Discuss the show 'Crazy Ex-Girlfriend'. Rebecca Bunch is not your typical heroine or female role model protagonist in a series. The title of the show literally refers to her as ‘crazy’ and the show starts off with her moving across the country to stalk her ex-boyfriend to play tricks and games in hopes to make him fall in love with her. Yeah sure, she behaves crazy and insane and is completely delusional but is there something profoundly powerful in her character as well? Is she a positive and strong female character for viewers? In this past season she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and the last few episodes dealt with her trying to understand and work through her new diagnosis. Often women have been labelled as ‘crazy’ by ex-boyfriends or men in general to excuse their own behaviour or to diminish the validity of women’s claims. What is this show tackling in using the word ‘crazy’ and what is the importance of Rebecca Bunch’s role on television?
Has the over sexualization of teenage characters in tv shows gone to far? The argument of whether it's glamorizing unacceptable behaviour and provocative themes for the young fans? Or trying to show the reality of what the lives could be for children at such a young age?
As the tag you have used Riverdale, which is an interesting choice, as it is not necessarily on the top of the list I would consider for sexualisation of teenagers. I would have perhaps put something like Gossip Girl, Skins, or The OC, etc.
I think, however, that this is an interesting topic and would require a good discussion of what is sexualisation and what is sexual-representation of teenage behaviour. I think a good part of this discussion is in the look at the relevant viewer ages of such shows, the target demographic, etc. But also then a necessary part of the conversation needs to be that now with internet streaming and Netflixs, why does it matter if teenagers are presented in a sexualised manner when it seems most teens are actually watching shows such as Game of Thrones? – SaraiMW7 years ago
It might be a completely different ball-park at this point, but you should check out some of the controversy surrounding the currently airing anime: "My Hero Academia" and it's representing of it's central teenage characters. Here is a good brief write-up of one person's frustrations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke1YKF3tNCE I know Japan is an entirely different culture and it may not be exactly what you're looking for, but considering how often the 15-year-olds on the show end up being top-less or in swimsuits it is troubling and could serve as an interesting alternate example for you to present. It's definitely an interesting topic though, as Riverdale does have some troubling tendencies as a series. I can't wait to see whatever you come up with! – BioLizard7 years ago
The reality television show, Rupaul's Drag Race, has unquestionably brought the art of drag into mainstream culture. The show has particularly been praised for its inclusion of gay and transgender voices, yet feminists seem to disagree about what the popularisation of drag means for women. Do Rupaul and the drag queens on his show represent femininity and womanhood in a positive light, or encourage feminine stereotypes and rigid beauty standards? By dressing up "as women", are the queens showing an appreciation of femininity and reclaiming stereotypes of gay men? Or are they simply reinforcing harmful ideas about how women should look and behave? Would love to read people's views on this topic!
A discussion of Trans rights (Rupaul has come under fire from the Trans community many a time) as well as the ambiguity and contestation of gender/"womanhood" as such would be prudent to explore here, too. – ees7 years ago
I have binge watch Rupaul's show all week and although it is highly entertaining I have also been trouble by some of the dated definitions of gender on the show. I like the fact that clearly biological males are referred to repeatedly as women/girls because it does disturb our visual concepts of what is defined as 'womanhood'. But I am often troubled with the fact that 'womanhood' is then further described as pink, 'glittery', feminine, etc. etc... also, the beauty standards are definitely set at glamour and that further isolates not just the expectation of women but also men. – imaenad7 years ago
These queens are encouraging feminism an womanhood. Their goal is to look and act like confident women. RuPaul refers to the anatomically correct males and women, girls and queens. By doing this he is throwing out the typical genre roles and treating these people the way they fee and want to be treated. Feminism is making women equal to men and if these men feel like women then they should be treated equally. They encourage men who feel like queens to stand up and own themselves, they encourage women be true to their femininity while breaking the classic view of women having to be proper, pink and perfect. RuPaul's show portrays real life and real people. Nothing harmful towards women come from that show. – princessmia7 years ago
I am a fan of the show too and agree that it is positive in many ways. It definitely encourages tolerance which is fantastic. I also agree that lots of the queens subvert feminine stereotypes by being crude and “unladylike” and I think that this should be included in the discussion. But if I were to give an example of something harmful towards women which has come from the show, I would direct you to the championing of Violet Chachki’s thinness in season 7. She even did a runway where she happily joked about being dangerously thin by wearing a fake life support machine and an extremely tight corset. I definitely think this is harmful to women’s body image, and insensitive to eating disorder survivors (who are mostly women). – Indigo7 years ago
It would be interesting to explore the problematic nature of Rupaul's comments at various times throughout the running of Rupaul's Drag Race. It seems that every once in a while, Rupaul says something terrible about trans people, or her comments seem to imply a disrespect for trans individuals. So incorporation of that into something like this topic would be interesting! – nathanl7 years ago
Our current culture has it's fair share of 'strong female characters', but Veronica Mars is one who stands out. That's not because she makes speeches about making her own decisions, it's because she's the one getting stuff done. Rather than just reacting to what happens to her, she is the one making moves. Not just for one climatic moment- she is ALWAYS chasing down a case, getting a favour, asking the first question. She is the one people go to for help, she is the one you want on your side, because she is really good at what she does. The point is, female characters saying 'this is my choice' while deciding between love interests is not nearly as empowering as watching Veronica seeking out her own cases and succeeding by her own skill.
