Abhimanyu Shekhar

Analyze the progression of the antihero trope. How does it reflect changing social anxieties? Look at examples from classic cinema to modern streaming hits.

The article can be structured as a timeline first. Film Noir laid the groundwork, and TV’s prestige era exploded the antihero trope. Film Noir is a classic antihero breeding ground (cynical detectives, femme fatales, etc.). Another excellent point to cover here would be to highlight TV’s greater creative freedom and depth that allowed for more nuance than cinema often could. Now, I cannot think of all the classic movies, but some ideas do come to mind. Of course, there are many more examples to dissect properly.

40s/50s film noir has “The Private Detective” such as Philip Marlowe (The Big Sleep), Sam Spade (The Maltese Falcon) – world-weary, morally compromised, yet with an inner code. Then we had the “Femme Fatale” trope. Think Phyllis Dietrichson (Double Indemnity) – manipulative, uses sexuality for her own goals, challenges traditional female roles.

60s/70s Westerns saw a different breed altogether, I believe. First, you got the spaghetti Western Antihero, still relatable. A good example would be Clint Eastwood’s "Man with No Name" (A Fistful of Dollars, etc.) – self-serving, violent, but audiences root for him against even worse figures. Soon afterward, they were quick to offer more revisionist examples in cinema. There are many examples of this one but the main one is William Munny (Unforgiven) – haunted by past sins, questions the "heroic" myth of the cowboy.

Then let’s come to the 70s/80s. This is the neo-noir and crime thrillers age, kind of like an evolution. Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) is the prime example here. Deeply disturbed but the isolation-amid-urban-decay is a point that almost every city-dweller can relate with, pretty much. Thelma and Louise covers women taking agency, breaking free, and similar concepts, even when it means violence. This is an early example of the female antihero, and worth highlighting.

2000 onward we have the TV/streaming age. Three examples here: 1) Tony Soprano (The Sopranos) – quintessential modern antihero – mobster, yet we see his family struggles and therapy humanize him. 2) Walter White (Breaking Bad) – from mild-mannered to ruthless drug lord, his transformation is both horrifying and strangely compelling. 3) Joe Goldberg (You), Villanelle (Killing Eve) – pushing boundaries, playing with audience sympathy

Comics are quickly becoming the new literary powerhouse, so to speak. Examine the rise of graphic novels as serious literature. Analyze how the art form brings distinct storytelling advantages.

The central question to be asked is "When is it Art, When is it Exploitation?". One can analyze games that tackle controversial themes (war, violence). Are they providing insight, or are they using shock value for its own sake?

Analyze ‘choice-based’ games. Are player decisions truly impactful, or are they an illusion? Tie this to philosophical debates about free will.

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?

Let’s face it, the "TV" bit in "TV shows" is pretty pointless. The majority of the people you find talking about TV shows are watching them on computers, laptops and even phones. Sure, Netflix likes to say that they cater to the TV audience and that most of the viewing happens on TV apps, but there is hardly anyone who has a subscription to one of the many services such as Netflix and HBO Max but watches stuff only on their TV. We can also explore what we could call these shows now.

From Marvel’s superhero-based TV shows to shows such as Black Mirror – we have a very differing opinion of "good". For shows that fall into the intellectual or stimulating category, what makes them tick? A few shows to compare: Black Mirror, The Wire, Sherlock, Westworld, Peaky Blinders, The Vikings vs. Stranger Things, MCU shows, sitcoms, Game of Thrones. Also, where does it leave shows like Breaking Bad, The Boys? More specifically, is it the story, acting, direction, or the intended audience?

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is known for its action-packed superhero blockbusters. The whole genre is single-handedly carried by Disney at this point, with WB’s DC being the honorable competitor even Marvel must pity. But with Phase 4, viewers are already reminiscing how good the initial movies were. This is point every franchise or medium reaches – "the old stuff was so much better." Derive comparisons between this phenomenon and other cinema franchises (might as well expand to other media, such as music or art) – and conclude whether the Marvel’s marvelous days are over? For once, with great powers come great responsibilities. As the sole arbiter of the "superhero" genre, is Marvel’s lack in handling its responsibilities* going to spell its doom? *When I say lack in handling responsibilities I mean churning out movies solely for ticket sales even when the story could use more work (latest MCU movies and TV shows) and trying to milk as much cash as possible (launching a barrage of TV shows).