The one common debate among anime fans is the quality and importance of filler. Most of the time filler is used in anime not to surpass its ongoing manga that came first so it is used to pad the story out so the manga is further ahead of development than the anime. But when it comes to stories that doesn’t have an original source, filler is often used to slow the pace down to let audiences get familiar with the characters and even build up its own lore. But these days audiences want a faster paced story at the cost of character development and world building. So should filler be excluded from all stories if it has no purpose? Or when done right, should it be allowed to stay?
The only time I've had/heard complaints is when the filler is a stretch for time, in which they can't provide character development without the manga's insight. Filler made for that reason, inherently can't have purpose. So it kind of answers it's own question: anything without actual content/progression can be categorized as unwanted. But at the same time, I'm not someone willing to sacrifice character development or world building for fast pacing. They're both undesirable. The handling of character development is most important and should always be present in order to remain engaging. – Slaidey3 years ago
Fillers can add depth to the characters and the setting if they are used right. A filler that does nothing to further develop characters would not please the audiences, so it would be important to make sure that it does have some point about characters etc. It can also be used to smooth out few points that were barely touched in the original works, such as characters that were "forgotten" or provide explanation to some plot elements. In short, the filler needs to "fill" the gaps in the original work. – idleric3 years ago
I feel that Fillers (although some are underdeveloped) can be used efficiently by making the series more in-depth. Not only can the audience see the daily events that impact the protagonist, yet also highlight moments in a Filler's life that affect the happenings of the whole plot. – AnnaliseAtua3 years ago
With the hype surrounding Marvel’s latest film Black Panther, there is a lot of focus from word of mouth and marketing that this is the first black superhero on the big screen. That is not true however as many have been shown in tv and films before such as Blade and Luke Cage. Yet Black Panther’s role for POC representation in film is much more culturally significant than the other african-american superheroes that appeared on the big screen before the King of Wakanda. By comparing how the others were represented in comparison to Black Panther today.
An important part of this needs to be the discussion occurring around the film in relation to social and cultural issues that did not occur when other Marvel films were released. No one sat around discussing the importance of Thor being blonde (god I hope they didn't), but many people are discussing what Black Panther means and what it reflects about American society. I think this is an important topic to get up on The Artifice. – SaraiMW3 years ago
@SaraiMW That's what I mean for this idea, I was just giving a summary and you just got the exact purpose of this topic. – Ryan Walsh3 years ago
Something worth considering is that in 1998 (when Blade was released) superhero movies were far from being the pop culture touchstone that they are today. Prior to the launch of the MCU in 2008, the whole genre was a niche with limited appeal beyond the comic-nerd subculture and fans of action blockbusters. Though Blade (along with the first X-Men and Rami's Spider-man trilogy) is considered to be an ancestor of the contemporary dominance of the genre, what makes Blank Panther such a big deal is that it is the first POC lead in a (feature) superhero movie SINCE superhero movies have been the biggest thing in the world. This is a good enough topic, but I think it fixates too much upon the media narrative's unfortunate misuse of the world "first," and thus fails to see the forest for the trees. It consequently forces those of us who like to nitpick (myself included) to jump into "corrector-mode," which may distract from what a monumental moment for diversity/representation in mainstream media this really is. Just my two cents. – ProtoCanon3 years ago
@ProtoCanon So then what would be the best way to make sure that this topic doesn't devolve into nitpick territory about technicalities? – Ryan Walsh3 years ago
Hard to say, since this whole subject can be a bit of a minefield. I think the important point would be to stress precisely what makes the release of Black Panther a big deal, DESPITE it not being technically the first of its kind. This includes things like historical and cultural context (as I mentioned above), but can also pay attention to the film's commentary on colonialism, globalization, and diplomacy, as well as the uniqueness of its Afro-Futurist aesthetic being so uncommon in the landscape of big-budget Hollywood filmmaking. You're addition of "but most impactful" is the more crucial point, so it might be wise of the author to spend more time exploring that than the more salacious "not the first" talking-point. – ProtoCanon3 years ago
Great topic!Don't forget Spawn (1997), Steel (1997), Catwoman (2004), and Hancock (2008). Maybe not great films, but still relevant to the discussion.In the short entry "Comic Books/Superhero Films" in Race in American Film: Voices and Visions that Shaped a Nation (2017), I made the argument that Pootie Tang (2001) and Black Dynamite (2009) are also superhero films with a black character as the lead. If you want to glance at that entry, you might be able to find and read it by searching for:
kelley "race in superhero films" – JamesBKelley3 years ago
This is a really interesting topic and one that really says a lot about our current political environment. I think another crucial part to discuss would be the social media reaction to the movie, as well as the fact it was released by such a major and high-budget brand as Marvel. And the fact that the poc characters depicted are pretty unique in that they are royalty- not criminals or people in poverty but powerful, charismatic people. – JoanneK3 years ago
Analyzing the history of Superman’s concept as a hero who fights for truth, justice, and freedom, to how freedom was replaced by the "American Way" leading to fans and casual readers to argue about Superman’s national identity. Overlooking how national identity does not solely define Superman’s legacy as an inspiration for hope, and question if his label as an "American icon" is more harmful to the character than anticipated.
