With a Gilmore Girls and Fuller House reboot on the horizon and a continuation of Arrested Development already completed… it is worth looking into Netflix (or arguably other network's) choices to reboot old shows.
Does this have any connection with the countless rebooted movies (or Disney's rebooted classics)? Is this a general trend in popular media? Why is Netflix perfectly placed to bring back old shows? Is there a market for this sort of television/does it generate enough money to keep warranting it? Also does this trend erode the need for original works? What about nostalgia pandering or nostalgia marketing?
There is a lot you could tackle with this subject and you could easily expand it into the general culture of reboots or focus it in on one Netflix reboot show. Either way, examine the place of these reboots in our social and economic climate.
Certainly a worthwhile topic. Something interesting to address on this subject: this tendency is parodied in season three of BoJack Horseman (which happens to be a Netflix original series) with "Ethan Around" as a clear surrogate for "Fuller House." This coy self-awareness on Netflix's part merit's a place in this discussion. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
This is a great topic in that Netflix has hit the reboot market. Today there is much more creative license than in the past so it makes sense that these successful ideas can be recreated with a fresh updated look. Who was who said there are only 7 stories anyway? Everything is just a variation on the same themes. – Munjeera8 years ago
I think the reboots are a good marketing strategy, I'm sure they're looking at what age groups are now adults that had those shows and movies as children. It's to profit off of nostalgia while also trying to dissuade people from thinking it's childish and old (obvious because now it's new, rebooted and "more mature" most must tell themselves). Honestly I'm sure there's a trend going on right now where if production companies don't tie in to something older and make something completely new the demographic is smaller and less profitable. It'd be neat to see the success of reboots over originals in this climate. – Slaidey8 years ago
Perhaps also exploring the requirements for something to be rebooted, would be helpful for this topic. How successful did a show have to be in it's primed to be considered? What are the parameters for a reboot? I love this idea, particularly as it's so relevant with the reboots that are coming up or rumoured to be coming up. Good luck!
– Abby Wilson8 years ago
Interesting topic. In terms of reboots, I believe that they can be a hit or a miss. I think the big reason why there are so many reboots is because people and Hollywood have simply run out of ideas. This will be an interesting article for whoever goes through with it. – CreativeDreamer8 years ago
Must be a good crop of member-berries this winter... Putting out a reboot is a safe option financially - it's a proven method to attract an already loyal audience and possibly bring in a new one as a bonus. However, I think that Netflix has shown that there is an appetite for clever original works. I know that they don't release them, but it would be really interesting to see what the viewing figures are for the service to see if my claims are justified. – SightUnsound8 years ago
Great topic! IMHO, reboots are shameless nostalgia pandering, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We loved the old shows, and keep retuning to them, because they're good. I feel like the reboots might cause TV network execs to say to themselves, "Okay, what did those shows do correctly, that we aren't doing anymore?" Reboots don't erode the need for original work, either. If anything they're a jump-off point for new shows that embrace the conventions people like. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Interesting topic. You might also consider how/why Netflix television shows have become more popular than Netflix movies. Each year, the number of movies on Netflix decreases because less and less people are watching them. Clearly, there is a market for TV shows and perhaps their high demand has something to do with these reboots. – JadeMV8 years ago
In every season of Ryan Murphy's American Horror Story, rape, miscarriage, and other forms of vaginal trauma are used to highlight the horrors felt by the show's female characters. Consider how effective these tropes are, or if female horror can extend beyond fears of mutilation or motherhood.
I don't watch the show, so I can't give insight on the show specifically...But considering how 'sacred' the vagina is, or is suppose to be anyway, when it comes to the process of making life, you can see how any trauma to it can be deemed horrible...Obviously there are other ways to scare of horrify females, but I must assume that rape is still a fear in the back of the mind of most women...Is it fair to say that women fear being raped more than hacked up by a deranged clown? – MikeySheff8 years ago
I see what you are saying and I think Ryan Murphy uses this concept of rape as a method of terror to really feed off that fear. In terms of evolution, ever species perceives reproduction as a means of survival. This probably adds to our own subconscious fear. – emilyholter8 years ago
At the same time I think using rape as a form of trauma is a poor way to capture how female characters feel because there are so many nonviolent ways to explore trauma. At this moment it feels more as a overused shock point – seouljustice8 years ago
Personally, I think rape is an effective conduit of fear. It's an extremely personal violation and an attack on womanhood, just as raping a man or otherwise harming his genitals would be an attack on manhood. However, I also feel female characters in the media get shortchanged because rape is often portrayed as the worst torment they can face, and the only thing they have to worry about. This is especially true in historical pieces because like it or not, getting raped or pregnant outside wedlock in past eras would ruin your life. What I would like to see more of, is women facing fears and terrors other than rape. Just like a man, a woman can contract a deadly superbug. She can face the horrors of war, on or off the battlefield, and that doesn't have to include being raped. She can survive life in slavery or a concentration camp, and survival alone is enough to show she's traumatized but tough. She can lose a limb, have a beloved child ripped from her, face down opponents in high-stakes intellectual conflicts...the possibilities are endless. Too much dependence on rape and rape tropes limits writers and limits women. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Comedian Tim Heidecker first became famous for his oddball sketch comedy television series Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! Since the show's run ended in 2010, he has pursued a number of creative projects in a range of media, including stand-up comedy, two rock albums with the duo Heidecker and Wood, and the web/television series On Cinema and Decker, as well as several podcast appearances and a sustained social media presence.
