Compare the success or failure between the original British creations and American versions of Shameless and The Office. Argue which version is more successful and the reasons why. Address the cultural difference that may have contributed to the popularity of the show.
I do think a big part of the argument would be exploring the cultural differences in how drama and comedy are expressed. Our traditional slapstick vs thier dry, witty humor; our drama tends to feel more exaggerated while theirs feels grounded in harsh reality. American versions of both these shows made American changes for the better or worse? How have these changes translated for audiences when there is access to the originals? – C N Williamson9 years ago
It would be useful to define what success is. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Analyze the way racial stereotypes are utilized in comedic settings such as Chappelle's Show. Are racial stereotypes permissible when used for comedic effect, and perpetrated by members of the race being stereotyped? Do these representations bring light to social justice issues, or further engrain harmful thought patterns? Is is possible to do both?
Interesting and very relevant topic. However, I think a more fruitful approach would be to look at both sides of the spectrum. We live in a society that has become very attuned and sensitive when it comes to comedy/jokes surrounding race, language, gender, and sexuality. There's actually a lot of excellenty articles examining how comedy (especially the standup variety) is dying because people simply cannot "take a joke". If you're going to pursue this topic I would urge you to look at both these spectrums and see if a happy medium can be found, or if one will have to concede to the other in order for the genre to survive. You could even extend beyond the Chappelle's Show to comedic forms in writing, etc. – Mela8 years ago
Historically, comedy has always had racial undertones. Telling a joke at another's expense is nothing new. Neither is intolerance. What is new is the backlash comedians face when an audience perceives they have crossed the line. People can get on social media and the comedian can be ostracized. That being said, I think you have posed your questions well. "Can joking about stereotypes actually perpetuate the stereotypes?" Great thought provoking question. Comedians of colour such as Chris Rock and Russell Peters have answered these questions in interviews and would be worth taking a look at for this article. – Munjeera8 years ago
Whether it's True Detective, Fargo, Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, Stranger Things, etc. there has been a strong shift of interest from movies to TV. TV shows now have high production levels that mimic large-scale movies in both aesthetics and tone. TV is perhaps taken more seriously now than ever before. Does this have to do with ease of access? With services such as Netflix, viewers can binge-watch entire seasons if they want to. There is also the bankable element of episodic teasing out of narrative compared to the contained narratives of movies. Are TV shows taking more risks? Orange is the New Black and Stranger Things cast mostly unfamiliar faces yet Netflix is also responsible for reboots of familiar shows as with Fuller House and the upcoming Gilmore Girls. Even actors have shown greater interest in moving to TV, which was once seen as lesser than being a film star. Or is something else at work here? Can films make a comeback from this and how?
Good topic! In terms of what caused the shift it seems like part of it is economics. Tentpole movies these days are supposed to have boxoffice appeal across the world—which is one of the main reasons most of them have low-IQ CGI action sequences that seem almost endless. TV shows, in contrast, can appeal to niche audiences and go for awards, which means prestige television tends to be more character-driven and thought-provoking. Since economics is driving this, at least to some degree, my guess is that it can't be reversed. – Ben Hufbauer8 years ago
You're right! I don't know how I forgot to mention that aspect of it. Yes, movies nowadays are more keen to appeal to a global audience (especially China at the moment). That's also why big budget, CGI action movies such as those with universally recognizable superheroes became very popular. With exciting action sequences, as you mention, it also minimizes any problems in terms of language/cultural barriers. Thank you for the note! – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
I think it is a mixture of things that has resulted in a decline in movie attendance and the rise in television viewers. 1. Ticket prices. People turn away from cinemas because of the cost of not only admission but concession items. Also, perhaps people do not find it as necessary as they once did to rush to the cinema to watch a new movie. 2. The accessibility to premiere television programming from HBO and others. Whether it is through streaming providers or through pirating, perhaps people enjoy the comfort of their own home when watching movies or television. 3. The most interesting analysis could be that the mini-series format that alot of television shows incorporate now is indeed a better way to tell a narrative than to squish the story into a 2 hour time limit. – Jeffrey Cook8 years ago
The above commenters pretty much covered why there's been a shift to tv shows. I just wanted to add that tv shows give directors more time to cover stories, and they can flesh out their plots too since movies have a limited time frame. – seouljustice8 years ago
I think its people's hunger for character development and relatability. We are living in difficult times and its hard to share or talk about experiences and having someone understand us. That's what TV is for. We like to feel like we can relate to characters, and we like to see their stories unfold and see them grow for better or for worse, while learning from them at the same time. It is a new form of growth for these modern times, but society hasn't fully grasped that concept. – jcastro48 years ago
