It seems like increasing numbers of scientists nowadays (especially the popular scientists) seem interested in using their credentials as scientists to push political points. For instance, many popular science blogs contain articles about trending political topics like climate-change protests or neurodiversity. The problem is, it sometimes seems like these individuals care more about pushing their political agendas than about the actual scientific basis behind their ideas. For instance, they may dismiss out of hand solutions to the problem of climate change that are not popular in "green" activist circles. They may also ignore aspects of human behavioral ecology, such as the evidence that humans are naturally tribalistic and suspicious of unfamiliar people and behaviors, to push the idea that bigotry is a conspiracy that people are simply being "taught."
What are some specific examples of this phenomenon? Are any outlets particularly known for this? On the other hand, are any outlets better than others at avoiding politics and sticking to the science?
A tricky subject indeed. Let's not forget that there are very few 'scientists' who can afford to self-fund their work. They have to go where the money is and quite often that means politically motivated agenda. 'Climate change' is a good example - it's a big earner! So, when questioning why some scientists appear to pushing a certain political agendum, then follow the money trail. Who or what is funding them and why? Deep research is essential. – Amyus5 years ago
Amyus makes an excellent point. I would also encourage you to consider the historical reasons why some scientific issues have been "politicized" and for which agendas. How did climate change become a "political" issue, and who has benefited from it as something worth debating upon? Also, instead of comparing news outlets, which we all know have specific target audiences that they cater to, I would look to multi-agency scientific studies. – Eden5 years ago
In the last few years the film/TV rights of roughly 90 different fantasy and sci-fi books have been bought up, with many of them having potential to see the light of day. Interestingly, TV seems to be overtaking movies for adapting fantasy. This may be due to the success of Game of Thrones, but I think it is also about the form itself, which allows a longer and more detailed story to unfold, opposed to fantasy movies that tend to leave out a lot of detail and feel rushed. TV in general seems to have lost the stigma around it, allowing for more nuanced adaptations that rival even the best movies.
Definitely mention The Expanse in the article somewhere. I believe it was also marketed as "Game of Thrones in space." I also agree generally in the assessment that with space operas and epic fantasies, TV shows allow for more details and decent pacing. – Emily Deibler5 years ago
I feel like it largely has to do with the fact that many fantasy works tend to be long-running series, and unless you want to cut a ton of material it's just easier to adapt series as TV shows than movies, or even a series of movies. – Debs5 years ago
Fantasy is much more suited to TV than film. In TV you can have whole episodes devoted to a particular element where you might get seconds of screen time in film. – LauramourFromOz5 years ago
A comparison between the original Doctor Who series and the new reboot of the series. What are the main differences between the audiences, the actors, the writing, and the story lines. Is the new version of Doctor Who more mainstream than the original or will the original forever be considered a classic.
I would say there is a definite difference between audiences, at least at the time the original aired. – nsnow9 years ago
Doctor Who used to be only a cult series that was mildly known in different countries with varying notoriety. Now it has become a world-wide phenomenon and has an audience of millions, a lot of whom are teens and 20 year-olds. Only 10 years ago, not many people really knew what Doctor Who was outside of die-hard fans who caught it periodically PBS here int he states. The writing is also far better in terms of consistency between individual episodes, and across seasons. The actors on the other hand, have always been good. Like so many people say, no one has ever played the Doctor wrong, and no one cast has ever been wrong for the part. People will have their favorites, and plenty will have their problems with the 6th Doctor, but he is nonetheless, personality-wise, a version of the Doctor that is warranted and believable in amongst all the other personalities he has had. It is also very clear that the sets and FX are far better, although some instances can still seem quite laughable and even a little rough on the CGI, especially in the original 9th Doctor season. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think it's more popular now because some of the doctors have been highly attractive haha. Totally just my opinion, but what the doctor represents in the newer ones (note that I haven't seen the older ones) to a single girl is worth touching on. Like Amy Pond waiting for him to save her, and all the girls got to experience new things and live outside of time. What girl wouldn't want the doctor to come scoop her up for such adventures. Again, no idea what the old ones were like, so it's possible this was a common theme throughout. – Tatijana9 years ago
I think the idea of the Doctor taking on a companion who is a woman was partly about that concept, but it wasn't nearly as "romantic" or romanticized as it has been with the 9th, 10th, and 11th Doctors. I suppose the closest comparison would be the 3rd Doctor, because he was quite the heroic, knight-in-shining-armor figure who could not only fight with his mind, but with his actual fists. He had a sense of the regal, but also of the Robin-Hood in him I think. So in terms of "attractive" doctors, he was the most similar to the 10th or 11th versions, even if he was far older and more rugged in the face. Also, a lot of the classic fans kind of hated the fact that the newer Doctors were so young and even baby-faced in terms of their attractiveness to younger audiences and women. I don't really mind that aspect at all, I just take issue with it when the women themselves are incredibly selfish and ego-centric about their relationship with the Doctor, and what they expect from him. It's makes them very unlikable as protagonists. But when they're more like Amy was after she married Rory, then the Doctor's companions were fun to ride along with. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
In "Day of the Doctor," the "War" Doctor seems shocked when he witnesses 10 marrying and kissing Queen Elizabeth I. When he asks, "Is there alot of this in the future?," 11 responds, "It does start to happen." I think this represents the most stark contrast between the classic and modern series. Rose and River (and even, to a lesser degree, Clara) show the romantic heart of The Doctor, making him easier for human audiences to relate to. For The Doctor to know love and loss, it connects him to us in a deeper and more meaningful way, making him more like the gods of old rather than the separate, isolated Christlike figure of the original series. – TheHall9 years ago
Explore the idea of apathy when it comes to engaging with certain TV series. This was something I particularly felt with the recent third season of Jessica Jones, a show I was only still watching out of a sense of loyalty and completion, having worked through the previous two seasons.
