It seems as though, a lot of the time, the audience's perception of a character in a story is colored less by things the character has actually said or done, and more by how another character (who is usually a main character or simply more popular) views them. For instance, in the original British Office, Tim, a salesman, spends most of his time bullying his fellow salesman, Gareth. However, because Tim is more popular and gets more screen time, audiences just assume that he is the "nice" one and Gareth "deserves" to be mistreated when there's no real evidence of this. The same series also includes a corporate higher-up named Neil, who is made out to be "mean" simply because he doesn't get along with David, the main face of the show. What are some other examples of this phenomenon from TV, or media in general? Are there any characters who seem to be especially unfairly judged? Do they (or the people judging them) share any particular traits in common?
With most games filled with action and strong storylines, popular video games such as Animal Crossing and Stardew Valley have created a large fanbase for games highlighting slow living and farm life. What is the appeal to these types of games compared to action-packed games such as Grand Theft Auto? Is the audience different?
I think the audience is very markedly different but at the same time, that extends itself to a critique of the term gamer. Isn't someone who plays AC for 500 hours a hardcore gamer? In the popular conscious games like AC and Stardew, can be massive time sinks but are rarely viewed in the same ways as games like Doom, COD, and other games that are more readily seen as hardcore gamer games. Look at the motivations and understanding of the audiences of the genres could be interesting. – SunnyAgo2 years ago
In no way is the female warrior a new archetype, but what is new is the increasing mainstream TV portrayals of faceted versions of such characters. With the changes occurring in the representation of women in TV we are seeing a great up take of new presentations of women in what have been predominantly male roles/positions. An examination of this progression and the emergence of new perspectives on the female warrior would be a timely discussion.
Some examples you ask? Take 'Wynonna Earp' first. Westerns have traditionally focused on masculine frontier storytelling where women have two roles (chorus girl or wife – to put it politely) that are fundamentally centred on the men in the story. Wynonna is an alcoholic, damaged and has so much emotional baggage it fills the show. She is flawed, she is all the western cliches and she is still the biggest "bad ass" on the show. Consider 'Star Trek: Discovery' next. ST has actually been fairly forward with the presentation of women in roles of power and has often represented them in new and relevant versions…until the most recent films, when they were regressed back to wearing short dresses, go-go boots and being vulnerable. Michael (with a very traditionally masculine name) exemplifies the characteristics of a warrior, to the degree that the first season is framed by her act of violence. ‘Motherland: Fort Salem’ is literally a show about warrior witches. They are training and learning to be warriors. This is a show that fulfills many of the traditional tropes in masculine representations of war/combat style archetypes. Many of the subplots within the show follow traditional subplot paths of such genres, including characterisations of particular stereotypes such as the recruit, the cocky fighter, the drill sergeant, and so on.
There are so many more that could be discussed and explored. It is interesting to see the changes to these representations that are able to balance traditional “feminine” characteristics of the characters with traditional representations of masculine warrior traits in a manner the begins to normalise a greater diversity in gender representations.
Berserk is an incredibly influential series of manga in the dark fantasy genre of literature and has amassed an expansive following throughout the world. It has branched out into different anime, films, video-games and other forms of media, inspiring countless other artists. Unfortunately, its story could never be finished as Kentaro Miura, the original creator, had passed away about a year ago, leaving the series on a sour cliffhanger.
As of 7th June 2022, the Japanese manga magazine Young Animal officially stated that it will continue the serialization of the famous Berserk manga series without the visionary Kentaro. Headed by Kentaro's best friend Kouji Mori, the close friends and coworkers of Kentaro Miura promise to deliver an authentic end to the manga, stating that they know how it ends, since Kentaro would often discuss the narrative with everyone on the team before drafting the scenes, dialogue and aesthetic decisions.
The question therefore lies within the nature of finalizing someone else's work after their death. Though the continuation of the series seems to be in capable hands, should it still be continued? Is the authorship and authenticity of the work more important than its continued serialization and commercialization? Will this decision attract controversy from the fans, how so or why not? Will the original vision of the manga's themes and aesthetic features differ, or become watered down? How can one describe the differentiation between auteurs in an artwork or franchise?
