The Super Bowl has been around for nearly 50 years. In recent years, it's also become a fantastic opportunity for business advertising, as many Super Bowl watchers will be able to view their commercials. Some people even look more forward to the Super Bowl commercial than the games. Over the years, commericals ranging from monkeys wearing office attire in a CareerBuilder commercial in 2006 to a hybrid "Puppy Monkey Baby" promoting Mountain Dew products this year, and more going farther back than the beginning of the new millenium. This might raise a few questions for marketers and those interested in promoting their products. What constitutes a successful Super Bowl commercial? And how has this changed over the years? And why are there monkeys featured in several of them?
Please do note that Artifice Writer Ryan Errington published "Super Bowl Commercials and Sponsorship" so the writer for this article can refer to this article as a point of reference or starting point and then expand it while addressing some of the questions introduced by James.
– Venus Echos9 years ago
It might be of interest to discuss what makes a successful commercial from the audience's point of view, too. The author of this piece might talk about how/why people look forward to the Super Bowl just because of the commercials. What kind of commercials do they want to see? – Nicole Williams9 years ago
Analyze the mainstream fascination with media that depicts the misanthropic genius, focusing on the FOX drama "House." It has been established by "House" creators that the titular character is molded from Sherlock Holmes, with Dr. James Wilson existing as a John Watson figure. In recent years, Conan Doyle's infamous creation has achieved widespread mainstream success in various forms from the Robert Downey, Jr./Jude Law films to the Benedict Cumberbatch/Martin Freeman BBC series to the Jonny Lee Miller/Lucy Liu PBS drama, Elementary. Explore what makes this type of character so appealing? Do we gravitate towards these films and television shows because they speak to a deep fascination with a person who can consistently defy rules and get away with it because they're geniuses? Or, bearing in mind Dr. Allison Cameron's character, do we have a secret need to attach ourselves and fix the stunted social growth of these characters?
Other questions to explore with House. How far are we as an audience willing to go along with House? Can a genius be excused from moral culpability? Does genius need isolation? As one who cures ills - is House aware of his own "ills"? – MELSEY9 years ago
Explore whether the character is justifiably reckless as his behaviours usually ends in saving a life or is this behaviour just plane reckless and in reality would not necessarily tolerated. You can also maybe use science theories to see why women sometimes are attracted to guys that they need to fix. Like the guy that would change for them and be the good guy for them. – Mel9 years ago
I'd love to see what the writer comes up with. From a medical standpoint I love House, but I don't watch it much because I can't stand the titular character's behavior. A couple thoughts:
1. Are there limits to what we're willing to put up with from characters (ex.: when they're justifiably reckless vs. when they're just being cold or non-compassionate)?
2. Does our worldview impact how we view these characters? For instance, I'm a Protestant Christian and an INFJ, so it really jars me when a character is as uncaring as House. But I also have friends of different personalities, including Christian friends, who say, "Lighten up." Are there certain worldviews or experiences that make characters like House more tolerable? – Stephanie M.8 years ago
The art of female characters in film and TV shows and how they have progressed. Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Peggy Carter.
We first see Peggy Carter in Captain America and now she has her own show Agent Carter, you can focus on the progression of that character from Captain America to who she is now and how she is perceived as well. Black Widow is first seen around in Iron Man, and how she has progressed from Avengers and etc., how they have used the character in their favor and have progressed her towards an awesome or not so awesome female character in the MCU. She may have started off as a character that potentially had growth, but with the recent plots she has had in Age of Ultron, does she have that same potential. Then last but not least, Scarlet Witch. She was first seen in Age of Ultron, which means this character is going to show up next in Civil War. That means she has had the least potential shown in a film in the MCU, this one can be based off what you know as a character — this could possibly derive from the comics as well. I added this one because it would be interesting to see how they have shown her progression just in this one film. Have they showed some potential in her character that can be positive?