Do we now remain tethered too long to TV shows we otherwise would have apathetically abandoned due to a feeling of commitment? If we travel so far with a show, should we stick with it, come what may? Or if a show just isn't working or has lost its way, should we be prepared to abandon ship even close to the end, forsaking the cathartic feeling of completing a journey with a TV series?
This is a fascinating psychological question. It brings to mind series that have gone on for over ten seasons, like The X-Files and Supernatural. What keeps people watching--is it loyalty, or a more concrete sense of identity, like fandom and community? – Eden5 years ago
Nice topic. The advent of binge-watching certainly helps or hinders, depending on how you flip that pancake. I wonder what role that plays in apathy and TV. – Stephanie M.5 years ago
The furor over the series finale of Game of Thrones is only the latest iteration of the phenomenon of long-running television series that unsettle, disappoint, or even enrage a show's devotees. What did such programming as M*A*S*H or Downton Abbey do right that other popular shows like The Sopranos or Game of Thrones fail to accomplish in order to satisfy their audiences?
I cannot say I watched Game of Thrones but I did follow Downtown Abbey and I can tell you that a lot of empathetic people watch great series and are invested in the characters and even more so than identifying with or relating to the characters, we choose to spend our time watching. This is our life; we expect a payoff, satisfaction, a well-written ending. It is obvious when writers have put a lot of time and energy into the finale. It is equally obvious when the writing is poor and they can not pull it together. An example I will use is Orphan Black. I am not a sci fi fan but I enjoyed the concept of the show because it was not that far fetched. I decided to watch it and noticed the writing waning with each successive season. Unfortunately it was due to the demands of the actress. Hollywood in the last fifteen to twenty years has copped to the demands of the actors rather than the actors collaborating with the writers or actually just shutting up and letting the writers do their jobs, hence sometimes it is no fault of the writers but the executives who limit the writers by giving in to demands of actors who are often narcissistic and want to make their characters more like themselves which ruins the character arc and the show. In the end, what fans expect is something momentous because of the time invested. People watched Game of Thrones for several seasons; that is a lot of time in one's life spent.:) – youngmollflanders6 years ago
This is a really interesting question, I think there are several things to note here, first of all unlike the other series mentioned Game of Thrones was a book series before it was a TV series and with this becomes a harder situation, when you read a book you have already decided an ending before you have got to it, you have decided how the characters would look and act even noticed things that would never be captured on screen and so that when a TV series is created, it is tough to compete with the books and it will almost never satisfy everyone. There are other issues such as budgeting and also when the show was cancelled and also issues of cutting down series for the final series. I think many people did not enjoy the finally as it was a twist that people were not expecting and with so many people invested with both the main characters it was always going to be hard on them for a twisted finally. I also feel them cutting down the episodes meant they did not have enough episodes to cover it whilst in comparison Shadowhunters which was a success got an extra two hours to cover everything. I also think it will always be hard to please everyone particularly a show with such a huge following. Also, the fact that the books are not finished but the series is also making it hard. – ezara6 years ago
Moll, like you, I loved Orphan Black but elected not to finish the series because the narrative arc seemed to have lost its forward momentum. Your response almost begs for an additional topic -- why do series fail before they even have a chance to reach a finale! – MarkTodd6 years ago
Moll, like you, I loved Orphan Black but elected not to finish the series because the narrative arc seemed to have lost its forward momentum. Your response almost begs for an additional topic -- why do series fail before they even have a chance to reach a finale! Ezara, I also really like the nuances you add to this topic. The pressures of production, budget, and creative direction are very real factors in the success and failure of a hopefully long-running show. And, of course, the book-before-the-movie/series could really be a separate topic -- even though it's clearly a factor for this one. – MarkTodd6 years ago
From my understanding of Game of Thrones' finale, it was cramming too much into too few episodes, rushing everything without development. You could explore other series finales that make this mistake. – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
Though the general popularity of professional wrestling might not be the same as in the Golden age or in Attitude era, professional wrestling is still alive. When Cody Rhodes and Young Bucks organized the independent wrestling event "All In", the tickets were sold out in 30 minutes(they sold about 11000 tickets), which led to the foundation of All Elite Wrestling(AEW). AEW's first Pay-Per-View event Double or Nothing was another sold out show(also sold out under 30 minutes), and their August event All Out(sequel to All In) sold out in 15 minutes. This event is planned to be held at the same arena for All In, so that would be another 10000 tickets sold out within 15 minutes. So the interest in professional wrestling was not dead.