Discussion doesn't need to be limited to Veronica Mars. Other characters like Jessica Jones, and (sometimes) Emma Swan (OUAT) show proactive competence. There should definitely be comparisons to characters like Elena Gilbert (Vampire Diaries) who, while brave and occasionally proactive, still lapses into long periods of being rescued and only choosing between other people's plans.
I am a huge fan of VM, she is a very interesting character that is positioned uniquely within the female archetypes. She is a great one to examine that not only does she represent the gumshoe archetype, but that this is met on every level - she has flaws, she has her own code that does not always align with what is legal, she is driven by internal motivations. I agree also that JJ is a good representative of the similar type of emerging female archetype. A great discussion to be having. – SaraiMW7 years ago
she definitely is a strong character and is often overlooked in favour of more popular characters. Definitely, an important issue to discuss. – Ishita7 years ago
LOVE Veronica Mars and still upset with how it ended (or was cancelled). She was headstrong, super witty, hilarious, stubborn and in demand. And I mean literally, people would seek her out and she would help out but only on her terms and I loved that about her. I just admired how clever she was. – teyadonna7 years ago
It is not news to anyone who has been paying attention that the current era of television programming, on the legacy broadcast networks, cable channels and streaming services, is a golden age. But an exploration is warranted of how long this creativity can be sustained. At some point, the bubble has to burst, and a reduction in the number of high quality shows will have to decline as a result. Particularly relevant in a year when numerous critical and audience favourites like House of Cards, Veep and Game of Thrones are all ending.
This seems like a very interesting topic but you'll need to check a couple things before you commit to it. First, you'll need to prove that the outgoing shows aren't being replaced by other critical and audience favourites (there's no issue if they're being replaced at the rate they're wrapping up). If this is the case, you should try to support your hypothesis with historical precedents (ie. Has this happened before? And if so, does the current state of TV look similar). – Ian Miculan7 years ago
I think this is without a doubt a timely article considering "golden age" is such a conversation starter. In order to make your article unlike the others, I think you need research. For example, maybe make a deep comparison between television today compared to sitcom shows in the 70s or 80s, when they were widely popular with the American population. Did those end? Perhaps they just overpopulated and, as you say, the bubble had to burst. – Emily7 years ago
I think the end (as we know it) will come when there is simply too many good tv shows that no show will be able to sustain a sizable enough audience to fund itself. People only have enough time to watch so many tv shows, and the more there is, the more that people will have to miss because they're too busy – fantasticfools7 years ago
John Belushi was a comedic talent above and beyond the ever constant flow of aspiring young actors. His antics were delivered with masterful ability in both television and film. His contribution to comedy, acting, and singing set the image for future actors to emulate. So, is it safe to say that Chris Farley was merely following the mold set by others or that he added his own specific brand of skill to a familiar venue? Consider the factors that play into developing the unique performer, while simultaneously pointing out the distinctive traits of the personality. Does comedic talent necessitate a lesser or more pronounced counterpart, much like Laurel and Hardy in order to cultivate the creative juices? How much of an effect does audience have on delivery and captivating tension? Are props, musical score, setting, and dialogue vital to the production or simple accessories of the process? Does the climactic spectacle require a "Who's on first?" dialogue as the one coined by Abbott and Costello, or is it merely the chemistry between the characters?
I feel like you are in need of a stupid and futile gesture. – nolarmade697 years ago
With a focus on the tentative new Prison Break reboot, this article would discuss the effective and ineffective aspects of television reboots and when and where the line should be drawn and the show should be over.
There are good and bad aspects of rebooting franchises. The main beneficial point to rebooting a franchise is to provide a fresh retelling of the narrative, either through a modern time-period, a different genre/tone or simply from a new revisioning of the character in its respective universe. Good examples of reboots are Marvel's Spiderman: Homecoming and Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Spiderman: Homecoming revisited the origins of the superhero, presenting the character at a much younger age than previously explored, his teens, and aligned his motivations with that of the already established Iron Man, so it was a natural fit. The Dark Knight trilogy bounced off the critical and commercial failure of George Clooney's Batman movies, and presented a much more gritty and realistic tone for the Batman character, unlike anything previously explored in cinema. The key point I am trying to make is, the restrictions on reboots should be a fresh vision of the character from a plot-perspective, in order to preserve their narrative integrity, not to update it for the current year or development of special effects. – Gliese436B7 years ago
I lover Prison Break and would love to see it go forward with more episodes. I think it depends on the series in terms of adaptations. In some ways reboots and great ways to update an original series. In other ways, everything is an adaptation. It can all be very derivative. – Munjeera7 years ago
I loved the first instalment of Prison Break so much but I am disappointed that they are rebooting it. I think a good aspect is to compare how other shows have rebooted themselves and if it has worked well. What I have found is that whenever a show or movie tries to do better then the original story-line, it always fails. Everything within the reboot will be criticised and deeply judged that it will seem hard for the show to continue with this. – Dana7 years ago
Rubber necking is the macabre desire people have to slow down near car-wrecks to see what happened. No desire to actually stop and help, but a twisted urge to see the gore and horror of an accident. I think shows such as 'UnReal,' 'You're The Worst' and 'Flesh and Bone' rely on the same instinct. They include trying terrible things perpetrated by truly terrible characters, and not in a genre way such as horror or fantasy, but in a real life manner. The psychological damage these characters constantly present in their real lives is so disturbing to watch, and it is of course inevitable that their lives are a series of car-wrecks. The question I have is why are we so engrossed by this? What is it about seeing truly terrible acts of people acting in completely psychologically unhealthy ways that means we can't look away from the screen?
Good question, and extremely relevant topic. I've asked myself this many times. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