They did do a Red Son superman where he was no longer fighting for the American way but for the Russian way. I am not sure if that would be helpful seeing as he is still fighting for a national identity. Perhaps there is room here to analyze audience responses and see how some creators conflate national identity with freedom. – DClarke5 years ago
Kinnikuman is the name most people would be familiar with from the dubbed version of its second anime entitled "Ultimate Muscle", not knowing that it is a sequel to Kinnikuman. One would wonder why it has not been released in North America as it moves like a typical shonen story. However, during the times of Japan’s naivety compared to today regarding anime, Kinnikuman presents some questionable imagery that would be baffling and unintentionally insulting to other countries. Should Kinnikuman be allowed to have a proper North American release? Or should Kinnikuman be lost from the public eye except to the internet culture and online fandoms?
I'd look into G Gundum for more examples of anime racism that is mostly harmless – MattHotaling5 years ago
With the rise of progressive animated shows for children and adults these days such as Gravity Falls and Steven Universe, a lot of praise has been spreading around for how entertaining the shows are for balancing heart, development, and comedy. However, there seems to be a vocal backlash towards shows that doesn’t live up to the expectations of the people who enjoy progressive shows. If an animated show is comedic without much depth or drama, it is garned as idiotic and for some reason, deserves to be hated by many even though those shows never really harmed anyone. This article would discuss the progression of animated shows through time and make comparisons between shows that are different in their presentations. And determine if they truly are meant to be hated, or are just getting attention from people who are not their intended target audience.
Do you have any examples regarding purely comedic shows that get a vocal backlash. Because I would argue that there are some specific shows out there right now that are purely comedic, and they don't serve much in terms of either good humor, or good taste. And thus somewhat deserve a certain amount of negative press for not putting enough concerted effort into making at least a generally entertaining show. For instance, "We Bare Bears" is by and large a purely entertaining comedic series. It doesn't aim to be anything more, and it does not try to have more than a basic moral message in each of its episodes, if they have one at all. But a purely comedic show like "Pickle and Peanut," is just pure garbage by comparison, and offers nothing of wit or substance to its potential audience. – Jonathan Leiter5 years ago
Basically what I mean is that "We Bare Bears" is an excellent series that fosters good gags and humor. Whereas "Pickle and Peanut" does not. Now what does this say about comedic and even gross-out cartoons of the past? Well those shows still have their moments and their audience. But it was also a different time, and they were perfectly fine in their own era. Today, though, I don't think you can quite present the same kind of gross-out content without upsetting far more people than back in the 90s. And I personally can't stand most of it because honestly, its really unappealing. – Jonathan Leiter5 years ago
I noticed that the tag for this is Teen Titans Go, and while I can see why some would call is idiotic, there might be more to it than that. The reason I can see for Teen Titans Go getting so much backlash is not because it is being comedic; rather, it is because it had a serious predecessor that ran incomplete. There are many DC fans that feel like Cartoon Network is mistreating their DC shows. Teen Titans, canceled; Young Justice, Canceled; Green Lantern Core, canceled; it might be that Teen Titans has been running so long while these other shows got canceled while they were arguably of a higher quality. People that want to see serious ideas in animation will probably steer clear of We Bare Bears and Uncle Grandpa because those are label as comedies, while Teen Titans Go came from a line of serious animations. – garland415 years ago
Introduced to North America in the 1990s, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was a different type of superhero show that became a major part of pop culture. Later on it was revealed that the series actually used footage and characters from the 16th Super Sentai series in Japan, Zyuranger. Both series has similarities but contain many differences due to cultural differences from their home countries. Are the changes justified or was the conversion from Sentai to Power Rangers an example of Americanizing foreign shows?
I think it'll be really hard to know whether the changes were justified. Justified here makes little sense... What kind of cultural changes are justified? Do we measure it with the amount of originality it has or accreditation it gives to the original show? Anyway, I'm tempted to think that any cultural copy, no matter how natural-looking or coincidental, is a step of, well, copying. So surely it's an example of Americanizing foreign shows, which continues even today I think. – Abhimanyu Shekhar5 years ago
This is a topic that has many people split down the middle. Many people will say that if the new film is a remake of a classic, watch the classic. However, for many people, they believe the remake is better than the original. Ranging from the Chocolate Factory films, the Planet of the Apes films, even superhero films such as Batman and Spider-man have people split about which version is better. Are the originals always better, are the remakes superior, or will this just be an endless debate with no real end?
This shouldn't just focus on pure American remakes but also on remakes of films from different countries. Two example that come to mind are the [REC] films (Spanish) that were remade into Quarantine and there are also The Ring films to compare to. Both of these examples are horror films and they could easily be looked at too, there are plenty there to look at.
