Arguably, the war on poverty in America (President Lyndon B. Johnson), though one of its goals was to break the cycle of dependency, in fact did the opposite by creating incentives and decentives that penalized work (raises led to loss of benefits) and rewarding nonmarriage.
Hollywood tends to take it a step forward, by focusing both on the war on poverty the religious exploitation of blacks during The Peculiar Institution. As a result, popular black sitcoms, such as Good Times and What's Happening! specifically from the 70s (a key era in black empowerment) focused on the idea of being good (morality v immorailty). By appealing to the message in The Willie Lynch Letter of focusing on the woman and using her as a buffer, these shows keep the main black family from taken advantage of opportunities because they may be somewhat "immoral." (see episode 4, season 1 of Good Times for an example).
What is your take on this idea?
Question on your framing, you say that one of the goals was to break dependency where are you basing that off of and secondly you draw a conclusion that it rewarded nonmarriage, where are you pulling that from? And what frame of reference are we using with regards to the "immorality" of black families? – Sunni Ago2 years ago
Great question. These are ideas that are connected to the war on poverty. Part of the Great Society was to break the cycle of dependency on the government and create tax payers out of those it considered tax eaters. Nonmarriage was rewarded through women losing certain benefits if they married or if the state found out a man was living in the house. Immoral as in if I have to gamble (shoot pool) for instance, to pay rent, why is this considered immoral? If I have to cheat a little to get by, why is this a bad thing and why are the mothers of the shows used to convey this as being immoral, leaving the families in perpetual poverty. I hope this provides clarity. – Montayj792 years ago
Interesting topic. I wonder how sitcoms like Diff'rent Strokes, The Cosby Show, or Family Matters might fit in, since they tended to portray Black or mixed families as more middle class or even wealthy/upwardly mobile? That is to say, were these the logical "next step," or were they too idealized? Did they gloss over poverty too much? – Stephanie M.2 years ago
They could definitely fit in or stand on their own as a new topic. The Cosby Show came across my mind as I wrote this question out for sure. I think these shows tried to portray a different side rather than focus on the stereotype of poverty being all there is. – Montayj792 years ago
I did a bit of research on 'The Witcher III: The Wild Hunt' last year while preparing to write a piece on the Video Game industry and its treatment of minority groups. The Witcher, of course, is written by Andrzej Sapkowski who is very obvious about what types of groups are being discussed, even if allegorically. I picked on the Witcher because it is among many of the power fantasy narratives that come with the genre.
There are currently several iterations of Geralt of Rivia, and similarly, this trend can be seen in The Last of Us and God of War. Our protagonists are fathers first, and the plot follows this innate connection between parent and child.
I'm interested to see where this came from? To what extent is it really a trend, or just a few notable additions to the AAA RPGs?
The Lone Wolf, and Cub Saga 1976, The Last of Us 2013 Until Death do Us Part 2006, Leon the Professional 1994, True Grit 2010, Berserk (after the golden age arc) Resident Evil 2 1998, and honestly God of War 3 2010 (and some of the spin off games). This trope has been popular for years, as the young child is almost always paired with an adult with some type of dark past or they are in situation (like a zombie outbreak) where the child is a liability due to them not being able to defend themselves. This usually forces the adult to have a moral dilemma where they have to decide whether they'll to put themself endanger or abandon the child. This trope is usually paired with some type of redemption arc. But, to answer your first question this trope isn't new. I don't know what was the first story to do this trope is, but I can say it predates its modern 2010's trend. I believe the main reason people are noticing it more often now and potentially the reason we are seeing an increased amount of stories using this trope is because its easy Oscar/Award bait as much of the series I've mentioned have won numerous awards. Not saying that awards are purely the reason this is done. But success is a good incentive for imitators. – Blackcat1302 years ago
Maybe "dadification" is not the appropriate term to use here, given its sexual connotations. – T. Palomino2 years ago
I would argue that this trope is not inherent to video games. It also exists in super hero films like Logan. – Sean Gadus2 years ago
Dads in video games have definitely been around for a while. Heavy Rain, Donkey Kong Country (sorta) and The Walking Dead come to mind. It would be interesting to look back at the exact point that dads become a popular inclusion for the medium. Even looking at games where the father isn't the protagonist, but still exists to fulfill their role as a father to the player character, such as Final Fantasy XV. – GagePatte002 years ago
Artists in various disciplines sometimes comment on the process of working from an initial idea toward published versions of their works. For those learning in the arts, one powerful message within such commentary is the general commonality and value of leaning into a practice of improvement over time through successive revisions of a work. This could be contrasted against the notion some students have that great works emerge relatively whole and complete most of the time.
The author of this article could review the revision practices of various established artists, comparing their similarities and differences. The article could restrict itself to a single discipline (e.g. a certain type of writing), or could take a multi-disciplinary view.
