Some weeks ago, there was an episode of the Walking Dead that appeared to serve as a commentary on real world events. It was a story of one group of people, reduced to an almost primitive cult-like state, driven to attack another segment of society that endeavored to hold on to current notions of civilized existence. This group that faced attack was comprised of survivors living in a kind of gated community somewhat untouched by the horrific realities of the outside world.
This one episode could easily be seen as a commentary on our fears of the other, about the encroachment of medieval fundamentalism and our relationship to modernity (as a sometimes violent counterforce). The attackers in this episode had a religious zeal for delivering death as way of providing an answer for the "civilians" ills. Those that survived the onslaught wielded modern weaponry (in contrast to the attackers who were armed only with sharp or blunt instruments, painted faces and madness). Those who lived within the city limits (as it were) and imagined a safe life of homemaking simplicity were cut down while the people trained in the art of killing (even those who first tried to use non-lethal methods) survived.
Obviously, the tradition for the Zombie film as a symbolic experience was set by Romero with Night of The Living Dead (Vietnam) and his follow-up Dawn of THe Dead (consumerism). With The Walking Dead we appear to be in The Age of Terrorism.
The Monster is alive and well, and, as always, is us.
This new show appears right after AMC's hit show The Walking Dead and tells the story of a Clipper (assassin) named Sunny and his role in the dystopian world called The Badlands. What makes this show so interesting and unique is the variety of different genres it could possibly fall into. It has elements of a classic Kung-Fu movie, bringing us back to the great days of Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan, but it also incorporates elements of magic and other-worldliness that can only be described as fantasy. This show can also be labeled as a dystopia because the setting is very similar to our world and is supposedly set post-apocalypse. This series has the potential to reach a variety age groups: those who are older and appreciate the classic nature of a great Kung-Fu film and those who are younger and enjoy the current phenomena of the dystopia and fantasy genres. Could this menagerie of genres be the television of the future or is this simply an appeal to a wide variety of popular genre fads? How does this show use the varying genres to separate itself from more popular dystopias/post-apocalyptic stories like The Hunger Games, Divergent, and others? Is this a way of creating something unique out of the dystopian genre or is it simply another body in an already over-crowded genre?
What about the show should the focus be on? The interplay between a mish-mash of eastern discipline and action (and choreography/cinematography), American Southern restoration period aesthetics, and medieval feudalism (possibly the common ground between the east and west)? Should it be focused on how this genre is rarely used in television, if at all? Why now? Why go so heavy in kung fu on such an experiment (which seems to be a worthwhile payoff, quality wise at least)? Should it focus on an Asian male actor leading a prominent show, hearkening back to the legacy of Bruce Lee, who brought kung fu to the west more successfully than anyone before him, and to whom all subsequent kung fu/martial arts movies owe a debt of gratitude to? On the otherside of that same coin, why is it that Asian male (and female) action stars get pigeon holed in kung fu master roles? Basically, the prompt needs to be more than just "here's the show and some back ground; write something about it." But yeah, great show. – nsnow9 years ago
It seems like television shows always end the seasons with cliffhangers. But why? It's been a long time since JR was shot and it had people talking for months to try to figure out who was responsible. Do cliffhangers matters anymore? Shows like Misfits managed to have satisfying endings with minor cliffhangers and were able to come back the next season with new stories. What purpose do cliffhangers serve especially in our constantly fractured TV landscape in America it's become common to break seasons in half just to have a winter finale and then a end of the show season finale. Wouldn't no cliffhangers better serve shows like the recently cancelled The Whispers or The Event both of which ended in cliffhangers that will never be resolved. Contrast to show that didnt end in cliffhangers like the miniseries turned full TV show The 4400 which was originally a miniseries that had a satisfying ending. And when it turned into a full series to my recollection ended with a cliffhanger.
I think the cliff-hanger ending (of seasons leading up to the finale) merely try get a rise out of the fans. An example of this was the finale to the third season of House of Cards. But I would not want a cliff-hanger at the finale of the series itself. – luminousgloom9 years ago
Cliff-hanger endings have always served the same purpose: to get people talking, and to convince them to come back in droves for the next season to see what happened. Only in hindsight, if a show gets cancelled before a cliffhanger is resolved, does it seem like a pointless inclusion. But it wouldn't quite be the same if that cliffhanger had been resolved. Some shows can thankfully set things up to end on a good note if they get a memo early enough in advance that their show will be cancelled, which is what happened with "Brisco County Jr." But if it pops up inbetween seasons, then no one can do anything about it, like what happened to "My Name is Earl." – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think it depends. I think you can still have a satisfying show without cliffhangers depending on your genre/show style. I don't think it's necessarily bad to use them though either. It generates intrigue and talk. It allows the viewers to involve themselves in the story even though it's not currently airing and they are waiting for the next season to start. I kind of like the excitement personally. And I like to think and scheme and wonder instead of be handfed the story passively. But again, I think some plots lend better to being consumed passively vs. actively, so I think it's really up to the writers. That said, obviously from a monetary standpoint, building hype and buzz usually generates revenue which is always the goal. – Tatijana9 years ago
"Only in hindsight, if a show gets cancelled before a cliffhanger is resolved, does it seem like a pointless inclusion." --- I think it's the other way around. It's always a pointless inclusion and only in hindsight if they don't get cancelled does it seem like brilliant forethought. I don't think that cliffhangers really get people talking like they used to when a television show was a unifying force. --- "And I like to think and scheme and wonder instead of be handfed the story passively." --- There's still room for ploting and scheming. There's just no reason to stretch it out over the season break when no one knows for certain if they'll be back. If you KNOW you're back there's room to argue for cliffhangers but take Scream Queens for instance and Harper's Island as well. Both of which had active communities trying to ID the killer while the show airs. It's not the end of show talk if you talk week to week. – wolfkin9 years ago
There really hasn't been a cliffhanger phenomenon quite like "Who Shot JR?." It was really the first, and best example of what the cliffhanger is for: to raise awareness and word-of-mouth regarding a show in order to draw more viewers. Since cliffhangers are used now with such frequency, they have lost their initial punch. However, every now and then, it still works. When Rick Grimes and his group of survivors were captured by cannibals at the end of Season 5 of "The Walking Dead," it did lead to a huge audience for the next season's premier. I think, at this point, what cliffhangers do best is to speak to our own addiction to anticipation. Waiting months to resolve hanging storylines feels almost like that post-Thanksgiving anticipation for Christmas morning. – TheHall9 years ago
How does the HBO series Game of Thrones subvert the typical depictions (or lack thereof) of non-white characters in fantasy epics?
