Topics

The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim was released in 2011 and almost 8 years on still has a thriving community of players and content creators. Why is it that a fairly linear, story-based RPG has so much replay potential? Analyse the reasons why people keep picking up this game!

Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet has been blamed for many teen suicides. More recently, the Netflix show, 13 Reasons Why, has faced the same accusations. Is there a casual relationship between the depiction of teen suicides in movies and television and actual suicides in teens? And if so, would the causal connection merit censorship for utilitarian purposes?

Have you ever read a headline while reading the news, whether it's considered a serious platform or not, where you truly question why someone would write a whole article dedicated to something so trivial? How is it possible today to see two articles side by side about two drastically different subjects like "Baby Found Amongst Rubble in Syria" right next to "Will Selena Gomez Ever Wear a Bra Again"? I understand that the world can't always focus on the negative aspects of life all the time but shouldn't we start to question how nitpicking an famous individual is a better news alternative?

This purpose of this article is to determine whether or not the recently published rehearsal script for Harry Potter and the Cursed Child should be considered as a new addition to the Harry Potter canon. In other words, this article would focus on the mixed reception from fans, J.K Rowling's involvement in the project (or lack thereof) and argue for or against the play as part of the overall Harry Potter story timeline.

The name YouTube perfectly described the platform of my youth. People making and posting content of themselves meant to be shared online. And not necessarily with the hope of going viral. What has it become now? Small YouTubers are overshadowed by corporations and businesses. Individuals who become successful now all sell merch and maybe even have exclusive content unlocked for a price with "join" button or with their Patreon. Youtube's algorithms give me dumb suggestions I don't want to watch because of all the clickbait out there. How has this happened? Is this a problem? Is it inevitable evolution of the medium?

Modern progressive activists often act as if the causes they support are radically new. However, most of them go back decades, and some have been around for centuries in one form or another. One well-known example of this is the drive to expose the genocide of Native Americans. In modern times, this takes the form of protests over the use of Native American lands, or why we celebrate certain public holidays. However, references to the dispossession and abuse of Native Americans have appeared in the literature at least since the 1800's (including a reference in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein). Another example is the term "intersectionality" itself, which was invented in the 1980's but didn't achieve widespread usage until the past few years. Just how far back do the various progressive concepts and causes go–and, by extension, if they've been with us for so long how come change hasn't come faster?

A muse has traditionally, and generally, been seen as female. She may come from any walk of life and need not be a 'beauty' in the classical sense, for it that elusive, almost undefined quality that inspires the creative male mind – but what of the male muse inspiring female creativity? For the Mexican painter, Frida Khalo (1907-1954), her husband was her muse, despite their often turbulent relationship. More recently the American photographer, Sally Mann has spent over forty years photographing her husband going about his daily life. The Dutch artist, Rineka Dijkstra finds inspiration in photographing her son as he grows into a young man, whilst the British filmmaker, Sam Taylor-Johnson describes her husband, Aaron as both her muse and soulmate.

Familial, romantic and/or sexual relationships aside – do creative women regard their male muses any differently from how creative males regard female muses? By extension – what does a creative woman look for in her male muse? By citing examples from history (both ancient and modern) examine how creative women have found and been inspired by their male muses.

Alex Trebek's announcement of pancreatic cancer shook Jeopardy fans and resulted in an outpouring of love and good wishes on social media. Fans rejoiced when earlier this year, Trebek rallied and achieved borderline remission. But recently, he has hinted he may step down from Jeopardy in the wake of his cancer and treatments. If this were to happen, could Jeopardy survive? Discuss the changes the show might undergo, whether some might be overdue, and how much Trebek's presence has made the show what it is today.

Analyse the way Disney/Dreamworks/Pixar and to a lesser extent smaller studios trade on accents and languages to portray characters that are not considered to be normative for animation (neutral American accent). For language the progression from the use in Pocahontas, Brother Bear, and Mohana, and that of Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, and Coco for accents

Most people often view Romeo and Juliet as a story with the message “listen to your parents.” I think the complete opposite it true. There’s a lot of evidence that suggests the story was meant to be more of a warning to parents, and to the audience, about the negative effects of arranged marriage. I think that Shakespeare was in fact a supporter of companionate marriage. Reading Romeo and Juliet from this perspective gets us away from the mindset that high school teachers force upon us. It’s not just a tale of warning in the form of a love story about two dumb teenagers, it’s a story that takes on the old (depending on culture and geography) practice of arranged marriage (and the patriarchy!). Somebody should explore this further; change someone’s mind about Shakespeare, particularly Romeo and Juliet.

Stranger Things became a surprise hit, with a story line that was neatly wrapped up by the end of the season. The plot was well-rounded, the characters developed, and everything seemed to return to normal. However, the popularity of the show led to the creation of seasons two, three, and soon four which, while still being good, have not received the same level of praise as season one. Are second seasons worth the risk of tarnishing the legacy of a show?

