Sci-Fi television has seen its fanbase grow immensely over the past decade. Many shows such as Doctor Who and Supernatural have an intense cult following on the Internet, which has only existed since the advent of Tumblr. Now, these same fans are flocking to old shows like Firefly and fueling their obsessions through binge-watching. How have the same Sci-Fi shows had different effects on viewers depending on whether they grew up watching them weekly or discovered them for the first time as an adult (or teenager)? And how has the Internet and social media influenced a new generation of Sci-Fi lovers?
As a young viewer, the entrenched messages and the profoundness of the story line I believe tends to hold a subdued stance. An adult may find more practical value in the artistry, the potential, and the timelessness of the substance behind the entire production. An interesting point, hope to read it soon. – lofreire7 years ago
I find this topic interesting and worthy of investigation, but I'm unclear on how exactly one can go about evaluating the central question. The way I see it, there are really only two options: anecdotal evidence (which makes for a weak argument) or conducting extensive research interviews (which is, quite frankly, too much work for a typical Artifice-level article). If there is a third route, I'd be happy to be proven wrong; I just think it would just be a shame to see this good topic wasted in the event that the prospective author should choose the former. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
Interesting topic. I think there's definitely scope to look at if and why the timing of when you are exposed to something might have a more pronounced effect in the science fiction genre than in other genres. I suppose it might be something to do with the degree of foreign-ness of the subject matter. For example, I might have a different/more difficult time trying to get a friend to watch old star trek episodes with me, than i would trying to get the same friend to watch Gilmore Girls with me. If I grew up with both and loved both, but she did not grow up with either, I wonder if and why one may be more accessible than the other for my friend as an adult. I would be curious to see what kind of research there is out there on this in terms of genres and the effect of growing up with shows from particular genres such as science fiction, as opposed to finding them later in life. It's an interesting topic, I look forward to seeing what happens with it! – HRadford7 years ago
*Orange is the New Black* released its latest season this month, and it struck me the way the program continues one trend — to humanize and rationalize the criminality of the inmates. Like Piper, who is written as a hapless entrant to the Litchfield Pen., it seems as if each inmate is offered a flashback account of poverty, racism, LGBTQ bigotry, and bad luck that result in incarceration. In this season, explicitly focused on the inhuman treatment of the inmates and the dehumanizing treatment of Poussey's death, this narrative choice is especially potent. Yet, there's also the occasional lapse in the narrative — like when instead of killing and dismembering a hitman-guard an inmate enslaves another or dreams of eating human flesh. How effective is the humanizing narrative in this season and cumulatively in *OITNB*? Is the narrative goal for viewers to understand the prison system to be horrid, in part because the inmates are mostly undeserving of incarceration?
I too found the message to also be a little inconsistent. Were they still trying to be sympathetic? Were their terrible actions on (mostly) innocent people justifiable in the writer's eyes? (especially considering how many of the inmates never cared about Poussey) Still, it was refreshing to see a darker, more complex OitNB. The series was starting to get cartoonish. Every inmate was a victim of circumstance (even if they did something terrible it was always somebody else's fault), while every guard and person outside the prison were villains. It just added a level of realism that when these people were put in charge of the prison, they were no better (amd in a lot of cases worse) than the guards they hated (it might also be a good idea to use the Stanford Prison Experiment as a parallel). – AGMacdonald7 years ago
American Gods, Battlestar Galactica, Xena. People's fascination with gods seems to have shifted from worship to a kind of character archetype. Are "gods" essentially malleable symbols open to interpretation, or is it fundamentally incorrect to draw a line connecting pop fiction gods with their cultural basis?
Potential here to expand the subject to include comics (the Wicked the Divine), games (God of War franchise), film (Bruce Almighty, Dogma, Gods of Egypt).