This is a topic that has been deeply explored, think about what deeper/new/unique take on this idea you can suggest. – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
I have not seen this topic explored in depth on this site. I have searched for articles on here but cannot find them. If it has been explored on this site, can you point me in the right direction so I can see how it has already been talked about that I may nuance the question. Otherwise, if this discourse is happening elsewhere (and I am aware that it is) I would love for an author on this site to consolidate the information, make an analysis, and bring the discourse to this community. Please advise. – Cmandra9 years ago
I definitely watch GOT and think, "Man, someone really needed to read some Edward Said." I think you could write quite a lot about the depiction of the Dothraki (especially how they are meant to be inspired by Genghis Khan and the Mongols, but lack a lot of the nuances of that culture), of Essos in general, of how Dornish characters are depicted. There are also female characters of color with influence and agency in the books who are excluded from the show, such as Arianne, Alayaya, and Chataya. I'd be interested in the bigger picture as well, of how this compares to high fantasy lit as a whole. – emilydeibler9 years ago
To say that POC is something new in the fantasy genre only shows one's own lack of reading. Authors like Ursala K Leguin and others have been writing POC for decades. – MattHotaling9 years ago
The topic specifically refers to the HBO series and not the book. I would like to clarify that this topic refers to "depictions" of non-white characters in TV and film media. – Cmandra9 years ago
To the untrained eye, the cartoon series Animaniacs may seem like a bunch of base toilet humor (literally). However, this was a highly sophisticated series with everything from pop culture to political references, musical theatre parodies, lessons in American history, and even some more serious shorts. Explore this series as well-crafted children's entertainment.
Not to mention that is actually known for deconstructing comedic cartoon tropes, even I didn't know that till I was older! – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
Is Game of Thrones misogynistic or empowering? While it is generally accepted that Game of Thrones was originally geared toward young men there is a large and growing fan base of young women who follow and enjoy the show. How can Game of Thrones market itself to young women, or how does it market itself to young women already? Has its approach changed over the course of its running time?
This would be a great place to discuss the various rapes scenes that occur in the series and how they are either empowering to the female characters or debilitating to the progress of women. Are these scenes used to empower women or are they just another way to motivate male characters to swoop in for a rescue? – Reese23419 years ago
The question I propose is who influences who? Does the media influence the people or do the people influence the media?
Many people believe people influence the media because the media shows the people what they want to see. That is not always the case.
I recently began to realize that it is actually the media that influences the people simply because the media chooses what the people see. I am sure this is not intentional, but how can the people know what side to choose if they are not getting the full story?
In defense of the media, they only get so much time to present the story, and they must choose what to write about. They must pick what the most important information is, which is not always what others feel is most important.
Theorists go back and forth on this, and the question still stands. Who influences who?
I think it's both in the sense that people react to scandal and shock and controversy. That's what they watch. Because of this, the media needs to generate views and ratings so they give the people these types of stories. Unfortunately, these stories often exaggerate and leave out pieces of information that could help debunk whatever side the story is siding with. I think the thing to remember is that everyone has a motive and some sort of propaganda they want to push. So while I think it's a little bit of both influencing both. I think the bigger issue is is it okay to show stories a certain way to incite certain reactions? Is it okay to show news in a way that makes our opinions for us? – Tatijana9 years ago
Both cases can be tricky to communicate. The media definitely has a lot to do with how society as a whole is shaping America, but have the people forced the media to partake this way? The media only reflects what the people want to see.
– Whitaker9 years ago
It would be both; you are referring to a media loop. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Does the media shape what the people see? Or is it their corporate sponsors? The other day I engaged in a brief experiment, spending a few hours watching both FOX News and MSNBC. The stark contrast of their reporting appears to be directly linked to their stark contrast of corporate sponsors. In television's infancy, the news was meant to be "informational programming." I fear Ted Turner did more harm than good with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle. – TheHall9 years ago
When Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk announced the subject matter of the hit show's newest season, horror fans rejoiced. Allusions to Kubrick's modern classic, The Shining, were scattered throughout the promotional campaign. Now, we're seven episodes in and it seems they may be taking it too far. When do allusions to someone else's work become straight up plagiarism? Was it really necessary to recreate the iconic carpet of Kubrick's hotel?
