Star Wars has been a popular culture icon for decades now. The revival of the early episodes and the continuation of the later that have altered the canon of literature, comics, and games have brought in a new generation of fans. Now with the move to Disney there are high expectations of the money-milking enterprise of a thousand spin off variations, yet interestingly there is the new tv show 'The Mandalorian'. It already has a youth friendly vibe with a limited range of onscreen violence, no swearing and an over produced cinematography and sound track, yet still…it is the story of a bounty hunter, a criminal…but [SPOILER] he chooses at the end not to kill his bounty when faced with a "baby Yoda." Are we to assume then from this that the story will focus on a lone warrior with his own code, or will this be a redemptive arc – the hero was always within. It indeed fits into the franchise that has always been about hope above all else. The question will be though, like the most recent films, does this show actually have anything new to say or will this once again be a reiteration of the single monomyth that has plagued the SW franchise?
The most beloved (and not necessarily great) television/cartoon shows tend to have unforgettable, epic opening songs that have undeniably helped them attained cult statuses. But, more recently, due to strict runtime or creative choices, shows have distanced themselves from such practice, choosing instead very short intro music, for instance, Breaking Bad (20secs) as opposed to the more traditional 1-1:30min long intro.
Analyze how a great opening song can contribute to the popularity of a TV/cartoon show even if it is not of great quality or does not hold up in time. Are theme songs more than just accompaniment? With the market slowly being dominated by streaming, will the practice and culture of the opening songs still be relevant (especially when you can skip the intro)?
"5,4,3,2,1. Thunderbirds are Go!" In my opinion, probably the best ever intro to a children's tv series. Instantly recognisable. Unforgettable. It still brings a smile to my face even now. – Amyus5 years ago
Amyus - what's interesting is that I am more familiar with the theme song as opposed to the actual show! – kpfong835 years ago
From my experience, some of my favorite anime first came to my attention by having really cool opening themes. So, they definitely make a big impression. It might help as well to draw a distinction between opening theme songs that are memorable and those that are "good" in a musical sense. – Debs5 years ago
Debs - I thought about anime openings as well but I think they deserve a whole topic on their own. The fact that they can recruit J-pop singers or well-known singers is astounding. I mean, some artists made a career out of anime songs. – kpfong835 years ago
I think since the intro is (as the name implies) typically the first thing a viewer sees when they watch a show, there's a need to make as big an impression as possible right out of the gate. That's partially why many theme songs and openings are so flashy, so they can get your attention right away. They also need to set the tone of the show to give audiences an idea of what kind of show they're in for. – Daniel C. Hein5 years ago
I'm not sure where the opening to "The Flintstones" fits in here or "Underdog." Where is the cutoff between short and long? – Joseph Cernik5 years ago
I think theme songs are also useful for serving basic exposition, whether that be lyrically or visually. Off the top of my head, the lyrics of the Phineas and Ferb theme song and explain the plot pretty well, while BoJack Horseman's is instrumental but is expository in a more visual way. – haileyscomet5 years ago
Please mention Teen Titans and Teen Titans Go!, the difference in the theme songs really show the difference in the audiences, the tone of the show and the modernity of it coming back in this different format. – tingittens5 years ago
Compare and contrast the varying successes of a TV franchise using Law and Order, CSI and Criminal Minds. Why have some succeeded, such as CSI Miami and others failed, such as Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders. Take a look at how the actors have succeeded in other shows such as Shemar Moore in SWAT. Not only has the franchise done well but the actors have moved on to other shows with enduring popularity over decades.
CSI used to be one of my guilty pleasures - I don't know why I feel guilty, I can't be watching subtitled black and white films about the awfulness of it all every day!
