Topics

In the wake of Halloween (2018)'s trailer (which looked pretty cool), I can't help but wonder why we're rebooting and remaking so many stories. I'm reminded of when Andrew Garfield was cast as the "new" Spiderman. And then, Tom Holland. The uproar. The hate. It (2017). The Star Trek reboots. Top Gun's getting a sequel. Older sitcoms are getting reunions. We're revisiting these old universes, these old characters, these old stories. Some of it is nostalgic for the older generations. Some of it is outrageous and insulting. I'm left wondering what will be remade from my youth, fearing who will be the next Iron Man (and crying about it). What's with the demand for these reunions. Who's deciding to remake these movies? Are we so scared of the new, we revert back to the old, or are we out of new? Is that well all dried up?

Currently, well over half of the world's population lives in a city. That number is expected to do nothing but rise in the future. A greater concentration of people means less room for each individual, and places greater importance on shared public spaces. In much of North America, there has been little concern for beauty within our cities – perhaps because we historically imagined we had such a surplus of land that everyone could have their own space that could be made beautiful to their standards. As our personal spaces shrink, how can we be sure that public art and other placemaking techniques are given importance in city budgets? What argument can we make in support of public art and the benefit it confers to residents of a city?

T’Challa is not the typical hypermasculine black superhero attributed with traits like emotional sensitivity, thoughtfulness and respect. On the other end, Killmonger the villain of the film has many traits closely associated with the black action hero and the stars of the blacksploitation films. Explore and contrast the gendered depiction of T’Challa and Erik Killmonger and how masculinity is constructed in Black Panther.

We all like food and competition, maybe that is why we have so many competitive cooking shows. The shows are generally given slightly violent titles like Cutthroat Kitchen, Cupcake Wars, and Chopped. There is certainly never a shortage of chef's who come to the show who come searching for the money, respect a recognition that comes with winning a contest like this. Perhaps we should look at the culinary field and see what has inspired such shows. Being a chef is a competitive field, with long hours and a low starting salary. Furthermore many chefs are often suppressed creatively since they often must stick to the menu designated by their employer. Is competitive reality TV the new spot to make their voices heard and craft respected?

Over the last several months, there has been an astronomical rise in allegations of misconduct (sexual or otherwise) within the mainstream entertainment profession. Recently, Morgan Freeman himself was accused- a man that many view in an extremely favorable light. What are the implications this rise in allegations (founded or not) will have on the entertainment industry? Will they fade away, or spark significant changes? I believe this is a relevant topic that may be of interest.

Young adult literature and children's literature is a true paradox. It is written by adults but the market suggests it is made for teens and children.

It seems that there are 2 theories regarding the ending of Inception. If we accept that the entire movie is not a dream and that Cobb did in fact escape his limbo with Mal, then it is reasonable to believe he also escaped his limbo with Saito.

It is possible that the entire movie is a dream, and that Cobb never left his own limbo. Which one do you think is the correct one? Or do you have a different theory?

Identify and critique instances of fat shaming in various stories that are present across the different categories of anime, manga, and comic books. How/why is fat shaming in these genres harmful? How can the situation be improved?

While many films, particularly those with fanciful settings, are visually spectacular, sometimes, when concept art is released, I personally find that the rejected concepts are much more spectacular than the final product. What are some deciding factors for what makes it to the final film and what remains an illustration?

Animals are widely used in the film industry for various reasons, but are they always accurately represented? In the reboots of "Planet of the Apes," I highly praised the use of non-verbal communication between the animals, as a lot of the way animals communicate is through body language. However, horses are commonly portrayed as loud and always making a sound if they are on screen, which is very inaccurate of horse communication. Film is an intriguing medium that uses both sight and sound, so a lot of animals have sounds inserted to add to the verisimilitude, but it can actually detract – in my opinion – when animals who wouldn't normally be making sounds are indeed doing so. Thoughts?

Romeo and Juliet, the Joker and Harley Quinn, Lizzie and Mr. Darcy…there have been many couples throughout pop culture that audiences have loved to watch fall in love. While every relationship is different, I think that Gomez and Morticia epitomize what a healthy relationship is like. They don't try to change the other, and embrace their weirdness. They are deeply devoted to each other and their family. They're not only not ashamed of who they are and what they have, but they're proud of it.

Releasing a series that covers a multitude of controversial themes, steered by one that is often disregarded due its explicit nature was bound to provoke skewed, conflicting responses as such. I can't help but muffle a chuckle as I reflect on the handful of reviews that brutally slam down the themes raised, deeming the content to be offensive to individuals facing psychological battles alone, no camera, supporting actors or stage makeup to falsify the cruel reality of their circumstances.

I imagine the majority of the demographic falling into this category would not vary significantly. I can't help but consider the likelihood that an intolerance towards portraying mental illness is intrinsically linked with the shared beliefs, attitudes and ideologies that were 'normal' of your era. This theory has been proven with time, as I've witnessed the relentless modifications and amendments to my fathers' psychological state. I've reached a point of maturity where I have come to terms that I can not help this anxious little man, as he is not willing to help himself. As malicious or spiteful as this may come across, once accepting this fate I decided to exploit this opportunity and probe at the possible causations. The blockage in his right cerebrum (that impedes his aptitude to absorb information that is current, and makes it painfully unbearable to listen to an option that differs to an insignificant degree) I find personally offensive. A sombre afternoon (I don't recall how these events unfolded), my father and I just happened to be sharing a couch. The silence was eventually broken by the theme song of 13 reasons why. The sense of gratification I received by predicting his exact response was sickening. I cannot stress enough that neither opinion is wrong neither inapplicable when tackling such a grey theme.

