With the rise of technology over the last decade, horror movies and the horror genre have drastically changed. Is this because of lazy writing and producing that relies on cheap jump scares or is it because modern technology has ruined the terror of isolation?
One reason why horror movies worked so well in the past is because the technology we have today did not exist. You couldn’t just whip out your smartphone and go on Google Maps. If you forgot your wallet you had no money, period. You couldn’t pull out your phone and paywave instantly. The characters had no one and nothing to rely on except themselves.
So what are your thoughts? Watch any past horror movie and pretend it’s set in 2018 and I can guarantee you the movie would be over within the first half an hour.
The fact that advanced technology exists does make an interesting point, but maybe what also could be explored is the shift in storytelling. What are the differences between the characters and topics included in past and present horror films? Do modern horror films rely on too many clichés, or not enough? – Gabby2 months ago
Horror movies have definitely changed with the rise of digital tech, but I would argue that they're nearly as prominent in the mainstream as they were during the 80's horror boom in terms of sheer output. There are even horror movies that make explicit use of the internet as a catalyst for horror, like Unfriended (2014), Megan is Missing (2011), and The Den (2013). This isn't to say that those are good movies necessarily, but they still manipulate the technological advances of the day the same way Scream (1996) and One Missed Call (2008) used early cell phones, and The Ring (1998) used VHS tapes. There are also recent, successful horror films that still make use of the terrifying sense of isolation that cell phones eliminate, like Get Out (2017), Split (2016), and The Babadook (2014). Smart phones and the internet can be obstacles in terms of building tension, but they can also be assets. We live in a world where abduction, trauma, and even allegedly supernatural occurrences still befall people regardless of their access to mapquest or emergency services. We still have weak points; it's the horror writer's job to find and exploit them in fiction. – TheCropsey2 months ago
This is an expansion on what Gabby and TheCropsey stated already. I'd agree that there is an increase in cheap/lazy horror movies but I don't think they are necessarily dying. In fact, I think they are on the rise again. With films like Get Out (2017) and A Quiet Place (2018). There are plenty of other films, but these are two strong examples of well-crafted horror films in the new age. I think it is important to consider the reasons why there are more horror films succeeding recently. Technology inhibits telling horror stories the same way as the past, but that doesn't mean they can't adapt. Some films even play on this. But other films like the two I listed earlier, along with It Follows (2014) and others, can work even in the confines of technology. The shift in storytelling is important, since some horror films can still work even if based in a different time period like The Witch (2016). There are a number of factors to consider, and this topic can easily work, I think it just has to cover how horror has shifted storytelling tropes and ideas for a 21st century audience. – Connor2 months ago
I don't think horror movies are dying. Rather, they're being reinvented for audiences familiar with the genre. We've become quite used to typical elements of horror (e.g. supernatural creatures, out-of-shot shadows) that we've vicariously speculated on how to defeat them. While technology can limit that sense of isolation, there are other ways it can pronounce terror. Reliance on technology can ratchet up a false sense of security before it all goes the hell. I agree with what's been said already; horror is in the storytelling. It's up to the writer to decide if they want to write a horror movie that only checks the boxes, or one that goes beyond that, and craps on our hastily built failsafes. – Starfire2 months ago
I do agree. Horror movies aren’t the same and they either aren’t scary or they are remakes of originals. – 2klonewolf6 hours ago
i think yes , now a days people are not liking the horror movies – mcgradyhomes51 mins ago
Lately, Disney and Pixar films have been touching on some deep themes and subject matter that normal children’s films wouldn’t dare approach. Disability as a strength in "Finding Dory," loss and overcoming grief in "Big Hero 6," and self acceptance in "Frozen" to name a few. Why is it beneficial to present such weighty topics to children? How can this positively impact the younger generation?
I think by normalizing these tough subjects through the use of fun/beloved characters children can come to their own understanding of mental illness/disability/trauma.