The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie is a novel that came out in 1988 that was the most polarizing piece of fiction in that era. It outraged the Muslim community since a lot of the topics in the book criticize and question their faith; leading to a fatwa on the author's head. Rushdie was in hiding for a decade, and still to this day people are outraged by this book. To those who have read it, what do you think would happen if this book was released today, would it receive the same backlash and would Mr. Rushdie still have a death sentence subjected to him?

The massive outcry against GoT's last season centered not only on a rushed job of tying up loose ends, but in particular of Daenerys Targaryen's turn towards genocidal tyrant in the last season. Was this turn simply more male dominated writing casting female leadership as stereotypical depictions of a hysterical woman who could not handle the pressures of ruling when her BFF was executed, her dragon baby shot out of the sky, and her silver fox butchered (all before her eyes)? Or was this turn perfectly aligned with the nature of power that GoT had been warning from the beginning? Is there anything redeemable in Daenerys' legacy after such a fall?

In the new trilogy of Star Wars films, Kylo Ren is a character repeatedly examined as one full of conflict, being pulled in two directions by opposite sides of the Force. At the end of The Last Jedi, he chooses to tear down all remnants of a legacy that has overburdened him and build a new one in its place, seemingly cementing himself in an ill-natured goal that prompts Rey to stop him.

However, it's believed by many fans that he still isn't too far gone, and that enough light exists in him that he could in fact be turned, as Rey was determined to do for much of The Last Jedi. On the other side of the spectrum, one could argue that Kylo going through a redemption arc that mirrors his grandfather's would render Luke's sacrifice meaningless, that his declaration to Leia that "no one's ever really gone" was more in reference to the memory of who Kylo used to be rather than suggesting Kylo is still capable of saving.

Should Kylo be redeemed in The Rise of Skywalker, the final installment in the Skywalker saga? And if he is redeemed, would that take away from the positions the characters decided to defend by the end of The Last Jedi?

The Joker is one of the most iconic supervillains in popular culture. He has been brought to life via the standout performances of numerous actors including Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Jared Leto and most recently Joaquin Phoenix. While the Joker has usually been presented playing against the Batman, Phoenix's Joker is unique in that it provides us a character study of the villain's origins without relying on the presence of the Batman. But is it possible to define a Joker in the absence of a Batman? Who would he be in that case?

Dr. Stone opens onto a world where all human beings have turned into stone and the planet has reclaimed itself. Those who have had the good fortune of breaking out of their "mortal coil" set out to restore human civilization. Nature looms as an overpowering presence while characters duke out their personal beliefs and philosophies. Does Dr. Stone set a tone for conservation especially in our real world threatened by global warming? What does it inform us about society building, the importance of civilization, and the ultimate costs?

Every time a new biographical film hits the big screen I find myself in a debate, both internally and with everyone with whom I come in contact. Is what I just observed good acting or just the ability of an actor to mimic what he/she has seen of the person whose story is being portrayed? Examples of this include Val Kilmer in the Doors and Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line. In interviews, both actors said that they studied hours of film in order to get every nuance correct. And, indeed, they nailed it. However, is that Oscar-worthy? Look at Daniel Day-Lewis, who played Lincoln. He did not have videos to examine, just small bits of written information about Lincoln's demeanor. He nailed it as well, yet my reason for thinking so is that he met my expectations of what I had read about Lincoln. So, the Oscar goes to… To summarize — If an actor is able to replicate a well-known and documented historical figure's every characteristic, is this good acting or good mimicry?

The ending of American Horror Story: Apocalypse left many fans of the series divided. Some praised the ending while others condemned it. To settle the issue for the latter, watch the ending (as well as the entire series if yet to be done) and share how it could have come out more thought-provoking.

Sexism in the gaming industry is a huge topic that not many people acknowledge. Most people think that female streamers make it big because of their looks, and not actually their skill in the game. I think it's important to realize that there is a variety of different streamers on platforms like Twitch, and each individual has their own charm. Some could be more entertaining than others, and some could have more in-game knowledge. But I don't think it's fair to disregard respect for big female streamers or content creators in this industry.

It seems like increasing numbers of scientists nowadays (especially the popular scientists) seem interested in using their credentials as scientists to push political points. For instance, many popular science blogs contain articles about trending political topics like climate-change protests or neurodiversity. The problem is, it sometimes seems like these individuals care more about pushing their political agendas than about the actual scientific basis behind their ideas. For instance, they may dismiss out of hand solutions to the problem of climate change that are not popular in "green" activist circles. They may also ignore aspects of human behavioral ecology, such as the evidence that humans are naturally tribalistic and suspicious of unfamiliar people and behaviors, to push the idea that bigotry is a conspiracy that people are simply being "taught."

What are some specific examples of this phenomenon? Are any outlets particularly known for this? On the other hand, are any outlets better than others at avoiding politics and sticking to the science?