Question for the Millennials: is this TV show a reflection of the Generation X ? As the seasons unfold the girls become awful, selfish, narcissistic and manipulative. Is this a reflection of this generation? How realistic are these characters or are they overtop for dramatic and comic effect?
Might be interesting to also consider this show's relationship to the rise of the anti-hero in TV drama, and the relatively recent tradition of the unlikable sitcom character (i.e. Seinfeld, Arrested Development, etc.). Are these characters anti-heroines? To what extent is that an aesthetic choice rather than a form of direct social commentary? How are the two related? – ccaputo9 years ago
As a GenX I would have to say it sounds like yes on the negative side of my generation. I don't watch this show but hopefully they will portray some of the positive sides of my generation too. We make loyal friends and don't want to sell out. I have heard of a few criticisms of my generation such as we work to live instead of living to work like the Boomers and we are not that committed to our employers to mention one gripe of my peers. I wonder if that is portrayed. Whoever does this topic will have to define the prominent qualities of GenX. Hopefully positives and negatives. – Munjeera9 years ago
Very interesting subject.
Even though the girls in this show are portrayed as manipulative and narcissistic, they're also a reflection of a generation that is trying, making mistakes and unafraid to admit that the transition towards adulthood is both scary and though. The show can be exaggerated but the interesting part of it is also its ability to be raw, truthful and to present a new vision of the heroine or anti-heroine seen on TV.
The relation to sex is also completely different, as it is for the GenX, nor bad or good, which is interesting since the show is depicting it whithout any inhibitions but also without making any value judgement. It could be a good example to illustrate the answer to the question. – Ambre8 years ago
I think it is a little narrow minded to consider that Girls is an accurate representation of millennials as a generation. Perhaps instead of boxing in a whole generation of the population, consider taking a pro/con approach and tie it into how growing up as a millennial has been shaped by growing up around/being raised by people of previous generations. Of course, Girls is true-to-life in its representation of real world struggles, but a lot of the time the girls get what they want and hardly have to make an effort with the exception perhaps of Hannah. That could be another interesting direction to consider for this topic. – mingl0188 years ago
I had a couple of conversations recently in which I praised Gen Xers for being hard to market, and Millenials for being savers like the Silent Generation that grew up through the Depression. I was told by both friends, who are employers, that Milennials have no work ethic. Neither commented on Gen Xers. I'm not happy about this. I'd rather think this stuff is cyclical rather than believe the ship is sinking. Hopefully, it's just youth or two old crabby guys spouting off. Pretty scary, though, that one guy has a pretty good sized sample of employees to assess. He also told me the best employee he ever had was a Hmong guy who had been in the U.S. for a very short time. But it's alright, it's alright. You can't be forever blessed. – Tigey8 years ago
In “Sex and the City” food and restaurants not only provide a space of community in which to strengthen social, predominantly female, bonds but also come to mirror the ladies own sexual “appetites”. The four main characters gather at restaurants to discuss their problems, heartaches, successes, and their careers etc. At the heart of each episode are these scenes; no matter what the characters are doing, they will always find time to come together over a meal. For all New York divides, in terms of neighbourhoods, space, etc. “Sex and the City” argues that it is through sharing food that female solidarity can be achieved. Finally, the show’s obsession with food and restaurants extends to the main thesis of the show: that women can have sexual desires the same as men – thus, subverting this cultural idea that women have to curb or control their sexual "appetites" to be proper women. The show also subverts the typical discourse the market where women are consumed by men, and instead constructs men as commodities as well.
I think what could also be mentioned is whether or not Carrie having a sex column is connected to the girls' obsession with talking about, and objectifying men over food. While this may delve into another topic it would be interesting to analyze how the 4 chore women's roles would differ together if one of them were never present. For example, does Charlotte's old fashion sensability keep the group of friends grounded? – georgianer9 years ago
Maybe a better title, but an article that explores whether or not TV shows give us a false idea of reality and whether or not they are realistic or not. Suggest whether the false reality it presents is a good way to escape or somewhat ordinary lives or if it is giving us false hope. Is the unrealistic plots of shows hindering our views and perception of the world, are they brainwashing us to think that this is what life should be like? or is it just a harmless way to get out of our own heads? maybe use examples from popular shows.