How the format of this article would be interesting, whether it goes film by film or by genre (World cinema, horror, superheroes, fairy tales etc.). I think either way would work but I would probably edge to wards doing it by genre. – Jamie White5 years ago
With remakes, they could overdo trying to replace possible quality in the original with the quantity so often found when introducing elements like CGI. Like there's this attitude that CGI can "breathe life" into an older film that was made before CGI became abundant everywhere, as was the case with the remake of The Thing (also a horror film) in 2011. So CGI could definitely be a problem to address for the original vs. remake debate since overuse of new technology can make or break the remake especially in the name of attempting to make the original relevant again in the public eye. – dsoumilas5 years ago
Analyze and discuss why Sonic the hedgehog gets a lot of ire on the internet despite his status as a video game icon. The Blue Blur became a phenomenon in the 90’s but then struggled during the dawn of 3D gaming. Despite having some successful 3D games with praise from critics and fans, a mass others still cry out that all 3D Sonic games are garbage and inferior to Sonic’s 2D games despite there existing good 3D Sonic games. Is the massive disappointment of the modern Sonic justified or are people putting down Sonic as a popular fad to hate something for no explained reason.
One of the reasons that the Sonic franchise has received a lot of backlash is how the character is the embodiment of Sega's downfall. Think about it, Nintendo and Sega were constantly butting heads in the 90's, but now-a-days, we see a lot of Sega games on Nintendo devices. Now that we know that Sega lost the battle with Nintendo, Sonic as a character will always be carrying the stench of failure. – Aaron Hatch5 years ago
I think it's really interesting how Sonic has been incorporated into the Nintendo world with Smash Bros. It shows that Nintendo is so far ahead of Sega now and that they are so confident of their own products that they are willing to put a competitors character in their own game. – Jamie White5 years ago
A big part of this, I think, is Sega failing to understand the market and what their fans want. Objectively, on paper, the idea of a Sonic game NOT being about speed and fast traversal sounds counter-intuitive for the series, as was the case with Sonic Boom. They have tried to focus on mobile games, but their profits continue to dwindle.Sega cited the global economy as reason for their financial loss, rather than accepting ownership over the quality (or perceived lack thereof) of their games.They seem to lose sight over what people want from the Sonic series. – BradShankar5 years ago
Discussing the history of how Canadian animation stood out from its more successful neighbours in the United States and Japan. While also analyzing why is Canadian animation overlooked from its creative possibilities and cultural identity, to being remembered only for its Adobe Flash animated shows that is considered cheap entertainment.
I think that its also important for whoever writes this to discuss Sheridan - it's renowned for its animation program and many of its students are hired to work in the US. As a result, much of the talent in Canada spread and sourced throughout other more well known animation companies. – DullahanLi5 years ago
I think this is a very important topic. I also think that it could be parlayed into asking where Canadian comic book talent is as well. I think somebody should tackle this one – DClarke5 years ago
There are also Canadian animation companies that are well-known, such as 9 Story Media Group (who have Arthur on their slate). It will be good do research on these companies and what they produce. – YsabelGo5 years ago
Analyze what it is that makes the audience define animated films as just for kids, even when a film contain mature themes, scary moments, or adult humor. Despite appealing to audiences of all ages as the intention, society continues to label animated films as kids stuff since they are not realistic like other films.
I definitely agree that the lack of realism is part of what has lead to animation being treated as just kids fodder. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but before the advent of colour cartoons, weren't cartoons moreso considered adult entertainment? They were often played before films of the era and had much more racy overtones?Is it perhaps an effect of the marketablility of colour on children that led to this also? Or am I totally off base? – Talcon5 years ago
@Talcon: Thanks for that insight, what I wanted to focus on was is the animation that is well known to the public eye. While there were indeed racist cartoons, but I noticed many people either talk about them from an academic stand point, or choose to ignore them because of the racist content. For me, I'm focusing on what is popular and well loved, but is still regarded as kids stuff just because its animated from a modern perspective. – MajoraChaLa5 years ago
Princess Mononoke and Hunchback of Notre Dame are fair pieces that come to mind. In fact, Disney itself is very guilty of this when we talk about Pinocchio. I agree that many times, we're given animated films described as just for kids yet they have explicit adult themes. However, it's also fair to note that many times, different people disagree on what is terms as for kids. For example, if we switch mediums to Harry Potter, the author maintains her books are for kids, death or no death. So, a good definition and line needs to be drawn at the beginning of any article centered on this topic. – SpectreWriter5 years ago
Another interesting point which this raises is: How seriously should one take a children's film, does it deserve, or not deserve the same amount of criticism as a serious art film, simply because it aims to please children? There has, inevitably, been a shift towards appealing to adults, as well as children, mostly because it is the adults who are inevitably paying to see the film along with their children. However, there is a common argument that there should be some concessions towards children's films when analysing or evaluating them. Should a children's film remain consistent with itself or be given some sort of leniency because of its target audience? – Matthew Sims5 years ago
I think it is purely the medium this genre takes. Animation is associated with cartoons (obviously) which we associate as children's television. It is basically judging a book by it's cover, or a semiotic thing; we assign certain traits to colours for example (red: love, blood, death, passion). It's a subconscious thing that I believe we all have/do.
It does unfortunately put us off brilliant serious animation like the Cuban film Chico and Rita, which was a lovely romantic story with a wonderful jazz soundtrack. – Jamie5 years ago