The world of TV Advertising has become ever more sophisticated and devious as the public has become more media-savvy. From the early days of a product being pushed in front of us and a cheery female voice or a man in a white coat suggesting we buy it, we've moved on – through an era of dancing bunnies high on battery power and roller skating young women extolling the virtues of certain feminine sanitary products, to a period when the product was rarely seen on screen and we were bombarded with imagery that seemed to bare no relation to the product being advertised. These days some TV adverts are like mini movies whilst others are projected deep into our subconscious and intended to make us feel slightly inadequate if we don't continue to play the consumer game.
However, is the advert break still a convenient excuse to nip to the loo or make a cup of tea? Is the Scientist in the white coat still regarded as an authority figure? Are we, the viewing public, too wise for our own good? Can we still be tricked into buying something we really don't need and, most likely, will become obsolete within a year? The artifice of advertising will always remain exactly that and yet there have been advertising campaigns that have gained a life of their own and even garnered artistic respect and admiration. Could advertising truly be considered an artform in itself?
Is advertising an art form? Yes; it requires creativity and finesse just like film, novel writing, and other similar pursuits. But what kind of art form is it? That's the perennial question, because as you mention, advertising is designed to push people into acquiring "stuff." Can we still be "tricked?" Oh, yes...but I think that raises the question, do we even care we're being tricked anymore? Or would we rather just enjoy a cleverly conceived commercial (or ten)? – Stephanie M.7 years ago
any discussion of advertising should necessarily reference Edward Bernays, one of the original admen who wrote on advertising and PR campaigns as having the ability to manufacture consent and control the "masses." Also an important scholars to reference and read would be Naomi Klein, who literally wrote the book on the evolution of the advertising agency and the rise of branding, "No Logo." – Jonathan Judd7 years ago
With the continued success of anthology series like Fargo, American Crime Story and many more, do TV shows have more of a chance if they remain with the same formula that found them success? Or by changing the cast and locale and telling a similar story once more. This could be particularly interesting with the re-emergence of True Detective after a couple of years. Would it have had its season 3 much earlier if it remained with Rust and Marty?
I think this may not be as extended a discussion as you would like, perhaps reconsider the wording of what you really want to examine. The issue is that formulaic TV is a norm, an accepted format that most TV is structured on - it is either considered serialised or procedural - this means it is either like Fargo, where it is has one long running story arc (serialised) or it is like NCIS where there is a clear formula to every episode (procedural). Perhaps have a listen to the Nerdist Writer's podcast to consider more fully the manner in which TV is written.
The second question you have raised considering the use of ongoing characters versus the break from original characters, such in the Fargo and True Detective series, could actually be a more interesting discussion as this is a contentious area. – SaraiMW7 years ago
The Shadowhunters TV show has proved to be good at mixing the plot of the novel with new plots. Discuss the ways in which the show has been dedicated to its origin while also exploring new alleyways and the ways in which fan reactions have gone.
A good way to do this would be to break down some main characters and their traits in order to draw comparisons to the books. – Southy5677 years ago
I agree with Southy567's point. A list of the main characters and their deviations would be a good starting point (major one could be the death of Clary's mother)! Depending on the length, the main events (battles, wedding) that have deviated could also be included. – AbbyMay7 years ago
Most people who grew up in the late 1980s through the 1990s fondly remember Nickelodeon. The shows produced in this era were part of the network's Golden Age, and fans' appreciation has led Nick to bring some of them back. Two popular Nick shows, Hey Arnold and Legend of the Hidden Temple, are coming back in the near future. However, Hey Arnold is coming back as a live-action film. Legends will take the form of a TV movie whose adventurous plot is somewhat loosely based on the original game show. Will these format changes wreck what fans loved about these shows, or will they bring fresh perspectives to the table? Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these format changes.
I didn't even know these were happening! Remakes/reboots are such a big thing nowadays, so I like how this topic is very focused on a specific aspect of the nostalgia-movement. The emphasis on the formats would also create an easy way for the writer to stay analytical rather than it devolving into an opinion-based rant or hype train. – DrNinjaBaljeet7 years ago
Discuss the connection between events in Designated Survivor and the current political reality existing in the United States. Note how the writers of the show reference current events, and the ways in which they may be 'poking fun' at current events while dealing with them in a serious manner on the show. If possible, also compare things said and done by President Kirkman to those of President Trump.
