TV

HBO's "We're here!" is, essentially, doing what the reboot of "Queer Eye" did– heading into rural and isolated communities and confronting the structural limitations of that community, building a pop-up drag show for one weekend. The queens work with a few people (some cis, straight men; some queer folk; some baby Queens) to help them embrace their femininity and performativity. And it is clear that a connection is made. But then what? Queer Eye's reboot has been critiqued by feminist, gender studies, and queer writers for the appropriation of racialized cultures, the shaming of people living in poverty, and the kind of neoliberalist fantasy that consumerism will save someone. Is "We're Here!" doing a similar kind of thing? My instinct is that "We're Here!" is avoiding some of the traps of Queer Eye while falling into a few of them.

'Dickinson' is the Apple TV series 2019-2021 about American poet Emily Dickinson. The premise (taken from Anreeva & Pelski 2018) is that Dickinson takes place "during Emily Dickinson's era with a modern sensibility and tone. It takes viewers into the world of Emily, audaciously exploring the constraints of society, gender, and family from the perspective of a budding writer who doesn't fit in to her own time through her imaginative point of view. Dickinson is Emily's coming-of-age story – one woman's fight to get her voice heard."

The best word there is audaciously – the series makes direct use of Dickinson's actual poetry throughout the series to theme the episodes and to add to a story about a complex poet. Biographies on Dickinson indicate she was an isolated, eccentric and (reading between the lines) anxious woman in a period of relatively large gender, race and class oppression. Little of her poetry was actually published through her life, and most information about her is based on her prolific letter writing. It is easy to see through the series that they have taken great liberties with both her character and her life…but is this a problem? The show itself heavily highlights the oppressive period she lived during and her struggles as a poet and a woman. Many of the themes and topics are ones that resonate with young women today – about finding self, about morality, about understanding life and love and friendship.

It would be interesting to explore this topic in more depth: is there value in taking liberties with a real person's life and works if it still serves the message or purpose of their story? Can a fictional biography be as meaningful to the contemporary viewer as a real biography? Or is this a betrayal of a woman who suffered enough during her own time?

Star Trek the television series first debuted in 1966 as what is dubbed 'The Original Series' during which the costuming, role allocation and even ethical storytelling both reflected the socio-cultural context of USA, but also challenged and invited complex discussions about morality, ethics and rights. It, and the following original series, walked a fine line of being commercial enough to appeal to audiences as well as being true to the Science-Fiction genre in that it needed to engage in deep discussions about what it means to "be." 'Enterprise' was the last of the original broadcasts ending in 2005 before the success of the film "reboot" in 2009. The 2009 film 'Star Trek' reinforced a number of stereotypes and cliches that were disappointingly lacking in the nuance of the original series, and for a moment it seemed it was finished with again.

Then came the new television revival with 'Star Trek: Discovery' that not only again reflected the excitement and challenges of space exploration, but also touched on the same socio-cultural concerns current in contemporary society. It was a show that began to speak about issues we face in our own world. From here spanned out a range of new shows from 'Picard' to 'Lower Decks' that each began to broaden the world of Star Trek, but also found new ways to engage in important conversations.

An article looking at the different discussions, topics and socio-cultural confirmations and challenges across the timeline of Star Trek would be fascinating. It is one of very few shows to have spanned such a large period of time on television that has not simply reflected back social norms. I would be interested to see a deeper analysis of this topic.

As Squid Game becomes one of Netflix’s most-watched shows of all time and holds audiences attention far beyond the cultural scope of South Korea, it begs the question as to why this show resonated with people on an international scale? By no means is the concept of forcing individuals into a life-or-death game original, so what does Squid Game do differently?

In so many ways, Squid Game subverts the expectations of a typical Battle Royale story and refreshes a genre that had largely stagnated. In order to highlight these subversions, engagement with predecessors in the genre is a must; the original novel Battle Royale by Koushun Takami and its numerous adaptations (lending the death game genre the 'Battle Royale' namesake as a cultural phenomenon), the Hunger Games series by Susanne Collins, As the Gods Will by Takashi Miike, and other TV series like Liar Game and Alice in the Borderlands. The director takes inspiration from manga but the scope of intersectional engagement may become too wide if one crosses over mediums into manga, anime, and video games with death game narratives.

By comparing these predecessors with Squid Game, a number of distinct differences and focus can be found. These include but are not limited to: game structure and rules, consent and human rights, the role of debt and desperation, spectacle and dehumanization, and cultural specificity. While the director Hwang Dong-hyuk is cited as saying he wanted to create a series that was distinctly Korean, the international reception begs a closer look at what Squid Game is doing differently.

The new TV show 'Foundation' from Apple is an imagining of Isaac Asimov's novella series of the same name. With an initial two episode drop the show has already received mixed reviews.

As always it is difficult to deal with any type of adaptation. There will always be those for whom the original material, and their personal experience with it, cannot be eclipsed. However, the point of adaptations is to allow a re-imagining of source material within the context of the period it is re-produced in. Even the nay-sayers have to admit this depiction of the fall of a great Empire, corrupt and dystopic, underpinned by a focus on a 'genetic legacy' that infers an extreme type of nepotism, is as extremely relevant in message and content today as it was when Asimov wrote it.

Already in two episodes the show has raised a myriad of questions about religion, politics, and technology that have contemporary value. A discussion of the original work and its social connections, which is then compared to the changes made in the show that reflect the social concerns of today, would be a valuable discussion to have. It would be interesting to examine the changes made by the showrunners, and how that fits within the socio-political and technological landscape of today.

On May 27, a Rugrats reboot featuring CGI animation, new character voices, and adventures with a distinct 21st-century flavor will premiere on Paramount Plus. Some fans of the original Rugrats are eager to experience the reboot and compare/contrast, while others are skeptical at best. No matter what side you're on though, there's no denying this reboot will influence how people see the Rugrats franchise and perhaps, associated television (e.g., Nickelodeon).

Discuss questions such as how the Rugrats reboot will influence these spheres, as well as the potential positives and negatives of the reboot itself. For example, how will the reboot's location on a streaming service change the viewing experience and relations to the characters and plots? Do you think kids or adults will be more invested in the reboot, and why? It seems many of the new adventures will take place in the babies' imaginations; is this a positive or negative move?

We often hear "it's a good show but the fandom is so toxic" in the context of various popular TV shows. Many of us have had personal experiences of "leaving" a fandom due to toxicity, an experience that can unwittingly impact our enjoyment of that show going forward. Discuss this phenomenon with any examples of your choosing. Some suggestions: Voltron: Legendary Defender, Rick and Morty.

Analyze how a significant portion of the audience identifies with, and has a lot of sympathy for, the male lead in modern television shows such as Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, and Mad Men. Contrast this affection with the significant hatred of the wives of these leads. Explore the similarities between this relationship dynamic and the one between Agamemnon and his family, focusing primarily on the Oresteia by Aeschylus. Analyze how various people have developed an Orestes complex while watching these shows. Relate it to contemporary psychology and gender politics.