Critique season 8 and explain why it wasn't as well-recepted as the earlier seasons. One could brush over the legal issues/numerous writer and producer changes in the last few years. Provide a conclusive analysis of where the show is struggling and needs to improve. Perhaps offer a solution/prediction for season 9.
I used to be an avid watcher of The Walking Dead, but have grown increasingly frustrated with the show. To me, the show started losing traction after the Governor was killed off. The first few seasons and what the characters struggled with felt more human and somehow relatable, but this has been lost with the show trying to find new plots. It all feels very cyclical- a new threat arises, the group struggles, a beloved character is killed off, they have to figure out how to grapple with this, and eventually they prevail. The only real action occurs in the season premiere, midseason finale, the episode immediately following, and the finale. Each individual episode needs to entice the viewer to want to keep watching, or else people (like myself) will become more and more bored and careless with the show and its characters. – jordanlprochnow7 years ago
The battle with the Saviors dragged on too long: That should have been reduced to less episodes. At times there is too much character reflection (interpersonal growth or thought)--this is a zombie show. At the beginning it was tolerable but that needed to change. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
Much has been written about the death of news both local and global prompted by the shockingly sudden shutdown of local news websites. The popularity of print media is also in question nowadays contributing to this debate. Is the news still relevant? With Social Media playing a great impact in how news is now perceived and with influencers dictating public opinion is there still any value in having the news reported to the public through a lens. Think of betoota advocate who many follow on instagram, or channel 10s the project, we are still getting relevant news but in a much more entertaining way and apparent to societies wants & needs. How do you want to keep up with the news? You decide.
Use of the word "news" sometimes gives the impression of short and superficial. In other words leave the well-developed, policy implications, complexity to professional journals and lengthy articles. Maybe that is part of the problem. It's not unusually on a TV news show for a segment to be labeled something such as "in depth" and it never is. I suspect too much of an audience receiving "news" is getting the short and under-developed, it would be better to start with an assumption that lots of little stories, even if they fit some understanding of what is "news" are not helpful--several focused pieces might give an audience better insight into issues. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
I think a topic like this should also look into how major 'news' corporations are adapting from print media to the digital realm. Many have apps (such at the Economists 'Espresso') while others have gone to podcast formats (like Serial) or multi-media masterpieces (Snowfall by the New York Times). Beyond social media's influence, I'd also suggest looking at how our society has begun to lose its attention span and simply doesn't have the patience to read lengthy news articles and prefers quick tweets. – Pamela Maria6 years ago
I know for myself, I watch maybe two or three shows on cable. The majority of content I watch is either on Netflix or YouTube. With everyone gathering their own streaming services now (Disney working on its own, CBS All Access, YouTube Red etc), it is not hard to see that this is where the future is heading. My film professor once told me that soon, cable will be phased out and replaced with each individual television network having its own subscription service, which would essentially be more expensive than cable. How can that be combated when subscription based streaming is super popular? It is an interesting debate to have.
I would also widen this to the discussion of pirating and pirate streaming sites to comment on the international cost to American studios also. It is an interesting discussion to have especially when drawing in more unusual streaming services such as Amazon and Twitch. – SaraiMW7 years ago
Seinfeld ended oddly, it was difficult to feel as though the main characters were likable, Medium ended with a feeling of completion, and The Sopranos ended with a feeling of ambiguity (essentially choose what happened). Is there a good ending? Can they be done differently?
There needs to be a clear basis to how you judge a "good" ending. The sources you choose will need to include audience and critic feedback, as well as research to understand how networks vs streaming cancel their shows. This could be a really interesting read if it takes the time to analyze the above concepts. – Nicholas Bennett6 years ago
I think it will be helpful to consider what alternate endings some of these shows could have had. If they had had another ending would they have been more coherent or consistent as series? Some of these criteria might make sense. Did the shows subvert not just expectations but consistency as well. How much were the showrunners aware of their ending before the show was well underway? – Zander Jones6 years ago
It might also be useful to discuss how important (or not) an ending really is. Does a fantastic series become instantly ruined with an unsatisfying ending? Should the ending pander to the audience or serve the story and characters faithfully? It would also be interesting to consider the opposite argument. Can a slam-dunk ending make-up for a sub-par series? It would be important to analyze the type of series and what the end game is for a sit-com versus a thriller like "Lost" or "Breaking Bad." – zbalog6 years ago
Make sure to explain criteria for what is good, bad, etc.. but really interesting topic! – Sean Gadus6 years ago
As a rule, I don't see Woody Allen movies. That's fine because I was never a Woody Allen fan to begin with, but removing all problematic people and their creations from my media consumption is difficult, particularly when it is old media no longer on the air. Do I stop watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer because Joss Whedon gaslight his wife and is not the feminist he proclaims he is? Can I no longer enjoy That '70s Show reruns because Danny Materson allegedly raped five women? I stand with these women, but I also deeply love the media of their accusers. What lines do we have to draw now? What media can we still enjoy even with problematic people involved? How do we enjoy it while acknowledging what these people did?
this is really interesting -- especially since our society has become more sensitive towards social issues and calling out problematic behaviour. – Pamela Maria6 years ago
For me personally I have chosen to draw the line at money. I will continue to watch or read or play whatever media as long as it doesn't put money in the pockets of the abusers. If I have already bought a book I feel comfortable rereading it, but I will not buy more books by that author. I will watch reruns on TV, because my watching them has no bearing on how much money an actor gets. The works haven't changed, but it would weigh on my conscience if I continued to put money in the pocket of people who have done such wrongs. – kungtotte6 years ago
This is such a relevant topic which defiantly needs more traction! I have thought about it before but I guess it is also the viewers own opinion on how they decide to consume the media and in what capacity etc. I love Buffy and That 70's Show but knowing these facts it puts a halt on their new projects for me and personally I have to consider if I really want to see their new ideas etc. – ambermakx6 years ago
There’s no disputing that Daenerys Targaryen, Sansa and Arya Stark, and Cersei Lannister are all forces to be reckoned with. They’re women with power and they know how to wield it. However, despite their political successes, personally and emotionally, the women of Westeros lead very oppressed lives.