This topic is an excellent article for arts university students and creative entrepreneurs.
Perhaps the revision practices of artists might go in the direction of the opinions of artists and give examples of the real-life processes of different artists. The author might develop more ideas around the practices of various artists. – Richard2 years ago
Great topic. I think this article would be well paired with an analysis of how technological innovations, such as those in recording, have ingrained this idea of 'easy perfection' - for example, in the realm of classical music, we are now far less accustomed to hearing the natural mistakes and slips that occur in live performances, simply because most of our interaction with composed music is through perfect, edited, perfected takes. – gracejjohnson2 years ago
Great topic! I think extending it as a multidisciplinary article would be very enjoyable and informative to read. It could not only explore different disciplines but also different mediums (unless that is what you meant and I misunderstood) – Anna Samson2 years ago
This article will analyze the growing trend of game developers and publishers moving towards subscription models instead of one-time purchases. Examples: Apple Arcade, Google Stadia, Microsoft's Game Pass (old, but now more aggressive than ever push towards subscription-only titles and removing one-time purchase options swifter than ever), Ubisoft , EA Play, PlayStation Now. Studios with a single game or franchise are also going the subscription route. Is this good? Bad? Subscriptions of the Game Pass, for example, have increased by millions in the last year. And it's true that indie games, when they come to Game Pass, earn more than they could ever make solo. Xbox Game Pass is a unique case which will need its own section here. Instead of subscribing to a service that gives free delivery (like Amazon) or TV shows (like Netflix) – a game can be anywhere from 20 hours of fun for hardcore games or 1,000 hours of play and replays – how is it fair that you pay less than I do for the same game in this case? A headline: "GDC has released its annual State of the Industry survey of 4,000 developers, over one-fourth of which were concerned such models would devalue games." Another topic to cover is games-as-a-service (or more broadly tech-as-a-service) models being adopted by videogame publishers and developers. Even gaming hardware seems to be moving in that direction, with Nvidia providing subscription to RTX 30-series gaming capabilities instead of actually owning a video card. Starting from newspapers and magazines; then moving to TV shows, movies, and software; and now to games – subscriptions seem to be the way forward. But is it really better to have a monthly subscription to play games than to own the games and judging by the current pace of things, even renting your hardware and not owning it?
A couple of articles here in The Artifice have already explored similar problems (micro-transactions, in-app purchases, and yearly-releases) in the gaming world. The progressive increase of an economic model based on subscriptions in the video game business can be an interesting topic to explore, as long as it frames the phenomenon in larger and more meaningful terms than “good” or “bad.” The question “Is adopting the subscription model in videogames development good or bad?” needs to be reformulated. Good for whom? Bad for whom? It is certainly good for the business. It might be good or bad for consumers, depending on what they get from the deal. But and outstanding article about this topic would need a stronger and more daring approach. – T. Palomino2 years ago
The art world is current having a bit of a controversy about the nature of the soul in Art with the rise of programs like DALL-E 2, Stable Diffusion and Craiyon that allow for the submission of prompts to generate visual media. While many laud this as another innovation of the digital age others such as traditionally defined artists view it as not only "soulless" that is to say made without the efforts and passions of a creator but also a form of stealing as the A.I. typically process art and art styles without credit and attribution only to then to produce something that is given credit as though it was wholly unique. This brings up the ethical questions of the generators and that immortal question, "What IS Art?"