Many series, like Star Wars (which imo has gotten worse since George Lucas handed it over to Disney) continue on after their original creator has either abandoned it or passed away. I think the most important thing for authors/artist that decide to continue some one else's work, is that they respect the ideas that the original creator put forward. This is part of the reason (imo) Star Wars fans have reacted negatively towards modern Star Wars. But series like Devil May Cry and Doom are still popular long after their original creators left the series. I think if the people who take over Berserk, respect Miura's original vision, put in an effort to maintain his art style, don't use the popularity of his work to market their own/or their personal agenda (be it political/socially) most fans will probably be somewhat understanding, and hopefully be reasonable in their criticism of the series going forward. Their is no denying their are going to be people who are going to be negative about any creative decisions made post Miura's passing. But in situations like this its usually best to ignore the more unrealistic complaints, and simply address the more reasonable ones. – Blackcat1303 years ago
Morbius is the superhero film released by Sony as part of Sony's Spider-Man Universe. It grossed 73.4m in the US and Canada and 90m worldwide. At release it finished first at the box office, which is not unusually for any superhero film, but then experienced a drop of 74% to be the second-worst superhero movie behind only an obscure tentpole superhero movie from 1997 called Steel. The critical response to the movie has been overwhelmingly negative with 3.8/10 from Rotten Tomatoes and comments such as "critically bad" from Variety. The negative reception spread quickly across the internet creating an ironic meme, which somehow led to Sony deciding to re-release it to 1,000 theatres on June 3rd, during which it made $310,665.
What is most confusing is the manner in which both the fans and Sony have responded to the release. The sour critical reception seems to have bolstered a collective "hate watch" that is generating revenue for Sony. The company, which seems unconcerned by the negative response appears to have taken the influx of internet attention as a positive and decided to re-release the film to cinema. So what happened? Is the Sony team so out of touch with its audience that it truly believed that the reception was positive, even though box office numbers clearly indicated otherwise? Was it an act of cashing in on internet popularity? Was it the belief that enough people would pay to "hate watch" it again? Was the movie that bad? The critics are critical, but aren't they always? Is this so terrible that it deserves the derision it is receiving, or is this an example of the toxicity of the internet where everyone loves to do nothing more than hate together? Should this level of response be lauded or declaimed? An interesting case study to social responses to film.
This topic is very interesting. Maybe you can look into different posts from fans about reasons why they didn't like the movie, and then dive more into specific flaws from Morbius? – taliadmit3 years ago
Analyze how Instagram influences humans and the popular culture industry. Has this fueled our addiction to the fan-based product industry through the impact of social media? For example, Selena Gomez is one of the most popular Instagram influencers in the music industry today. She has over 400 million followers on Instagram and Facebook. She has worked with many major brands such as Adidas NEO, Pantene, and Coca-Cola. Artists and Influencers brand their products differently today on social media than when television was popular. Platforms like Instagram have produced more fake branding and advertisement than ever; compared to TV in the past, social media seems to have sponsored fan-based products on an enormous scale, and many artists/influencers have "sold out" to consumer franchising. Product placement is highly prevalent in today's world. Although social media is excellent for connecting people and selling products, it is controlled by executives who make decisions on product placement, creating a culture of consumption and distraction with no end. What can we do to save humanity from consuming fan-based products, and how are social media influencers like Instagram over-promoting consumption for society? – Richard
In Steven Universe, the diamonds are fascist dictators responsible for the death and genocide of millions of gems. They establish a caste system, engage in biological warfare and experiment on their subjects. And yet, by the end of the show, all this is undone and forgiven. Does SU undermine the impact of war and fascism? How can SU's view of fascism be contextualised outside of the show? How should children's shows depict war without sugarcoating its atrocities?
Top Gun: Maverick finally hit theaters after a pandemic-induced delay. The film is filled with nostalgia for fans of the original, and also carries some new material with a distinct 21st-century feel for its newest generation of fans. One such instance of this material is female pilot Phoenix, played by Monica Barbaro.
In an interview, Barbaro stated that she enjoys Phoenix's character, particularly that she is not a love interest for anyone, and that she is one of Maverick's top co-pilots during the central mission. However, she is still the lone female pilot with any significant dialogue or character development in the film. Is this realistic considering the type of films the Top Gun franchise contains? Is Phoenix still a good representation of females in male-dominated fields, particularly the military? How would the movie have been different had she had more screen time? Discuss.