I've read that some actors prefer to work on TV series because it allows them to develop more their characters. And now that we have shows like Game of Thrones, House of Cards, etc. that are like movies, and have attached directors like David Fincher in House of Cards, and the recently announced TV series that Alejandro G. Iñarritu will be making with Emmanuel Lubezki. The line that differentiates TV from Film production has become harder to draw. With the big studios producing just sequels to superhero movies, TV has become the place to find original content and allows filmmakers to experiment with pilots before investing millions of dollars. – arturoandre8 years ago
Great observations. I have also noticed that although people are still going out to the theaters and appreciating movies, TV seems to be the go to for a casual evening at home. I think it's because now television is broaching more adult topics, like you said. In the past TV was the one place where things were censored, or created with family friendly intentions. Nowadays because of the new technique of showcasing intense and emotional moments, people find tv just as riveting as a major motion picture. Orange is the New Black is a great example of this. The subject of the show itself, a women's prison, is relatively controversial to start and the creators even took it to the next level by adding powerful character dynamics that resemble real life. Hollywood could actually learn a thing or two from the emotional resonance new television enraptures the world with. The Walking Dead is about zombies but it's easily one of the most moving shows of the last decade. At least, the first four seasons were. Movies are great because they have an entire storyline in only one to three hours. Maybe because the shows have more airtime they can explore more in depth topics. This may also affect why people have become more interested. Because the good shows have more runtime, thus the viewer can get more comfortable in their experience and enjoy having a lot of quality television to watch. Sometimes we even 'binge watch' tv for hours, even an entire day, because the quality of the show is so good. There are very few movies that have this effect; that they are worthy of wasting an entire day watching them. Lord of the Rings is binge watchable. However, the quote really usually only refers to the nonstop viewing of a tv series. If a show can capture a person's attention that long, most of these shows have adult topics, it's no wonder there's been a shift in favor towards television.
Movies will always be loved though. You can't watch TV at a theater. – animerose8 years ago
Great points made. I think that its definitely a mixture of a lot of things. A good thing to find would be statistics especially from streaming services. It would give great insight into this interesting observation. – vivientopalovic8 years ago
It seems like every new release these days is either a reboot, a revival, or a sequel. That's all well and good for those of us who grew up with the original media and are now more than happy to see it return, but is this trend perpetrating the longevity of the series we love, or is it robbing the next generation of too many chances to form their own unique experiences with new media?
I think the question is less about the level of goodness for younger (what I assume you mean by "future") generations, and more about how the generation appreciating the original interacts with the new nostalgia. Media is like a time capsule. Social climate, humor trends, and so much more changes over time, so when we reboot media, how do people balance nostalgia/tradition with change and the present? I don't think that younger generations will care as much. Especially if they are unfamiliar with the older versions. – ASeriousLady8 years ago
I love this question. I was just talking about the book The Future of Nostalgia by Svetlana Boym, and I think she's on to something regarding cultural landmarks and landscapes that might be applicable to your developing analysis. Of course, I'm also thinking of the cable show Stranger Things, which was full of 80s references, but didn't advance the plot or make the characters more finely drawn. As a child of the 80s, I thought the references were a nostalgia "straw man" that distracted from problems and gaps in the narrative. – pfurnish8 years ago
We need new media. I want to see what Millennials and their successors can come up with on their own, because we really are the generation of reboots and superheroes. No more "Stranger Things" style homages. At the very least, go the "Rick and Morty" route and bastardize a respected property until you imbue it with a new thematic significance, elevating the work to new levels of art. Anyway, yeah, someone needs to write this topic, if only to speculate what a landscape with more unique properties would even look like coming from our specific concerns and fixations. – demogorgonzola8 years ago
I've always believed old and new things have their place, but that we've lost out on enjoying some older things because pre-nostalgia, our generation was exposed to so many new and trendy things. Example: Sometimes my parents or grandmother (my only living grandparent) will talk to me about the things they watched or read or experienced, and while I can appreciate they loved these things, I can't actually relate. I'd like to see more of a mix of nostalgia and new media, especially since each generation has its own experiences to feel nostalgic about. I mean, one of these days our kids and grandkids are going to be nostalgic about iPhones, Netflix, and online pizza orders. Scary. :) – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Symptoms of prequel-itis, in TV shows specifically, include 1) pointless cameos and foreshadowing for the sake of fan service and 2) backtracking to keep the plot from progressing "too far," which would result in the show ending. Examples of victims include Gotham, Smallville, and Merlin. What I don't know about, and what I'd be interested in reading, is possible cures for this problem. I am unfamiliar with the Star Wars cartoon prequels, but I'm told they do a better job, so they may hold answers. Another possible piece of this topic is causes of prequel-itis. Why do prequels exhibit these problems so often? Is there something inherently problematic with prequels in general?