As of 2019, there are various professional wrestling promotions with different styles. New Japan Pro Wrestling presents their show to be more sports-like or, to some fans, manga-like style. Progress Wrestling in Britain promotes themselves as British strong style wrestling( punk rock), or wrestling for grown ups. Pro Wrestling Eve, women's wrestling company in Britain, presents themselves as feminist punk-rock promotion. DDT wrestling in Japan is well known for their often comedic style of wrestling. And there are many, many more promotions. Each wrestling company specializes in different flavor of wrestling, presenting more variety than before.
It would be interesting to see how the professional wrestling industry transformed over the past 20 years. What triggered this changes? How did the companies grow? What were the challenges? How do they differ from WWE? And how would this history similar or different from different art forms such as comics?
Whilst I have absolutely no interest in wrestling, I appreciate that there are those who enjoy it. I don't have much to add to this topic suggestion, other than a memory of watching my grandfather watching wrestling on 'the telly' back in the early 1970s, on ITV's 'World of Sport'. The bout was between Giant Haystacks and someone whose stage name presently slips my mind. Even to the young teen I was back then, it was so obviously staged that it was very nearly comical and I recall my grandfather becoming quite irate when I told him it was all fake! I don't doubt there were many such staged bouts - like pantomime only with a lot more grunting and showmanship! It was strangely fascinating to see just how caught up in the moment the audience became - screaming and yelling at whichever competitor they had bet on, when he failed to live up to their expectations. I wonder, were there ever such obviously staged shows in American wrestling? Anyway, I think you have an interesting topic suggestion and it's one I would never have thought of in a million years (excuse the hyperbole). – Amyus5 years ago
BoJack Horseman is a well known Netflix show that gained a lot of popularity. I think many people know it for sure. I am thinking of doing character analysis about some characters in this show for my first try for an article. So, I have some occurring thoughts about it.
The main character in the series is BoJack. He is a very complicated personality that has psychological issues, hidden and unspoken traumas. However, he is also a horse, not a human. That is a really important point – the character represents the human trauma and human personality traits but has a form of an animal. Since I am interested in Animal Studies, this occurs to be a very significant point from a psychological point of view. The viewers can identify with BoJack, however, a certain distance will still remain between the character and viewers because of the character's physical appearance. BoJack feels like a human suffers like a human, but yet is not the same as a human. Because of this reason, viewers that have similar problems to BoJack's can identify with him better than with a human character experiencing the same problems – the "psychological distance" makes BoJack like an imaginary friend of every viewer having traumatic experiences. BoJack becomes like a symbolical figure of human trauma but he still has horse traits and horse behaviour stereotypes. Actually, these traits are much harder to be than for example in other characters like Princess Carolyn or Mr.Peanutbutter. Basically, while analysing BoJack's personality, there are many paths to do it.BoJack's personality can be viewed from the angle of Animal studies, from psychology (I think Carl Jung's psychology is the best here) or simple analysis of his changes during the seasons. I gotta point out, I am a big fan of Princess Carolyn as well. Her character is not the main, however, it is well developed. We can see many references of cat stereotypes in her behaviour and also we can see her well-developed personality, facing other challenges and problems than BoJack. Actually, in one of the first episodes, we see a very clear reference of A.Kamiu philosophy in her character. Overall, BoJack is a pretty good show with some truly well-developed characters worth speaking more of.
I like where you are going so far with this. There is a rich history of anthropomorphic stories and I wonder if certain animals were chosen for particular reasons; whether it was intentional, for comedic effect, or for just being straight up absurd. Lisa Hanawalt, the art director for the show, has some great comics that might be of aid to you in this topic, alongside what she has spoken of in regards to the show.