Seems interesting. The problem with shows like Designated Survivor and House of Cards is that it can seem more subdued than the reality of the Trump presidency. Strange times. – Jeff MacLeod7 years ago
Would be interesting to pick out a real politician from Trump's administration in a similar role to Sutherland's character and propose what that would look like in real-world. – Marcus Dean7 years ago
Explain why you think (or may be not) that Tv shows or Sitcoms portraying a well sculpted world, with friends for support and effortless enjoyment can posses a serious threat to how people view reality and their life outcomes?
Another approach could be exploring the dependence people have on such television shows as a form of escapism. By illustrating an alternate sitcom reality to our own, creators are effectively entrapping people in a make belief society with different rules that follow the laws or comedy rather than reality. – ninaphillips277 years ago
i don't think those shows necessarily demonstrate consistent support, rather they should how friends often take the mick out of each other to keep them grounded. the characters in big bang theory are often mocked and ostracised my most members of society and find solace within their own little community. A common trope of sitcoms given its a common sensation in the human experience – Iliasbakalla7 years ago
I agree with Iliasbakalla and Munjeera. These series often extrapolate characters' quirks to the extreme for comic effect. It would be interesting to discuss why this results in a broadly enjoyable experience, e.g. perhaps we identify with characters' flaws etc. The cultural setting of the show and the assumed cultural setting of the viewer would be another interesting aspect to explore, e.g. What is the cultural setting that producers are assuming when they write and produce the show? Do viewers from other cultures have more or less difficulty enjoying these shows? Why/why not? – bethlauren7 years ago
Its definitely an interesting theory... do we change our own behaviours based on what we see as successful in a tv show? Do we try to become more sarcastic because me might find Chandler so incredibly funny and relatable? And then, is this notion of "what we should be living like" having a negative impact on our lives or a positive? – miaraszewski7 years ago
Could it be helping people in some way? As a child, watching shows like that helped me to develop communication skills and made me strive towards finding friends that would support me the same way. I really think the fabrication of such strong friendships is a good thing, it may seem unrealistic but it's also quite endearing. – pixiehabits7 years ago
I have to say that Friends in particular had me wondering what they did for a living. Constantly swanning around the coffee shop, and living it up in their expensive inner city apartments. Not exactly a deeply moral tale, but it's difficult to hypothesise about its effect. Also, why can't I have my own canned laughter!? – Dion7 years ago
Not if you're white suburban and lame. – Antonius8657 years ago
Since many original cast members are not returning for season 7 of Once Upon a Time, discuss the ways in which the new season could (or could not) be an exciting revival of the fairytales we once knew. Is the OUAT we know over, or do you think the rejuvenation of characters and tales will be enough to keep the fanbase and viewers satisfied?
Love the topic, and the show. I was a little leery of Season 7, but I'm excited for it now. As Henry says in one clip, there are literally thousands of fairytale versions, plus other stories that could be explored. (Season 5, with its trip to the Underworld, proved the show could do mythology, so why not other story types/genres)? I do think the series needs to wrap up eventually, but am rooting for about 8 seasons. In TV show world, that seems to be a good place to stop. Any more than that and you tend to get stale. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I am a HUGE Once Upon a Time fan. I am nervous, for this new season, but I am giving it a chance because I don't believe Colin O'Donaghue or Robert Carlyle would have said yes to this season if they didn't have SOME faith in the new direction. – ivyskiss7 years ago
I would like to see an article written about the different ways that political power is wielded. Foucault understands all citizens as complicity in state power (in a democracy), since one individual has a sovereign rule over us and governs our liberty, however en mass the public hold tremendous amounts of power during elections. Recent political history in Australia shows the power of public opinion polls, as leaders there have been usurped by party members due to their failing public credibility. But power also requires tenacious maintenance in a political scope Francis Underwood from House of cards illustrates the amount of time and effort he has to appease and blackmail other members of congress to retain his position. This involves calling the bluff of many different international and domestic threats to his reign. Lord Baelish from game of thrones also shows how a character with little credentials can hold great amounts of power by dancing between leaders of different kingdoms. There could also be a discussion about the gender intersection of power in both these shows as Claire Underwood and Cersei Lannister are both excellent case studies.
I like this topic...I wonder who you would direct this to? The average Joe who doesn't understand politics would probably benefit from a comparison like this, because they might understand the analogies from these TV shows? Also the gender power side topic is great...Cersei needs someone to acknowledge all the hard work she does in maintaining her status! :) – AbbyMay7 years ago
I'd definitely be interested in reading this! Might be worth honing in on a particular season of each show to get a focussed analysis going. I think Claire v Cersei would be an excellent comparison! – Zujaja7 years ago