Fascinating topic. One thing I'd suggest for the prospective author to consider is difference in representation between the pantheistic "gods" of antiquated mythologies vs. the monotheistic Judeo-Christian "God" who has remained the cornerstone of much of the world's contemporary theology. Despite all deriving from similar religious foundations, there's a clear distinction between Chris Hemsworth portraying Thor (whom few, if any, people still hold sacred) and Morgan Freeman playing Yahweh (which, quite literally, breaks a Commandment that many people still consider blasphemous). How do the authors/filmmakers approach these two classes of gods differently, and does the latter adhere to the same archetypal logic as the former? – ProtoCanon7 years ago
The comparison of superheroes to Gods may serve the purpose of this article well, both in comparing and conceptualizing superhuman deities with supernatural powers. Superheroes such as Batman, Superman, or Spiderman, have become symbols of the potential within all humanity for greatness. – iRideChallenges7 years ago
Perhaps the issue boils down to a laziness, limitation, blockage in the English language and American culture with regard to the concept of godliness. What is a god, anyway? Immortal, all-powerful, divine...the words usually hark back to our religious heritage. Those who maintain and value that religious heritage are understandably pained by callous use of the term, perhaps because of the confusion it engenders. Those who do not feel a connection to a religious heritage might express their ignorance, but also a concerning anger or rebellion towards it by careless use.
The term "superhero" has wide appeal perhaps because it does not trample on belief, but moves in a different, fantastical and immensely interesting direction. According to an article in the New York Daily News, the term superhero was first used in 1917, long before Marvel and DC came into being. It's a tremendously useful 100-year-old word. Maybe it's time for another even more descriptive word. After all, we have made some progress in that length of time, haven't we? – CLHale7 years ago
Analyze what makes The Great Gatsby such an enduring piece of literature — the 1920s was long ago, as is its culture, and yet we continue to read the book and see pieces of ourselves in the characters. What is it about the writing, the scenario, or the characters that continue relentlessly, beat on, boats against the current?
I think it might be useful/helpful to think about if any core themes of the novel still resonate with readers today. I would argue that despite the many changes have occurred in America in the past 90 years, there are still fundamental themes and ideas at the center of Gatsby that remain core/essential to the American experience today.
Also, the writing is immensely beautiful. – SeanGadus7 years ago
I think the 'tickle in the fancy' with the Gatsby is that we can all relate to the images that emanate from the rituals of the not-so-common part of society. If we were to look more closely, even the lower strata of society would have its own version of the 'Ghetto ' Gatsby and that's what I feel draws the reader (or the viewer) into the appealing characters, happenstance, and yearning for abundance in generous times. Shakespearean drama took place even earlier than the 1920s; yet, the plays cry out to our past failures, future hopes in ways that seem more contemporary than distant. I guess, Mario Puzo is the best analogy I can give to the effect that Gatsby has on the unsuspecting reader, the discerning writer, and the public at large; through his Godfather saga. – lofreire7 years ago
Selfies, self promotion and social media. A common trait in all three? Self-aggrandisment or is it determination? As our perceptions change and our way of promoting ourselves alter is it fair to judge someone for posting a shameless selfie, or for constantly posting paid ads on their feed? Are they merely showing off their good looks or are they making a name for themselves? We are seeing more and more models become famous through Instagram photos rather than their actual modelling work. Have we as a generation squashed the notion of egotism or is it all that we know?
Which came first the chicken or the egg? Is social media ballooning our narcissism or the other way around? I saw a hilarious interaction the other day. I was at a tourist site and a young parent asked her 7 year old to take a picture of her, the mom. I could not help but smile. It was the first time in my life I have seen a child take a picture of a mom. But I want to make sure that as I share this story that I do so without judging the mom. It was just a funny exchange of roles. – Munjeera7 years ago
This sounds like a cool topic! But in my opinion, even if selfies are becoming practical tools for furthering your success, like a shallow form of a resume, they are ultimately serving a goal that is largely Ego-driven-- your own personal success, which in our competitive culture is something that is done at the expense of other people for only your personal gain. – Calnamni7 years ago
I would suggest that egotism is, in some sense, a habit, and that whatever ends we may be engaging in egoistic activities for are largely irrelevant. Perhaps you only post selfies or engage in self-promotion to further your online presence and advance a career, and perhaps you are able to maintain enough detachment from said activities to keep yourself from being overly self-focused. That said, I imagine most would be unable to do so, and the mere habit of focusing on your own image/personal brand leads to increasingly narcissistic tendencies. – Ben Woollard7 years ago
Do shows like Game of Thrones deserve criticism for their depiction of sexual violence, or is their portrayal justified, given the setting of Westeros as a brutal world were violence is the common place?
