"The Office" is such a widely known series that it is almost impossible to have a conversation with someone without referencing a joke or moment from the show. The internet is littered with Office memes, and people joking about only ever rewatching the series. People put Michael Scott quotes in their bios, their yearbook quotes, and their Tinder profiles. Why does this show, which has just as many cringy, immoral, distasteful, and insensitive jokes as it does sweet and kind moments, speak to so many people and demand a large role in so many peoples life?
I would love to see this explored more fully because I certainly fall into the category of "The Office" fans that you reference, rewatching it and using it as background noise for years. A couple of points that I would like to offer is that it seems like people relate to the mundane setting of the show that allows them to project hilarious moments and observations onto an office setting that they may have thought in the past but never stated. This deeper connection to the setting or overall atmosphere that the setting creates has the potential to provide escapism for people trapped in very dull work environments by finding the humor in less dynamic work places (obviously, not for everyone). Lastly, I think it's important to recognize that the immoral and distasteful jokes you note are usually presented as critiques since they are coming from characters that are lovable in some way but clearly presented as twisted personalities that should not be imitated. Younger or less critical viewers may be negatively influenced by these moments, but I would argue that that's not the intent (and I acknowledge that intent only goes so far). As I said, I would love to see this expanded because "The Office" is a piece of our zeitgeist that is thriving across generations since the early 2000s with its presence on Netflix. – Aaron6 years ago
"The Office" is not the first of it's kind to produce these outcomes. Pop culture references have been a long-term epidemic similar to reading the latest books or sharing the latest news and gossip. The normality of Netflix and additions to tv series provide individuals with a way of relating to others to feel accepted - this is most prominent in a digital environment which provides a social sense of reality that people potentially lack in their everyday mundane lives. – TheAuthortoria6 years ago
As Aaron stated above, I think The Office provides escapism for those who find themselves dragged down by boring and tedious corporate working environments. While the U.K Office used more dry and drawn out humor, the U.S Office failed to emulate this in season 1 and the writers instead went with a more upbeat, albeit unrealistic approach of an office environment. This does correlate more with U.S values, which are usually more optimistic and persevering. The characters in my opinion are what make the show. It's no surprise that Michael Scott and many of the other characters would be fired for various actions and interactions, but that's one of the show's advantages. It's an exaggerated take on the typical, American corporate work place inhabited by distinct and generally likable characters. The distasteful jokes are also done well imo because they're from the characters' distinct behaviors, who are portrayed as in the wrong and not to be emulated or praised. They're often sourced from their flaws. The Office also isn't the only show to have such type of crude comedy, see It's Always Sunny, Family Guy, South Park, etc. – ImperatorSage6 years ago
Characters who hold political office have been portrayed for television in a number of cases. Take those in the White House for example, whether it is House of Cards, Madam Secretary or The West Wing. Shows like these often capture corruption, tie in to real world events and provide some insight into the work of government. A recent study (link) showed how Argo and Zero Dark Thirty changed respondents view of government and others (link) have also explored the connection between political T.V. fiction and political engagement. Does this empower us, deceive us or inform us as political actors who vote, commentate and follow real world politics?
May I suggest also taking a look at political satire. There was an excellent British comedy series titled 'Yes, Minister' (and its follow-up series 'Yes, Prime Minister'), which was not only hugely popular with TV viewers, but was frequently acknowledged by members of parliament to be uncannily close to the truth, concerning the blunders made by government. In many ways political satire can tell us a great deal more about the true workings of government. I'm sure there are American series that deal with the same. – Amyus6 years ago
I definitely would consider tying in the actions of Edward Snowden, who released top government secrets to the people to show that our government was doing questionable things, and some of those actions have been bases for movies and popular TV shows. Shows like Castle, about the NYPD and other aspects, highlighted quite frequently the corruption in political positions and even in the police department as well. These shows offer real life scenarios that could easily occur or are occurring at this moment. Definitely something to consider looking into! – reschilke6 years ago
An analysis into why modern streaming services like Netflix are picking up, and even creating, content that is modeled after the 1980s. Why is a decade that most of the viewers of these shows never experienced so popular in contemporary culture?