Like instead of being a movie about a character who hates herself and who she is doesn't matter, Disney created a character out of Elsa that people (kids and adults alike) can connect to. This humanizes these real-world issues in a way that kids can at least kind of understand, even if the movies don't go too intense on these serious issues. Like, by knowing Dory and how her memory loss impacts her, kids can get to to know the character and love her - with the disability included as just a part of who she is. It doesn't detract from who she is, it's just a part of her and who she is. – Dimitri2 months ago
I agree with what Dimitri has written. The truth is that children these days are becoming more and more accustomed to social media- which means the risk of them seeing these adult topics in an adult fashion is only increasing. Showing it to them in a kid-friendly way- with heroes that they can be inspired by and look up to- is a great way of broaching the topic and perhaps even starting a discussion about it. It also helps that more and more female heroes are being introduced into these movies- now both boys and girls have someone they can look up to! – Thenoshman2 months ago
Love this topic! Children are a lot smarter than we give them credit for, and I think Disney has made some great choices in the topics they choose to present, as well as the way they are presented. I just might grab this one... :) – Stephanie M.2 months ago
This is a great topic, Disney have done some really great things in helping children understand topics that are quite difficult to express to them. As an adult, I find some of the films heartbreaking but an important lesson for all the children watching while their minds are still developing. – jesschaudhry2 months ago
Really interesting topic and worth exploring. To add a new slant/get the most out of this discussion, I would suggest contrasting the newer 'deep' themes with Disney's original intentions. When he established the company, Walt Disney stated that his films appealed to "that fine, clean, unspoiled spot down deep in every one of us." This aim is evident in a lot of his early, sanitised adaptions of fairy tales, where traditional ideas of female maturity are eschewed in favour of idealising childlike innocence. There's also been a tendency for Disney films to omit darker themes, such as the original endings of Snow White and The Little Mermaid, even though these stories have been told to children to centuries. This newer tendency to depict more emotionally hard-hitting themes is a far cry from Disney's appeal to the "unspoiled spot", but it shows how far the company has come in its time. Now, Disney is willing to adapt to a new age that recognises and explores the difficulties that children are likely to encounter in their lives, instead of just covering them up. – EllyB2 months ago
In my opinion hitting these tooics in a big company like Disney isn’t that bad. You have to think about the kids today and of course they grow up to fast. We live in a progressive era where technology exists and social media controls society. Of course the old disney had shows where they talked about topics like this. Our life wont always be a fairytale and I think thats is what Disney is trying to capture in their new movies and shows. They want to have a theme. A real theme and formulate it into a kid friendly way even though the adults will notice it. – 2klonewolf6 hours ago
Why do Offred’s (and the other handmaids’) experiences both terrify and resonate strongly with a 2017 audience? Did Atwood predict the future back in 1984 when she wrote the novel?
It is crazy how things are playing out in the world maybe he did see the furure – rayd11 months ago
Maybe after 30 years of the Bushes and the Clintons making America their own private Verona, maybe Chaucer was always going to be,as Gore Vidal said of Capote meanly, Your Dante. – Antonius86511 months ago
I think this also has a lot to do with the way that humanity exists in cycles, and the authors that write dystopian just have a way of identifying those cycles in a way that others can't. – talorelien11 months ago
I agree with Talorelien's point that literature tends to be cyclical in nature. Atwood was responding to her own period, if you look at some of the original interviews and critics this is discussed clearly. However, what perhaps is interesting is that the appeal of 'The Handsmaid's Tale' has not actually ever waned. As pointed out, here story is still a valid allegory of American politics as it was in the 1980s. What might be interesting to explore further is the idea of the ongoing appeal of dystopian texts in today's social conscience. – SaraiMW10 months ago
Seinfeld ended oddly, it was difficult to feel as though the main characters were likable, Medium ended with a feeling of completion, and The Sopranos ended with a feeling of ambiguity (essentially choose what happened). Is there a good ending? Can they be done differently?
There needs to be a clear basis to how you judge a "good" ending. The sources you choose will need to include audience and critic feedback, as well as research to understand how networks vs streaming cancel their shows. This could be a really interesting read if it takes the time to analyze the above concepts. – Nicholas Bennett23 hours ago
I think it will be helpful to consider what alternate endings some of these shows could have had. If they had had another ending would they have been more coherent or consistent as series? Some of these criteria might make sense. Did the shows subvert not just expectations but consistency as well. How much were the showrunners aware of their ending before the show was well underway? – Zander Jones36 mins ago
Analyze what idea of masculinity is shown in Disney films where princes are portrayed. What are the negative or toxic ideas of masculinity that are shown and what are some examples that may criticize toxic masculinity.
