Topics

Discuss the merits of the new streaming platform "Shudder," which is essentially the Netflix of the horror and psychological thriller genre. There are many positive sides to the platform such as custom curated collections put together by famous horror movie buffs. There are also some limitations to the site and unexplored possibilities. This is a topic for the horror movie buff and perhaps the Shudder fan.

High school English curricula are filled with classics from centuries past. But, in a hypothetical high school curriculum that could ONLY include novels published in the twenty-first century, what would you choose? What considerations would need to be taken into account? What purpose would each text serve? Which genres are best/to be avoided? Is it possible to give a comprehensive education of literature without studying past texts? If so, why/why not?

Manhwa is a Korean term for comics, generally considered to be of lower quality than a manga, manhwa is starting to gain in popularity. Recently manhwa has become a source for adaption, with Tower of God being released and the God of High School coming up July (Both by Crunchyroll/MAPPA). Research and analyze the rise of manhwa as a source for anime adaptation. Can manhwa compete with manga? Is manhwa going to become a source primarily for American companies like Crunchyroll? Does the general quality of manhwa compare to manga matter?

When Suzanne Collins announced that her new book would follow President Snow, the antagonist of the original Hunger Game series, there was uproar from select fans who had no trouble expressing their distaste for a prequel story that followed this character.

However, there are books that follow villains or antagonists that people enjoy without fail – Game of Thrones has a huge cast of people that you wouldn't call 'good' necessarily, Vicious by V.E. Shwab protagonist is a 'villain'. Dexter and Breaking Bad were highly popular television series following characters that, in anyone else's story, would be the antagonist.

What is it about an antagonist, a villain, that encourages an audience to want to hear their story? What is about the antagonist that has audiences not wanting to hear their story?

I would argue its to do with how they became a villain themselves. Is it the world? Is it a privilege that has afforded them a certain belief system? Is it because the character is attractive?

Whilst video platform Vine has closed down, its legacy of short Internet videos has remained. Investigate the popularity of these short videos. Why are they so popular? What makes them popular? How can a short video reach success – what needs to be included within the short video to make it successful? Is this medium preferred over longer YouTube videos, for example?

The release of Bethesda Softworks’ DOOM Eternal this year marks another milestone in what has become almost three decades of video game history for the franchise. For 27 years, the franchise has been a pioneer in FPS multiplayer games, and their fan base has witnessed an ongoing evolution of characters, graphics, and narratives. But this begs the question, why has a game that began as shareware endured with such longevity, outliving other games from the '90s? So, analyze this evolution of the DOOM franchise, from the original DOOM (1993) to the recent 2020 release. Look specifically at the graphics, gameplay mechanics, lore, and storytelling. Question what exactly makes the franchise so popular, and what has maintained this popularity through the decades. Although the franchise includes films, comics, novels, and more, this article would seek to analyze the video games specifically.

Recently, there has been a boom in social media coverage of political events. Politicians have been using social media to their advantage to build an image for themselves during campaigns. Analyze the role social media plays in influencing audience perception. How is this trope being harnessed by politicians today all over the world? What are the moral/ ethical dilemmas (if any) associated with this free and easily accessible tool for shaping public perception?

The 2017 film Justice League had a troubled production history, with the film undergoing major changes before and during production. This resulted in the theatrical release being very different from how the film had been envisioned by its original director Zack Snyder. For more than two years many fans (and some of the film's stars) have campaigned for Snyder (using #ReleaseTheSnyderCut) to create a version of the film that more closely aligned with his original vision which include unused villains like Darkseid. In May 2020, HBO and Warner Bros. announced that "The "Snyder Cut" would be an exclusive to the new HBO Max streaming service and the project will launch sometime in 2021. This version will reportedly cost $20–30 million to complete with special effects, editing, and other revisions. Is the Snyder cut a positive thing, allowing a creator to finally realize his true vision in some way and an admittance that the studio made a mistake with the original. In contrast, could the Snyder Cut demonstrate that movie studios are listening too much to a vocal group of fans about a film that even with significant revisions may not fully satisfy its audience? Lastly, would Warner Bros. have allowed the Snyder Cut to be created in a time period where they didn't have a massive streaming service (HBO Max) to promote/sell to consumers.

Musical theater is a huge and well-loved medium, and in recent years has given us some cutting-edge hits (Legally Blonde, Wicked, Dear Evan Hansen, Hamilton, etc.) Yet there are some accepted "rules" of theater culture that still feel like stereotypes or "boxing in" actors. For instance: sopranos get the leads; mezzos and altos play "witches and britches." Tenors play romantic leads; basses play villains. Actresses past the age of 30 can expect to play mothers and grandmothers, but not love interests for their own sake. If you are a white male, you cannot convincingly play a male or female of any color (although I have conversely seen white women tapped to play WOCs). Actors with disabilities can only really expect casting in disabled roles.