The circumstantial nature means that every individual's journey will differ from the next – it is impossible to hypothesise a collective response or be assured that your opinion is correct. Depending on the experience of mental illness, this series could offer comfort, relief, understanding, self-assurance, or perhaps, the complete opposite. In my opinion, it is imperative that we strive to break down the barriers that reinforce false misconceptions. I believe shining light on the prevalence of this issue on a public media platform will lead to increased discussion, in aim to remove the elephant in the room that has become mental illness.

It is interesting how nowadays technology has revolutionized the way children play. Children are engaging – more and more, day by day- in watching other children play on Youtube videos rather than playing with their own toys. Is it considerable that by doing this children become less social, do not excel well with hands-on learning, lack of imagination, develop motor skills slower than children who play with their own toys or play games non involving technology?

Both authors explored the magic of children, the innocence of imagination and characters that rebel against conforming to 'adulthood.' in what ways are these authors alike, what sets them apart. There is an importance to how an adult, or at least the idea of how adults are and how they view the world, and then there's the children that make up these stories and poems that uncover the magic. What is this importance and how does it work to serve as an analysis of the outside world of the works, the reality in which we live in?

Supernatural, Doctor Who, and Sherlock: Three very popular shows that have formed into one fandom because one is rarely watched without eventually being dragged into the other two universes. But what makes these three, very different shows, so appealing to viewers? Why this combination of Sci-Fi, Crime Drama, and Horror? The appeal could come from the witty dialogue, the action based plot lines, or maybe the great many ship-able characters that fans fall in love with.

Recently we saw how the lack of sound impacts the cinematic landscape in John Krasinski's A Quiet Place, but, of course, it is not a new phenomenon. Another wonderful example of the absence of sound (or rather music) in a film would have to be Michael Haneke's 1994 film 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance. It would be interesting to see how this absence lends itself to the film's plot and whether it strengthens or hinders the work. The exploration of sound/music in film is still a relatively new study, and I have not seen much in the way of discussing its absence, so it would be really fascinating to track the progress of sound and how it impacts spectatorship depending on its presence or lack thereof.

Barry is a "dramedy" television series following the life of Barry Block (his stage name), a man who is a former marine turned hit man that aspires to become an actor in Hollywood due to his hatred for having to murder people (who are often innocent). Barry feels the need to go to extreme measures in order to pursue his career in acting which results in the murder of several people whom he considers friends or colleagues. Is it appropriate to empathize with a character who performs such immoral actions?

I think it would be interesting to consider the movies of different decades and how they define the different generations. As a child of the 80s, I grew up watching Goonies, Space Camp, and Red Dawn which all impacted the way I viewed life. They presented a picture of adventure (with danger), enemies to fight, and things to hope for. What about the movies of the 90s or the early 2000's?

Monster Prom (2018) is the latest in a line of explicitly queer indie dating sims since the popularity of The Game Grumps' Dream Daddy (2017). It's tone is light, comedic, and playful, owing it's mash-up of horror and sitcom tropes to predecessors like The Addams Family (1964), The Munsters (1964), Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), a slew of campy monster beach party movies (e.g.: 1964's The Horror of Party Beach), and even the recent popularity of the Monster High (2010) toy line and webseries. Monster Prom owes a lot to the "all-ghoul school trope," but it is also unapologetically queer; the game's Kickstarter page includes a blurb on the subject: "Don't worry if you want to romance a certain love interest as a certain character! In Monster Prom characters don't like boys or girls… they like people." This is a kind counterpart to the long tradition of queer-coded monsters and villains in horror cinema, a topic extensively covered in Harry Benshoff in his book Monsters in The Closet: Homosexuality and The Horror Film (1997). Monstrous and villainous queer subtext can be observed famously in classic monster movies like Frankenstein (1931)– which prominently features two men privately collaborating to create new life (and was, directed by a gay man, James Whale)– Dracula's Daughter (1936)– which features a butch female vampire and her effeminate male manservant– and later films like Nightmare on Elm Street II: Freddy's Revenge (1985) and Reanimator (1985). The purpose of this article is to trace the trickle: how did our media shift from implicitly queer monsters as villains to explicitly queer monsters as love interests? Also consider the quasi-ironic queer nerd slogan: "The Babadook is a gay icon" and even the non-normative love story that takes place in The Shape of Water (2017).

Movie prequels have become increasingly more popular. Are they simply a cash-grab and do we need them? When you already know the outcome of a movie, do you even care? Do screenwriters have to work harder when writing a prequel in order to make the audience "forget" that the end is predetermined? Do we even need prequels? Is there a need to have an explanation for every tiny reference that was made in a previous movie? The Star Wars franchise is one of the biggest examples of this trend. Another franchise that comes to mind is Underworld. The third Underworld movie, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, was a prequel. Do prequels have to work harder to make us care? Or do we need them because we care too much about those characters?