Today, dystopias are on the rise.
The Walking Dead is the most-watched basic
cable drama with 16.1 million viewers for its fourth (current) season
premier. Nearly two million of these
fans follow the show on Twitter.
Another
dystopia, The Hunger Games, is one of
Kindle’s top five all-time bestselling books, and the movie adaptation set
records for the highest-grossing, non-sequel opening day, earning $67.3
million.
The Road won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and was
subsequently adapted for film.
Summit
Entertainment bought media rights to Divergent
and was given a budget of $80 million for a planned release in 2014.
As the numbers show, dystopias are wildly
successful with today’s audience — and these audiences want more, or else they would have lost
interest in these series. The Walking Dead’s audience grows with
every season, with 5,400 viewers of the season one, 2010 pilot; 7300 viewers of
the season two, 2011 premier; 11,000 viewers of the season three, 2012 premier;
and 16,000 viewers of the season four, 2013 premier. Similarly, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire film adaptation was Fandango’s 2013
advance-ticket top seller, and the opening day grossed around $70.5 million,
earning even more than The Hunger Games.
Dystopian audiences
have grown massive, no longer just a small group interested in George Orwell’s 1984 (although they too are included). And as huge
as dystopias are today, they are only growing in popularity.
Showing posts with label the walking dead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the walking dead. Show all posts
Monday, December 2, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Walking Dead Playlist?
In the spirit of The Walking Dead, the music site Songza made a playlist titled Brooding over Biters with Rick Grimes featuring depressing, downer-blues-southern-rock. Pretty catchy.
Friday, November 29, 2013
The Walking Dead: Dystopian TV!
On Halloween of 2010, AMC premiered The Walking Dead, a post-apocalyptic (and therefore, dystopian) drama about a small group of survivors in a world of zombies originally based on a graphic novel. Now on its fourth season, The Walking Dead is the #1 most-watched drama TV series ever in basic cable history with 16.1 million viewers for the season four premier.
What makes this show better than the others? Zombies. Well-done, not-cheesy zombies. Err, walkers.
Besides the walkers, the show is just a drama - a close-knit group of people that experiences ups and downs together, focusing strongly on the characters' emotions, not just their actions. Plus walkers.
In an attempt to rise above the rest of the zombie subgenre, The Walking Dead never, ever uses the word 'zombie.' Instead, they call the undead 'walkers' or 'biters.' This new labeling allows the show to create their own spin because the audience's preconceived notions of 'zombies' are not applicable to 'walkers' or 'biters.' And the re-labeling helps. Now, people can become walkers without being bit - a new feature for walking dead.
While the first season deals primarily with the fall of humanity and the second season builds the characters' relationships with one another, the third season seriously increases the moral discussion so often accompanying dystopic stories - what defines humanity?
The ragtag main group, led by Rick Grimes, encounters a second seriously organized group of survivors in the third season. The resulting conflict between these groups forces the audience to ponder - if you were part of the group, what would you do? Is it ethical to kill another living human if their group and your group are fighting for the same resources? Should you align yourself with the other group merely because you have a common enemy? In the absence of government, what is the determining factor in your behavior? Do ethics even apply?
The fourth season, although only about halfway through, not only continues but advances season three's discussion: How far should a person go to protect those they love? Is murder ever ethical? The most common question this season (even asked by the characters themselves!) is, "Can you come back from this? How?"
Thus far, the fourth season's contemplation of right versus wrong in a world no longer organized by rules has only increased the show's literary merit. While the show does indeed have its faults (Rick floats between crazy and totally sane way too easily and way too much), its portrayal of human response to horrific de-humanizing experiences and a complete collapse of society is brilliant. My only fear (besides that my favorite will die) is that the show may over-villainize the Governor to the point that he will end up closer to a super-villain instead of a real human person who wasn't able to adjust to a dystopic society.
What makes this show better than the others? Zombies. Well-done, not-cheesy zombies. Err, walkers.
Besides the walkers, the show is just a drama - a close-knit group of people that experiences ups and downs together, focusing strongly on the characters' emotions, not just their actions. Plus walkers.
In an attempt to rise above the rest of the zombie subgenre, The Walking Dead never, ever uses the word 'zombie.' Instead, they call the undead 'walkers' or 'biters.' This new labeling allows the show to create their own spin because the audience's preconceived notions of 'zombies' are not applicable to 'walkers' or 'biters.' And the re-labeling helps. Now, people can become walkers without being bit - a new feature for walking dead.
While the first season deals primarily with the fall of humanity and the second season builds the characters' relationships with one another, the third season seriously increases the moral discussion so often accompanying dystopic stories - what defines humanity?
The ragtag main group, led by Rick Grimes, encounters a second seriously organized group of survivors in the third season. The resulting conflict between these groups forces the audience to ponder - if you were part of the group, what would you do? Is it ethical to kill another living human if their group and your group are fighting for the same resources? Should you align yourself with the other group merely because you have a common enemy? In the absence of government, what is the determining factor in your behavior? Do ethics even apply?
The fourth season, although only about halfway through, not only continues but advances season three's discussion: How far should a person go to protect those they love? Is murder ever ethical? The most common question this season (even asked by the characters themselves!) is, "Can you come back from this? How?"
Thus far, the fourth season's contemplation of right versus wrong in a world no longer organized by rules has only increased the show's literary merit. While the show does indeed have its faults (Rick floats between crazy and totally sane way too easily and way too much), its portrayal of human response to horrific de-humanizing experiences and a complete collapse of society is brilliant. My only fear (besides that my favorite will die) is that the show may over-villainize the Governor to the point that he will end up closer to a super-villain instead of a real human person who wasn't able to adjust to a dystopic society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)