Most theater aficionados will tell you there are solid reasons behind this thinking, even truth. Then again, in 2019, should conventional theater change more to suit the needs and desires of actors? Could or should a musical be written to give an ingenue role to an alto or a hero role to a bass? Is it pushing the envelope to allow actors of certain orientations to play outside of them, or for a white actor to play a POC (outside of a historical context)? In short, what would and should truly "diverse," "inclusive" theater look like?

Stephen King has built his career being the foremost prolific and successful horror storyteller of our generation. Or has he?

In his almost fifty years of publishing stories, he has a tendency to repeat the tales and tropes he finds interesting again and again because if there's one thing King is not afraid of, it's putting out his first draft while he hones in the story. "Here's my story about a murderous car. No, wait. Here is my story about a murderous car. Okay, hang on. This is my story about a murderous car."

Controversially, King's best work is when he branches away from the supernatural, the ghostly, and the otherworldly and steps into the realm of ordinary people in real situations. An author who after a car accident is taken in by a crazed fan only to be brutalized, a man wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of his wife succumbing to life behind bars but secretly plotting his escape, or an author is murdered and his killer stashes his unpublished works before being sent to prison but after his release goes in search of his hidden treasure only to find a child has stumbled upon his prize and the lengths he is prepared to go to get back what is his. All of these scenarios are horrifying, but in a wholly different way than utilizing some fantastical element like telekinesis or inter-dimensional monsters.

It is at the core of stories like these that we find real characters that we can relate and connect to and it is there that we find the heart and capability of Stephen King's true storytelling abilities.

Since the introduction of the horror genre, our love for being terrified has only grown. What is it about being frightened to death that makes us feel alive? Is the rush of being able to view others in horrifying situations from the safety of our homes a voyeuristic thrill? Oh, you better believe it.

The trouble is, what happens when the familiar tropes stop scaring us and the over saturation of horror films reaches critical mass and we can no longer reach the same euphoric terror we once had? Unfortunately, the same ideas from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s have been rehashed and repackaged so many times over to the point where the things that should scare us couldn’t even frighten a small child.

Hollywood’s peddling of mediocre films has flooded the genre into a frail, shambling corpse of its former glory. The lumbering serial killer pursuing its victims at a pace never exceeding that of a brisk walk, the family wronged by a group of depraved lunatics to the point where the only justice is bloody vengeance, a small group surviving the never-ending onslaught against an insurmountable force, and the supernatural/demonic force that wants to inhabit our heroes has been driven into the ground so deep that you’d think Jason Vorhees had his undead boot pressing on the back of its skull.

However, there are some directors that exist today that are able to take the old, outdated tropes from these bygone eras and bring them up to date in refreshingly gruesome ways. Directors like Robert Eggers, Leigh Whannel, Jennifer Kent, David Robert Mitchell, Panos Cosmatos, and Jeremy Saulnier have all contributed to the revitalization of modern horror by taking what made the previous generation’s horror movies that we loved great and updated them to fit into our current world.

Taking an introspective look into new films, what they’ve adapted from earlier cinema, and how they’ve redefined tropes to make them stand among the best of what modern horror has to offer.

Analyze CS Lewis' portrayal of Calormen and Narnia, focusing on the fact that the Calormenes are the only people of colour in that world. There seems to be a fair bit of racism (and seemingly some references to Islamophobia) in the way he writes the characters from Calormen.
Since 'The Horse and His Boy' is set almost entirely in Calormen and has Narnians and Calormenes directly interacting with each other (Susan and Edmund visiting Tashbaan, Shasta's identity as a Narnian/Archenlander who grew up in Calormen, etc.), it would likely be one of the main focuses. In terms of religion/spirituality, The Last Battle has the conflict of the two 'gods' of the two countries, Tash and Aslan.

Analyze the struggle that Sebastian faced seeing as he wanted to hold onto jazz and its traditional ties while also aspiring to be a revolutionary. How was he able to accomplish both by the end of the movie?

Never Have I Ever is strikingly different from other young adult TV shows because of its highly diverse cast. The main character, Devi, is an Indian-American seeking to navigate high school life with her two best friends, who are also women of colour. Although this show features complex characters that come from many different cultures, the show relies on cultural-stereotypes in a way that can be uncomfortable at times. For example, Devi's "nemesis" named Ben is Jewish and is portrayed in a very cliche way — he highly values money and has a workaholic lawyer father involved in the entertainment industry. I think it is worth exploring the ways in which different cultures can be represented in TV without perpetuating stereotypes. Is it possible to create characters that identify strongly with their cultures, and yet do not conform to stereotypes?

When people think of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has reigned supreme in the box office for more than a decade, they either think of Iron Man or Captain America, and Captain America: Civil War, pins the two leaders over… politics, essentially. Politics on a cosmic scale, but politics nonetheless. Steve Rogers, being the uncompromising freedom fighter that he is, stands against the Sokovia Accords backed by Tony Stark. Both have their reasons, and the situation is never exactly resolved since the movie diverts the plot to Bucky's escape.