Sounds like a good topic in my opinion. Although a more specific definition of prequel-itis would definitely help.
You might also include a third point to them. Which is: retroactively improving the already established lore and story of the series. The best example for this include the Walking Dead, as well as Flash.
Looking forward to reading about this topic :) – shehrozeameen8 years ago
@shehrozeameen Prequel-itis, as I see it, is like a syndrome, a set of symptoms that commonly occur together. There isn't really a definition other than "a set of symptoms experienced by prequels including x, y, z...." If the author of the topic could think of a specific definition, of course, he/she'd be welcome to apply it. – noahspud8 years ago
I'd certainly be interested to read this. Would you also consider doing one for sequelitis, because there are a ton of bad sequels out there. Disney is particularly guilty when it comes to both prequels and sequels. They're also fond of the midquel for some reason. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
To be clear, this topic is a suggestion for someone else to write (that's how this works). Also, you do have a point, but sequelitis is a separate thing, and I felt that prequelitis was a topical subject that hadn't gotten much attention. – noahspud8 years ago
I think this is a very interesting topic but I disagree with Merlin being placed in the prequel category. Although the show did begin before Arthur was King, the show very much did hit every major event in Arthurian Legend. It included everything from the sword in the stone, knights of the round table, Guinevere's Affair and Arthur's (spoiler alert) eventual death in the series finale. I'd argue that rather than backtracking, the show fast forwarded a bit to hit all these plot points before their pre-decided series end in season 5. The only real difference was that Merlin was depicted as young rather than a wizened old sorcerer adviser. (The series has a host of finale issues that I could probably write a whole different article about but that's not relevant to this comment) – LC Morisset8 years ago
Fair point. Except for the first, what, three seasons, Arthur isn't king, Morgan isn't evil, and Merlin isn't a respected advisor. So it certainly begins as a prequel, and it does indeed backtrack:
Arthur starts to think magic is okay. Merlin almost tells his secret. Something bad happens. Arthur is once again convinced that magic is bad. Repeat.
Morgan dies as punishment for her bad deeds. Oh wait, she has more to do later. Let's bring her back and let her sit in a cottage for a year.
All the Arthurian mythology stuff happens in those last couple seasons, and we see the set up for all of them: the lady in the lake, Excalibur, each major knight of the round table, and Morgan's descent into villainy. I call that a prequel. – noahspud8 years ago
Chris Carter, upon making the main concepts of the show, ensured that the two main characters would be in opposition of one another. The series includes character Dana Scully, a skeptic, and Fox Mulder, a true believer. The juxtaposition of each of their characterizations adds to the series conflict. By creating both external and interior conflict, the writers create an intriguing and thought provoking series.
"Laurel and Hardy," the comedy show hugely famous during the first half of the 20th century, was translated to Spanish as "El gordo y el flaco" (the fat guy and the skinny guy). Since that early moment in television entertainment, it was clear that the main characters of a TV show would create a more appealing interaction if they were opposed to each other in some way. Sometimes the difference is physical, sometimes it is intellectual. Sometimes their personality is different. Sometimes their difference is their values. And sometimes their difference is their gender. And sometimes is all of the above. – T. Palomino2 years ago
They are everywhere, revival after revival. Gilmore Girls packed in 6 million initial viewers nearly 10 years after its not so ending ending for A Year In The Life. Boy Meets World sprung to life 20 years later with a new generation and over 5 million initial viewers in Girl Meets World. Full House was revived almost 30 years later a little bit fuller and with 14.4 million viewers in its first 35 days on Netflix. I believe the secret to these successes are the millennials. It's been repeatedly noted that millennials crave authenticity and TV revivals are swimming it. Getting a second chance to meet with characters you grew up with is like reconnecting with an old friend. Older millennials crave this sense of familiarity in a world they no longer understand. However on the (not so) opposite hand we have the later millennials. While it is still about authenticity for them it's more about feeling like they are apart of something, fitting into a "generation" that doesn't quite belong to them. Why do you think TV revivals are so important to this generation? Is it just because they've seen everything on Netflix and need a new show or is a deeper, more heartfelt search for somewhere to fit in?
