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. – Dimitri6 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. – RebaZatz6 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? – SarahPearce6 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. – Dimitri6 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? – Zohal996 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. – Dimitri6 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 – LX4Tumbla6 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. – KiaraB6 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
As an avid watcher of cartoons and anime one thing I have noticed it that in the west if a movie or a tv show is animated it has to be driven by humour. Regardless if it's a cartoon directed to an older audience like Bojack Horseman, Archer or something like Bobs Burger these shows have to be laugh out loud funny. While as with Anime, it's easy to find series where humour is barely present yet that is directed to an adult audience like Death Note, Erase, Spychopass and many more. It's as if the west think that for something to be seen as serious it has to be live action, which would explain why someone would go out of their way to make a live action remake of Your Name, which is completely useless since is animated form is already perfection. Japan and anime has already proven that animated material doesn't need to have humour to be successful, why do you think the west is set on always linking cartoons with humour? Is it because of the word "cartoon" itself or is it because the medium will never be as respected as something live action, and why is that. Can an image or a voice actor not convey the same kind of emotions than a traditional actor? Will we ever see a mainstream tv show or movie that is animated that isn't a comedy but that gets the same kind of respect than a live action movie. Or do you think some animes are able to avoid the comedy title because of the different types of animes that exist (shonen, seinen, shojo, josei and kdomomuke). Should the west possibly follow these different types of categories in order to have more variety in the cartoon world?
You have an interesting topic suggestion here, but I would suggest more research is done into western animated storytelling, so as to avoid the generalisation that it is driven by humour. There are some very fine examples of non-humorous animated tales that could be considered, such as: Fantastic Planet (1973), Watership Down (1978), When the Wind Blows (1986), Flatland (2007), The Illusionist (2010), April et Le Monde Extraordinaire (2015), Ethel and Ernest (2016)...the list is practically endless. – Amyus6 years ago
I guess I should have added more of an emphasis on mainstream cartoons targetted to adults. Never meant to make the claim that everything produced by the west in driven by humour, like I said I love anime and cartoons so I watch a lot of a variety of things and I know we have some serious animated movies on our end too, but mostly the popular cartoons that are known about by the general public are almost always comedies which isn't always the case in Japan. – tmtonji6 years ago
I get what you're saying. Mainstream cartoons in western society are almost always humour based. I think a large part of that is because of Disney and Nickelodeon's corner on the market. I really do think it's how we've been fed cartoons culturally. In western society, cartoons and animation have been marketed to us almost exclusively as either for children or for light-hearted humour and nothing more. In regards to Japan and anime, it seems that it is more respected as an art form and seems to focus on the characters and their development as opposed to the typically plot driven western productions. Seeing how anime so popular, I think if the west followed in the footsteps of Japan in taking part in more serious animation, they would find a large market for it here. – Melissa6 years ago
We've been hearing a lot of the end of the angry male protagonist in modern-day television. Breaking Bad and Mad Men are over, plus other TV shows with those similar main character tropes. What does this say about masculinity? Are we seeing more diverse male characters? Does this allow for better representation of what a man is?
Reading your post, I've literally just clocked how Breaking Bad is a representation of toxic masculinity, and how a man can be made to feel emasculated through a failure to provide for his family, both in terms of security and monetarily. – mooreben926 years ago
Great topic-I really hope that the representation of masculinity branches out more. I think more 'complex' representation outside of angry and/or cocky white man trope (Harvey Specter in Suits, etc) needs to be incorporated into mainstream media, and especially in more popular shows.
I think it would allow for better representation of masculinity/men. I think an analysis on an older show featuring the trope you described above in comparison to a newer show with a different kind of male character would be a great topic to write on as well. – jmclaren6 years ago
Even in Breaking Bad, Walter White had two sides. One that was frightened (long before his cancer diagnosis), afraid of success and resentful of others accomplishments. We all know what the other side became: ruthless, yet with a habit of picking on those weaker than him, selfish and greedy. The show's character of Jesse Pinkman gave us a young man who had many flaws, mainly addiction and confusion, but who had extreme compassion, especially for kids, and tolerance of others. He only became a criminal because Walter manipulated him and he was too trusting and weak. This is the kind of guy I think we are seeing now. In Mr. Robot, Elliot Alderson, a practical orphan, takes out his rage at society and the death of his father by hacking people, snorting morphine and eventually bringing down a huge corporation. He tries (fairly successfully) to justify his actions due to the horrors of Capitalism and what his sister Darlene blithely calls "The Oligarchy". Yet even after a (more or less) successful revolution, he still doubts himself, still uses and spends most of his time fighting with his deceased father, who exists as his "dark half". The modern man is often just as broken by society as someone like Ray Milland in "The Lost Weekend" or the couple in "Days of Wine and Roses". The 1950's consumerism traps them and even the fight to escape or destroy it causes more destruction and pain. – SharonGenet6 years ago
Oh, please please write this. And definitely bring up male characters that make a break with toxic masculinity, like Terry from Brooklyn 99. It's interesting that the male characters that tend to play with expectations of masculinity and tropes of male/female gender roles are often featured in sitcoms rather than action or dramatic movies/tv. – Eden6 years ago
For every The Office, Friends, and Scrubs, you will find a Cavemen, Dads, or Clerks (not the movie, the TV spinoff). This is not to be divisive to those who who enjoyed the latter shows. These shows were rejected by both audiences and critics. Community was loved by critics but ignored my most audiences. The Big Bang Theory has had a strong audience for years but is critically reviled. How do you find the sweet spot that is technically good, and fan-pleasing enough to keep you from getting cancelled?
I actually like this question, as time and again there have been shows that have absolutely come from left field and startled the expectations of audiences, studios and critics, and equally as noted, ones believed for success that have boomed. I think a key component is in the ability to find a niche in the market that audiences were unthinkingly yearning for. But part of the alchemy is in the casting of particular actors in a role that either they resonate with or excel in the expression of. This would be a really interesting discussion, because it is a question without a single answer (as truly if there was an easy answer someone would be making millions off it). – SaraiMW6 years ago
Nice question - it does raise some interesting questions about the nature of what "successful" means, especially in sitcom terms; Friends (US) may have done well but it'll never dream of being anywhere near Peep Show (UK) or The Mighty Boosh (UK). They are stark in contrast, delivery but also in pathos and tone. I agree wholeheartedly that there are many angles and answers to this question which means it can only ever come back motives of the writers, how much they can be knowingly or unknowingly undermined and consequently, what's left of their motives after the industry process. That's perhaps where Friends meets The Mighty Boosh, they did what they wanted to do at the time and then backed themselves - which means, most importantly, that they wouldn't mind failing. If you're in it for the money, chances are it won't work anywhere near a s well and if you're invested in it. – MichaelHall6 years ago