I would say definitely use examples from popular shows. That is really the only way you can make this argument effectively. It's an interesting theory though, basically questioning whether television is a mirror or molder of society. – John Wilson9 years ago
TV shows have become the go to method for escapism for many people. From an hour long trip to Westeros to a simple 30 minute dive into the world of Friends, a main part of our lives circulates around tv shows and the relief it gives us after a long day. Although TV shows can be stress relievers, there have definitely been times when I have thought that my social life was supposed to be one way, because I was so immersed in a show. TV shows are essentially as many people would put, like drugs. (I'm looking at you Breaking Bad) It isn't a bad thing that we watch shows, sometimes we even get a bit of motivation and inspiration from a character. There needs to be a healthy medium between binge watching to escape and being completely brainwashed. – simplyangiec8 years ago
Sometimes. Other times it's our own fantasy of getting justice against our enemies, ala Walter White, that makes us confuse his sad life for a happy, vengeful life we want for ourselves. But just as Walter's life becomes terrible, so does any life of vengeance. Hang in there, kids, the bastards will hang themselves on the gallows they built. – Tigey8 years ago
That depends on what you understand by "reality." – T. Palomino2 years ago
Since 2007-2008 TV has evolved exponentially. What used to be cinema's little brother, has now become a top contender against the industry. In the old days, A list actors and actresses thought it was shameful to move from the big screen to the silver screen, normally, it was the other way around. Nowadays, we see big actors on the little screen. For example: Tom Hiddleston in The Night Manager, or Eva Green in Penny Dreadful, or Matthew McConaughey in True Detective. Can an A list actor or actress maintain their "tittle" even if they switch from movies to TV? Are there more opportunities on TV than in the film industry? Which one grants the most financial stability? Is it the quality of the shows or the networks behind them that attract the talent?
Anyone else a little overwhelmed by all the good TV? From Walter White jokes to understanding why Julianne Hough got in trouble for that pesky 'Crazy Eyes' Halloween costume, it seems that TV's Golden Age has created a new cultural vocabulary. Are we all keeping up? Should we be trying?
Yes; but i think in this day and age; the public needs to be aware of the downfalls of certain tv shows reality or fiction. Also the tv that is out there is put out there for public consumption, it is our choice if we the public can filter whats too much for us or what we shouldn't watch or let our kids watch. – Dwrite9 years ago
I think that something that may be of use to the topic would be to acknowledge how many good TV shows are being cancelled in favor of those that have been on for too long and are poorly written, simply because some people would throw fits if their shows got cancelled. A few good examples of this are Firefly, Forever, and Pushing Daisies. It seems like a lot of intelligent TV gets cancelled in favor of things that rely on cheap laughs and clichees. – Cate9 years ago
When referring to "good" TV, it should be acknowledged that the addition of new mediums like Netflix and Hulu has affected the industry. Also, it could be helpful to analyze how much content is lifted (directly or indirectly) by the previous boom periods of TV shows, measuring how much success is copied from the trial-and-error already iconic programming – Dominique Kollie9 years ago
In about '89 TV was such a brain- and time-sucker I stopped watching for 25 years. In truth, since we rented movies, I missed only sports playoffs. A couple years ago I was gifted a smart TV, added Netflxx, and it was off to the races. The race stopped quickly, however, as one of the first shows I watched was Breaking Bad, which has ruined me. The only show as good is the original Arrested Development. Life is short, good is the enemy of great, I don't want to be in a nursing home quoting Pauly Shore, and I've caught myself apologizing for programs – Tigey8 years ago
May I just ask what the point of this project would be? – T. Palomino2 years ago
I read a Jezebel article with a title that sums it up best: "To Save Money on a TV Show, Just Get Rid of the Women." Thankfully, Castle was cancelled before they were able to implement this change. But when news broke that Some Genius decided to get rid of female lead Stana Katic, many fans were understandably pissed. Katic's character Kate Beckett had been central to the show since the very beginning, and the dynamic between her and Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion) was the glue that held it together (although arguably it jumped the shark several seasons ago). It seemed absurd to suddenly off her after eight seasons. That being said, is it really that surprising that (amid rumours of her feuds with Fillion on set), the producers decided it would be feasible to keep going and tactlessly fire the Important Woman Actor, instead of just ending the show's already too-long run? (Also note: fellow Actress and Woman Tamala Jones was set to depart Castle after the eighth season.)