I'd attribute the current 80s trend mainly to two main factors, though I'm sure there are many more. On the one hand, people tend to remember their formative years in a positive light while simultaneously shutting out more complex issues they weren't paying attention to at the time. The 1980s, like any decade, had its share of crises (the AIDS epidemic, the Cold War, the state of the global economy, etc.). For children and teens, however, their focus was probably not on these issue they couldn't or didn't want to engage with, instead focusing on music, movies, video games, or other media that we would now identify as "classic 80s." So now that those former kids and teens are older and producing their own content, their memories of that time tend to be overwhelmingly positive and rose-colored (unless they're creating something grounded more in reality). And if those trends hold up, their creation becomes popular and delivers on their creative investment. Which leads to the second factor: If someone comes up with a popular idea, everyone will want to copy it to get some of that sweet revenue; for every Stranger Things that hits a cultural chord, you'll get Ready Player One or Fuller House to that exists mostly to ride the 80s nostalgia wave. I don't think there's anything inherently special about the 1980s that makes it any more ripe for nostalgia than any other decade, it's just the one that's in vogue right now. But then again, my nostalgia is for the 90s, so maybe I'm just biased. – CulturallyOpinionated5 years ago
The last season of Game of Thrones has garnered significant audiences as well as criticism in its handling of the fates of its female characters. However the abuse of Westerosi women for ratings has not been a fresh take from the showrunners. Analyse how the use of sexual violence and patriarchal narratives disguised by capitalist feminism has always led to the bitter defeat of the women in Game of Thrones.
It expresses an ironic reality that we live in. An aspect that woman empowerment highlights upon. But after all, it's just a show. – Zoran6 years ago
I really like this topic. Keep in mind one could go back to the very first episode of season one to get a sense of the misogyny and brutal treatment of women as predictors for the series' final portrayal and fate of female characters. In this sense, the show has always seemed to me to retain a very 1970s feel in its use and abuse of women as disposable commodities. – MarkTodd6 years ago
I see a lot of people countering this argument with evidence like "Sansa became queen of the North as an independent country, and Arya got to go explore a new world all on her own, so the women weren't treated that badly" but I have to agree with this topic. If you take every woman in the cast and summarize their story arc, they were not treated fairly or with respect as individuals with potential to make great stories. – MissAila6 years ago
I am part of that 1% that has never seen or been interested in GoT. At first it was because I thought it was all explicit scenes and that was the premise of the entire movie because that first season oomf, very hard to even get passed the first episode. Not my type of genre. Then I realized that the plot line is actually interesting. Instead of watching, I looked through recaps and understood what the story was through that. Not the words of a fanatic, but even I was disappointed by how they painted the characters. If we focus on the women specifically, we were given poor character development (rushed for Daenerys) she was made to be the villain so quickly. Sansa and Arya deserved so much more. Arya defeated the night kind for crying out loud and all we get for her closure is that she goes exploring. – njavaid6 years ago
Good idea for a piece, but keep in mind that some of the show's characters, Arya in particular, escape or carve a place for themselves outside the patriarchal power structure. She is the ultimate special forces operative--solo, brains over brawn, the only one in the battle against the White Walkers to learn (via the famous scene in the library) to learn about her adversary in order to penetrate their ranks--how else could she have maneuvered into a position to kill him? Unfortunately, the only logical conclusion was her own self-expulsion--she literally did not fit in any Westeros order and needs to find/explore her own brave new world. – barbarafalk6 years ago
At the end of the final season, Tyrion's motivation for choosing Bran as the new king begins with this line: "There's nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it. " And this line summarizes how the writers have failed the women of Game of Thrones--particularly Daenarys, who by all rights should have been Queen. When you think back to the earlier seasons (and when you read the books) you get a clear sense of the larger story from the perspective of many different characters. In fact the novels are organized around events told from the varying perspectives of the major characters. We can see the world through the minds of Cersei, the Starks, Tyrion, Daenerys, and others. But, when you compare this narrative strategy to the final season, it's clear that the narrative loses this quality and predominantly focuses in on a few narrative perspectives: Jon's, Tyrion's, and Jaimie's. For this reason, we don't really know why Daenerys chooses to burn King's Landing to the ground because we are never privy to her perspective. We are only told that she is "mad" and are forced to accept it. And when the characters reflect on Daenerys's past actions, her reasoning for her actions aren't included, her perspective is erased. And in that sense, Daenerys's story is stolen from her--rewritten by those who would rather see Jon on the throne because he is thought to be the "rightful heir." Thus, the power of story, indeed! On a final note: George R. R. Martin makes it pretty clear in Fire and Blood that the rightful Targaryen ruler is always the one with dragons. – bsumpn6 years ago
Both the comic and TV series "The Umbrella Academy" include the a robotic AI that looks and acts like the mother of the Umbrella Academy children and a hyper-intelligent chimpanzee that acts like a mentor/sidekick/Alfred character for the children. The comic series minimizes the role of Mother, however, while it maximizes the role of intelligent chimpanzees. We see chimpanzees all over the Umbrella Academy comic world taking on every role that humans normally do.