It could compare Phoenix's role in the film with Penny's. In my opinion, the first one adds to the female representation while the second sticks to the romantic partner of the protagonist. – Nathalie Moreira3 years ago
A film version of the classic and often banned Judy Blume novel Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret, is scheduled to hit theaters September 6, 2022. Not much is known about the plot itself, which raises a lot of questions. For instance, when the original book was published in the 1970s, it was unusual for children to be raised without religious affiliation, as Margaret is. Will this be the case for a Margaret of 2022? Will a 21st-century Margaret's explorations of puberty be treated as scandalous?
These and other questions bring up just how relevant Judy Blume's coming-of-age story, as well as her other stories, such as the Fudge series, Blubber, and Deenie, still are. Millennial adults who grew up with them still consider Blume's books classics and have introduced their own kids to them, and some Gen Z kids still read and enjoy them. However, Judy Blume doesn't seem like quite the gold standard of coming-of-age stories she once was. Her plots don't read as "cutting edge" because they're not as controversial anymore. You could call them downright tame.
Blume is definitely still relevant, but the question has become, just how relevant is she? In the case of Blume and her books, what does "relevant" mean? How is she similar to or different from today's hottest middle-grade and young adult authors, and can she maintain her place as a classic author, or will her books eventually lapse into obscurity? Discuss.
In recent years, fictional stories in literature, TV, video games, film, etc. have begun to incorporate elements, characters, and situations from various ancient mythologies to great success. Greek and Norse mythologies have been especially featured (such as the popular Percy Jackson series or Marvel's Thor and his stories), but other mythologies have seen an increase as well, including Irish, Japanese, Mayan, Egyptian, Hindu, and various native mythologies. The most successful examples are not simple modern retellings of ancient myths, but original stories.
One large area of untapped potential seems to be Christian mythology. As the most widespread religion on Earth, one would think the varied stories, traditions, and fantastical parts of Christianity would be ripe for use in stories on a level comparable to any other mythological system. There are some notable examples of where this has been implemented well in fiction, such as the Left Behind series of books or the Darksiders video game series (which both draw heavily from elements of the biblical book of Revelation), as well as elements being incorporated into popular works such as the TV shows "Supernatural" or "Lucifer." For the most part, however, fictional works set against a backdrop of angels and demons tend overwhelmingly to be overtly religious or evangelizing in nature. Compare this to works that incorporate other mythologies into their stories, which almost always do so purely for entertainment value rather than to promote the religions they feature.
Why is this material so underutilized? Is there anything inherently different about Christian mythology compared to any other mythological system? With the sheer volume of fiction with mythological elements out there, might we see a surge in works that drawn upon elements from Christian mythology as the public tires of yet another story with Zeus or Thor?
Great topic! I think part of the answer may lie in how "overt" existing content is. As soon as you reveal content is religious, and specifically Christian, people expect to be either bored or offended (in my experience, anyway). I think there's a lot of implicit and confirmation bias going on, which you could explore if you choose to delve into the psychology of these questions. – Stephanie M.3 years ago
This is an interesting topic. Though the answer seems obvious, it can be interpreted in many different ways. The way I personally see it, Christian mythology is both still very much modern and widely spread across the world despite being rooted in ancient folklore, texts and stories. It is hard to conveniently represent biblical characters and events without offending certain groups of Christians or non-Christians. When representing characters such as Thor or Zeus, there is no huge demographic that will contest the artist's aesthetic position as those beings are widely believed to be mythical and unrealistic, mostly depicting human qualities and shortcomings. Most Christians, if not all, believe that the stories from long ago did happen, and that their representation is sacred and should be free from rewriting or human tampering.