I think disney wants more princesses. They wants girl to feel empowered and portrayed more as heroes and not only men can be heroes too. They want more heroines. They want Girl Power. Disney doesn’t show a lot of masculinity. I feel like the only prince movie that made was Aladdin but he wasn’t a prince. There was a princess who was Princess Jasmine. I think disney shows masculinity as a man being the true love kiss when really its not always about that and they showed that on Frozen. It can be close relationships like sisters loving each others. What if a disney princess was with a girl not a guy. – 2klonewolf5 hours ago
As a rule, I don’t see Woody Allen movies. That’s fine because I was never a Woody Allen fan to begin with, but removing all problematic people and their creations from my media consumption is difficult, particularly when it is old media no longer on the air. Do I stop watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer because Joss Whedon gaslight his wife and is not the feminist he proclaims he is? Can I no longer enjoy That ’70s Show reruns because Danny Materson allegedly raped five women? I stand with these women, but I also deeply love the media of their accusers. What lines do we have to draw now? What media can we still enjoy even with problematic people involved? How do we enjoy it while acknowledging what these people did?
this is really interesting -- especially since our society has become more sensitive towards social issues and calling out problematic behaviour. – Pamela Maria6 days ago
For me personally I have chosen to draw the line at money. I will continue to watch or read or play whatever media as long as it doesn't put money in the pockets of the abusers. If I have already bought a book I feel comfortable rereading it, but I will not buy more books by that author. I will watch reruns on TV, because my watching them has no bearing on how much money an actor gets. The works haven't changed, but it would weigh on my conscience if I continued to put money in the pocket of people who have done such wrongs. – kungtotte5 days ago
One staple cliche in anime and manga over the decades has been the tsundere/tsundere childhood friend. Disregarding the sometimes odd definitions of childhood friend (eg kids who met on one day once), the portrayal of excessive violence against male characters for either perceived or minor transgressions is almost always played up for (groan-worthy) comedic effect. The reverse is only rarely seen, and is thus certainly seen as less socially acceptable. What social phenomena contribute to this strange view of violence?
Since its release in 1976, the academy award winning Rocky has received six sequels (Rocky II-V, Rocky Balboa, and Creed). The original Rocky was a relatively low budget film focused on a down in his luck boxer with an extraordinary chance to prove his worth inside and outside of ring. It was hailed for its underdog story, acting, and its iconic training scenes. The subsequent sequels often opted to forgo many of the ideas and the low budget style found in the original film. Sequels sometimes included cartoonish villains and other elements that would be out of place in the grittier original Rocky. When Creed was released in 2015, it received near universal acclaim for its story and acting (especially by Stallone and Michael B. Jordan in the title role), which focused on a hungry fighter working to prove his worth to the world. Like Rocky, the film was a character study of a box working to confront his issues within and outside of the ring. Is Creed the closest thing in style and tone to the original Rocky?
No other anime (or TV show in general) that I have seen has developed characters as perfectly as Cowboy Bebop. The most amazing part is that it does it via episodic storytelling. Most episodic shows (think most crime shows like CSI), focus on one-and-done plots as filler while maybe having a subtle arc occurring in the background. Cowboy Bebop has no filler. Every one-and-done builds connections between the characters, reveals details about pasts, and develops each character until the incredible climax. What makes Cowboy Bebop so successful at this, and why have other shows struggled to do it?
I have yet to see Cowboy Bebop but I have heard many great things. I want to start it soon. Two other anime's however I believe is worthy of great character development would be Naruto and One Piece. – danderson2 months ago
The difference between Cowboy Bebop and Naruto/One Piece is that Bebop is almost entirely episodic outside of a couple core episodes and it is only 24 episodes. Naruto and One Piece have hundreds of episodes to cover the journeys of their lives whereas Bebop can't, it has to cover backstory through the episodic adventures that culminate in the series question episodes in the twenties. Naruto/One Piece can have actual filler episodes as well because of how long they air for. I think it is interesting in comparing this to shows like Law and Order, since most of the stories affect the leading cast. I do think there are other shows and films that can detail a character's arc/personality and it would be important to detail how some shows succeed and others fail in this regard. – Connor2 months ago
How important is the soundtrack in a film? The selection or creation of soundtracks is big business in the movie industry, but how important really is it? Movie goers today are fairly savvy creatures and understand that particular scores match particular scenes. But what happens to a scene when a contrasting score is played to the expected tone of the scene? Does this change the entire "feeling" of the scene or can it offer a more complex examination of traditional representations of emotion in-situ? What happens when no music is used in an emotionally wrought scene? Or what happens to scenes when music is removed – are the scenes still able to portray the emotional depth of the moment?
