I am no sport fan, but I do like watching a good half time show. Yet Sunday’s game had the female dancers and singers do a lot of sexual suggestive dancing. While I under stand that is the type of dance people do today, I could not help but wonder does this go against feminism? (The fact that the girls are half naked, and are to dance in a way that flaunts their bodies to charge the male audience) Or is it empowering? (Allowing the women to dresss whatever they want to wear and do whatever they want to do.) What do you think?
I think what was empowering was that two women were working together as Latinas. Media portrayals tend to be stereotypical of Latin women which are very offensive. Also female singers are often portrayed as divas who can't play nice with each other. I found it refreshing and loved it!
– Munjeera2 weeks ago
The Super Bowl is tricky because any attempts it makes to empower women also have to take into account the fact that its primary audience is chiefly male, and plan accordingly. At the end of the day, scantily-clad women sell, and at least these women are star performers whose talents people can appreciate and admire. – Debs2 weeks ago
The Superbowl doesn't care about feminism - it is merely a tool, a front, used to appeal to the audience. Popular culture has distorted the meaning of feminism to a point where blatantly sexual content is labelled as "empowering" while it is still used to generate wealth for powerful men. In short, the labels on these concepts have been swapped around, but in the end, the goal remains the same: money. – RafayMughal2 weeks ago
At the time I loved the new Star Trek movies. They were exciting, full of space travel, linked to nostalgia and full of "larger than life" characters. However, a re-watch of these was almost as painful as re-watching the Fast and the Furious series; instead of vivid I realised the characters were one-dimensional, stereotyped, almost all white and when I actually took note of the ridiculous 70s dresses of the women, actually quite insulting.
Now this realisation did not occur randomly, this was the result of returning to re-watch the films after completing the TV series Star Trek Discovery – and what I discovered was that the films lived up to the franchise (hated by fans, full of over blown situations and lacking the depth of storytelling in the shows). Now with the launch of Star Trek Picard I am blown away by the commitment to storytelling in both the shows. The focus is on personal growth, the difficulty of sticking to your convictions, taking responsibility for your actions, understanding the complexity of dealing with people (human and alien) and it is committed to showing diversity.
I think there is a lot in the new Star Treks that is showing the way forward for all TV – in a post MeToo world, in a post Black Panther world, it is not acceptable to continue to show narrow stereotyped, outdated and offensive perspectives. We often talk about the power of pop-culture and mainstream entertainment because it does offer a platform to not only reflect the world, but offer paths to change. This is a lot of lauding and pressure to place on a set of sci-fi TV shows, but I think Star Trek has more to teach us, even if it is just a better commitment to storytelling. What do you think?
After the widespread critical success of Breaking Bad, it appears to me that many other shows popped up that carried the same type of quality, not just of filmography and acting, but of writing as well. Take for example, the Walking Dead, West World, Game of Thrones, just to name a few. Few shows can boast the same critical reception of Breaking Bad, but before then, the most well written and high-quality show that comes to my mind was the Sopranos, which even then falls short of the same quality. In my limited observation, it appears that TV shows, which had traditionally been regarded as lower quality and lower complexity than film, theater, or literature, experienced a boom in both the quantity and quality of its TV shows. Does this observation have any merit? Am I making assumption based simply on my own, limited experience with TV? Did Breaking Bad really change the quality of TV the viewers have come to expect? What other, perhaps more minor or hidden effects did the success of the show have on the industry?
Avenue 5 is a recently released HBO touted as sci-fi comedy, as was Orville, however, the difference is astounding. A5 appears to be taking a more "reality show" approach to storytelling. The cinematography moves between constant vignettes that hone in on the various character groups, and then multi-character scenes are shot in an often long framing to appear as the fly on the wall while you watch characters shout over each other in a very "naturalistic" dialogue approach. The focus so far seems to be on the lack of competence of everyone involved. This reality/sit-com approach is especially unusual in sci-fi and even though Orville began with elements of this it rapidly became a Space Opera with focuses on moralistic decision making and character growth. I’m not sure if we are going to see that occur on A5. But does that matter? A5 appears to be offering a new take on sci-fi which could open the genre wider to further hybrid versions. A deeper analysis is needed to look at what A5 offers the genre.
Link the narrative arcs of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BtVS) to the #metoo movement. Buffy manages to be the one who saves the world (with the Scooby gang) whilst working her way through a number of relationships with the ‘wrong’ man. These included the bad boy who can’t be saved, the stalked, the good guy who finished last and ‘beer goggles’. in the context of metoo – how is Buffy conceptualised in present day through this lens?
There’s been much criticism regarding the later seasons of Game of Thrones, as they began being almost completely original instead of adaptive. But the final season in particular has drawn a considerable backlash. I think it would be beneficial to conduct a ‘postmortem’ of sorts into the final season of Game of Thrones: why exactly was it inferior to prior seasons and what could be done to avoid the same pitfalls in the future?
I think this would be a great article idea! It would definitely pique many people's interest, and I personally would love to know what went so wrong! – CelineTsang1 month ago
This is especially relevant now that George R.R. Marting has announced the ending to the book series will be different than the end to the TV show. There's speculation that the reaction to the end was the cause of this. – kennethabaldwin1 month ago
The discussion is always in review - a post-mortem could assist and also extending this by developing some understanding of the context of the 'right now' mentality which led to this being done. Increasing our ability to postpone immediate gratification was reflected in the decision here to complete GoT. Good idea.
– tamaraholmes1 month ago
With The Mandalorian being so successful, what other examples of a protagonist concealing their identity have really struck a chord with audiences? Obviously, an intriguing trait in terms of mystery, are there any other reasons why this has been successful in The Mandalorian? Moreover, what’s the purpose of using a masked hero? What changes when the main protagonist is unmasked? Is there a downside?
I think you may want to touch on what it is about a masked hero that makes audiences intrigued. What is necessary for them to have since one cannot see who (or what) they are. Great topic idea! – majorlariviere1 month ago
Off the top of my head the only character I can think of right now is 'V' from 'V for Vendetta' (2005). It's interesting how that Guy Fawkes mask even struck a chord with those who haven't seen the film or read the original graphic novel. – Amyus1 month ago
I think what draws us to the Mandalorian in particular is his willingness and really desperation to remain masked. Even when his remaining masked threatens his life, he is adamant to following the code. It would be interesting to examine how his strictness regarding his mask/suit plays against his rebellious nature (against the bounty hunter guild) throughout the first season – erinouye4 weeks ago
Throughout the entire series the term white hat is tossed back and forth but what does it mean. I think its about being the good guy. Whoever where the white hat is considered the one who is winning and doing the right thing. In this show we easily see where the lines between good and evil are crossed so is wearing the white hat even worth it. I think if someone could track the metaphor they’d be able to understand the relationship between Olivia and Joshua a lot better.