There is obviously also the topic of the different Christian churches such as Catholicism and Protestantism, which come with their own separate beliefs and doctrines. Though their mythologies most likely hardly differ in major ways, it is still an aspect that contributes to the lack of Christian fiction. – AlGrater3 years ago
Kinda disagree that Christian Mythology isn't being explored/delved into. While we don't have stories about modern versions of Biblical characters or retelling of christian events (Unless you include Aron McGruder's satirical sitcom Black Jesus or South Parks Jesus and Satan) we do see Christian religion regularly brought up or used as an allegorical message for various series. (Blue Exorcist the protagonist the is the son of Satan, Seraph of the End. While this series mostly deals with Vampires it does have multiple Christian references with in it.) Ankin basically being the chosen one and being born of a virgin birth is a good example in western culture using Christian imagery in their series. (Which I think is how most western shows/movies use Christianity now days.) But you have series like the Shin Megami Tensi series, where you summon actual biblical angels and demons to fight for you. And sometime battle various versions of divine beings. Much of that series has you going on journey that have multiple allusions to religious events. Persona 3 while it never directly states it, the protagonist is meant to be seen as a religious messiah that sacrifices himself for the sins of others. (Your literal final persona is called Messiah and you die at the end to give a humanity a chance to live on) I will agree with the premise that other religious mythological figures are more popular. And as someone has already pointed out, this most likely due to people being less protective of characters like Thor and Zeus, but I don't think Christianity has diminished in popularity. I think it used symbolically more than other religions, as it gets the message across in an largely inoffensive way. Still I would find someone writing on this topic interesting. – Blackcat1303 years ago
I think there's really two answers to this question. One is that people tend to like things that strike them as "new" or "exotic," and so they borrow from foreign belief systems for the "cool" factor of having something new and different. This is one reason why Christian motifs and names are more common in Japanese anime series than Western ones, because to the Japanese Christianity itself seems exotic. On the other hand, I would argue that Christian themes even in the west are actually more common than one might suppose, although they might be hidden. For instance, J.R.R. Tolkien, who wrote the Lord of the Rings series, was a practicing Christian, and almost certainly included at least some of his beliefs in the stories he wrote. C.S. Lewis, of course, also wrote explicitly Christian themes into his Chronicles of Narnia series. There is also the fact that in past eras, where Christianity was a lot more widespread than it is now, people wrote much more openly about the characters and themes of the Christian Bible, with works such as Paradise Lost among others. – Debs3 years ago
Is there less of it, or are audiences in countries like the United States, that are majority Christian, less likely to notice it? Christianity is much more familiar than polytheistic ancient cultures. When Superman falls to Earth in Man of Steel, his arms outspread in the shape of a cross, is it less notable than significant Norse imagery? The Golden Compass and Good Omens are two large and successful franchises, both based in Christian mythology. They also have another thing in common - they faced tremendous backlash. Many of the other mythologies mentioned have few modern practitioners to object their mythology being farmed for fictional entertainment... So, with the examples given here and the ones above, is there really a lack? I'd be interested to hear more examples of the other mythologies adapted. – ronannar2 years ago
The abject female has arguably been a principal Gothic subject. Explore the ways that the female and the female sexuality is demonised and othered in The Monk (by Matthew Lewis). Consider the different female characters that appear in The Monk and compare how they are each treated/viewed throughout the novel. How are they viewed through the male gaze compared to the female gaze?
Tina Fey's character in the sitcom 30 Rock is an at times uncomfortable portrayal of an archetype that many people identify with: white, female, and straight, as well as smart, witty, and awkward. How do we understand Liz Lemon's self-presentation in the show, as well as how the characters around her interact with her? Does her character have implications for the people who see part of themselves in her? What is Liz Lemon's legacy? Specifically, I'm interested in how Liz Lemon deals with issues of privilege, especially in terms of the racial humor the show occasionally incorporates, as well as her interactions with her boss Jack and the power dynamic and competition between them.
From my admittedly limited experience with 30 Rock, Liz Lemon always kind of struck me as a female version of Michael Scott, from The Office. Like Michael, Liz is rude, childish, self-centered, and often feels attacked and unfairly imposed upon by her boss and colleagues. Liz gets much less sympathy than Michael does, however, which I can't help but feel is due to sexism. Many people (both in and out of 30 Rock's world) seem to believe that men can get away with acting inappropriately but women "should know better" somehow. – Debs2 years ago
I think a lot of what Debs is saying is right, but Liz is also much, much smarter than Michael Scott. 30 Rock's interest to me is the balancing act it performs: the show is definitely aware of the sexist dynamic that Debs is describing, but doesn't let Liz off the hook for her faults. That can be a controversial balancing act, because like Debs says, it does suggest Liz ought to know better in a way that Michael Scott isn't expected to, but I think the show is also plainly aware of that controversy, making it a more challenging show to grapple with. – Elliot Brunk2 years ago
Analyze how artists and entrepreneurs use social Media Marketing. How have platforms like Facebook and Instagram transformed the way artists communicate and market their products. How can the art world benefit from social media, and what are the disadvantages of doing business online?
