) and the clever use of a 'mock-umnetary' style of filming. Good luck! – Abby Wilson8 years ago
(agreed about the British Office thing mentioned above) but also, amazing idea! The office is a depiction of American office workers, but also of the personalities we all know. Dwight, Michael and Jim etc all represent experiences we have all had and understand. Perhaps approach this from the standpoint of what the characters mean to the viewer, how the personality types were created to be familiar and recognizable. The show offers a narrative not only on the office environment, but on the mindset of general America, and the way the countries citizens have been socialized to behave. – JoshuaStrydom8 years ago
In the older times comedy consisted of jokes, funny faces and surely others. Now, they consist of people getting injuries (in a somehow funny way), puns and witty comebacks that we found online or made up ourselves. It's weird to see how it's progressed, whether it's a good or bad transformation.
Slapstick comedy (people being injured in comical ways) is a very old comedy device. – Amanda8 years ago
The oldest surviving examples of comedy as a genre come from the ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes - he made an awful lot of dick jokes (perhaps that's what you meant by "surely others"). Try familiarizing yourself with the rich history of comedy before making claims about what it "was then" and "is now." – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I'm not certain this is accurate. For example...one of the original Saturday Night Live cast members, Chevy Chase, had a routine that entirely consisted of him throwing himself down a flight of stairs. Think of Eddie Murphy in all of the Beverly Hills Cop movies, how many times did he fall off a car he was attempting to stop during a chase? Even further back, think of the court jester of medieval times who would entertain the patron's of the castle by injuring himself and creating tremendous laughter throughout the court. – danielle5778 years ago
If you're looking for a good resource for the progression of comedy over time, I'd recommend Jimmy Carr's book The Naked Jape. In general it finds that comedy goes from very unrefined mischief characters in various cultural mythologies to much more of a conscious effort to evoke laughter. Oddly enough, much of the material (ie. sex jokes, slapstick, puns, etc.) have remained almost throughout. – Ian Miculan8 years ago
I think you may want to reflect upon the catharsis aspect. In older times, comedies consisted of jokes about the bourgeoisie, which made laugh poor people. Throughout history, as you have said, comedy has a changed a lot. Why do you think people enjoy so much shows like "Jackass" or "The Dudeson"? Could it be our way of life that has changed so radically that we now need this kind of extreme humor? – leandre778 years ago
Before Jackass there was Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin and the Keystone Kops, all falling down. Slapstick started when Eve threw the apple at the snake, missed, hit Adam, he fell on top her and the rest is history. We're all products of "slapstick." – Tigey8 years ago