If you have never seen the series - a difficult feat as the CBS franchise (CSI: Las Vegas, CSI: Miami, CSI:NY) is repeated frequently - it concerns a group of criminal investigators who use forensic science as the main tool of detection in solving graphically depicted murders. Allegedly the most watched show in the world, the franchise is now crumbling with CSI: Miami and CSI:NY being dropped from the schedules. The success of the programme, with its focus on science based methods of crime detection, has led to what is known as the ‘CSI Effect’, namely the unrealistically high public expectations of forensic crime detection as well as a multitude of people (now probably unemployed) enrolling in forensic science courses. Silke Panse in, ‘The Bullets Confirm the Story Told by the Potato,’ (yes, I had to read that twice and it is indeed a direct quote from the Grissom character) discusses the faux-scientific approach of CSI and its ability to visualise that which is normally concealed and (apparently) raise the dead. Indeed, CSI makes direct communication with the dead seem almost commonplace. For a period of time I was totally hooked on CSI and OD'd on endless editions of the show. Of course having watched so many episodes and become thoroughly immersed in the ‘CSI Effect’ I knew I hadn’t really overdosed as my breathing, heart rate and pulse were normal, my pupils had not reduced to pinpoint and my lips and nails hadn’t turned blue. However, after viewing twenty episodes or so, I was finding it difficult to keep my eyes open and stop my jaw going slack. I may even have dribbled a bit. Using my newly acquired bogus skills of forensic detection, I came to a typically swift diagnosis - which I leave to the reader to identify. The series has been the subject of considerable research with lecturers, researchers, television critics, media executives and scientists all aiming to consider the reasons for the huge success of, ‘such a strictly formulaic, endlessly repeated, modular drama,’ and seek to understand and analyse its popular appeal using theoretical frameworks including, ‘notions of Derridean trace, Lacanian lack and Mulveyian to-be-looked-at-ness.’ In his book, ‘So Many Different Ways to Tell It,’ Michael Allen sets CSI within its historical and contemporary context both as a police investigation show and a long running, lucrative franchise. Allen argues that CSI was successful due to a combination of factors, the most notable being timing, star actors and location.The show came along when a post 9/11 America was at its most anxious and vulnerable offering an image of scientific certainty and committed professionalism. CSI differed from other TV programmes within the genre by shrewdly casting actors, ‘with notable, if occasionally checkered, Hollywood careers’. These include William Petersen, David Caruso and Gary Sinese. As Allen points out, star names alone are no guarantee of success and that oddly enough, the, ‘ lack of character development, formulaic repetition, etc...little narrative or character continuity,’ actually attracted viewers who could watch episodes out of sequence as well as allowing schedulers/buyers to fill in gaps in weekly schedules. The major city locations, Miami, New York and Las Vegas also lent themselves to a kind of dramatic schadenfreude, whereby the audience could enjoy the sight of the veneer of the glittering American dream being torn away to graphically expose its often repulsive and rotting underbelly. Although emerging from the same franchise stable, the three shows strongly emphasise their distinctive locations in terms of composition, actors, costumes, sets, props, sound and lighting - and of course there is also the famous, ‘CSI Shot’, the method of showing animated CGI reconstructions of, for example, the trajectory of a bullet through a body or the effect of a toxin on brain cells. Sadly, since my mega-binge on CSI, I have now fully purged my curiosity and have not watched another episode for about five years. However my lust for faux-science is still strong and has now been sated by, 'The Big Bang Theory.'
– BlueStocking3 years ago
Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet has been blamed for many teen suicides. More recently, the Netflix show, 13 Reasons Why, has faced the same accusations. Is there a casual relationship between the depiction of teen suicides in movies and television and actual suicides in teens? And if so, would the causal connection merit censorship for utilitarian purposes?
I think that one's decision to commit suicide,taking into account the proper context, is an expression of our Free Will and it is a brave one. – AntonioFarfanFiorani5 years ago
The way I see it, although teen suicides might be influenced by the media, that will never be the ultimate cause. A show like 13 Reasons Why, even if it may glamorize suicide to some young people, probably wouldn't have that effect if the kids watching it weren't already troubled. The answer is not more censorship but a focus on improving the mental health of young people before they become depressed or anxious. – Debs5 years ago
Alex Trebek's announcement of pancreatic cancer shook Jeopardy fans and resulted in an outpouring of love and good wishes on social media. Fans rejoiced when earlier this year, Trebek rallied and achieved borderline remission. But recently, he has hinted he may step down from Jeopardy in the wake of his cancer and treatments. If this were to happen, could Jeopardy survive? Discuss the changes the show might undergo, whether some might be overdue, and how much Trebek's presence has made the show what it is today.