Interesting observation; however, I should warn the prospective author of this article to be wary of such broad strokes in generational thinking. [Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFwok9SlQQ and also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iJdimomLTQ ] I'm not suggesting that the demographic correlation that you're proposing does not exist, but it may be a little more nuanced than "Older millennials crave this sense of familiarity." That said, there might be something worth exploring about the condescension of Netflix executives operating under this mentality when shaping their programming around what they think millennials want. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I think Millenials may have some nostalgia for the past as they are very close with their families. Even playing LPs is experiencing revival. – Munjeera8 years ago
I definitely agree that this conversation is nuanced, and would like to see you explore the topic in as much depth as possible. As an older millennial (born in '86), I do feel a sense of familiarity when I watch revivals like Fuller House. But more than the familiar, I crave shows that use older conventions, that don't feel like they have to fall back on gimmicks or cheap humor to get viewers. That craving drew me to "newer" shows like The Middle and Speechless, ones that explore new ground but have their roots deep in the good old family sitcom. That might be an angle to explore. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
In the three days after its Netflix release, "Stranger Things" rocketed to number 26 IMDB's top 250 shows. Marketed across the internet as a well-casted, spooky, nostalgia-perfect program, the description inspired a cross-internet search for movies, television shows, and assorted media that has been marketed for its "nostalgic" value and their close ties to the 80s and 90s. The majority of the hits were produced in the past 20-30 years (Clueless, Grease), but many instead are recent productions taking place in that time period (It Follows, Stranger Things), falling into decades not old enough to be considered "period pieces" but also clearly not modern age.
Examine this category of film and television, its cultural appeal, its widespread success across the western world, and determine whether or not "nostalgia" is being appropriately applied to these very specific decades, or how media of these categories might be alternatively described.
Excellent topic! You allow for a multitude of avenues to be explored. I also appreciate your own inquiry into the use of the word "nostalgia" when referring to works from these decades, and the categorization of such titles. Who is to say what is and what is not able to conjure up feelings of nostalgia? Great choice...I look forward to reading this, as I believe someone will pick up this topic. – danielle5778 years ago
This is a great topic and I think many readers will be able to relate to it. I myself find that I am a part of the nostalgia generation and I think it's because there are too many sitcoms out there today. Back in the 90s and early 2000s there were only a handful of sitcoms. You watched Friends, Party of 5, 90210, and you felt a connection with the characters. The shows were simple and offered viewers a place to go and just enjoy the story lines. I think this topic can be picked up with ease and I look forward to commenting on it. – iwrite8 years ago
Love this topic as a fan of "Stranger Things" and the 80s iconography it pays tribute to. Part of the appeal of nostalgia stems from those who grew up during those specific periods as well as those who just have a fondness for those eras in general. I do wonder if younger audiences for "Stranger Things" enjoyed it as much as I know older millennials did. If they did, I suppose the appeal for them is that it has elements they can relate to, i.e. the group of kids and their adventures with Eleven. For teenagers, it had the Nancy, Jonathan and Steve storylines; Gen-Xers have Joyce and Hopper. I thought nostalgia was cleverly applied to "Stranger Things," because, while the show is bursting with 80s love, it also flips 80s tropes on their head at the same time, such as the Final Girl trope and the love triangle twist. Thus, it is upgraded to modern times while still remaining nostalgic. I think nostalgia has such crossover appeal because older people may introduce kids to the things popular in their era, and it gets passed on. I think its appeal is also in part due to an ironic yearning for the pre-Internet life. Interesting questions you have; hope your topic gets picked! – cebalo8 years ago
It's interesting as someone born mid-90's to see such a resurgence of classic "80's" nostalgia. I'm faintly aware, as an observer and less as one who's experience ATARI or the other trials of the 80's, and it's interesting to see how the Duffer brothers brought back to life a world so naturally, despite the ever-changing time and our own modern aesthetic of conscious dystopia. I think this is a very keen topic! – bbartonshaw8 years ago
