Discuss the ways in which past elected officials in the U.S. have found themselves the center of one comedic play or another. How have these individuals, from presidents to senators, reacted to the satirical jabs directed at them? Is it possible to maintain the decorum of an elected official in face of a grinning Voltaire? Be specific and really focus in on one or a select core of presidential and or political figures that really fit the bill. Focus on a genre or style of humor like satire and really explore the mechanics of this humor as used for substantive critique. Great potential here, enjoy the adventure.
just an awesome topic considering the political season is coming to an end. Use things such as late night comedy to analysis deeper. Saturday Night Live does an awesome display of political satire and persuasion. It also holds a bias that makes it even more interesting. – Brittanie2 months ago
Don't leave out Amos and Andy. A political satire about the trial of Rodney King. – Munjeera3 weeks ago
Premium cable are cable channels an individual pays for, a common example is HBO or Showtime. TV networks that label themselves as premium services have flagship shows that are more graphic with topics like violence and sex. The question is, does the liberal approach to the arts make the shows better or the same content with more of a mature approach?
Whoever writes on this topic could show HBO developed. I would be interested to see how HBO as one of the first cable companies has maintained its cutting edge quality. – Munjeera2 weeks ago
Unlike her counterpart in the novel, the makers of Sherlock made a bold decision with their attempt at giving Mary Morstan a very prominent story arc in the third season of the hit TV series. However, the first episode of this season put a tragic end to this promising character’s role. Now, with her part on the Sherlock series over, analyze what part her character played in the lives of the leads, how Sherlock and Watson had their individual priorities changed and what changes may be anticipated in the equation shared by them,especially considering that her death was partly caused by Sherlock’s actions. Also, with Molly Hooper still having a very minor role in most episodes, analyze the consequences of the death of the only major female character in the series and whether this was justified(the makers have stated on record that her character was diverting all the attention from Sherlock-Watson and their bromance) considering that her murky past still held the promise of being fodder for more episodes…
I imagine one will not be able to fully complete this article until the season has had its run, as Mary's death will no doubt factor into Sherlock and Watson's relationship - I wouldn't call her part "over" quite yet. I like the mention of Mary's novel counterpart, yet it's sad they created such a strong female character to have her die in what I considered a rather ridiculous and undeserving manner. – Karen2 weeks ago
Dealing with hard issues using humour, with focus on Netflix Original, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Tina Fey explores a survivor’s journey after escaping years of abuse with lightness and humour. Moreover, the show also makes reference to issues of cultural appropriation (or misappropriation), political-correctness, and other contemporary social issues.
What I like about this show is how it has an almost satirical approach to the topics you've mentioned, and so, it's not 'mindless' humour. Additionally, I think Kimmy is very relatable. There are so many traits to explore that make her an excellent character such as her modesty, genuineness and undefeated optimism. Try giving that a shot too! – Suman8 months ago
I think in particular the issues with PTSD in the second season would be a notable example of Kimmy's endurance – Darcy Griffin8 months ago
It took me a moment to appreciate this show, but as it progressed, I enjoyed the way in which difficult subjects were tackled in a comical manner without mocking the seriousness of the issues covered. – danielle5776 months ago
Whether it is Ned Stark’s everlasting nobility or Joffrey Baratheon’s undying wickedness, a static character in Game of Thrones always seems to perish. Analyze this idea and why this may be the case. Compare unchanging characters to dynamic ones and analyze why changes in character lead to success.
Interesting topic, it'd be intriguing to read whatever kind of explanation someone might try to come up with. But first I think it's important to discus in these notes what makes a "static" character to help the future writer of this article along? Are there exceptions to the rules? I feel as though some characters seem dynamic when in reality we they've been motivated by the same thing this whole time, we just didn't know what that was. Who is static, who's dynamic, and who's in trouble of becoming static and killed off because of this theory? – Slaidey3 months ago
I agree with Slaidey in that knowing who is truly dynamic vs. static may be premature at this point. Especially in light of the fact that some characters who are declared dead, may in fact be still alive (the Hound). But being unsure of the ultimate outcome certainly makes the discussion more interesting... – heliddick3 months ago
Yes, a substantial counterargument you'll encounter is that it's not the static characters that die, just the ones that are not central enough to the story that we have to know their complications. Ned's death and Littlefinger's persistence may be some of your strongest cases of proof, but Catelyn's death and Daenerys's continued living may not be in your favor. – IndiLeigh2 weeks ago
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?
I recently watched the first two seasons again after that nail-biting cliffhanger in the middle of season three. This time around I was quite impressed how the characters really struggle with what they have done. Everything is internalized and they are not as heartless as they pretend to be. They each have unique reactions and coping mechanisms, and as you pointed out, they are indeed humanized because we can clearly see that they all have a strong moral compass. I really like this idea! – AlexanderLee3 weeks ago
While it can be said that TV has slowly progressed to tight, more concentrated storylines in the past couple of decades, I’ve noticed a dramatic increase in the uses of drama and suspense with the recent surge of programs that are written for an audience that is expected to digest them all in one sitting. One big troupe characteristic in these binge shows is the steady, unrelenting increase in stakes, giving little time to breath and let tension or peace linger. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Can made-for-streaming shows still be considered TV, or are they moving towards more extended movies?
I like this idea, but I have to say that I am a little worried about how you are going to prove any of these ideas. For example, how will you tangibly prove that binge watching is either bad or good? By what metric will you judge the circumstances? These are factors that need to be considered... – agramugl4 weeks ago
Agree with agramugl that proving whether or not binge watching is good or bad will be challenging at best, however perhaps this can be compared to potential effects it may have on the way people watch films? Most binge-worthy TV shows are more or less extended films, as you said, particularly with their high production values. Perhaps this could be likened to how a lot of drama/suspense/action films nowadays have a run time of around or over 120 minutes - any less, don't we feel they're not giving us enough? Would anyone bother going to the cinema to watch a short mediocre film, when they can watch something epic on Netflix? – Sonia Charlotta Reini4 weeks ago
Symptoms of prequel-itis, in TV shows specifically, include 1) pointless cameos and foreshadowing for the sake of fan service and 2) backtracking to keep the plot from progressing "too far," which would result in the show ending. Examples of victims include Gotham, Smallville, and Merlin. What I don’t know about, and what I’d be interested in reading, is possible cures for this problem. I am unfamiliar with the Star Wars cartoon prequels, but I’m told they do a better job, so they may hold answers. Another possible piece of this topic is causes of prequel-itis. Why do prequels exhibit these problems so often? Is there something inherently problematic with prequels in general?
Sounds like a good topic in my opinion. Although a more specific definition of prequel-itis would definitely help.
You might also include a third point to them. Which is: retroactively improving the already established lore and story of the series. The best example for this include the Walking Dead, as well as Flash.
Looking forward to reading about this topic :) – shehrozeameen1 month ago
@shehrozeameen Prequel-itis, as I see it, is like a syndrome, a set of symptoms that commonly occur together. There isn't really a definition other than "a set of symptoms experienced by prequels including x, y, z...." If the author of the topic could think of a specific definition, of course, he/she'd be welcome to apply it. – noahspud1 month ago