There is a long history of expendable women characters such as Suzanne Somers from Three's Company and Farrah Fawcett from Charlie's Angels from the 70s. So true. – Munjeera9 years ago
Analyze why one of the main characters in Game of Thrones is revived, and if he is revived for plot reasoning and why this would be, or rather to please audience members by playing on popular societal trends.
Honestly, I do not think this topic can be answered fully until the series reaches the conclusion. There are certainly hints and theories (R+L=J , The Prince That Was Promised, being free from his Night's Watch vows) that could help explain why Jon was resurrected, but until the conclusion there is no way to analyze the extent of Jon's character and importance.
I also would note that I don't believe this resurrection is "playing on popular societal trends" that occur commonly on television. This resurrection has been in the works for years, since the last book came out. This isn't something that came out of thin air for ratings.
This would be an interesting topic to explore after the conclusion of the series, but right now I do not believe it can be answered. If one wanted to explore the topic though, they could look at Jon as following the 'Hero's Journey'. By analyzing Jon through that perspective it could help predict reasons why Jon is important to the overall narrative, although there will be no concrete evidence to draw from in regards to the final stages. – Lexzie9 years ago
Easy answer: the theory is he has king's blood so he's a contender for the child of prophecy along with Daenerys. I think Jon's resurrection is catering to fan interests though. Lexzie is right, an article should analyse Jon as a character, assess where he'll go based on trends in literary genres that resemble it. I'm sure there are plenty enough fan theory based Buzzfeed articles about how and why this one plot mark came to being so lets make it broader and deeper. – Slaidey9 years ago
This is essentially answered in the books – Darcy Griffin9 years ago
I believe it is for plot reasoning. Jon's death at the nights watch allowed for "his watch to end". Jon entered the Wall in the first season as green as a tree but now his character has developed into one of the most special characters in GOT. I believe his character has now grown past commander of the nights watch and off to bigger and better things. – Ringo8 years ago
Jon Snow was told by the raven that he had to kill a boy to become a man--as is explicitly shown in the scene when the four traitors are hanged--yet there is a double meaning. It does not solely refer to the death of the boy who stabbed him, but to the death of jon snow, the young boy who emerges as a man no longer concerned with pleasing others.
Personally, I have read the books long before the series began and I have always seen Daenerys and jon snow as the "end game," of the series. The series is titled a "song of fire and ice,"--> Daenerys being the fire; Jon being the ice. He is a pivotal character essential to the plot development of the show. His return will be monumental as his birth right holds tremendous secrets and insights into the true ruler of the iron throne. – danielle5778 years ago
I suggest that they are not. First of all, the format is completely different. Instead of seasons with standard amounts of episodes of 20-60 minutes, a Korean Drama runs for approx. 60 minutes, for approx. 20 episodes. Soap operas and Dramas may have continuous story lines, but it seems that with a soap opera, there are more decisions (with regards to the cast, the plotline) that develop based on consumer reaction (i.e., ratings have a lot to do with what happens in the soap). Dramas seem to be pre-determined, as if a viewer is simply watching a 20-hour movie. I wonder if this comparison is just, given that they emerge from different cultures.
Another good point to bring up is that K-dramas are not produced in a similar fashion to North American ones. Episodes are often finished not long before (even the same day) they air. You are right that they are not the same, not even close. Popular drama in North America has started to veer in a different direction, darker is perhaps the word I'm looking for. The smash hit of series like "House of Cards", "Breaking Bad", and "Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire)" show this trend in North America. – Aridas9 years ago