Why the difference between the two, and why do either of them include these figures in the first place? Why do the children have a robotic mother and a chimpanzee butler? How did these characters come about in the logic of the comic/series and why? What does the elimination of their backstories mean for the TV show/comic series?
There is a common belief that when time travel is used in a television show, it’s because the writers wrote themselves into a corner and can’t find a way out, so they introduce time travel, a tricky element to handle. Some use it as a panic button and expect their audience to just go along, while some do give it some thought. Analyze some examples in popular culture and discuss whether or not there is a good way to handle time travel. Possible examples include Rick and Morty, The Flash, and other science fiction and fantasy works.
This is a great topic which I would love to see written in depth! This is a thing that is always bugging me in movies, for example the use of time travel in the Avengers: Endgame, which had a lot of unanswered points and hardly believable moments and slippages. Another great example would be Looper where the story is, in my opinion, extremely powerful.
– Kaya6 years ago
This is certainly an interesting topic but it will need to be kept in mind the different kinds of time travel portrayed in media. So shows and movies have strict rules on the subject, like the Flash where time is described as fragile, as opposed to Bill and Ted in which a time machine is used with no apparent consequences. Still an article I want to see written. – Unquotable6 years ago
It would also be great to see where it's done well. Like Safety Not Guaranteed and Back to the future, where the narrative is constructed with time travel in mind, as opposed to the plot device to get out of a jiffy. – Lousands6 years ago
I think it is important to look at the physics involved; ideally, fictional time travel (and travel through space as well) will not violate rules of physics (and my understanding is that some time travel is thought to be possible, at least in theory). – AlanLibert6 years ago
I think its interesting how in Endgame, the film discredits multiple other films usage of time travel being incorrect or violating some law of physics. But I think another time travel film that can be added to the list is one that was mentioned fondly of in Endgame: Hot Tub Time Machine. While it plays off as being a college teen-style comedy film, the original point of the film is for everyone who goes back in time to repeat everything that they had done the exact way that it had happened, which of course fall apart half-way through the film but at the same time, when they arrive back they discover that the changes they made helped resolve their previous struggles at the beginning of the film. – Kevin Mohammed6 years ago
Game of Thrones demonstrated that shows can be bigger than the movies being watched in the theater. With the ending of Games of Thrones, it seems like networks are investing more and more resources into big event shows. Netflix has The Last Airbender and The Witcher in active development, Amazon is working on Lord of the Rings show, and Disney has its Star Wars and Marvel shows that promise to have the production value of the films. With Game of Thrones' massive success, are big budget blockbuster shows becoming the norm?
This is a very interesting topic! I hope you would also discuss the consequences if these kind of shows became the norm--what might the repercussions be for small budget shows, fantasy lovers, or cable tv networks? What might be the pros/cons of this becoming the norm? I'm super stoked to read this. – Eden6 years ago
On Last Week Tonight on May 4, John Oliver commented that HBO is f****d after Game of Thrones finishes. He may be overstating it, but he brings up a good point: the landscape of TV is still changing. It had to change when streaming came into the picture, but now it's changing with the arrival of bigger and bigger quality TV. The Sopranos was a different kind of show. Then The Wire. Then Breaking Bad. Mad Men. And now Game of Thrones didn't just up the ante; instead, it went all in. Supposedly, the latest season cost $15 million per episode. If that's the going rate, a 10-episode season of a television show will cost $150 million. Can streaming services keep up with such costs? Does their business model even allow for such costs? I know Netflix is worth around $20 billion, but $150 million for a TV show season is the cost of a blockbuster movie that can expect to make way more than that through theatrical releases, etc. Can Netflix really see an uptick directly linked to such an expensive production that makes the $150 million outlay worth it? These streaming services are going to have to make a lot of changes in their models, methinks. – ChadW6 years ago
This is a very interesting topic! I hope you would also discuss the consequences if these kind of shows became the norm--what might the repercussions be for small budget shows, fantasy lovers, or cable tv networks? What might be the pros/cons of this becoming the norm? I'm super stoked to read this. – Eden 2 weeks ago – cwlsmelbourne6 years ago
Streaming services are changing the way we view media. There are currently several key streaming services (Netflix, Hulu,) and some currently planning services/recently launched services (D.C., Disney). What are the benefits and downsides of streaming services, when compared with traditional cable or broadcast television? Compare the benefits and downsides of both styles of media consumption and creation.