Seems like Peggy Carter has developed the most as a crossover from movies to TV. I do believe she is the first Marvel female character to successfully crossover with the same actress. Given the success of Agent Carter hopefully the trend will continue. – Munjeera9 years ago
I find a lot of people thought Natasha's arc in AOU was stopping her storyline and taking from her being "badass" but I personally thought it made her more complex and realistic. There is nothing wrong with a super agent who has been deprived of life to wish she could have kids, etc. I think it'd be also cool to discuss how people expect certain things from female characters to define them as strong (no feelings, no boyfriends, etc) and how that often makes them just another form of 2D. – noursaleh9 years ago
I think the only reasons Natasha's arc was so hated in AoU is because some women are so sick and tired of the same old story arcs. Like Noursaleh said, it's not completely unreasonable and it isn't strictly misogynistic. That being said, some of the controversy comes from who wrote it. Might you want to include a section of this paper that addresses "Death of the Author"? Either a critique of it or a defense of it? Should things stand on their own, away from the author; Should folks take the creator into account when looking at a text? Would reaction to Romanoff's character been different had it been written by a woman? woman of color? etc.? – sniederhouse9 years ago
This article would now make for a timely read. Analyse the characters of Valkyrie, Captain Marvel, Shuri and Pepper Potts too. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
In the early years of the Cold War, the nuclear family was promoted as providing an important sense of security. From "Leave it to Beaver," to "All in the Family," to "Dallas," to "Full House," to "Modern Family," the idea of family and what family means has almost been a direct reflection of their times. From no conflict, to constant conflict, to occasional conflict, the portrayal of "family" on television appears to both reflect and attempt to influence American ideas on the subject.
Excellent topic and so many variables here to establish such as cultural and gender roles and how they have transitioned. Additionally, the author can determine if the changes are inclusive to mirror more of American society and less of the mainstream demographics. – Venus Echos9 years ago
It's important here to include families of color. All of the families OP mentioned are white --- with the exception of Modern Family's Lily, Gloria, Manny, and Joe. Consider Family Matters, A Different World, The Cosby Show, and Blackish. – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
I had considered the exact same topic from a strictly African-American perspective, going from "Good Times," to "The Cosby Show" (though hard to dance around the unfortunate taboo of the name there, maybe swap it for "Family Matters"), to "Fresh Prince of Bel Air," to "Black-ish." (but then I got selfish and decided to tuck that one away for myself). – TheHall9 years ago
As mentioned, this is a great topic, but I also think it's important to study "atypical" familial situations, and ask what is a "family" per se. In one episode of the The Golden Girls, Rose must endure triple bypass surgery and the other "girls" are not allowed to see her at first in the hospital because they are not related to her. Dorothy raises the question "what is a family?" It could also be interesting to take an approach studying how these television characters become "families" to us, the viewers. I come from a loving, "typical" nuclear family, but also lived alone for much of my adult life. The Golden Girls has always been my security blanket, and got me through many rough, lonely times. The Facts of Life is another popular sitcom that altered a typical nuclear family with four girls who were not related, from very different backgrounds, but, like The Golden Girls, they formed a familial bond just the same. Both of these shows, along with The Cosby Show, helped carry NBC in the 1980's, and all three featured "different" kinds of families than what America was used to seeing with the shows you mentioned above. I still think it's a great idea, and many "routes" could be taken with this topic. :) – douglasallers9 years ago
Just to reiterate, this is a fascinating topic that will yield important insight as you flesh out your thesis. It's important, though, to keep in mind what the first comment mentions as far as how sitcoms are molded to suit a certain demographic of viewers. It could be interesting to do a comparison between the white American family and the black American family showing how they have developed over time. "The Cosby Show," as unfortunate a path as it has taken, was once groundbreaking for its depiction of a black family with a doctor and lawyer as parents. What problems are children in each family forced to encounter? How does that put the show in conversation with demographics of the time period? There are endless possibilities and points for discussion, so it's important to narrow them down. Choose the shows you wish to discuss, weighing pros and cons, and go from there. – LeahR9 years ago
Great topic. While we know that the concept of family and what stands for has changed since the 1950s, it will be interesting to see what ideologies still remain the same and how the stakeholders' approach to influence the audience has changed over the years. – Arazoo Ferozan9 years ago
The success of superhero TV shows and the success of bringing villains from the comics onto the screen every week (or on Netflix every season). AOS (Agents of Shield), Agent Carter, Flash, Supergirl, Gotham, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Arrow, etc. These TV shows all have something in common and that's appeal to the viewers that still like watching TV shows weekly and keeping on the edge of their seat until the next week comes.