It's a fascinating subject. As provided, I believe it is quite broad. It should be more explicit and concrete, taking into account relevant case studies. Finally, it may be beneficial to specify why such an examination is required. – Samer Darwich3 years ago
You need to be more specific. Pick 2 or 3 examples of social media marketing that used a good creative campaign and how this was received by the audience. And maybe 2 or 3 examples of bad campaigns that, despite aiming to be trendsetters as well as using creative innovation, received a backlash for not being able to read the room and be sensible. – Dani CouCou3 years ago
I would also look at the added responsibility that social media marketing lays on artists. Artists are now often both full-time artists and marketers, which can wear them thin if they don't have the opportunity to outsource. – dallykay3 years ago
Artists are likely to be "kidnapped" by the audience, because if they do not cater to the audience's own work will not be taken seriously. – Bruce2 years ago
Analyze how gamers today condemn and criticize games solely based on limited information and trailers. Specifically prior to the launch of some of the most critically acclaimed games of this year Horizon: Forbidden West and Elden Ring gamers criticized reused animations and lackluster gameplay elements before getting their hands on them. This trend has been increasing over the years with developers being bombarded by complaints and criticism for rather minor transgressions in otherwise fantastic games.
Something worth noting about modern criticism is that outlets like Facebook and Twitter make it easier to track public opinion. Similarly before YouTube decided to hide the down vote button it was also a good source of public opinion. I think what is more likely going on is getting peoples opinions is easier, then say twenty years ago. Not only that but game reviewers often have to/will put out day one reviews with out properly analyzing the game, and may overly focus on one negative aspect of a game. Or they may intentionally misrepresent some aspects to try and make their review more entertaining. Tim Rogers in his review of Kingdom Hearts 3 admitted to being intentionally negative about some aspects when he reviewed Kingdom hearts 2 many years ago. And he simply did it to just to get more clicks on his review. (This led to fan backlash towards him and calling him out for his poorly constructed review of Kingdom hearts 2.) I would like to point out games like Cyber Punk 2077, Skyrim, and Battle Field 2042 also launched in unplayable states with frequent crashes. So, are gamer's complaints completely unwarranted or justified. ( I know you were focusing on Elden Ring and Horizon, but I think this is an interesting topic and can lead to many interesting discussions about the discourse surrounding video game critics.) – Blackcat1303 years ago
I think an interesting avenue to explore in this topic would be the nature of fandoms, the ever-increasing expectations for the next blockbuster game to blow people away (resulting in gamers critiquing and nitpicking small details such as reused animations). Fandoms have a tendency to breed extremely passionate people who will both go at ends to protect their respective franchise, or criticize aspects and expect to be completely shocked by the next entry of an artist's work, as they have been before. When gamers criticized Elden Ring for example, their judgment could have stemmed from their initial experience of game creator Miyazaki's games such as Dark Souls 1 to 3, where the same animations are used, but are part of that game and therefore part of that gamer's experience. When they notice these returning aspects, they automatically assume laziness and cop-out to try and 'impress' the player with things they have already seen and done, when those are but small features. A negative comment will always seem louder and leave a bigger impression than a positive one. – AlGrater3 years ago
What is the function of these categories on streaming services:
Disney – Trending Netflix – Popular on Netflix, trending now, Top 10 movies in Australia today Amazon prime – top movies, top tv Stan – trending on stan, popular now
Psychologically why do we want to be watching what everyone else is? Or if not, why?
How does this work on services such as Netflix, who have their own original content? Can we trust that they aren't bumping their own numbers?
Also, how do they know what is being watched most? Do they get these numbers anonymously or can they see what each user/profile is watching? Netflix has a category based on the user's country, so they must be able to see at least some user info with what is being watched.
I have seen writer's use eg. Bridgertons viewing stats in articles, where do they get these numbers? Are they released by the streaming services or are these inferred from their places in 'trending' categories?
Having these lists and categories seems to guarantee that certain content will reach pop culture icon status (eg. Tiger King), which spurned trends on social media and spin-off shows. Perhaps this is why the services have these categories, so that everyone is talking about the show/movie that can be seen exclusively through their service.