In many of these projects, Tim plays a version of himself as the consummate Hollywood boor: ill-tempered, egotistical, pretentious, vulgar, and desperately out of touch.
What does this character represent, and why does he have such appeal? Is he in fact one consistent character? How does the Heidecker persona change from one context to the next? What factors remain consistent, and how has the persona evolved over time?
Consider, also, the historical precedents for such a figure, such as Andy Kauffman's toying with the media and Stephen Colbert's persona on The Colbert Report, even characters like Barry Humphries' Dame Edna.
"Ill-tempered..." Sounds like Don Rickles' racist jokes about Obama. I'd love to see Jiminy Glick interview this fluid character. – Tigey8 years ago
Discuss the ways in which past elected officials in the U.S. have found themselves the center of one comedic play or another. How have these individuals, from presidents to senators, reacted to the satirical jabs directed at them? Is it possible to maintain the decorum of an elected official in face of a grinning Voltaire? Be specific and really focus in on one or a select core of presidential and or political figures that really fit the bill. Focus on a genre or style of humor like satire and really explore the mechanics of this humor as used for substantive critique. Great potential here, enjoy the adventure.
just an awesome topic considering the political season is coming to an end. Use things such as late night comedy to analysis deeper. Saturday Night Live does an awesome display of political satire and persuasion. It also holds a bias that makes it even more interesting. – Brittanie8 years ago
Don't leave out Amos and Andy. A political satire about the trial of Rodney King. – Munjeera8 years ago
Premium cable are cable channels an individual pays for, a common example is HBO or Showtime. TV networks that label themselves as premium services have flagship shows that are more graphic with topics like violence and sex. The question is, does the liberal approach to the arts make the shows better or the same content with more of a mature approach?
Whoever writes on this topic could show HBO developed. I would be interested to see how HBO as one of the first cable companies has maintained its cutting edge quality. – Munjeera8 years ago
Unlike her counterpart in the novel, the makers of Sherlock made a bold decision with their attempt at giving Mary Morstan a very prominent story arc in the third season of the hit TV series. However, the first episode of this season put a tragic end to this promising character's role. Now, with her part on the Sherlock series over, analyze what part her character played in the lives of the leads, how Sherlock and Watson had their individual priorities changed and what changes may be anticipated in the equation shared by them,especially considering that her death was partly caused by Sherlock's actions. Also, with Molly Hooper still having a very minor role in most episodes, analyze the consequences of the death of the only major female character in the series and whether this was justified(the makers have stated on record that her character was diverting all the attention from Sherlock-Watson and their bromance) considering that her murky past still held the promise of being fodder for more episodes…
I imagine one will not be able to fully complete this article until the season has had its run, as Mary's death will no doubt factor into Sherlock and Watson's relationship - I wouldn't call her part "over" quite yet. I like the mention of Mary's novel counterpart, yet it's sad they created such a strong female character to have her die in what I considered a rather ridiculous and undeserving manner. – Karen8 years ago
Dealing with hard issues using humour, with focus on Netflix Original, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Tina Fey explores a survivor's journey after escaping years of abuse with lightness and humour. Moreover, the show also makes reference to issues of cultural appropriation (or misappropriation), political-correctness, and other contemporary social issues.
What I like about this show is how it has an almost satirical approach to the topics you've mentioned, and so, it's not 'mindless' humour. Additionally, I think Kimmy is very relatable. There are so many traits to explore that make her an excellent character such as her modesty, genuineness and undefeated optimism. Try giving that a shot too! – Suman9 years ago
I think in particular the issues with PTSD in the second season would be a notable example of Kimmy's endurance – Darcy Griffin9 years ago
It took me a moment to appreciate this show, but as it progressed, I enjoyed the way in which difficult subjects were tackled in a comical manner without mocking the seriousness of the issues covered. – danielle5778 years ago
Whether it is Ned Stark's everlasting nobility or Joffrey Baratheon's undying wickedness, a static character in Game of Thrones always seems to perish. Analyze this idea and why this may be the case. Compare unchanging characters to dynamic ones and analyze why changes in character lead to success.
Interesting topic, it'd be intriguing to read whatever kind of explanation someone might try to come up with. But first I think it's important to discus in these notes what makes a "static" character to help the future writer of this article along? Are there exceptions to the rules? I feel as though some characters seem dynamic when in reality we they've been motivated by the same thing this whole time, we just didn't know what that was. Who is static, who's dynamic, and who's in trouble of becoming static and killed off because of this theory? – Slaidey8 years ago
I agree with Slaidey in that knowing who is truly dynamic vs. static may be premature at this point. Especially in light of the fact that some characters who are declared dead, may in fact be still alive (the Hound). But being unsure of the ultimate outcome certainly makes the discussion more interesting... – heliddick8 years ago
Yes, a substantial counterargument you'll encounter is that it's not the static characters that die, just the ones that are not central enough to the story that we have to know their complications. Ned's death and Littlefinger's persistence may be some of your strongest cases of proof, but Catelyn's death and Daenerys's continued living may not be in your favor. – IndiLeigh8 years ago