Sad news for Jeopardy fans. But the show will live on, and even though Alex Trebek may not be the host, the core values will remain the same. – Lava00835 years ago
Stranger Things became a surprise hit, with a story line that was neatly wrapped up by the end of the season. The plot was well-rounded, the characters developed, and everything seemed to return to normal. However, the popularity of the show led to the creation of seasons two, three, and soon four which, while still being good, have not received the same level of praise as season one. Are second seasons worth the risk of tarnishing the legacy of a show?
I think the discourse around Stranger Things is really fascinating because second seasons also bring new influences and characters as well. For example Season 2 includes Max and Billy who are key additions to the group and change the dynamics of the group in different ways. Looking at Season 3, it sometimes feels like a radical departure from Season 1 and 2 with its Russian/Cold War themes and Red Dawn influence. – Sean Gadus5 years ago
Good question. It makes me think of the television format as we know it, too. That is, has our culture outgrown seasons in the traditional format? Do streaming services and tons of network originals mean we need more content or less? – Stephanie M.5 years ago
The massive outcry against GoT's last season centered not only on a rushed job of tying up loose ends, but in particular of Daenerys Targaryen's turn towards genocidal tyrant in the last season. Was this turn simply more male dominated writing casting female leadership as stereotypical depictions of a hysterical woman who could not handle the pressures of ruling when her BFF was executed, her dragon baby shot out of the sky, and her silver fox butchered (all before her eyes)? Or was this turn perfectly aligned with the nature of power that GoT had been warning from the beginning? Is there anything redeemable in Daenerys' legacy after such a fall?
I think Dany's tyranny had been foreshadowed in her "blood as right to rule," plotline dating back to the start and really began to show in Season 5 when she showed a proclivity towards acts of extreme violence as a leader. While the ending was sloppy for a number of reasons, it would be perhaps harsh to assume that her plotline was playing into "hysterical woman ruler" tropes when a) her family history as a Targaryen made this a distinct possibility from the beginning (as they say, the gods flip a coin on those: given that John was the other one and he was not a genocidal despot, this was likewise foreshadower) and b) she wasn't shown to be "hysterical" so much as falling victim fo the "game of thrones," that the average citizen cares not about (as discussed very early on). The warning had absolutely been there. I think her legacy is mostly in her assistance with defeating the White Walkers and unifying various factions with John's assistance; but in the end, she became just as her father, The Mad King had been.
– benjamindmuir5 years ago
This is a good and complicated topic. I don't want to be that person, but Dany's full name is spelled "Daenerys" for anyone looking to write on her. :) – Emily Deibler5 years ago
Emily- fixed that. Thank you! – williamnolen115 years ago
I think this is a super interesting topic to explore, and something that we can now more rationally analyze since some time has passed since the finale and it's easier to do a retrospective. I think this one will really boil down to whether or not you think this has in fact been set up from the start. In the final episode Tyrion listed out all the reasons why we should have seen this coming; should we have, or was that a convenient excuse for the show runners to use to wrap up the show? I think it would also be worth trying to explore what fan response would have been if her character had been male. It's easy to try and claim that some of her behaviors were just hysterical, but a male character in the same position could get away with the same behavior and no one would have questioned it to the same degree I feel. – InvertedMobiusStrip5 years ago
This is a really awesome topic. I think everyone was too focused on the ending not being what they expected/wanted, that they had to make it a social issue. There’s tons of evidence foreshadowing Dany’s insanity. But you could also make an argument for the other side. Definitely explore this! – galogsdon5 years ago
The ending of American Horror Story: Apocalypse left many fans of the series divided. Some praised the ending while others condemned it. To settle the issue for the latter, watch the ending (as well as the entire series if yet to be done) and share how it could have come out more thought-provoking.
It might also help to broaden the scope and question whether the bait-and-switch plot at the end of episode 3 helped or could've come in a different part of the series. On one hand, it came early, but on the other, one's commitment to the conclusion might be undercut because they became immersed in one story only to be given another. – Emily Deibler5 years ago
Love this. I would definitely be interested in some series-wide comparisons for context. What made other seasons better, and why? Also, consider what metric you'll be using to judge "good, better, best". Will you use tv ratings, IMBD ratings, or critical reviews? What numbers or objective facts can you use to enhance your argument? I love AHS but didn't like Apocalypse so I'd be very interested to read this. – Eden5 years ago
This is great. I would love to hear a variety of takes on potential alternate endings. – lilliankasulis5 years ago