A.I. Art reminds us that art is a learnable skill. If we can teach a computer to follow style guidelines and create images, humans can certainly learn the same skills. – noahspud2 years ago
I am reminded of Walter Benjamin's piece on art in the age of mechanical reproduction. The uptick in A.I. art is a great opportunity to review some of Benjamin's original propositions. The question of artistic merit is worth digging into—what matters in a judgment of merit might be context-dependent rather than intrinsic. – JackWalton2 years ago
I think this would be a good topic to explore if it was focused on something more specific about the relationship between AI and its creator/participant. While it does bring up the same old questions of what is art, it would perhaps be more interesting to put a spin on those old questions by looking at what function AI art serves in the area of identify for those with the tools and the agency to create a kind of sentient intelligence and personality in cooperation with their own skills, but at the same time, outside of their own control. You know what springs to mind, is the conversation between Basil Hallward and Lord Henry Wotton, especially when he starts talking about this: “He is all my art to me now,” said the painter gravely. “I sometimes think, Harry, that there are only two eras of any importance in the world’s history. The first is the appearance of a new medium for art, and the second is the appearance of a new personality for art also." – taleialani2 years ago
With Disney releasing the live-action The Little Mermaid next year, many opinions have emerged regarding the casting of Halle Bailey as Ariel. Casting black actors for white characters is nothing out of the ordinary. Roles such as Morgan Freeman as Red in Shawshank Redemption, Will Smith as Dr. Robert Neville in I Am Legend, or recent Disney MCU choices such as Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury proved to be iconic roles in popular culture. I am curious to examine the differences and implications between color-blind casting and color-conscious casting. It is my understanding color-blind casting involves casting without any consideration for the actors' racial identities, physical appearances, and other characteristics. Color-conscious casting would be the opposite in that casting directors actively consider these characteristics. These terms can be quite difficult to pin down exactly, and the same goes for the implications they have for diversity versus tokenism. Casting Halle Bailey as Ariel sparked so much inspiration and feel-good moments on social media when brown and black girls saw themselves in their favorite princess. However, many people still felt enraged at the supposed inaccuracy of the character's casting or felt that Disney simply wanted to hit a diversity quota. I think about how white actors have played people of color for decades. From John Wayne as Genghis Khan in Conqueror (1956), Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra (1963), to modern productions like Angelina Jolie as Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart (2007), or Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One in the MCU, the film industry has a history of whitewashing and "blackface" when it comes to portraying BIPOC characters. These characters come from specific ethnic backgrounds which heavily influence their movement and life experiences in the world. For example, it wouldn't make sense to cast anyone who isn't Chinese for the live-action Mulan, the Chinese princess who saves her home country. The same can be said for other Disney princesses such as Pocahontas, Moana, Tiana, and Jasmine to name a few. However, it seems as though formerly cast white characters do not meet the same expectations like Ariel in The Little Mermaid. I would argue that the mermaids come from a fictional place, Atlantica, and therefore Ariel's character can have some leeway in her representation. To what degree should people's anger toward Ariel's casting be validated? Why should viewers be bothered with a black Ariel?
The issue in modern times usually has to do with Tokenism. As, most critics complain that the change is not going to amount to anything in terms of exploring said minority group. For example should it matter that a fictional mermaid princess is black? Not really as the Atlantican's do not derive from our culture. They have their own completely fictional lore. It is not to say you cannot explore those topics, but it is usually a non sequitur that distracts from the stories main plot, which is a story of star crossed lovers. So, narratively speaking it does not matter if Ariel is black or white. Her race should not matter and there should be a greater focus on Halle Bailey's ability to play the role. Yet the coverage from the media put a great focus on Bailey's race, as opposed to her acting ability. Making the conversation about representation. We can see similar aspects with Beauty and the Beast and Star Wars Rise of Skywalker. Where both movies during promotion really talked about how they would have an openly queer character and how female characters would be in a leading role. Many people once again take annoyance with this as the representation of LGBTQ people is mostly a foot note at the end of the movie (that gets edited out when the movie premieres in a country that does not approve of such things.) Despite J.J. Abrams talking about how Poe and Finn are sexually active gay men, there is no exploration of that aspect. No romantic love interest for either of the characters. Which is why most of the time people accuse Disney and companies of pandering. Critics believe they are simply using diversity as a way to sell tickets.(Side not Star Wars has always had female leads, Ashoka Tano, Kreia, Princess Leia, and Meetra Surik. All powerful force users, who have a prominent role as hero and villians throughout the series. While these stories are limited to books and games, Disney could easily turn those into movies or continue exploring them in games.) Now the main reason people do not get nearly as upset about Will Smith being Dr. Neville and Morgan Freeman as Red is because is because them taking up the role did not focus on their race in Marketing. (not sure about Morgan Freeman and marketing as Shawshack predates me.) Samuel L. Jackson being Nick Furry was done because Stan Lee knew that he was a long time fan of the series, and he was placed in an alternate Marvel Universe. So, technically the white Nick Furry still exist and does continue to be used. Though the Ultimate universe Nick Furry has become the more prominent one used. Race swapping in movies and media is a tricky thing, mainly due to America's history with racism. As, yes, originally America did it to depict minority groups in offensive ways, and because minority groups were actually not allowed to be in films at one point. But in modern times I would compare it to J.K. Rowling saying Hermione