Addressing the success and failings of the FX series "Legion" regarding its representation of mental illness. While it is an exceptional psychological thrill ride, is its representation of mental illness accurate and respectful?
I think this sounds like an excellent topic! As designers and creators of media such as TV shows and comics, we have the power to help influence society at large. This means that creators have a responsibility to portray topics like mental illness in a way that is respectful and accurate, helping society to begin to develop an understanding of how life is experienced by those experiencing these conditions. – susannah6 years ago
One of my biggest issues with "Legion" is that, in the comics, David genuinely has schizophrenia, and his powers are just an extension of that. In the show, it's just, "No, he doesn't have a mental illness. He's just a mutant." – JaredTaylor946 years ago
In Season 2, we get to hear some of the voices in David's head. They sound like David, they argue with each other, and they convince him of things. He's still clearly unhinged, in addition to his mind-reading powers. But it's also clear that after fighting the Shadow King, he isn't that debilitated by mental illness, so far anyway. – noahspud6 years ago
Altered Carbon is an American dystopian science fiction television series created by Laeta Kalogridis and based on the 2002 novel of the same title by English author Richard K. Morgan.
The premise of the show centers on a society that has been transformed by the invent of a new technology that allows for the transfer of the mind into a clone or another persons body. This has effectively created a wealthy class of near-immortals. A warrior, Takeshi Kovacs, who fought against this very intention is brought back to solve the "murder" of Laurens Bancroft by Bancroft himself.
What makes the show so interesting is the inclusion of a number of key philosophical questions about how we define humanity, the role of the body, the value of mortality, and more. All of which would make an interesting discussion.
Perhaps, the writer can add some reference to the film Cloud Atlas, (2010) it has the same premise of one soul, reincarnating into different 'sleeves' - just a thought. – Jacque Venus Tobias6 years ago
Season One of Wynonna Earp was an interesting reversal of traditional gender depictions. Not only is the main character a kick-ass girl who wields an epic gun, she is also a stereotypical gunslinger, which is normally a man. She drinks (a lot), she swears, she is a sexual being, but she also is about family. However, this was not the only interesting diversion, rather it was the depiction and sexualisation of men in the show. The sidekick character of Doc Holliday is just that, a sidekick who does not diminish Wynonna's strength, the main villain Bobo delivers his epic bad-guy monologue shirtless, there are a series of other men-in-skimpy clothing moments throughout. The show is comedic and very tongue-in-cheek of its treatment of the gender roles, but it is also a great example of how very stereotypical most TV shows are when contrasted to this.
An interesting discussion would be to break down Wynonna Earp and compare it to other female lead shows such as Tru Blood, or even to other popular male shows such as Supernatural that deal in the same genre. Otherwise another comparison is to what happened in Season Two where suddenly we are seeing strongly sexualised portrayals of women, but in a largely lesbian manner – is this for the male gaze, or is it actually continuing to subvert gender portrayals?
Jersey Shore was a guilty pleasure to watch by everyone that was old enough to understand the sexual innuendos and see the drama first hand. Now that they are older and that I have seen the first two episodes I can easily see how they have changed and how censored the show already seemed to be. I think this topic would be great to explore once the month-long adventure is done and see if this one can live up to what they have done in the past. What do you think?
It is an interesting topic since everyone has very strong opinions about the show from both sides. Showing the corresponding view points in contrast with the ratings from the show can maybe help give an overall feel for the reboot. If you wanted you could also slightly digress into the debate of reboots vs. the original and how/what Jersey Shore is doing about it – Emily Murphy6 years ago
omg it is ABSOLUTELY worth exploring. I love the Challenge. And anything MTV, honestly. – meggiegates6 years ago
"Roseanne," the show, both the original and the revival, are extremely radical in its handling of topics as lesbianism, crossdressing youth, teenage sexual awareness, women's rights, and political differences in families. Yet because of the star's recent utterances, which often border both on the inane and the insane, viewers and critics see the show through Roseanne-Barr-colored glasses, and are oblivious to actually what is being portrayed, which is often an anti-Trumpite agenda. How hard is it to separate the "art" from the person?
