Netflix has just announced a new adaptation of "Anne of Green Gables," Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" is finally under production for Starz, and both the TV adaptations of "Zoo" (James Patterson) and "Beowulf" have received excellent reviews after the most recent seasons. The the question arises: are film and TV studios running out of original ideas and content. Is the media bound to fall into the trap of making mainly adaptations of already created content, or is there hope for up and coming authors who wish to create new, potentially never before seen shows and movies?
I'm fascinated by this topic, mainly because I'd argue just the opposite. Certainly the lack of original content in mainstream cinema is prevalent today, but that has contributed in ushering in this new Golden Age of television that we are currently experiencing. Between HBO, AMC, and Netflix, we've seen some of the most original shows in recent memory: from The Sopranos and The Wire, to Mad Men and Breaking Bad, to House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. Like TKing, I hardly see how a new Anne of Green Gables adaptation represents the end of all of that. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Furthermore (re: your edits), though TV has been a breeding ground for innovative original content in the past decade or so, it is also presents creators and audiences with the ideal format for adaptations of novels. One of the biggest complaints that people always have when a novel is a adapted to film is that the book is better, the reason for this typically having a lot to do with the limited scope and timeframe of a film (seldom exceeding three hours), which cannot ever scratch the surface of a five hundred page book and barely lets you connect with the characters on the same level as you would as a reader. Television is therefore a much more suitable format for translating the experience of a book into an audio-visual medium, because it goes on for longer, is more easily divided into chapters, and can go into greater detail with each character. The best example of this that we see today is Game of Thrones; the ASOIAF series would have inevitably failed if each book were turned into a movie, but with a season per book, it's become one of the most popular and critically acclaimed shows of all time. Considering what Brian Fuller did with Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter novels - which can be described only as alchemy - I'm excited to see what he has in store for American Gods. Obviously, your point about Anne of Green Gables has merit (because that particular story has already been adapted enough), but I think we should be embracing the potential of TV adaptations of novels, having reached this period in which the art of television has become equal to that of cinema. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Please disregard the word never in my previous note. I should never have written never. – Tigey8 years ago
Be careful with this topic as one, it has been written a lot, and two, does adapting really mean running out of ideas? An adaptation requires a tremendous amount of creativity and fresh ideas to make it interesting. Plus art since the beginning of the world has always been about adapting ideas - you can never really create something completely new, without being inspired by others works or the world around you. Is Baz Luhrman's Gatsby or Romeo + Juliet just pale replicas with no character or creativity? Has he ran out of ideas on these films? I personally don't think so! :) – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun8 years ago
Adaptions also guarantee some sort of audience, so the TV/film adaption won't have to connect to completely new viewers. Even though the adaption may not be great, people will still come to see it because they already have some sort of attachment to it – ckmwriter8 years ago
It's a common conception to think that film and TV studios are running out of original ideas and content because of all the remakes and adaptations we have seen lately. However, I believe that all of the remakes and adaptations bring something new to the table. The people in charge of remaking or adapting something, have to make the piece of work relevant today - they have to modernize it. Moreover, not only do they have to attract the fans of the original piece of work but a new audience. So, I believe that once something is remade or adapted, it's a new piece of art - it has become original in a sense. Those studios are taking a story/idea that already exists and are making it their own. – simplykrizia8 years ago
An in-depth analysis of the popular TV show The Office and how it rises above mere entertainment to become a genuine, nihilistic examination of everyday American office workers and the meaning they can find in their cyclical lives.
Don't forget, The Office originally started out as a British TV show, established by comedian Ricky Gervais. However, I think comparing how successful the American Office and how it became so much more popular than The Office UK. It's probably also worth exploring the style of The Office (fictional reality) and the clever use of a 'mock-umnetary' style of filming. Good luck! – Abby Wilson8 years ago
(agreed about the British Office thing mentioned above) but also, amazing idea! The office is a depiction of American office workers, but also of the personalities we all know. Dwight, Michael and Jim etc all represent experiences we have all had and understand. Perhaps approach this from the standpoint of what the characters mean to the viewer, how the personality types were created to be familiar and recognizable. The show offers a narrative not only on the office environment, but on the mindset of general America, and the way the countries citizens have been socialized to behave. – JoshuaStrydom8 years ago
In the older times comedy consisted of jokes, funny faces and surely others. Now, they consist of people getting injuries (in a somehow funny way), puns and witty comebacks that we found online or made up ourselves. It's weird to see how it's progressed, whether it's a good or bad transformation.