is supposed to be black in the Harry Potter books or Dumbledore being gay. Despite being told something it is never shown or explored, so why should we care? I do not believe it is anything more than people trying to appeal to certain groups while putting the least amount of effort. It is the reason why instead of creating a new independent property or using an existing property that has character that is LGBTQ/minority group, they try to change an existing characters race like Superman. When DC comics could instead use characters like Icon or Static Shock and have a whole story that deals with the issues/experience of a black character. Race and sexuality appears to be mostly a tool to sell tickets for films. It is why people who are interested in such things have turned to other outlets. (From my understanding many people who like LGBTQ content have turned to comics,manga, video-games and novels as these mediums tend to have a more nuanced exploration of the topic. It is similar with diverse cast of characters.) – Blackcat1302 years ago
No group has a stranglehold on mermaids. I think the problem is that Europeans believe that they are the only ones who can cast differently. IN other words, it is okay for them to play other races or ethnicities but if a character is allegedly sacred to them, they get upset over the same thing they are doing. It is a very infantile way of thinking. But that is the privilege type of thinking that comes with imperialism. – Montayj792 years ago
It is hard to forget the background Hollywood has with race. In my opinion, and what I have learned previously, if the race is integral to a background, plot or culture of a character then it should not be altered. If a character is written to be a specific ethnicity or if casting is intended to look for someone of a specific ethnicity, then that should be respected. Otherwise, it really does not quite matter. You would not use an all white cast for A Raisin in The Sun, that would cause loss of meaning regarding topics of race in the show. Tiana, Mulan and Moana all have cultural links to their stories, and Ariel does not. To assume that a black woman being cast as Ariel is for the “woke crowd” then is dismissing the blatant mistreatment of actors that are not white. To see an actor who is not white in pop culture is not (and shouldn’t be) a radical idea. – eaonhurley2 years ago
Seriously thinking about writing this. I just wrote one on here--"Misogynoir: The Silent Backbone of Hollywood," that covered some of these issues. I could really expand on those ideas with this topic. – Montayj792 years ago
Contemporary (South Asian) Indian fantasy literature is heavily based on its rich history of culture and mythology. However, to grow as a genre (by creating stories that exist outside of/apart from our multiple readings of preexisting myths – stories that are original), does it need to explore stories and characters, other than the ones that already exist in cultural consciousness? (By this I mean the stories from mythology that are widely known [in India] and are passed on through generations).
I think it's interesting considering that these are things that people actually believe...I wonder if calling it "mythology" is actually a bit offensive. – nimraahmad2 years ago
Consider examples of literature or film that have had theatre adaptations (e.g. Dorian Gray, Sydney Theatre Company; Cyrano, Melbourne Theatre Company, and analyse how these works have been shifted and/or restructured for a live performance context.
I think it would be interesting to explore how the constraints of the new medium affect the adaptation, as well as the choices that are made (what is taken out, what is kept in and why) by the person who adapts it. Maybe you could narrow your topic down to a specific adaptation to make it a little more detailed, since it currently seems like you are taking on a huge deal if you're studying multiple texts. – Sangnat2 years ago
For the record, Cyrano de Bergerac was a stage play FIRST, before any of its many film adaptations. – ProtoCanon2 years ago
Analyze recent queer relationships as they are represented in a few mainstream TV shows (Atypical, Heartstopper, And Just Like That, L Word Gen Q, etc). To what extent are these relationships and characters homonormative? Homonormativity is the tendency for queer relationships to model goals and expectations on normative straight relationships (monogamy, goals like marriage and childrearing, citizen/rights-based activism, for example). Is it possible for mainstream TV to present compelling alternative queer characters and plotlines or is the form destined to churn out homonormativity?
Really interesting topic. I'd be particularly interested in the ones that set themselves up as queer - e.g. The L Word - and how they actually engage with queerness. – metacohen2 years ago
Thinking that this could be a very collaborative and all-inclusive piece if it comes to fruition. Being a heterosexual white male and not having knowledge on this topic makes my engagement with your potential prompt limited, but it does seem like a truly compelling topic for that reason. You could certainly take an educational yet relatively opinionated take on this in order to inform but also to make a firm claim on the way you believe mass media as a whole (specifically in TV and film) could move with this issue. – matthewmcgovern2 years ago
In the past it was common for TV series have seasons with 20 episodes. This has changed in the past decade or so. Now it is more common for shows to have 6-15 episodes. For example, The X-Files was a popular show in the 90s that had 9 seasons with 20 or more episodes each. When it was rebooted in 2016, the following two seasons had 6 and 10 episodes respectively. This shows the change in episode numbers according to the times. Discuss why this happened and what factors played a role, such as streaming, globalization, changing attention spans, busy lives, intended audiences, etc. Was this a change that occurred due to differing consumer needs or production needs? Was it due to the changes in how television and media is consumed?
Interesting observation, and I think it might be due to a number of the things you mention. For one, streaming allows people access to a plethora of series and movies, thereby potentially limiting their "attention span" for one series. In addition, since there are so many series being created, perhaps production needs are inadequate. – LibraryLass2 years ago
'The Second Sex' ultimately serves as the most eloquent, sophisticated and detailed synopsis of the patriarchal society and how it oppresses women. As Simone illustrates it is the amalgamation of destiny, history and myth which create “bird cage of oppression”. The reasoning that this oppressive structure has been created is muddled; however, there are three major considerations as to why it has been created: 1) out of necessity, 2) for control, 3) as a means of transcendence.