Back to reality today in the United States, where there are small, yet scattered, protests all across the country over state-issued stay-at-home orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There have been several points of controversy that have sparked the protests: claims that hospitals and institutions are skewing COVID-related death numbers, governments are stripping citizens of their rights and keeping them "detained" in their homes, etc.. Overall, there seems to be a disconnect between some people and institutions such as the World Health Organization, the CDC, the UN, etc.

Does Captain America: Civil War, embody that conflict? It's not new at all, but has the film and/or superhero blockbusters in general inspired movements such as these, believing in global government conspiracies that plan for world domination? Does Captain America, specifically, embody/inspire people to not compromise what they feel is right?
Final note: I decided to focus on the movie rather than the comics because the MCU is an international phenomenon, raking in billions at the box office. As a result, I assume these films have been much more prevalent in the global, cultural "psyche" than the comics.

As social distancing measures have left us stuck in our homes, those that create and share art on YouTube, Instagram or other platforms have never had more time to add more user generated content to the never-ending mix of digital media. Plus, consumers this content have never had more time to scroll through these self-proclaimed artists’ creations. Now more than ever, with more and more people turning to the Internet both to produce and consume art, it is worth figuring out how to interpret, sort, and evaluate this type of art.

I’m not going to suggest that all Instagram or YouTube content should be considered “high” art. One of the trade-offs of total accessibility is that, while it allows anyone with Internet access can create and upload material that they believe is artistic, it is difficult to sort out the good from the bad, and the best from the good. After all, it’s not as though having a broadband connection is a viable substitute for having talent, something meaningful to say, and an original way to say it. For example, a video of someone showing off their dance moves on TikTok can be entertaining, but does it pose a topical question, provoke discussion, or relate to greater issues of society, truth, or beauty? Probably not. But where do we draw the line? When has “art” been achieved?

I believe the entire persona of “Poppy,” as she appears in YouTube videos, albums, and on stage, offers up avant-garde aesthetics and difficult-to-interpret cultural commentary. The videos she posts on her YouTube channel (made in collaboration with director Titanic Sinclair) are, to say the least, difficult to react to. In her debut video, “Poppy Eats Cotton Candy” (2014), she – as you might expect – wordlessly eats cotton candy; and in another, she says the words “I’m Poppy” for ten minutes, in a series of takes to camera. These videos may be perplexing, but they are oddly fascinating: they resist easy interpretation because, unlike most of the content uploaded by YouTube “personalities,” they seem to be more provocative than entertaining. Her work has the same theoretical value as “gallery art” – it contains layers of meaning, aesthetic appeal, and can be unpacked and analyzed to the same degree as any “high art.”

But should it be? Or should there be NEW set of critical practices/criteria that are reserved only for digital media?

Analyze the use of unique everyday elements in Emma (2020). The director added unique aspects by adding "butt-warming" by the fire, being dressed by servants, and nosebleeds and inoportune times. These little moments are unique for an Austen film and are a great way to update the story.

The "family comedy" has always been a fixture on American TV: The Jeffersons, Family Matters, Family Ties, All in the Family, Roseanne, Fuller House, Home Improvement to name a few, have been hugely popular and critically acclaimed. However, the family oriented sitcom went into a decline when shows like Seinfeld, Friends and That 70s Show premiered, signalling in a new trend of sitcoms centering around a group of friends, or unrelated people bonding, hanging out and experiencing things together.

But then, 2009 was seen as the year the "family sitcom" was revived, with Modern Family and The Middle premiering on ABC. However, with The Middle ending its run in 2018 and Modern Family and Schitt's creek, a Canadian sitcom that came close enough to be considered a "family show" airing their final episodes in April this year, are family oriented sitcoms no longer in vogue? Is this indicative of an already individualistic society moving further into a greater degree of individualism? Or is it just an overreaction? Are we not looking around enough? Maybe there is such a show that's not getting the attention it deserves.

Also, is it the same in other countries, especially the eastern countries, where societies are known to be extremely collectivistic? Do the shows airing there still have "family" as an inherent theme?

In the 1993 film Groundhog's Day, Bill Murray's character Phil Connors became trapped in an ever-repeating time loop, reliving the same events of a single day in a small Pennsylvanian town. But how long was Phil actually trapped? How many days, months, and years transpired as he became a villain, suicidal, and ultimately the (problematic) hero and broke free?

Does waking up next to Rita the next morning completely void their relationship because of his intimate knowledge of her due to his repetitive cycle of cheating his way into her heart? Oh, yeah, and let's talk about why.

In this age of “-isms” (feminism, racism, ableism, ageism, etc.) there are many critiques—and rightly so. However, while we may see more diversity, are our media (TV, movies, books, games, etc.) actually more diverse in their appreciation of these groups? For example, does merely fulfilling the Bechdel test actually make a movie feminist? Or, does having non-white actors in minor roles, or acting “White,” add racial diversity? Is the miraculous ability to heal disabled characters truly inclusive? These are only a few questions that you could touch upon. There are a lot of different facets of this argument, but I am curious about what diversity means, and when media can be considered “successfully diverse”? I've tagged this as "film," but it is widely applicable across media.