Slapstick comedy (people being injured in comical ways) is a very old comedy device. – Amanda9 years ago
The oldest surviving examples of comedy as a genre come from the ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes - he made an awful lot of dick jokes (perhaps that's what you meant by "surely others"). Try familiarizing yourself with the rich history of comedy before making claims about what it "was then" and "is now." – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I'm not certain this is accurate. For example...one of the original Saturday Night Live cast members, Chevy Chase, had a routine that entirely consisted of him throwing himself down a flight of stairs. Think of Eddie Murphy in all of the Beverly Hills Cop movies, how many times did he fall off a car he was attempting to stop during a chase? Even further back, think of the court jester of medieval times who would entertain the patron's of the castle by injuring himself and creating tremendous laughter throughout the court. – danielle5778 years ago
If you're looking for a good resource for the progression of comedy over time, I'd recommend Jimmy Carr's book The Naked Jape. In general it finds that comedy goes from very unrefined mischief characters in various cultural mythologies to much more of a conscious effort to evoke laughter. Oddly enough, much of the material (ie. sex jokes, slapstick, puns, etc.) have remained almost throughout. – Ian Miculan8 years ago
I think you may want to reflect upon the catharsis aspect. In older times, comedies consisted of jokes about the bourgeoisie, which made laugh poor people. Throughout history, as you have said, comedy has a changed a lot. Why do you think people enjoy so much shows like "Jackass" or "The Dudeson"? Could it be our way of life that has changed so radically that we now need this kind of extreme humor? – leandre778 years ago
Before Jackass there was Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin and the Keystone Kops, all falling down. Slapstick started when Eve threw the apple at the snake, missed, hit Adam, he fell on top her and the rest is history. We're all products of "slapstick." – Tigey8 years ago
The beginning of The Sopranos began with a session with a psychologist and a pool full of ducks. Tony projected many of the inner conflictions he felt about his family onto the ducks and they served as an important reminder of the work-family juxtapositions of the Mafia boss' life.
Discuss and analyse the representative relationship between Tony and the ducks in relation to family, work, and his lucid dream-states when talking to Dr. Melfi.
Consider whether Sherlock can last any further seasons. With a let down audience from the Christmas special, is Sherlock going to struggle to keep its originality?
I think it would help if this topic was broadened a little bit. Maybe if it analyzed Sherlock throughout the seasons and then compared them to now and what the future may bring. Or, talk about other shows along with Sherlock. OR, write an article about a television series' need to stay fresh but original and how to keep the audience interested. – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
No, it can't really. I mean, it can go on forever, but it will lose it's unique appeal. And I think it really could be great if it just stopped now. There's not much storytelling reason to keep it going, because each episode is feature length. There's already so much of it to enjoy. But if it should go a bit longer, maybe one more season and then close it out. The Japanese anime series, Detective Conan, is very similar in how it keeps a lot of the clues away from the audience, relying on the chemistry between characters to keep your interest, and involving strange technology and gadgets. Detective Conan also has a very compelling premise, where the main detective character is drugged with something that reverts him to the size and physical age of an 8 year old, requiring him to fool others by using another detective as his mouth piece. The problem, though, is that this series has been running non-stop since the mid-1990s, and has never once concluded the initial plot: that being getting this young detective back to his normal age and body. And the murder plots are so repetitive and so overdone, that the spark and intrigue is completely gone. The first 5 seasons released in America by FUNimation are solid, and the first few movies are amazing. But after that point, the show just looses its steam, and yet keeps chugging along like Pokemon, as if it still thinks what they're producing is worth someone's time. I mean, clearly it is, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Someone is watching it. It just sucks that it couldn't close out the story ark back in the 90s when it would have meant something. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I don't think it can go on much longer, either. Maybe cover how the show is losing steam. Be sure to include specific examples of how the plot is deadening and why Moriarty is necessary to the show. – Robyn McComb9 years ago
Interesting topic, but I think the title limits the a writer in what they can explore to answer these questions. – Arazoo Ferozan9 years ago
The interesting aspect of today's TV is that a great bit of it can (and does) stray away from the book or original narrative. While becoming more innovative, character, action and plot can fulfill the essential drama that defines the story.
– Jeffery Moser9 years ago
Hmm, was the audience really let down by the Christmas special? Just a quick google search makes me think that it's disputable; in fact, it looks like a lot of fans reacted positively. Also, be aware that Moriarty is actually not a huge figure in the original Conan Doyle stories; the idea of him being Sherlock's archenemy is actually a bit of a myth. This topic is making a lot of assumptions that I'm not certain are true. If you think that Sherlock can't go on past the death of Moriarty, even though the stories do, I think there needs to be a legitimate reason that a potential writer of this topic could go off of. – Laura Jones9 years ago
As Laura Jones said, not everyone was disappointed by the Christmas special. I'm sure the reason people were disappointed was because they expected the story of Moriarty to continue. However, the special was about developing Sherlock's character. We saw him, a man who has lived according to facts, allow his fear of Moriarty's return to defy reason.
Doctor Who fans who know Moffat's writing probably weren't surprised about the special and I think he and Gatiss will be able to write new and original stories for Sherlock to keep going. – JennyCardinal8 years ago
If there has indeed been a drop off in audience, it might be due to the fact that there is such a large time gap between new seasons. It is hard for a show to keep going full steam when it doesn't have a consistent release schedule of new episodes. – KennethC8 years ago
It seems that these days that worth is a relatively loose term. Just as with athletes and music artists, it seems that it is the likeability of a product as opposed to the usefulness of it results in its net worth. Successful heart surgeons make far less than successful boy bands. Prize winning athletes make far more than Nobel and Pulitzer prize winners and usually spend it on useless items in order to crow of their newfound wealth while scholastics and academia are in constant search of funds for life altering discoveries. Reality television is on par with overly rewarded athleticism and one hit wonders. The brutality of democracy in the modern age, it seems, deems reality television stars more valuable than much more noteworthy professions, which begs the question; does this affect the way America sees opportunities in becoming wealthy?