I think FOMO, or the fear of missing out, plays a major role in why the 'trending' section works so well. Many want to be able to connect with others and fear that if they do not they will be left behind – Alex3 years ago
An increasingly important conversation in the book industry is that of diverse representation, both in the characters and stories we promote, and in the authors whose work we publish. Central to this discussion is the question: who has the right to write? Can a neurotypical author write from an autistic perspective? Can a white American write about the experience of growing up Chinese-Indian?
A key part of this discussion also comes down to authenticity: the effort and care put into representations of particular cultural groups and their experiences. Take, for example, Mark Haddon's 'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time' (2003) and John Boyne's 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' (2006).
Both of these texts received great acclaim in relation to their representation of Asperger's/autism and the holocaust respectively, to the point that both have been included in school curriculums and other education programs since their publications. However, both authors have publicly stated that they did minimal research into the experiences they wrote about, choosing to focus more on the narrative at hand than the accuracy of their work. Does this diminish the texts' cultural influence/importance? What responsibility do authors have to ensure authenticity (and accuracy) in their works, especially when they're not part of the community they're writing about?
You probably know this, but The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas has been absolutely excoriated, not just because its author didn't do any research, but because the whole plot absolutely never would have happened, even under the best of circumstances. I haven't read Curious Incident, but I would imagine it's received similar treatment. If you're going to write this topic, I might pair one of these books with a couple that got less intense reactions (whether or not they actually deserved excoriation, which is another topic altogether). – Stephanie M.3 years ago
I think this is a topic that is worth exploring, but it's also a very broad one. There are so many different takes on it and different cases worth examining. I feel that choosing a specific group/identity to discuss authenticity in writing would probably be best. – AnnieEM3 years ago
All writers face the same problem of trying to describe the lives of others with the thoughts of their supervisors. But I still think it's irresponsible to express your feelings without knowing someone. – Bruce2 years ago
In contemporary Athens, the protagonist, Yorgos, is a tormented young man on the verge of famine. He's ostensibly educated and cultured yet separated from family and friends. What sets this topic noteworthy is that it is symbolic of times of crisis, which put many individuals in tough situations. Lyzigos, the film's director, refers to his work as a psychological case study of the crisis. Though the film's plot is around a personal story, it has societal implications. Yorgos' personal history is kept hidden for the duration of the film; we can only see his behavior in unpleasant situations along with his ambiguous motivations. As a result, the film serves as a useful illustration of how situational factors shape people's behavior regardless of their personal identities, backgrounds, or histories. After addressing the film in general and numerous key sequences in particular, all in the context of a situation in which humans' basic needs are being mistreated, the author may mention and discuss some psychological experiments, one of the well-known of which is the Stanford Prison Experiment. It was created to see how situational circumstances affected participants' reactions and behaviors throughout a prison simulation. Another example is the Milgram Experiment, which deals with a setting in which volunteers are directed to obey authority. Although psychological studies are not essential, they may provide factual evidence for the idea that situational conditions can influence people's behavior regardless of their identities! Finally, the contributor can ask a serious question about the interplay of personal and situational factors: at what point does the impact of situational factors become dominant? Aren't there reasons linked to a person's own characteristics, such as how reasonable or impulsive he is?
An interesting psychological analysis of the film. It would be helpful to have a little summary of the film at the start for context, but it would be a great discussion. – Sarai Mannolini-Winwood3 years ago
It's worth noting that the two experiments listed above have films dedicated to them, specifically Kyle Patrick Alvarez's The Stanford Prison Experiment from 2015 and Michael Almereydaq's Experimenter from 2015. – Samer Darwich3 years ago
If I recall, the Stanford Prison Experiment has had some negative criticism in its methodology. Just something that may be worth keeping in the back of the mind. – J.D. Jankowski3 years ago
Considering the recent success of Squid Game, what factors led to its popularity? The plot itself is one that – while unique, is perhaps not as haunting as less popular films and TV Shows. Is its more simplistic plot the cause of its international success?
I'd argue that, while the battle royale format is relatively simple, Squid Game is actually trying to make a fairly complex point about class and privilege. The contrast of simple surface/deeper content could be explored here. You can see online how often people misinterpret the point of the show (ex. "it's about having a go-getter mindset!"). Is it digestible because people are taking something from it without having to dig too deep? And are they taking the right thing? – SBee3 years ago
I agree with the above comment. Squid Game may seem simple, but it's underlying commentary on class and wealth cannot be overlooked. However, the gore, the bright colours, the flashiness of the game and the characters are attractive to viewers without having to dig too much deeper.