Aside from these shows being popular on the screen and keeping the suspense coming, what does the effect of bring in villains from the comics appeal to the show? I know they are supposed to be there, yes; but, does it appeal to bring in one every season like Daredevil? Or bring them in all at once, like Flash? Which appeal works best, introducing them one at a time or introducing multiple at one time. With Netflix, you have Jessica Jones and Daredevil who have introduced one each season so far. But, TV shows like Supergirl and Flash are already having a crossover and Arrow has had one as well.
There are multiple topics to speak upon on this one, but there's also the difference between Netflix and TV show on TV. There's the fact that Netflix puts them all on the table in one night / day, is there enough leeway to have more than on villain based on that? Flash and Supergirl, even Arrow have the ability to introduce one every episode BECAUSE they come on weekly. What is the difference in doing that? Gotham has introduced the origin of the majority of the DC characters from Gotham in one season. Every show has a different way of doing it and why are they all so successful? Not only really copies the other, even on different publications like Marvel and DC.
I think this also speaks to our interest in the villain. We aren't satisfied with an all evil, kill-everybody-they-see type bad guy anymore. We are just as fixated on sexy conflicted heroes as we are on sexy conflicted villains. Good topic – DClarke9 years ago
An excellent topic! One might also consider how the plot arcs of these shows proceed. Does a series that contains a sustained plot arc across the entire season benefit from introducing a single villain vs. introducing multiple villains from the start? If a series is more episodic in nature, do they necessarily lean to one side or the other? If the series is going to be taking place in one of the "expanded universes" that have become so popular, how does that affect the introductions of villains? – SMurphyEGB9 years ago
I'd love to see a list of your favorite featured players on SNL that never made it to full-time cast members. There's quite a few that I found worthy enough to make the cast, but unfortunately didn't. Many of them went from writer, to featured player, and then they were either fired or went back to writing. I think a list of 1-10 of who you found was great, but didn't make the cut, would be best. Also, add an explanation or video clip for each of the 10, as to why they are ranked where they are. For example, if you had a favorite sketch or Weekend Update appearance that made them stand out for you.
Good topic! I think a list of 10 would be better in order to be able to be more thorough/detailed and keep interest throughout the whole thing; perhaps with a short video clip of each person's work (sketch or update, as you suggested). I'd probably click on this to read, but I know I wouldn't make it through 20 unless I was a die-hard SNL fan that already knew all of the performers - choosing a smaller number and adding clips will make this more accessible for those who don't regularly watch the show. Also, is the list focused on actors the writer feels weren't good enough, or that the show felt weren't good enough? It might be more interesting to choose people that the writer feels were worthy of full-time status but did not make it (and the tone would be more positive by pointing out their strengths rather than listing their faults). Your phrase "if you had a favorite sketch or Weekend Update appearance that made them stand out for you" suggests that you are talking about people who deserved to be on the program full-time, but your earlier sentence "There's quite a few I found good, but not good enough." suggests the opposite. If the article is about your favorites, the reader will want to see if their favorites match your own, which is fun, and invites comments. – Katheryn9 years ago
A video clip would add a lot to the article. – Munjeera9 years ago
I like this because I think right now SNL is in transition period. I think diversity is great and the voices are bringing out new forms of comedy. I think this would also be a great way to compare what sketches worked, for example, in the 70's and whether those sketches would work today given the quality of the performance and writing of the sketch and the sketches today. I think this is solid, relevant, and would open the article to go many directions while still being clear. – Matthew9 years ago
The new season of Black Mirror is in production. Netflix has now bought the rights and is changing the structure of the series, expanding to 12 episodes for this new season. They will no longer feature on TV but exclusively on Netflix and online. What can we expect from the new season? Will these changes impact the quality of the narrative? Will the themes be explored in a similar way and as thoroughly? Do you think they would benefit from linking episodes together since they now have more (although this might not be their ambition)?
Black Mirror is a good show to focus on, being that it is, in fact, Britain's response to our "Twilight Zone." – WebJJohnston9 years ago
The TV Channel BBC 3 has just turned into an online channel, abandoning its television platform to embrace the digital entirely. It has always targeted young people yet had low audiences and did not make much profit. The decision to turn completely digital and online seems to be BBC's way to keep its 'young' audience, who spends more time online than in front of the TV. What is there to gain? What is there to loose? How far until a TV channel is pushed to completely reinvent itself? Is the future of TV online?