I feel like it may be an intentional reflection of the modern world and how much women do suffer, even in the most privileged/powerful positions. Like, no matter what, being a woman is inherently harder than being a man. That said, considering we're in a fantasy world, it would be nice to have women lead lives that aren't bound by real-world sexism. – Dimitri7 years ago
I agree somewhat, but in order for a narrative to be compelling, a protagonist needs to have an obstacle to achieving their goal. Sexism can certainly be an obstacle, but it doesn't also have to be the go-to for writers either. – RebaZatz7 years ago
I've had some quite conflicted feelings about GoT on this front. I still love the show and kept watching, but Sansa's experience upon marrying Ramsay was a particular example of this. I understand the desire to depict real-world sexism, and perhaps the writers were motivated by a genuine desire to do this, but it felt problematically voyeuristic (even pornographic). We've been making art for hundreds of years about women's suffering - isn't it time for a change? – SarahPearce7 years ago
Fantasy is the perfect place to tell these new stories and motion for change. It's a shame more stories don't take advantage of it. – Dimitri7 years ago
I really think this topic could be expanded to include women in fantasy overall. I recently listened to a talk by fantasy author Victoria Schwab, who discussed how fantasy does not necessarily need to follow the power dynamics that already exist in our world - for example, sexism or elements of patriarchal traditions - but that fantasy can flip the power dynamics as well. We could use the women in Game of Thrones as a starting point for a broader discussion of power dynamics in fantasy? – Zohal997 years ago
It has a simple answer. Martin depicts the medieval world as it was - knights aren't clad in shinging armor and they are'nt prince charming. No, they murdered and were murdered. And most women in this time period were oppressed. – RyderVii6 years ago
Beneath every strong woman lies a broken little girl who had to learn how to get back up and never depend on anyone.
– matadorbuildings6 years ago
In TV shows like The Vampire Diaries, The Originals, True Blood, Teen Wolf, Supernatural, Being Human and Grimm, supernatural creatures are presented as gruesome murderers but they are still seen as attractive and desirable to a primarily teenage audience. Where did this phenomenon originate? Who started it? Why is this true? Is there a gender bias in that these creatures are seen as more attractive to a female audience more than male? Is it only vampires, werewolves, angels and witches that are seen as sexy or is it other creatures too?
Who started it? I think we can all safely say Joss Whedon with the saucy romance between Buffy and Angel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This allegory for danger and teenage rebellion by being attracted to a "bad boy" is definitely a trend that resonated with audiences. – Dimitri7 years ago
I feel that this trend definitely goes back quite a few decades. The vampire soap opera, Dark Shadows was one that certainly found a footing with teenage audiences of the 60's and 70's – LX4Tumbla7 years ago
I would say that the love for the supernatural could date as far back as the Vampire age of literature and story telling such as Dracula or Frankenstein who's books were later made into movies. There's something about the unknown or the impossible that lures teens and those alike into the genre - the fantastical ideas of the paranormal and abnormal appeal to teens who don't feel normal themselves. – KiaraB7 years ago
From a film history perspective, I think one could connect this to the advent of "teenagehood" that came in the late 50s and how crucial B-list films were in the teen lifestyle. Horror films were quite popular at drive-ins, and as horror has always played upon society's paranoia within the time period, the fear of human difference could have played a role. Looking at something like Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the films to influence that could be good for this analysis, too. – Nicholas Bennett6 years ago
I think people with supernatural powers are in disguise and want them to be human like as possible but that is not the case. Making these characters so called attractive will make the audience love then more or hate them but also love them still. I think that is what producers want the audience to feel. They want sympathy for the characters not hate. – 2klonewolf6 years ago
Since before "The X-Files," was cancelled, there has been a steady rise and vested interest in TV programming focused on the supernatural and unknown. From the CW's popular line up that included "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Charmed," and the Buffy spin-off "Angel," to more recent shows like SyFy's "Being Human" and AMC's "The Walking Dead" and "Preacher," television has been pulling away from more common sci-fi programming that once focused and explored future and other realms. Why is there more attracting to exploring the unreal in the real world?
I think this is a really interesting topic to explore. One angle to delve into may be that people portray extreme shades of ourselves with supernatural beings, and we've moved more and more into this area because the mystique is not only enrapturing, but it's also a way to reflect upon human nature by exploring these characters and worlds. – gabyelan8 years ago
Were I to write this piece, I think it would be useful to delineate different sub-categories within the genre (such as those more fantastic and those more rooted in reality), and discuss how the treatment of the supernatural differs across those categories. – Allie Dawson8 years ago