– oliviatrenorden3 years ago
I agree with SeeB. I’d also like to see a consideration of how the national
context also influences its popularity. There’s a transnational consumption of Korean culture as mainstream. I think there’s something there to explore. Is S Korea the canary in the coalmine? – ProfRichards3 years ago
This is a very interesting question indeed. I would say that the suspense also played a role in its success. Plus, there is an interesting presentation of the characters who are different in their intentions in the game. You get to see those who make you feel uncomfortable or angry and those who make you feel like there is still hope in humanity. The emotional responses these characters have on the audience is what I believe made the show an international success. – Malak Cherif3 years ago
Could also consider that the translation into English was far from perfect, apparently lots of the nuance was lost. However, it managed to be wildly successful in both forms. – JDWatts3 years ago
I really just think people in the western world made it seem more popular than it was intended to become. I've seen this plot before in anime I've seen but it's more of a niche sub-genre. It took the average Netflix viewer by surprise because it's not something they watch, the survival game type of vibe.
– jeet3 years ago
It'd be interesting to discuss the cultural differences underwriting the themes. Western culture and entertainment are becoming more desperate for innovative content and turning to other languages and cultures to find them. Does this mean that Western content creation has been tapped out in terms of innovation and will be limited to endless remakes of the same stories, over and over? – PeterRogers3 years ago
Romance novels are a billion dollar industry, dominated by women. But the romance genre is often decried by critics as subpar. These attitudes are another case of society shaming women for their sexuality, but many women are fighting back, broadcasting their love for love and erotica for all to see. It would be interesting to look back at attitudes from the past, dating as far back as the creation of the early invention of the modern novel. In the past, fiction was regarded as a "feminine pursuit" looked down on by a patriarchal society while men read philosophy and academia. It would be interesting to explore how those attitudes actually helped female pioneers of the novel thrive and how those attitudes encroach into the romance genre of today.
Who ever chooses to write on this topic may want to differentiate between erotica and romance, as most people I know do not consider them the same. I would also question if the modern romance genre is being heavily criticized now because its being written by more women, or if its because authors like Henry James, Virginia Woolf, Alfred Flaubert, Shakespeare and Jane Austen have set a high standard for the genre. (Austen is usually considered one of the best romantic writers with Shakespeare sometimes being held in higher esteem.) I've personally never heard of the genre being held down by a patriarchal society. I have heard that men were accused of being feminine or gay in the 19th century, because they wrote romance and emotive stories, and this lead to romance novels adopting the more masculine/ Byronic protagonist. So it may simply be a trend shift, but I don't really know as you see romance novels come back in popularity during the late 20th century, often getting mixed in with other genres like detective-noire. To prove sexism is really difficult, as you need a direct quote or actions showing that the individual is acting in such a way. But even then does one individuals actions reflect the entirety of a culture? Is it possible that modern women writers are being criticized because they do not write at the same level as their predecessors or is it because there is conspiracy to keep to them out of the writing space? I do not see how that can be proven beyond a single individual holding some women back. But those are my main concerns for this topic. I'd be interested in seeing someone write about this. – Blackcat1303 years ago
I think this would be an interesting topic to write about! I agree that romance novels are more ridiculed and that some sexism is involved. I think that Blackcat130 made a good point about differentiating between romance and erotica- that is an important distinction to make. Also, perhaps writers are criticized for not meeting standards set by Shakespeare and Austen. However, I agree with your point about sexism, and it would be interesting to look at how fiction used to be a feminine pursuit. – shoafhannah3 years ago
Analyse Don't Look Up that came out this past year. In what terms is it showing the truth and/or exaggerating. With the NASA scientist being arrested and the implications on climate change, there is the connection that we are destroying ourselves. How does this connection make us think more about the impact we have on our lives? Or why is it so hard to take action to basically save us?
Going on from here to discuss human psychology in situations like this would be really important. The investigation could start on a personal level and end on a collective level. Let's start with some hypothetical questions: why is it possible to intentionally heart oneself? Is it simply a matter of ignorance? Where one knows, is it then a matter of lack of faith? Is it a lack of emotional impulses? Why is it possible to know and believe in self-hearting yet not act on it? How does a personal activity become a community-wide behavior after this? Etc... – Samer Darwich3 years ago