One of the most interesting topics relating streaming services, particularly services like Netflix and Spotify, is that these companies are pre-revenue. Just last year, Netflix spent almost 10 billion dollars on content, which is even $2 billion more than they originally intended to spend. Spotify is the same way. They’re spending large amounts of money to gain access to more music, while also trying to grow their subscriber base. Neither of these companies are making money. They are playing the long game. They know in 10 years they’ll have so much content that they won’t have to spend billions of dollars each year—they will already have a ridiculous amount of entertainment to offer new subscribers. I think this is a great strategy, and it definitely benefits the consumer. We are lucky enough to live in a golden age of TV, where high quality programs are being released left and right. Netflix and Spotify are the pioneers of the streaming industry, And I can’t wait to see what each company has in store in the future – shanethewriter6 years ago
One of the benefits of streaming services is most definitely the convenience. There's nothing like the feeling of booting up the Netflix app and watching a movie/show you are invested in from the comfort of wherever you are. There's also the exclusive content that can't be seen anywhere else because other networks didn't want to invest in it. The biggest downside is that nothing lasts forever on a streaming service, not even the exclusive shows produced in house. Netflix's most viewed shows are licensed shows like Friends and The Office, but Warner Bros owns Friends and NBC owns The Office, two networks that have their own streaming services in the works and are currently trying to take those shows off Netflix. Netflix exclusive shows like Sense8 or One Day at a Time, the type of shows that aren't offered anywhere else get canceled because of the lack of viewership. Marvel shows that were Netflix exclusives like Daredevil get canceled because of the emergence of Disney+. There's also the fact that there are a lot of streaming services in the works where it'll get to the point of being just another of cable television – cbo10946 years ago
One of the benefits of streaming services is easy accessibility. Traditional cable and broadcast television could only be accessed in the one place. At home, in the lounge or the bedroom, or wherever the TV was. Streaming services can be accessed only more than one device, including more than one portable device. Should you have a lengthy break between meetings/classes but not too lengthy that you can leave the building? Whack on the next episode of the show you're binging. The biggest downside to streaming services and in particular to that easily accessible aspect is the addiction that comes along to it. There is virtually no effort in starting a new TV show or movie and that can sometimes distract some from the real work they need to do. – olivialocascio6 years ago
I think that although the convenience of streaming sites is a benefit, it can also be a disadvantage. With so much convenience humans become lazy. Instead of having the fact that there is nothing interesting on TV at a particular time to encourage us to go do something active, we always have an excuse to sit and just watch a screen. – HannahTurner6 years ago
Streaming services, even ones like Amazon Prime Video who still use advertisements, are the next step in the evolution of the television medium. It allows for more personalization of the viewing experience: namely, letting the viewers choose what they watch instead of programming it for them. More importantly, it allows for more controversial, hard-hitting content which the old corporate controlled system prevented. I just wrote a paper on Rod Serling’s legacy in television and censorship. I agree with him that artists shouldn’t be dictated by corporations. They are two different worlds. – KennethMay6 years ago
A downfall of streaming is definitely the issues of acquiring content. The best example I can I think of is Spotify’s spotty content; unfortunately you can’t get every single album or single on Spotify, especially movie albums. This promotes users to spend money on another subscription to somewhere like Apple Music or going out and purchasing the album or single physically or digitally; in some cases purchasing isn’t an option either, creating a rift for the streamer. – roraruu6 years ago
here's a helpful podcast by freakonomics about this for whoever takes this on: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/spotify/ – emaglio6 years ago