Control has been the epitome of the patriarchal society. Men have sought to dominate their environment and as part of that there exists women. Arguably women have been the greatest challenge to men’s goal of control. Women have stood in opposition to men even when they are bound by the institutions of men. It is because of this dichotomy between menn and women which have strengthened the resolve of menn and their pursuit of control. As history illustrates men have always sought to place women as the objects of their reality and through doing so men have thought that they could control women like they control the tools they create. However, this has not worked in the favor of men and the rise of feminism bears witness.
This is an interesting read, especially in relation to her fiction as well and the way she represents this. It would be good to also look at this in comparison to the other seminal texts, such as Greer's. – Sarai Mannolini-Winwood2 years ago
I would love to read further on this, but I have to wonder how this will address colonized males and masculinities? Will this article explore Patriarchy as it exists in the current world or will it seek to universalize the experiences with out respect to material conditions? Will it explore the constraints and enforcers of Patriarchy or will it pathologize "men". I think this will be quite interesting but how exactly do you define "men" under patriarchy? – Sunni Ago2 years ago
Gender terminology would need to be defined clearly, as well as the gendered context that Simone's book was arising from (re: what was the understanding of sex and gender in her time in comparison to now?) – alliegardenia2 years ago
I have read "Le Deuxième Sexe" de Simone de Beauvoir (be sure to check the spelling) in French when I was in High School. And, just like all teens, this did not talk to me at all. I had to read it again in graduate school in my critical theory class and it took a complete different meaning. I guess maturity helped ;-) Now, my helpful note on your excellent topic idea: how can we still make De Beauvoir applicable today? Let's look at the US politics today and apply directly the aspect of "male control" over the very hot and touchy topic of "abortion rights" or "healthcare access to/for women". Looking at what males are trying to (re)gain control over what women can do. Since this is an international forum, the article could even be richer by having international scholars contributing from their own country and examine the rights of women linked under male control (the list of countries that come to mind is too long). This is very promising and am looking forward to read the final product. Good luck with it. – luc9922 years ago
This may or may not be helpful but I was not introduced to Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex until I played Nier: Automata. I only bring this up to say that I suspect the majority of Beauvoir's work has permeated into much of our culture now because most of these issues still pervade our society today, though they might manifest differently now. In the game, your main protagonists face off against a boss machine called "Simone" or "Beauvoir" in the Japanese version. You learn she was once a small, stubby machine who was in love, borderline obsessed, with another machine lifeform named "Jean-Paul" after Jean-Paul Sartre. Simone was jealous of his other mistresses and began cannibalizing other machine lifeforms, using them to grow bigger and using their bodies as adornments for her own body. Her incessant search for beauty led to her tragic downfall. She associated her self-worth with an apathetic machine until she lost sight of herself completely and dies at the hands of the player. Although deeply exaggerated, her story becomes incredibly devasting for the player and perhaps somewhat relatable. The story is set tens of thousands of years into the future long past the extinction of humans, yet we still see androids and machines replicating human behaviors such as sexism, apathy, self-degradation, and toxic behaviors with love among others. While this may not be entirely applicable to Beauvoir's work, this could be one avenue to connect the pitfalls of the patriarchy to modern-day society. This game predicts that even long after we are gone, these issues might still persist after us. – iresendiz2 years ago
Disney played a large role in bringing fairy tales to a larger audience. To do so, they had to remove many horrific aspects, such as the stepsisters in Cinderella who cut off their toes and heels to fit into the glass slipper or how the princess is raped while unconscious in Sleeping Beauty. Compare more of the original fairy tales, which explored far more taboo and grotesque content and how Disney has altered them to be more child friendly and palatable. Discuss why this was done and how the purpose of fairy tales has evolved.
Many of the revisions suggested weren't acted upon. – Sunni Ago2 years ago
Hi Sunni! I changed Grimms fairy tales to original fairy tales to accommodate all the origins. I also changed my questions to ask about why changes were made and how fairy tales have evolved over time and why. I specified who I was referring to and what I was asking. Is there anything else I can do to refine this topic? – Anna Samson2 years ago
Maybe make the question: Discuss the purpose of this change and how it is tied into the evolution of fairytales. Or something like that: same question but could be worded differently. – Montayj792 years ago
Might be some old interviews with good old Walt himself to help narrow down this idea a bit. – alliegardenia2 years ago
I think you could talk a bit more about the fairy tales that aren't commonly known to the public! – Sangnat2 years ago
This was a topic I was heavily interested in a few years ago. Children's literature and fairy tales is rooted in violence and weird sexual inuendos. They're more cautionary tales but if you're looking at the "Disneyfication" process, I believe there was an article called "Breaking the Disney Spell" by Jack Zipes. It demystifies Walt Disney a bit (not really in a good way) and will spill some of those trade secrets of marketing gruesome fairy tales for a modern child audience. – iresendiz2 years ago
Netflix fantasy series Shadow and Bone are based on five books written by Leigh Bardugo. The first three are part of the so-called Grisha Trilogy, and the other two (Six of Crows) follow a different group of characters years after the events of the first three books. Showrunner Eric Heisserer said he wouldn't have written the show without them, so the article could explore their particularities and why they're so endearing to the story and the public.