Should the response from a community influence a producer to continue a series or not? There is some precedence: Chuck was at risk of being canceled but was renewed after fans submitted their distress to the producers. I know of others also, but not well enough to name them specifically. However, recent cancellations of shows have resulted in outrage from communities of fans (Sense8) but these responses did not make the shows come back in the same way.
I do believe that in some instances fans can help make networks and the like sit up and take notice of what the fans what. Take for instance the tv series 'Lucifer', it was cancelled by Fox but fans started an uproar on social media and Netflix was the one to renew the show. But other times even if a series is amazing to certain viewers, the networks and higher up concentrate more on business side of things and film and television are a business these days. If they don't get the viewers or the ratings, sometimes even with all the outrage and petitioning from fans, it can't help. There is one particular film which comes to mind, 'Vampire Academy', which is based on a series of novels. I am a fan of this film and signed all the online petitions and tried my best to help get the second film made, but when it comes down to it, the fans couldn't help even though I think it would have been amazing.
This is an idea I do think society should expand on because fans are sometimes what can keep a show from continuing or not and outlets such as social media can help bring light to cancelations. – ambermakx2 days ago
There’s no disputing that Daenerys Targaryen, Sansa and Arya Stark, and Cersei Lannister are all forces to be reckoned with. They’re women with power and they know how to wield it. However, despite their political successes, personally and emotionally, the women of Westeros lead very oppressed lives.
I feel like it may be an intentional reflection of the modern world and how much women do suffer, even in the most privileged/powerful positions. Like, no matter what, being a woman is inherently harder than being a man. That said, considering we're in a fantasy world, it would be nice to have women lead lives that aren't bound by real-world sexism. – Dimitri2 months ago
I agree somewhat, but in order for a narrative to be compelling, a protagonist needs to have an obstacle to achieving their goal. Sexism can certainly be an obstacle, but it doesn't also have to be the go-to for writers either. – RebaZatz2 months ago
I've had some quite conflicted feelings about GoT on this front. I still love the show and kept watching, but Sansa's experience upon marrying Ramsay was a particular example of this. I understand the desire to depict real-world sexism, and perhaps the writers were motivated by a genuine desire to do this, but it felt problematically voyeuristic (even pornographic). We've been making art for hundreds of years about women's suffering - isn't it time for a change? – SarahPearce2 months ago
Fantasy is the perfect place to tell these new stories and motion for change. It's a shame more stories don't take advantage of it. – Dimitri2 months ago
I really think this topic could be expanded to include women in fantasy overall. I recently listened to a talk by fantasy author Victoria Schwab, who discussed how fantasy does not necessarily need to follow the power dynamics that already exist in our world - for example, sexism or elements of patriarchal traditions - but that fantasy can flip the power dynamics as well. We could use the women in Game of Thrones as a starting point for a broader discussion of power dynamics in fantasy? – Zohal992 months ago
It has a simple answer. Martin depicts the medieval world as it was - knights aren't clad in shinging armor and they are'nt prince charming. No, they murdered and were murdered. And most women in this time period were oppressed. – RyderVii3 days ago
Beneath every strong woman lies a broken little girl who had to learn how to get back up and never depend on anyone.
– matadorbuildings3 days ago
Every major broadcast network has at least one or two live TV musicals in the works for the next few years, and will this help to normalize musical theatre for the masses, or steal the magic. Hamilton has helped to usher in a different era of musical theatre, but is it drawing the elitism out of the art form, by facilitating the creation of broadcasts like this?