This is a fantastic, and it is often considered when thinking about artists such as Johnny Depp and Woody Allen. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to me, but I think by continuing to talk about this, a conclusion may be come to. – Bribbleisfreeble6 years ago
This is something I think about a lot in terms of artists and their music, which I think is a comparison you could make if you develop this into a full story. Take Kanye for instance, he recently showed his support for Trump on Twitter. Is it possible to listen to his music the same way after knowing his political alignment? If we can separate an artist from their work, does that mean that by enjoying their works we are supporting/validating their opinions? – Ian Anderson6 years ago
The Roseanne reboot doesn't strike me as radical at all. Rather, I think it sends a very safe, conventional message: love your family, even when your family includes mixed-race or cross-dressing children. It does little or nothing to send a more radical message that love should extend beyond the immediate family. The artist and the art are never entirely separate. Since the early 1960s, as a reaction to New Critical claims about the autonomy of the work of art, the separation of artist and art has been relentlessly questioned. We shouldn't dismiss anything simply because of who is involved in the project, but we also shouldn't dismiss the importance of who is involved in the project. In this case of this TV show, we see an obvious collapsing of the actor's name, the fictional character's name, and the show's own title. – JamesBKelley6 years ago
Just hours after posting I learned that Roseanne Barr got her show cancelled with a racist tweet. (Her tweets strike me as worse than simply "inane" or "insane.") The "Roseanne" version of love isn't all that revolutionary: "... it felt like an easy out, suggesting that as long as you’re good to your neighbors individually, it doesn’t matter how you treat people in the aggregate. (Roseanne’s neighbors are from Yemen, which her neighbors note is on the travel-ban list that the president she voted for campaigned on.)" (James Poniewozik, New York Times, May 22, 2018). Your topic is certainly still worthy of discussion, of discussion. I would definitely read an essay on that topic. – JamesBKelley6 years ago
As we have seen in the development of the Marvel Universe, when a single franchise owns a series of titles there are great opportunities for cross-over story telling. This contributes a number of interesting aspects to story telling: it allows for a greater sense of verisimilitude, that the world the story is set in is a real place; it encourages fan involvement in a multitude of stories, which also increases the viewing numbers across multiple shows; and it allows for diversity in story telling. So if it is so successful why do we not see more of this? Why are studios that put forward multiple shows set in a similar universe not including this type of story telling? What are the limitations of doing this?
Most studios do not invest as much into character building and storylines as Marvel. Take DC for example, the time investment either just is not there or they are just not as superb storytellers. – Munjeera6 years ago
Money! Any sort of ideological and/or sentimental lacking rests in corporate interests. And what is corporate most interested in? THE PROFIT MOTIVE. – camerond246 years ago
@camerond24, I actually agree, but this is part of what surprises me. It would actually cost them less to do cross overs and would help cross-promote their other shows, even those with lower viewing would receive a boost. Especially if they employed writers on contracts, which a number of studios do, and use them across multiple shows, this would reduce many costs. Plus advertising could be linked into this. I think it is perhaps considered "too hard" to manage? – SaraiMW6 years ago
Does being part of an acting family detract from individual performance? Or does the family dynamic contribute to the development of the character in ways not otherwise possible? Is the acting a product of the individual drawing from early formative experience or from a constant effort to avoid it and seek a unique path to stardom? Consider the dilemma or the benefit using famous Hollywood families such as Martin Sheen, Drew Barrymore, Kirk Douglas, Henry Fonda, and Julia Roberts.
Breaking away from the Hollywood-centric theme of this suggestion could produce some interesting results, such as: Armendáriz-Marín (Mexican), Asher (British), Banai (Israeli), Depardieu (French), Fox-Richardson-Redgraves (British), Gleeson (Irish), just to name a few.Good topic suggestion anyway. – Amyus6 years ago
In the past, a baker's son would become a baker, and a candlestick maker's offspring would be stuck with waxing the wick. The same with actors. When you grow up in a certain world, you learn the vocabulary and the ins and outs. You also get the connections. And the populace's embrace. Why else would Clint Eastwood's son be acting and Stallone's kids be models? Name recognition. – brandonjudell6 years ago
Don't forget about the Von Trapp family (the real ones). I find them a good fit for this topic. They were somewhat forced to hone their singing talent so they could have the financial means to live through an economic collapse and escape Nazi Europe, and those stakes arguably followed the whole family throughout their American musical career. Maria's eldest biological daughter Rosmarie actually had a nervous breakdown once, partially because Maria did not approve of her leaving the group. I'd love to see the Von Trapps included here. – Stephanie M.6 years ago
Why do films with a car as the main attraction appeal to the audience as much as films with human actors? How does screenings such as Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider, or Smokey and the Bandit compare to established portrayals such as Star Wars, Star Trek, or Terminator in that cinematic rendition? Consider the same effect that animals have on the audience; Lassie, Grizzly Adams, and Mister Ed.
Part of this could be the discussion of iconography such as the Star Trek uniform symbol or any of the superhero symbols. I think key props may do the same job psychologically that iconography in real life does. – SaraiMW6 years ago
Ah, interesting! Consider delving into how these inanimate characters or animals are often humanized to connect with the audience. – Stephanie M.6 years ago