I think part of the charm of the crows is that they are already an establised friend group. The characters didn't have to get to know each other as Alina did with the Grisha. It meant we could get into the action way sooner. On another note, the Crows are technically 'the bad guys; it is always interesting to see their perspectives – hannahclairewrites2 years ago
I agree with the establishes friend group. There are no character developments being made when characters interact with each other to become friends, rather, they are already aware of one another. – hafsakhan3102 years ago
What caused the time loop of Groundhog Day (1993) is the cynicism of Phil Connors and the weather storm he wrongly predicted that trapped him and his coworkers in the town of Punxsutawney, Philadelphia. Phil Connors constantly relives the same day and experiences highs and lows while trapped in this time loop. What ends the time loop after several suicide attempts, correcting his wrongs, or seducing Rita? Is it the homeless man that lets him see the value in everyone's life rather than his own? He desperately tries to save this man but can never seem to catch him in time. He finally discovers that the only way to interrupt this time loop is through self-reflection on his life and the people around him.
Skins was a British teen soap opera which began in 2008 and ran for about seven seasons. This series was renowned for its controversial subject matter, as many of the characters did things like have sex, experiment with drugs, and struggle with serious mental health concerns. Several of the cast members–including Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, and Kaya Scodelario among others–went on to have illustrious film and television careers.
What if any influence has Skins had on the teen soap opera genre? How many modern teen soaps–which tend to feature fairly dark subject matter–were inspired by Skins, whether directly or indirectly? How do more recent television shows for teens compare to Skins in terms of characterization and structure?
I automatically think of Euphoria, but not really any others. What other examples would you use? It might be easier to just compare Skins and Euphoria. – Elisa2 years ago
I agree with Elisa! Euphoria seems a lot like a modern take on Skins. – Anna Samson2 years ago
Skins was beautifully produced and written. The characters are all complicated and loveable through their flaws. Shows like 13 reasons why have gone for the same things but done it in a much more graphic way, romanticizing the bad things meanwhile skins teaches lessons and is meaningful and very diverse. – Ellissa2 years ago
Some movie villains have sympathetic motivations, whether its devotion to saving the planet ala Poison Ivy, drive to right a systemic wrong ala Black Panther's Killmonger or Magneto, or desire for personal vengeance ala the Wicked Witch of the West or Clytemnestra. Some villains "just want to watch the world burn." Some are just hellbent on causing murder, destruction, and pain. Sometimes it seems the motivation doesn't matter nearly as much as the character's screen presence. Many movies try to add depth to their villains, only to leave lasting questions and plot holes over their villain's arc. Are there any essential elements necessary for a great movie villain? Do we see any mistakes in creating villains that could be avoided by following certain rules of thumb? Sometimes it seems that the only difference between the hero and villain are a)who the narrative viewpoint sympathizes with and b) who's destined to cross unforgivable lines. Is it okay that this is commonplace, or does it indicate a flaw in modern storytelling?
Thanks for the very helpful feedback T Palomino, I think there are two different directions I could take the question in, and I'm not sure which makes for a better prompt. The first is comparing various types of villains and the way they fundamentally shape the story and the hero, and how important the depth of their motivation affects the story. For instance, The Dark Knight has Joker, a villain with no deep motivation, but it also has Harvey Dent, and his arc is fundamental to creating a compelling finale. Other movies seem actually hamstrung by having a complicated and somewhat sympathetic villain, as they try to tell a good vs evil story. Perhaps the question could be comparing villains with complex vs simple motivations, how compelling they still can be, and how they shape the hero. Although perhaps this still too broad?