Though he is human, Todd is another great character that is worth exploring further as there really aren't that many respectable, nuanced asexual characters in any form of media. The same goes for Diane, in that she is a three dimensional woman who can be both confident and have episodes of depression and anxiety. I wonder if the emotional connection you speak of in regards to the animal characters is more felt or less felt with the humans on the show? – AnthonyS116 years ago
I absolutely adore this show not just because I find the humor entertaining, but as I watch these characters and learn their back stories, they also morph and grow and change from episode to episode (even if these episodes may or may not be connected story-wise. I have only thought briefly about the choice to make some characters animal while have other remain human. I think it's a fascinating avenue to explore. You mentioned how this choice creates a relatable distance; however, doesn't the medium of animation do this as well? Opposed to being a live-action show with human characters, what does having this show be animated do as well -- especially since cartoons are initially thought of as being for children? How does adult animation function for this specific show/story? – msimon6 years ago
@AnthonyS11, speaking of animal and human characters, i think both are very complex and expressed in a really detailed way. In animal characters, we see both traits of humans and animals and that's why this mix makes me so curious. However, I choose to focus on anthropomorphic characters simply because I had a course "Animal Studies: Introduction" and for this course, I wrote an essay about BoJack Horseman :) so this topic hooked me up, I am just really curious about animal-human features in these characters. But I totally agree that it would be really cool if somebody analysed Todd or Diane. Todd's an amazing character, one of my favourites :) p.s. this is probably totally not the best way to show this (maybe my comment will even be deleted haha) but i started my own blog about animal studies and media. honestly, i am gonna change many stuff, but if any people want to check and read my shit and give me feedback, i would be thankful.there's the link: http://www.justinavondanzig.com/blog/anthropomorphic-characters-in-bojack-horseman-princess-carolyn-modern-sisyphus-or-a-suffering-neurotic-cat/ – JustinaVonDanzig6 years ago
@msimon, that's a very good point. personally, i have just read one article about children education. when children(age 5-6) learn from books that have personalized or 'humanized' animals, they score better at answering the questions. Very interesting, isnt it? animals for some reason are understood as something different in our cultures but they still are symbols to us. just remember, humans used to glory or worship animals in the past and yet they still remain some 'magical' that triggers our mind and helps us in one way or another. I think it might be connected with our biologyical and psychological conditions. And speaking of BoJack,i think that BoJack is a pretty good imaginary friend to every person who has a mental disease. for people who have mental diseases watching shows with human characters that have the same conditions or similar issues it might be too hard because it would simply remind their own pain. while BoJack is something more like an imaginary friend. he acts like a human, he suffers like a human, but yet he has a human horse. and this little details plays with out imagination and psychology because we as humans create a distance between us and BoJack just because he is biologically different. sometimes, or actually,often, it is too hard to watch something that reflects your condition or pain, but when this pain is 'hidden' under the curtain of anthropomorphism, it doesn't strike so much. or maybe it even helps to heal or see oneself from a different perspective. but that's just my opinion, lol. i haven't dig this specific topic yet, but it is worth attention. thanks for bringing this up! – JustinaVonDanzig6 years ago
After watching all other seasons of Black Mirror, it seems apparent that sex isn't as pervasive in other episodes. Black Mirror seems to have focused more on Psychological Thriller, whereas this episode focuses almost exclusively on sex. This article could breakdown the questions asked by this episode: Are online matters considered cheating? When IS it considered cheating? Investigate how sexuality is questioned in this episode and comment on societal changes to our approaches of sex and sexuality.
I made a similar observation after watching this episode, and I think even though it's one of the weaker episodes of the show, it definitely plays with themes of sex and sexuality in interesting ways. I do think that some episodes address sexuality more clearly (the famous San Junipero episode comes to mind immediately), but Striking Vipers seems like a more modern take on same-sex relations because the climactic kiss in the rain was treated as a casual, logical next step, and they were not necessarily concerned about being gay; it was all about finding out if they were actually interested in one another. Closer to the observation you are making, I think the questions of sex, infidelity, and the digital spaces we inhabit is fascinating. This episode definitely raises more questions than it answers, but they are important questions as we move further into a 21st century relationship world. I hope this topic gets picked up. – Aaron5 years ago
I think it's fairly obvious that yes, it is cheating. The way the episode is framed makes it abundantly clear that the main character knows he's cheating. He feels constant guilt, and it causes a strain on his relationship with his wife. It only becomes not cheating when his wife gives him permission to hook up with his friend online on his birthday at the end of the episode (it's marked on the calendar and she's the one to give him the VR set, indicating her permission).
Regarding the themes of sexuality, I think many viewers are missing the mark. It's not truly about sexuality. This is made apparent when his best friend reveals that he's been having sex with several other characters, including a polar bear, but it isn't the same when it's not with the main character. This is because they're very close friends and understand each other on a deep level. It's about intimacy, not sex. Their irl kiss just proves this point further. I don't think either of them are gay. His best friend simply wants a partner who truly knows him on every level, which he's been unable to find in the real world. Striking Vipers makes the main character available to him in a way that he isn't- and never could be- outside of VR. – JPost5 years ago
