In 1968 Andry Warhol wrote that "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes". His prediction has come true with the popularity of so-called reality TV. But how real is reality TV? Can anything with a camera pointed towards it still be called real, or is it an alternative reality?
This sounds like a great topic considering people like the kardashians are becoming famous these days. – theOne2347 years ago
Great question! Reality TV is highly edited in order to produce a story line. For example, Master Chef and My Kitchen Rules are both reality shows about cooking, based on the concept of competition between non-professional cooks. But the story line of MC is one of growth, collaboration, support, self determination and success of the individual etc all the stuff we yearn for; MKR is based on conflicts, back stabbing, drama, failure etc all the stuff we despair. They are both high ratings because they tap into the everyday elements of our lives. While that is usually the core of why these shows are entertaining which the producers clearly leverage, we ought to examine how the audience is socialised in their consumption of these shows, and how producers inadvertently or perhaps purposely produce narratives that bind the audience with the reality actors through their edits - examination of the sociology of reality TV shows. – lienpham7 years ago
These is quite a broad topic, you could try breaking it down and focusing more so on a specific genre of reality TV. – ninaphillips277 years ago
Pick one type of competition show, or dating show, or "documentary" live-in show. Try to find what the directors sell you. Compare things like Hell's Kitchen to The Great Britih Bakeoff, America's Next Top Model to Face-Off, Naked and Afraid to America Ninja Warrior, and so on. – IndiLeigh7 years ago
A little bit of a silly topic this one, but I have been pondering the power of the cliche. For a long while in film, television and literature a lot of discussion was engaging in creating original art – to the extent of pushing away from the cliche. Ensuring that regardless of what would or would not work for the narrative, the most important factor was ensuring that it was not a cliche. Have we now pushed far enough out that the cliche has become nostalgic? What I thought might be interesting is having a look at what cliches still have juice to squeeze (star crossed lovers) and what others need to remain in the dead and buried (man of the house).
I think that the popularity of the cliché can be attributed to the popularity of memes. Clichés are very something that become very meme-worthy. – tygarrison7 years ago
Everybody loves a story from the POV of the hero–the one whose moral compass points due north, who sacrifices him or herself for others, who puts others first. Most can't resist the appeal of an underdog or a comeback kid–i.e., the geeky kid who gets bullied in Chapter 1 but kicks the bullies' butts in Chapter 10 because by then, they've discovered their inner strength and gifts.
Despite these truths, there is a definite explosion of antagonist-centered stories out there, whether in movies, books, or television. The trend isn't new; you can find it in fairytale spoofs like Seriously, Cinderella is SO Annoying! But lately, antagonist-centered stories are far more developed, giving their evil (or formerly evil) protagonists real development and character arcs.
Look at some examples of this phenomenon, such as Disney's Descendants, the character arcs for Regina, Hook, and Zelena in Once Upon a Time, etc. Do certain genres lend themselves more to this type of arc, and why (as you can see, it's huge in fairytales–but why)? What does it take to do this kind of story right? Do you believe antagonists or villains always need their own stories, or should we be content to let them be evil (and in what cases should we leave them to their evil)?
Try and find some more obscure examples of where antagonist-centred stories work and where they don't work, don't just stick the mainstream titles. This might help either prove your case or highlight why it might not work (depending on which way you go with this) – AidanGuagliardo7 years ago
An analysis of how sports create a promote story-lines to increase interest. This could discuss how sports journalism and online fan forums find points of interest and incorporate them into larger stories about teams, players, rivalries, etc. It could also discuss how Olympic coverage often use "Behind-the-Athlete" segments to catch-up on the story-lines of sports they might not be familiar with outside of the Olympics.
Did it really take a zombie apocalypse? The Walking Dead has several integral characters who happen to be same-sex attracted, yet their place in the narrative does not revolve around their sexuality. It is stated, inferred or shown, but is not a major plot point. Does this mean we are finally able to present LGBTQ characters without dwelling on their sexuality? How is this viewed by the fandom? Why does mainstream media still feel the need to sensationalize a character’s ‘coming out’?
Discuss exposing the correlation of the comic relief character in television often being overweight actors that Hollywood has created. Often case they are the only overweight actor on the show or film, and it may even be the only part offered. When screen casting the casting call may even call specifically for an overweight comedic relief. Discuss the implications of this and how it can harm the industry as a whole, as well as the effect on actual overweight individuals exposed to such decisions.
EXP: Gilmore Girls, The Hangover, Austin and Allie ( feel free to use your own)
It is true that overweight characters are often place in secondary, comedic roles. This may sound cynical, but it seems to me that this casting choice has done little to harm Hollywood as a whole over the years as it is a reflection of our society's general preference for actors and actresses who are thinner, fitter, and healthier. – MKLee7 years ago
In Star Trek's newest installation Star Trek: Discovery, we are introduced to a character named Ash Tyler, potrayed by Shazad Latif. Ash was a prisoner of war in a Klingon ship, was tortured and ultimately raped by one of his Klingon captors. You see Ash dealing with symptoms of PTSD that progress through the show. Ash's mental state causes flashbacks, which ultimately lead to violence and even death of those In his way. How does the sympathy of Ash's place as a male rape victim clash with the violent nature he takes on when having episodes? Is he less sympathetic or moreso because of these violence inducing flashbacks caused by the torture he recieved?
Considering the current state of sexual assault/harassment that has been plaguing our society for much too long, it is easy to see it as a strictly woman-based struggle...Men who are sexually abused, and the way they cope is almost a nil discussion...kudos for the insight and the well thought out topic. – MikeySheff7 years ago
An analysis of the newest addition to the Star Trek franchise. Does the 2017 update to beloved 80/90s spin-offs like DS9 and Voyager really pack the same punch? Or is possible that older TV shows and their newer instalments are want to be affected by nostalgia and fans, as much as they are by new script and plot?
I think this is a relevant discussion to have, although it would be a little tricky as there is so much conjecture even between the original series. It will be interesting to look at how each series actually was received and how the new version relates to that also. As a show that has had a series of iterations and significant changes, I think in a way fans would be more accepting of the "newness" of the Discovery series, however, whether it is meeting the same needs in its contemporary target audience could be a different discussion. – SaraiMW7 years ago
I think I this discussion would be further relevant when the series completes and the whole can be viewed. – alexpaulsen7 years ago
