TV

With the second season of The Handmaid's Tale expanding on where the book finished, the ante is continually upped in terms of violence and horror. To keep the tension building, the torture and suffering the women in The Handmaid's Tale keeps getting worse and worse. Is this feminist tv show crossing the line with how much suffering is shown?

I'm not sure about others, but I was pleasantly surprised by the new TV series, based on the comic series, 'Runaways'. What I enjoyed was that the show made a strong nod to the comics, including a few throwaway lines and in-jokes, maintained aspects of the narrative that were iconic and important, but ultimately told a new story.

There has been much discussion on this site, and online in general, concerning the act of adapting from comics. I think 'Runaways' would be a good one to critic. Now although I enjoyed this immensely, there are also problematic issues in the alteration of the narrative, which deviates hugely from the original. In a similar way that 'Riverdale' reinvented itself for TV, 'Runaways' presents not quite a reinvention, but a reimagination.

Is this the way to compromise for comic adaptions?

Shows like 13 Reasons Why and Girl, Interrupted romanticize mental illness and the experience of depressed individual. Gender often plays into these narratives, and the specific roles that are romanticized-the depressed, their hero/protector, and the idolization of their struggle.

Since 13 Reasons Why Season 2 was released on Netflix a few days ago, there has been many conflicting opinions on the show. Some say it is informative and applaud it for raising awareness in ways no other show dares to do while many find the show extremely offensive, saying it glorifies and misrepresents mental illness as well as showing graphic scenes concerning matters such a suicide and rape that can be incredibly triggering for those suffering. What are your thoughts?

While Big Brother, Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or any Survival island anywhere, have human interactive elements of created drama, these shows can carry a feeling of detachment on the part of the audience: It might be possible to have some vicarious pleasure in watching these shows, but they can still be seen as shows where the viewers do not have the possibility of participation. The various reality shows on HGTV (Property Brothers, Fixer Upper, Good Bones, for example) or American Pickers (on the History Channel) create a feeling that the audience can be more closely involved. Imagine hitting the road and seeing a site that looks like an odd junkyard, knocking on the door, and asking to rummage through someone's property or warehouses? Imagine inviting The Property Brothers or Chip and Joanna Gaines to be involved in picking out a house to buy, having them knock down a wall, remodel a kitchen and turn the place into your dream home? These types of momentary thoughts can seem all too feasible. If you watch HGTV enough or American Pickers, it can be easy to imagine passing a place that looks interesting and wonder if it is possible to be like Mike and Frank. We all hope to buy a house that has potential and have Joanna do her magic and turn it into the white picket fence home of our dreams.
Are all reality shows the same or do some create a greater sense of expectation than others? Do these shows have an impact on the real world of remodeling or buying junk (which might not be junk to everyone)?

Although some programmes these days cleverly use a timeline in history to create a fictional story, which entices viewers to be curious about what the characters' lives would be like in the time period. However, happenings and events from the time period are often altered to suit the plot of the episodes instead of the actual. Is this beneficial to the audience? Or should we be given historical truths to aid us to expand our own knowledge of history?
E.g. Reign

Over the past few years, some of my favourite TV shows (particularly animated ones and those with deep story) have come to an end – by complete choice. Especially animated ones like Regular Show, Gravity Falls, Over the Garden Wall, etc. I've been thinking about this for a while but especially as the approaching end of my absolute favourite animated series, Adventure Time, nears ever closer. Whilst this angers dedicated audiences, many others, just as loving of a show, are happy and in support of studios' choice. This topic has a lot to it and fascinates me. For example; Why do shows end by choice even though their rankings or following is not decreasing at all? How SHOULD a show end? How do producers bring justice to a show before it disappears from our screens? Most of all, I believe audiences who look deeper, like ourselves, as well as the regular every-day audience should understand the multitude of factors that bring a show to an end. There's a multitude of answers and questions regarding this broader topic and I would love to see people's opinions and comments on it!

Discuss and analyze how many tv series adapt a sense of nostalgia. Many hit tv shows present an underlying sense of nostalgia. For instance, Hulu's This is Us intertwines plot events that take place in not only the present but also the past. In Netflix's Stranger Things, the series takes place in the 1980s. Aside from these examples, there have also been many older shows that have gotten modern day spinoffs: Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World, Full House and Fuller House, and That's So Raven and Raven's House. How does nostalgia function in tv and what does it say about our society?