Even something on social media--people try to make names for themselves by being as silly as possible just to go "viral." – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
I think it is a world wide phenomenon. There are internet stars and reality show stars in every country. You are 100% correct. – Munjeera9 years ago
Great Topic! This could maybe be expanded beyond how wealth and fame are acquired to how they are maintained, grown, and used. – eLarene9 years ago
Include examples of these reality TV shows like Jersey Shore, KUWTK, AYTO and any more you can think of and analyze why the people on these shows have become more important to viewers than those who make positive contributions to the world like doctors and Nobel prize winners. – Deana Murphy8 years ago
Does YouTube see Netflix as competition? How do they compare and contrast as online streaming video services? Pros and cons of each? Thoughts on which company will likely be more successful in the near future? Will they ever come head-to-head in a pricing war in any of their services?
Um, I'm confused. How do these two streaming services have anything in common with each other? Netflix offers large amounts of movies and TV shows on an unlimited basis for $8 a month. While Youtube charges $2.99 on rentals for all of the films and TV shows they offer, and yet even with Youtube Red now available, they still don't have a pay by monthly streaming service. Amazon and Hulu on the other hand, do, and they would be in much more direct competition with Netflix. Also, something that none of these other services do that Youtube does is allow every day people to upload their own content, no matter how high quality or low quality it is. And that has made Youtube completely its own unique market that only a handful of other smaller sites have attempted to compete with. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I have to agree. Unless youtube changes their model and content or has plans to that I'm not aware of, I'm not really seeing it. – Tatijana9 years ago
Yeah, I agree that YouTube offers a creative platform while Netflix does not, and though Netflix is an extremely popular streaming site, people will use other platforms. Though I know there are sites like Dailymotion, YouTube seems to be way more prominent than other sites that operate as primarily hosting videos. Maybe comparing Netflix to the sites Jonathan Leiter suggested, Amazon or Hulu, would be more compatible and easier because the services are similar? – emilydeibler9 years ago
I disagree with the other posters. I DO think these two services are rapidly approaching each other. First, all entertainment venues are competing for eyeballs. Traditional broadcast TV will often point out that now not only is it in competition with cable TV and video games, but ratings are also down because the market is further fractionalized by streaming services. As for these two big companies, Youtube has begun offering full length movies, both free and for rent on a pay-per-stream basis. Netflix, once primarily the domain of feature films has been moving toward shorter, episodic television as its bread-and-butter, even going so far as launching its own original series. Some of these are hour long programs, some are shorter, half hour programs, many are even shorter than that. It's first success story was reviving Arrested Development at an average runtime of less than 20min per episode. While Netflix is more directly in competition with Amazon and Hulu at this time, Youtube is not to be discounted. – Eric9 years ago
I think this needs to be specified in a few ways. Along with what you mean by "young" mentioned by Cmandra, is there a time frame? 21st century TV shows? Perhaps this has a connection to feminist movements? Just saying positive female roles isn't sufficient, I feel there should be something about positive female roles and what they mean to "young women" viewers that could be expanded upon. – Connor9 years ago
I think this is an excellent topic. I too would be interested in specifics. Animated or live action? How recent? Are these shows that are still airing? Just some ideas. – emilydeibler9 years ago
This is extremely vague. Perhaps pick a set of comparable shows to choose from to help the future author discern a direction to go in. – alexpaulsen9 years ago
I agree that the description is too brief, but this is an interesting topic and I'm curious to see what can be done with it. Another question to ask would be: what makes a TV show empowering for young women? When it comes to women and media, it's difficult to find content that portray female characters in strong, capable roles that are not exploited sexually. But the Feminism movements of the past couple years is evoking a change. So perhaps this article could outline the criteria said TV show would need. Or, it could be a call-for-action, highlighting the need to produce more TV shows to empower young women. – Megan Finsel9 years ago
Great topic! Like many people have already said, it is rather proud. What is your definition of "young"? and does it mean that these tv shows cannot also empire older women, also? Since this topic is very broad. Narrow your scopes, because tv shows can range from animated, reality, to network television, and many more. But, I think taking a tv show from all these ranges can really enrich this article! – ADenkyirah9 years ago
I agree that this is an excellent topic but it needs to be narrowed and explained more. Are you talking about positive self image in terms of physicality? That could lead to examinations of shows like "Ugly Betty" and whether they are positive or negative. If you mean empowering in terms of careers, the article could focus on the changes in television content over the past 15 years and examine the presence or absence of strong female leads. – NateBlake9 years ago