Interesting topic. The rising popularity of these live TV musicals certainly merits further critical exploration. That said, I take slight issue with your choice of the word "normalization," as it implies that musical theatre (i.e. an artform that, at least since the 1980s, quite literally exists for bourgeois consumption and merchandising) is something esoteric. Musical theatre has always been prominently positioned within the mainstream, and is one of the few forms of theatre to which that label still applies; I really don't think that television is a necessary mediator for acclimatizing the general public to the concept of musicals -- they're not exactly broadcasting Edward Bond or Sarah Kane. Perhaps there are better ways of approaching the subject. Two come to mind: 1) Aesthetically, regarding how this televisual intermediation affects the performance's fundamental theatrical elements. Is liveness enough to constitute "theatre"? Does the audience on the other side of a screen genuinely care if what they're watching is live, or are they missing out on the potential virtues of cinematic editing? Is there an appeal to simply knowing that the show is theatrical, even when not experiencing it in an actual theatre? If so, what and why? How does this differ from simply making a film adaptation of classic musicals? 2) Economically, regarding how television distribution allows a wider audience to experience Broadway productions (whose tickets are quite expensive, not to mention inaccessible to those living outside of New York and other major metropolitan areas). This, I believe, is more in line with what you may have meant by "normalization," as it allows people who otherwise would not have had a chance to see these plays an opportunity to see a version of them in performance. I see potential for an analysis of ratings, sponsorships, and funding models as a means of assessing the financial success or failure of this new distributional tactic. – ProtoCanon1 year ago
Interesting topic....and definitely one worth exploring. One of the fascinating aspects of the theater is the confined environment and this type of unity within the crowd. One performance will not be an exact replica of another---part of what makes the theater so unique. A crucial component of theater is the fourth wall--the impenetrable invisible barrier between the audience and the actor--which, ironically feels breached during a televised performance?
I would have to disagree with the idea of elitism and broadcasts as analogous, especially due to the high-cost of the theater today, and making this once enjoyable, frequent venture, less common among 'average' folk. The price of tickets are astronomical and really is a disservice in a society that supposedly upholds the importance of a cultured society through the medium of art. – danielle5771 year ago
I love reading anything about theatre, especially musicals. In your suggested analysation though, be careful you're not looking at two separate topics here. Hamilton has indeed created a new generation of theatre-lovers and reinvented the genre of musical theatre. And live TV musicals have done this in their own way too; perhaps the discussion is more pointed towards where the future of musical theatre is heading, or, what is attractive about these refreshing works to a modern audience? – OJames1 year ago
This is a really good topic.I think TV broadcasts can make theatre a little more accessible, it can introduce the theatre in a similar way that Hamilton has introduced theatre to new audiences. It also comes without the cost of making trips to the West End or Broadway. You don't really lose the elitism of theatre because you still have the west end and broadway. Perhaps the focus is on the future of musical theatre, there is the live versions (And I don't think they will ever really go away), tv broadcasts and things like Todrick Hall's Straight Outta OZ on youtube. – RJRStClair1 year ago
I love the concept of theatre becoming more accessible to the public through TV broadcasts, but it would be interesting to also consider how this topic might also harm or stagnate theatre as an art form. It's true that more people would be able to see shows, but the shows that pull in the viewership numbers TV networks want will probably be already-popular spectacle musicals or reboots of classics. Would smaller, newer, and weirder shows get a chance to shine? Would straight plays be given some airtime, or would the definition of "theater" switch wholly to musicals in the eyes of the public? Also, as people have pointed out before, the experience of watching a taped show and being in the theater are very different. Not necessarily a bad thing, just something to consider. – ohnomegan2 days ago
In TV shows like The Vampire Diaries, The Originals, True Blood, Teen Wolf, Supernatural, Being Human and Grimm, supernatural creatures are presented as gruesome murderers but they are still seen as attractive and desirable to a primarily teenage audience. Where did this phenomenon originate? Who started it? Why is this true? Is there a gender bias in that these creatures are seen as more attractive to a female audience more than male? Is it only vampires, werewolves, angels and witches that are seen as sexy or is it other creatures too?
