I get that there's a secret ingredient in the Krabby Patties, but for some reason, this show has remained a consistent, entertaining favourite to a majority of adults who watched it even as children. It would be interesting to take a look at some of the long-standing, rustproof, and robust comedic techniques used in the show that make it appeal to people of all ages.
Maybe expound on this a little bit. What is it about those techniques that we love? Compare it to other cartoons of the day; did those other shows achieve the same effect? Also discuss how those tactics are being employed by cartoons and other shows today. – EmskitheNerd7 years ago
I remember watching Spongebob with my kids. We were all excited when his movie came out, naturally I had to take them. The series is silly but not in an annoying way. The cast of characters is more than just a select few. The storylines are amusing. At times there is wit. I think those things keep it going. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
What would be interesting to analyze is how the growing trend of killing off major characters in TV seemingly out of nowhere in TV season finales makes a TV show "amazing" and "unexpected". What also might be intriguing is the buzz that comes about when a TV finale is about to air and, more specifically, the fans' speculation on "who's going to die" instead of "what's going to happen". Game of Thrones depicts this perfectly; the countless deaths of its beloved characters has made the show extremely popular, where the high death rate in its season finales brings in many viewers and, subsequently, many dazzling reviews.
(Spoiler alert for Riverdale, Avengers Infinity War, the Divergent series, and the 5th Wave series) While I'm not too familiar with GoT, Riverdale just recently left their viewers on a cliff with the possibility of Jughead being dead. And, of course, if you've seen A:IW, you know that half of the main characters are "dead" at the end of the movie. I've always been a person to respect this choice--like, a lot! In the concluding book to the Divergent trilogy, the main character dies, and the same happens in the last installment of the 5th Wave series. As long as the deaths are dealt with in a realistic way for those universes, I always thought it was great. This would be a really fun analysis to read. Like, why do I like it so much? I don't even really know. – mkkeane977 years ago
I think the expectation of who is going to die might and its popularity might leave any other events as less impactful as they become overshadowed by the deaths. Something to consider. – ZanderTJ7 years ago
This is a very interesting topic. I think with finales of any kind, we're primed to expect a culmination of a character's arc, one whose significance is ultimately encapsulated in how they die, why they die, etc. Death has a finality to it. I think, in expecting death, we become more inclined to appreciate whatever happens in the moments prior to it. Also, I think fan speculation on 'who's going to die' is a preemptive coping mechanism. Again, speculation might prompt extra awareness on how characters act in the finale, thus greater appreciation for their martyr's death, tragic death, etc. I'd argue that the 'who's going to die' and 'what's going to happen' are mutually linked—what really gets lost in the death-hype is how the finale's events will affect future seasons (if any). We'd become so focused on the 'dying' that the 'mourning' aspect of the story, the 'what'll happen after', doesn't immediately come to mind. Especially when there's a break between the finale and the next season. (I think The Walking Dead's S6 finale and S7EP1 is worth examining. Spoilers tho) – Starfire7 years ago
There have been a lot of changes to the adaption/re-make of the classic series Lost In Space. The women now hold the most power, including a female version of "Dr Smith" and it has also introduced multiculturalism into it's episodes, by re-creating the eldest daughter as a mixed race child, from a previous marriage. I would be very interested in reading an article based on the changes and how they represent the positive changes in societal and individual perception.
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. – susannah7 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." – JaredTaylor947 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 Tobias7 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 Murphy7 years ago
omg it is ABSOLUTELY worth exploring. I love the Challenge. And anything MTV, honestly. – meggiegates7 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. – Bribbleisfreeble7 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 Anderson7 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. – JamesBKelley7 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. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