The second direction I was considering was pointing out that many heroes have the same motivations as I listed, saving the world, righting systemic wrongs, and even obtaining vengeance. What does a narrative require to distinguish between its heroes and villains, and how often does an audience's viewpoint play more of a role in making the distinction, than the actual story and character choices? Infamously we have seen authors revamp stories to center the villains, such as Wicked recreating Elphaba, or the recent Joker film. Is the difference between a hero an a villain the amount of time the narrative spends focused on the aspects of the character that are sympathetic? Is it simply the lines each character crosses and refuses to cross? How important is the idea of morality in telling stories of heroes and villains? – ronannar2 years ago
It might be helpful to take note of the context of the characters presentation, not only their story line, but how other features signal other, less seen, potential character links, I think Joachim Phoenix's Joker character walking down the stairs to convicted pedophile, Gary Glitter's song. Interesting that! – cwekerle2 years ago
I think that while sympathy can make for good background of a villain, I always think that moral ambiguity is what can make a good villain, great. For an ambiguous “villain” I would like to turn us towards Frank Herbert’s Dune. Spoilers ahead for books one and two. Paul, our protagonist of Dune and son of a Duke to a great house, seemingly does it all by the end of the first book of Herbert’s series. He becomes a hero, not only does he achieve standards that were practically undefinable (becoming the Kwisatz Haderach) but he also frees the native people of Arrakis, and seeks vengeance of his father and the great house he belonged to prior. Paul beats the bad guys, he becomes (quite literally) emperor of the universe, and he even gets the girl! He seems great, until book two comes into play. Dune Messiah details the lasting effects of Paul’s work. Paul has not only used the native people of Arrakis to become a great and powerful religious figure, but he has incited a Jihad lasting years, killing billions of people, even quoting that he has killed more than the ancient historical figure of Adolf Hitler (that is also real, I was absolutely surprised to read it). What I am trying to get at is this, that while Paul really ends up becoming a villain in his own way, he’s an intriguing villain because of his moral enigma. Sure, Paul did some helpful things through the books, but Paul really could be seen (and mostly is, in a way) as a villain, not only to Arrakis and it’s people, but to the universe and the endless number of people he has killed just for them to follow his religious and political empire. Like I have said, sure sympathy can make a good villain. Even crossing the line like you’ve stated can be a good way too, but to make the actions of this villain questionable, make them morally ambiguous, spark a debate, that is what can make them really interesting and really great. – eaonhurley2 years ago
I think it makes them compelling when they don't want to destroy the world. As you said. I wanna watch the world burn is outdated. Villians with dedication are the most popular ones. Joker, Ozymandias, Killmonger, etc. These characters had a dedication for a specific reason. And this reason mostly comes from experience. Back then, villains were just destroyers. But now, screenwriters create them with meaning and with character. They have their own thoughts, ideas, and body language. To create a compelling villain, the writer should work on them precisely as same as a protagonist. Namor is a good example. He is stuck in between. He wants to protect his nation from humanity. It is acceptable. Makes him a solid character. Some call him a villain, but I don't think he is. Yet his desire to wage war against all humans makes him a weak character, either. And this is the screenwriter's problem. A simple sentence can destroy the whole character and its path. – valeriiege2 years ago
Ever since "Arcane: League of Legends" came out, the praises haven't stopped and are still keeping the show alive in people's minds. Even months later, people are still loving its story, characters and storytelling because it has come out in an era where diversity and an agenda have now convinced screen writers and comic book writers that it was enough to make a good story.
So many things stood out in "Arcane", but one of the most important was the way female characters were written. Violet, Caitlyn, Jinx, Councilman Medarda… they were written and characterized in a way that made them both appear strong and weak at the same time. Circumstances of the story showed their vulnerability and their strength in a matter of 'Show, don't tell' that has been lost these past few years in movies and TV shows where they have female leads.
This begs the question as to what else could have made these female characters so appealing to the public upon the release of the hit Netflix series. What has made them stand out so much in "Arcane: League of Legends" among the throng of other female characters? How has the writing of the show made them special and quite unique in their own way?
Arcane is an excellent show. There are a host of well developed female characters in the show (as well as male characters). I think that one of the things that make the characters so great are that the characters all have clear goals, desires, and fears that they are dealing with throughout the season. Rather than simply being a love interest or minor background characters, each of the characters has their own arc, with nuanced exploration of who they are and what they want. – Sean Gadus2 years ago
I find this really interesting. I watched Arcane through twice; once alone and once with my parents. Watch through one I found myself in adoration of Councilman Medara. Arcane fascinatingly has no inherently right or wrong people; they are borne of their ideas and upbringing which shape their decisions (like real people). I find other shows haven't really done this with women to the same extent, haven't given them the space to be debatable or mildly disagreeable but still very likeable. It also helps that it's rare in this type of media to see a person of colour with this depth of character. The second time was a bit different. It came with a few insensitive remarks from my father about character design, mainly how they're depicted in similar ways to his eras sex icons were portrayed. I don't necessarily agree, and I doubt these designs were made entirely for this purpose and yet his comment has me thinking about how much their likeability is tied to their character design, and would we like them less without Jinx's iconic braids or V's build. I'd say no, Caitlyn's outfits aren't too remarkable and I love her character's progression. – Zephyr2 years ago
This is a great topic, I have re-watched the series multiple times. The way the writers deal with gender in the story is very unique in how they neutralise gender stereotypes, with not only the women but also the men. I particularly applaud how they show Vi taking many hits, and showing the ugly side of violence that isn't often shown on female characters. – TheResearchPixie2 years ago
I think female characters are seen as more appealing because they finally get the representation in video games. – hafsakhan3102 years ago
I definitely agree that the female characters in Arcane stand out from other films and tv shows I've watched. They have actual depth and personality. We have strong, capable characters like Vi and Caitlyn who we actually want to root for. We have an interesting antagonist like Sevika who is respected by someone with the kind of power Silco has. None of the female characters (including even Mel and Jinx) are treated as if because they are women they have a less important role. They're just treated as people with their own trauma, expectations, motives, etc. Many of the women in the show exist, not to serve some arbitrary purpose or to prop up a male character, but because they are important to the story. – AnushkaJ2 years ago
Having female characters as the main characters for a show, which came from a game, which is not only male-dominated, but often sexist within the gaming community, is a very smart move from the producers/Riot. League of Legends players, along with many other consumers of this show, cannot deny how amazing the story was, and how amazing the main characters' lives were portrayed and I think this was really a powerful way to combat the negative perspective of women in games. Well done Riot, and lovely article! – Aleyna2 years ago
With shows ranging from the obvious (The Office) to others of less prominence (Degrassi), what does it take for a show to catch on in the US? With a show like the Office, it seemed a US version was needed, but shows such as Degrassi made it internationally and then had others based off of them. What others are there and what writers, directors, actors made became bigger because of it?