Who started it? I think we can all safely say Joss Whedon with the saucy romance between Buffy and Angel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This allegory for danger and teenage rebellion by being attracted to a "bad boy" is definitely a trend that resonated with audiences. – Dimitri2 months ago
I feel that this trend definitely goes back quite a few decades. The vampire soap opera, Dark Shadows was one that certainly found a footing with teenage audiences of the 60's and 70's – LX4Tumbla2 months ago
I would say that the love for the supernatural could date as far back as the Vampire age of literature and story telling such as Dracula or Frankenstein who's books were later made into movies. There's something about the unknown or the impossible that lures teens and those alike into the genre - the fantastical ideas of the paranormal and abnormal appeal to teens who don't feel normal themselves. – KiaraB2 months ago
From a film history perspective, I think one could connect this to the advent of "teenagehood" that came in the late 50s and how crucial B-list films were in the teen lifestyle. Horror films were quite popular at drive-ins, and as horror has always played upon society's paranoia within the time period, the fear of human difference could have played a role. Looking at something like Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the films to influence that could be good for this analysis, too. – Nicholas Bennett5 days ago
I think people with supernatural powers are in disguise and want them to be human like as possible but that is not the case. Making these characters so called attractive will make the audience love then more or hate them but also love them still. I think that is what producers want the audience to feel. They want sympathy for the characters not hate. – 2klonewolf5 hours ago
Compare the box office success of movies with the rising prices of tickets and concessions. Is a really great movie worth the price for a "luxury" experience of reclining seats, Real-D 3D movies, and now food delivered to seats? Or are movie theaters just trying to stay in business while competing with online streaming services.
Perhaps add to this a look at how smaller independent theatres are also staying in business? – SaraiMW3 months ago
Given home theatre experiences, Cineplex does have to compete with offering a different type of viewing. Of course involved with this is the increasing costs of movies. But the deals keep com8n* so it looks like the death of cinema has earned a stay for another season. – Munjeera2 months ago
Maybe discuss the cultural history of movie theaters? For my part, I know that trips to the movie theatre were a staple of my early life, and it makes me more inclined to pass that to my own children as well. – ValleyChristion2 months ago
I'm not sure. I feel like they would have more business if they charged less. Maybe you could add features they could add to compete with online streaming services. – theWreader2 months ago
I would love for this topic to be explored, and I think a huge discussion point is the rise of Moviepass and such payment plans, that draw more people to the theater for a monthly fee. Also would be interesting to bring up Netflix wanting to buy theaters. – calvinIGH2 months ago
This is a difficult matter, especially since it's Hollywood and the MPAA that dictate ticket prices. Theaters barely make any money on tickets and thus have to charge exorbitant fees at concessions. I would thus say that the only films worth seeing in theaters are those you have a strong interest in; otherwise, wait for them to come out on Netflix. – LaPlant02 days ago
This will certainly be Donald Trump’s legacy: He elevated it to a level where it cannot be ignored. But all tweeting is not the same: Some tweets carry more impact than others. Is it only because of who is doing the tweeting or is there more to it? Are there ways of tweeting where the one tweeting can increase their chances of it mattering? Part of issue here is developing a method to study the impact.
I just noticed a number of graduate students on this site. Here's an opportunity to structure a course. – Joseph Cernik3 weeks ago
Another point: Structuring a course. There's no reason to simply follow the chapters in a textbook. Determining how to structure lectures and discussions can be tied to your particular research interests--which leads to publications. Talk your interests out with your students, let them see how you start to develop your original thinking. Students should not just see the end product, but how you got there. – Joseph Cernik2 weeks ago
Another important element to address is the absurd number of bot accounts found on Twitter, and how these influenced and perhaps continue to influence conversations. – LaPlant02 days ago
What qualities of audiobooks do you feel are inferior or superior to reading hard copies? Do you think being able to use your hands or exercising while listening to a book is useful, or do you prefer the feel of holding a physical copy and focusing your vision on the words rather than on your surroundings?