There's an interesting debate to be had here about the responsibilities of show writers/directors toward how they handle sensitive topics and staying true to the fictional world they operate within.
There's a fine line between violence and sexual violence in particular being shown in context and becoming gratuitous voyeurism and, in my opinion, Game of Thrones has stepped over this line many a time. Yes, of course we all know that the world in which the stories are set is a violent one, reflecting our own middle-ages in that respect, when life was cheap and a self-appointed 'Elite' could determine someone's fate almost at a whim, but I am still of the opinion that there are far darker horrors lurking within the mind than can ever be successfully portrayed on screen. Sometimes a suggestion of violence can be more menacing than the act itself - less is more. Game of Thrones sells itself on its barbarism, so the writers/directors are somewhat obliged to stay as true as possible to the source material, but I do wonder just how often boundaries are being deliberately pushed just to see what they can get away with. – Amyus7 years ago
An interesting argument. Game of Thrones is a go-to for promoting sexual violence; however, shows like Sons of Anarchy and Outlander have had more graphic sexual assaults and yet they are not mentioned in the debate (in general, not specifically yours). It might be interesting to investigate. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Apart from shows, it would be better to even consider films like 'Blue Valentine' here. – Vishnu Unnithan7 years ago
Censorship of sexual violence doesn't appear to be the best course, as we have seen how censorship can actually limit the amount of awareness and information about sensitive topics. I think TV and movies provide a platform to start discussions and communication about sexual violence. This something that happens more than we would like to think, even in modern times. Perhaps the question is not whether or not to show it, but rather how can it be shown in a way that doesn't glorify sexual violence. – KRawlyk7 years ago
Look at the stories of Gravity Falls and the hidden messages among the episodes. Explore how it ultimately led to a giant real-life scavenger hunt which strengthened fan's appreciation of the show. Research if any other shows have done this, where they bring aspects of the tv show into real life for fans to enjoy, and how that contributes to the strength of the fan base and its longevity.
Ultimately, the pros and cons of bringing aspects of a show into real-life.
Fringe had codes set within each episode, and I'm sure other mystery and sci fi shows had similar things, if that helps. – IndiLeigh7 years ago
The transition of villian or semi-villianous characters in tv shows throughout a show's run is a popular move within the recent years due to the rise of the anti-heroes. Consider examples of when this has worked verus when the change simply felt out of character. How far is too far? Have there been any instances where the characters committed acts which were retconned to ensure their new status would be accepted by audiences?
I feel as though nearly every villain in modern shows today is at least somewhat glamourised by the fans, regardless of their moral viewpoint. Even villains such as Moriarty in BBC's Sherlock, a psychopathic killer who has no morality, and in fact has destroyed the lives of the protagonists more than once, is often loved and fantasised about. – SophIsticated7 years ago
Redeemed villains and anti-heroes seem to me separate things entirely, things that cannot really be compared in the same breath. There's never really a time when Walter White comes across as a redeemed villain. He, and Light Yagami from Deathnote, are anti-heroes with varying degrees of morality.
Jamie Lannister is probably the pinnacle redeemed villain contemporarily, as a truly despised character in the beginning through to being many people's favourite good guy currently.
Just my two cents here. – Entropy7 years ago
This made me think of literature's first anti-heroes -- Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost -- perhaps this topic can center more on an audience's fascination with villains and anti-heroes in general?
– Jeffrey Cook7 years ago
