Along with medics and police officers, lawyers are the most portrayed professionals in movies and TV shows. This portrayal, most of the time, is not very favorable because society at large sees lawyers as deceiving and cold-hearted. Professor Michael Asimov, who dedicated a great deal of research to the representation of lawyers in film, contends that lawyers in solo practice are usually depicted as more upright or honest than law firms, which are definitely seen as an “embodiment of evil.” After the final season of “Better Call Saul,” this affirmation is more likely to be demonstrated. As a solo practitioner lawyer, Jimmy McGill daily confronts the obstacles that his brother and his gigantic law firm put up for him. Kim Wexler also realizes that law firms are usually at the service of huge corporations and powerful people who systematically oppress and crush the poor and marginalized, so she decides to do solo practice. An analysis of this TV show’s takes on lawyers and law firms could definitely be something interesting, especially if it stays away from the habitual subjects that people associate with this show (drugs, cartels and crime).
Within the last two years we have received two horror video game inspired TV adaptations, one that was a smash hit, and one that flew under the radar. Neither of these shows stuck 100% to the source material so what made The Last of Us succeed and Resident Evil fail?
I don't think this is the place for an opinion piece, but you could still approach the topic from the perspective of the overall necessity of adaptations or the art of adaptation. Something more objective but focused. I hope that helps. – Leo Panasyuk9 months ago
Analyze the accuracy of TV and movies that are about policing. A lot of these shows/movies display place work as light-hearted and fun. Some examples are Brooklyn 99 and ride along. Even though both are clearly comedies, impressionable viewers might think differently about policing.
Certainly there are comedies that portray the police as a “light-hearted and fun” profession. But there are also dramas and thrillers that portray it as brutal and corrupt. Depending on the genre, a movie may portray a profession under different lights. The question is: Is accuracy the goal of a movie that portrays a profession or is it the telling of a story under certain genre principles? I think that handling viewer perception is a different issue that falls under an “education” problem that is out of the hands of movie producers or directors. Or it could be a discussion about artistic responsibilities and their impact in society. – T. Palomino1 year ago
They certainly do. Different perspectives are pushed out, and you go through those perspectives while watching the film. Therefore, even unrealistic circumstances which happen in the movie can be interpreted as very real or vise versa. – AchuB11 months ago
I divide police TV series into two categories. Shows that use the police universe as a source of occupation/physical setting to tell a story about a specific character or multiple characters (I.e Blue Bloods) they do touch on what it is like to be in Law enforcement but are not an accurate or real representation of the work that Police Officers undertake. Then I see the premium police (dramas) series like NYPD Blue, Homicide on the Street, Prime Suspect (UK) and the like to be a real insight into the work, the police force/department as an organisation and the nuance of everyday police work. – NatalieB11 months ago
I like this topic, but I think you could go deeper. Certainly these shows could make viewers feel that policing is a more lighthearted and fun profession than it actually is, and that deserves analysis. But at the same time...what should police comedies, and darker/edgier police procedurals, do in response to this, if anything? How can, or should, shows like Brooklyn 99 balance comedy and reality? Considering how police are viewed right now, and what officers and their families go through, what should police shows in any genre look like (should they go for comic relief, or stick closer to reality)? Consider these and any other questions you might come up with. – Stephanie M.11 months ago
I like this topic very much and think you are on to a great idea here but expanding on the concept would be much more helpful. referencing more shows and particular parts would go a long way – Josephrogers1311 months ago
I definitely see where this is coming from and I think in today's socio-political climate it's necessary to produce shows that portray police and other such authority figures in a more critical light. Not something that's realistic (more or less) like The Wire or something more stylized like True Detective, but something that can force a conversation about what modern policing has become (militarization, over-policing communities of colour in response to non-violent protests, etc.) – LeoPanasyuk9 months ago
Half of Americans say they enjoy true crime and women are more likely than men to really dive in. Lately, it’s as of every other show on all streaming platforms is another deep dive into a true crime murder mystery. True crime series have become a staple in entertainment but why? What is our obsession with death and the events that surround it? Do we truly believe this could help solve cold cases or is there something much more primal laying beneath the surface?
Examine the first season of HBO’s House of the Dragon, comparatively with the first few seasons of Game of Thrones. Something that is dearly missed is the sense of humor and witty dialogue. There is no Tyrion-adjacent character, not nearly enough dialogue and japes and sardonic moments, or Bronn-esk side characters. By no means did the humor lessen the impact, popularity, and fairly book-accurate depictions of the Game of Thrones TV series (not including the final seasons). Why is House of the Dragon choosing to be so grim? is it taking itself too seriously? will this effect its success? I’d love Fire & Blood readers to potentially lean in on this topic as well. It’s a very different style than the main SOIAF series, so does it warrant the TV adaption being so serious?
Douglas Adams’ foray into detective fiction, with his iconic twist of science fiction and extremely British absurdist comedy, was a novel called Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency and its sequel, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. These books have been adapted into two TV shows, one on BBC4 and one on BBC America. The books and TV shows are all quite different from each other; even the character of Dirk Gently changes a bit between adaptations. Compare and contrast the book(s) with the TV shows. Why did the shows change so much? Is there something "unadaptable" about Adams’ original work?
When consuming television media, do you find yourself gravitating more towards the hero or the villain? To whom do you more relate and why? What are your criteria for determining who you’re rooting for? This is an extremely subjective question, but often stories are not presented in nuanced ways that fully do justice to all the sides.
A good example is the "Karate Kid" franchise. The first three movies are set up to tell a one sided story following Danny, and until recently, that story has gone unquestioned. With the inception of Cobra Kai" lends more dimensionality to the narrative; it shows how the rivalry between Danny and Johnny still exists, but has changed, and allows for a more nuanced understanding of the story as a whole.
I suppose what I’m asking is how do you determine whether the hero is actually "good" and the villain actually "bad"? Do you hold heroes and villains to the same standards? How, and why?
this topic may benefit from being opened up to matters of broader philosophical stances. like who are the bad guys in Star Wars, the Light side or Dark side wielders? Jedi or Sith? Can Dark siders be good guys? Jedi can certainly be bad guys (dark Jedi), as has been seen in legends.
Another potential would be analysis from the intuitive background info, and putting one's self in the "villains" shoes. For example, was Sharpei a true villain in High School Musical? her attitude was bad and mean spirited, objectively, but she had the right to be angry, self-conscious and confused that her adeptness she trained her whole life for (theater performance) was suddenly under harsh question. A true "hero" would step up to the challenge graciously, but would a true human? probably not. – adhyuki10 months ago
I think this is a really good topic and one that I've been thinking a lot about myself. I think it's really important to look at the character's past as well as their environment, as that would help us understand what makes one a hero and the other a villain. I think it would be useful to look at this topic through a more psychological perspective in order to put yourself in a character's shoes and analyze their past. – dashatsymbalyuk9 months ago