Including some examples of US remakes that weren’t successful can lend more depth to the reasoning behind these remakes – Anna Samson2 years ago
As the devil's advocate, what about foreign TV shows that ought to never be remade for US audience, because they nobody will be able to 'get it right'? – greenturnedblue2 years ago
I like the topic but perhaps you can identify 1-2 shows you would like potential writer to discuss or rephrase: "What two other shows are there and what writers, directors, actors did it make bigger because of it? – Montayj792 years ago
I could see this being popular. There are plenty of shows I would like to see brought to the US. – Hannahegeorge2 years ago
A Touch of Frost, Inspector Morse, Inspector Lynley, Vera … Free to air TV (at least in Australia where I am) consistently cycles such British crime series as these on repeat. Are such series perennial favourites, and if they are, why? Is it the characters? Or is it the familiar comfort and repetitiveness of the storylines? Does the quality of the shows or the popularity of crime as a genre play a part? Maybe it’s a combination of the above—or maybe these series are not perennial favourites and are rather the entertainment of only the unadventurous, narrow-minded, or deprived.
Is what is sought/gained from the entertainment experience such series offer the same as or distinct from other forms of crime drama (less/more episodic examples, those produced around the world, shows offered on subscription streaming services etc.)? How does "quality" in terms of the writing and production of the shows compare? An investigation of these questions could potentially include books, noting that the examples above were originally based on book series.
This could be a massive topic, but it would be fun to see at least some of it explored …
Is "perennial favourite" a common expression in Australia or elsewhere? I wonder if its use, over "classic" or "timeless," may restrict the global audience to a specific view or local perspective, if that happens to be the case. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Comic books, back in the day, were the dose of tiger balm to the congested chest. They were painful narratives that made us think, that put our problems into the perspectives of a false world so a hero could show us they can be solved and the villains of our lives vanquished. Unfortunately, the solutions are solely on the page or on the screen, now with the Netflix series' of Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage, but does that erase the effect they have on us as viewers and readers?
Do the shows take some issues too far? Present them too blatantly or too straight-forward for escapism?
Are they too real and too relevant? Or exactly what we need?
Something else to consider would be whether or not the intention of comic books is still escapism. As entertainment becomes increasingly politicized, the escapism aspect may sit on a balance with a desire to provide political commentary. If you wanted to do that more broadly, too, you could look at the balance of escapism and commentary in modern comic books or their adaptations (like Daredevil/Jessica Jones/Luke Cage), which I feel like is what you might be trying to do. There's an excellent article about Ta-Nehisi Coates discussing his run of Black Panther which touches on this --> http://kotaku.com/ta-nehisi-coates-is-trying-to-do-right-by-marvel-comics-1769418783 – Sadie Britton8 years ago
I think the subjective nature social consciousness makes this a hard question to answer. Comics have always run the gamut from utterly ridiculous to uncomfortably real but a lot of that is in the personal interpretation. Most comics aren't going to be as clear in their messaging as Captain America punching Hitler in the face. The X-Men arose as an allegory for the Civil Rights movement but not every white comic reader in the 60s was thinking "I see, this is like how we treat black people". However black comic readers may have connected with the story in a different way. Jessica Jones and Luke Cage both seemed overtly political but technically were recreations of plot lines that were decades old. When Brock Turner is making headlines, Jessica's inability to consent holds more weight. When Black Lives Matter plays a large part in the political sphere, a bulletproof black guy (in a hoodie) holds more weight. Your environment and your gender/racial/sexual identity change whether you view it as a nice work of fiction or a very political one. – LC Morisset8 years ago
Whoever decides to write a piece about this topic, must keep the line about comic books being "the dose of tiger balm to the congested chest." Otherwise, no success will be achieved. – T. Palomino2 years ago