I think the medium is very important here. Though audiobooks force you to follow at their pace, the added benefit of voice-acting creates a new way to experience the story. Audiobooks can be enjoyed in groups, while books are a solo experience. It's all about preference, and how you choose to enjoy the novel. – joshuahall3 years ago
I think most people would prefer the actual hard copy of a book. Sometimes, however, this isn't a luxury. If I'm driving, for example, audiobooks are great. – Alexis3 years ago
I enjoy reading a book first and the, if I really enjoyed it, listening to the audio version to hear another person's interpretation. I agree with Alexis as well, when driving or in the gym, audiobooks are great! – Catherine Conte3 years ago
I think it is impossible to divorce this topic from those who have disabilities. – rhettrichx3 years ago
I tend to remain partial to the antiquated form of reading. But, this article could tip the scale for either of both camps. Audio books certainly offer physically active people the liberty to incorporate reading into their daily activity. However, paper books offer pictures that amplify the reading experience, probably in the same way that voice actors can. It will be interesting to see how this dual themed composition evolves. – L:Freire6 days ago
Listening to narrations can be extemely useful when you're otherwise busy, or it can supplement your own simultaneous reading. I found this to be true especially when reading longer texts (like Uncle Tom's Cabin), as the combined audio and visual elements seem to enhance memorization. – LaPlant02 days ago
What is living, and what does it mean to be human? Analyze themes of existentialism through various anime series; this could include series such as Evangelion, Haibane Renmei, or Ghost in the Shell.
I think this topic could use some narrowing down. For one thing, existentialism can mean a lot of things, so maybe one should focus on a specific field within it. Second, it'd be good to pick a select few titles to examine in detail instead of discussing the topic more generally, so that the article avoids becoming scattered or meandering. Also, it would be interesting to include some thoughts regarding existentialism particularly /in anime/. Are there approaches to the topic that can't be found in other media? Does it provide any unique explorations or perspectives? Or does it perhaps cinematically/animetically execute the topic in ways that are exclusive to its audiovisual language? Essentially: what distinguishes anime's take on existentialism as a medium? – blautoothdmand7 months ago
I agree with blautoothdmand. Perhaps you should focus efforts on Ghost in the shell and the construction of the women. Philosophically you could use Simone De Beauvoir and "The second sex" and Sarte for Existential backing on what it is to be human. You could also use Donna Harraway's Cyborg Manifesto to bridge the gap between the female and her sentience. – Lousands6 months ago
As soon as technology introduced the idea, movies have been wrestling with what to do with artificial intelligence. Once they are thinking on their own, do they have rights as a sentient being? This is seen very clearly with Data in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Series. It is also seen in animated films such as Astro Boy when the audience comes to see the robot more as a real child. The list goes on: AI, even Terminator 2 as the audience mourns the first Terminator’s demise, iRobot, Dark Matter (a Netflix series) etc. Since this is a very real part of our future, the varying views on this would be interesting to consider.
I think this topic could dip into real life exams such as with AI and even the creation of Sophia -- a real life AI who was even granted Saudian Arabian citizenship – Pamela Maria7 days ago
Wow--I didn't even know about that! I find that most responses, at least in the film industry, have been fearful about this topic. There's so much to discuss here! – tclaytor7 days ago
An additional suggestion. Look in to Ray Kurzweil and his Frankenstein like 'Transhumanist' agenda. It may not be a case of 'Once they are thinking on their own', but once we have been forcibly fused with AI (as Kurzweil wants), will we still be sentient humans in our own right? Now, where's my sabot? – Amyus5 days ago
The films Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, are focused on the concept of what it means to alive or "human". It is the one of core theme of both films. – Sean Gadus4 days ago
Since before "The X-Files," was cancelled, there has been a steady rise and vested interest in TV programming focused on the supernatural and unknown. From the CW’s popular line up that included "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Charmed," and the Buffy spin-off "Angel," to more recent shows like SyFy’s "Being Human" and AMC’s "The Walking Dead" and "Preacher," television has been pulling away from more common sci-fi programming that once focused and explored future and other realms. Why is there more attracting to exploring the unreal in the real world?
I think this is a really interesting topic to explore. One angle to delve into may be that people portray extreme shades of ourselves with supernatural beings, and we've moved more and more into this area because the mystique is not only enrapturing, but it's also a way to reflect upon human nature by exploring these characters and worlds. – gabyelan2 years ago
Were I to write this piece, I think it would be useful to delineate different sub-categories within the genre (such as those more fantastic and those more rooted in reality), and discuss how the treatment of the supernatural differs across those categories. – Allie Dawson2 years ago