Topics

Critics seem to have a strange relationship with comic book movies. They've enjoyed and even loved most of the MCU movies. The same can't be said on when it comes to DC. However should we judge moves that are part of a shared universe solely on their own merits. Movies that are part of a shared universe rely on each other to tell an overarching story. Some of these movies set things up that one resolve till years down the road. Should we find a new way to critique these movies?

I love the scene in The Matrix when Agent Smith is interrogating Morpheus, and he explains why the world they created was so unpleasant. He said initially that they created a good world but that people rejected it. In fact, they lost whole crops of humans who couldn’t accept the utopia. People rejected what wasn’t believable to them.

This is true of good stories also, particularly in how they end. If the ending is too happy, the story loses its impact. On the flip side, many modern stories end without a real conclusion or with the protagonist still struggling. I’m curious about how to find that perfect balance of satisfying resolution and believable pain that reflects the real difficulties of this world and a hope of redemption.

With this article, I want to explore the role of the psychopath protagonist in Film, TV and Literature, attacking it from a screenwriter's perspective. Most of the content I've watched, the protagonist has always been someone with a moral compass, giving the audience someone to root for. However, what do you do when your protagonist has no moral compass? How do you find a way for your audience to root for them? I refer you to Frank Underwood of House Of Cards or Travis Bickle as examples of the Psychopath Protagonist.

Although 'A Quiet Plan' is heavily advertised as a horror/thriller movie, there are definitely underlining themes of family and what family is willing to do for one another. Not only does the love of family truly shine in this film, but it also shows how strong a family can be when their life is on the line everyday.

While Big Brother, Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or any Survival island anywhere, have human interactive elements of created drama, these shows can carry a feeling of detachment on the part of the audience: It might be possible to have some vicarious pleasure in watching these shows, but they can still be seen as shows where the viewers do not have the possibility of participation. The various reality shows on HGTV (Property Brothers, Fixer Upper, Good Bones, for example) or American Pickers (on the History Channel) create a feeling that the audience can be more closely involved. Imagine hitting the road and seeing a site that looks like an odd junkyard, knocking on the door, and asking to rummage through someone's property or warehouses? Imagine inviting The Property Brothers or Chip and Joanna Gaines to be involved in picking out a house to buy, having them knock down a wall, remodel a kitchen and turn the place into your dream home? These types of momentary thoughts can seem all too feasible. If you watch HGTV enough or American Pickers, it can be easy to imagine passing a place that looks interesting and wonder if it is possible to be like Mike and Frank. We all hope to buy a house that has potential and have Joanna do her magic and turn it into the white picket fence home of our dreams.
Are all reality shows the same or do some create a greater sense of expectation than others? Do these shows have an impact on the real world of remodeling or buying junk (which might not be junk to everyone)?

Although some programmes these days cleverly use a timeline in history to create a fictional story, which entices viewers to be curious about what the characters' lives would be like in the time period. However, happenings and events from the time period are often altered to suit the plot of the episodes instead of the actual. Is this beneficial to the audience? Or should we be given historical truths to aid us to expand our own knowledge of history?
E.g. Reign

Consider the map of Westeros as a human body: 'The Neck' is located centrally, at Greywater Watch. Perhaps the farther North you go the closer you move towards the mind, and the farther South you go the closer you move towards the genitals. Contrast the frankness and unapologetic polyamory of Oberyn Martell and Ellaria Sand (from Dorne at the most southerly point of Westeros) with the celibacy expected of the Watchers of the Wall and the shame they associate with physical desire (at the most northerly point of Westeros). Near and beyond the Wall, sex acts occur literally underground (Mole's Town and Jon's and Ygritte's cave). The Wall is more than a pile of frozen blocks; it is frequently described in the novels as a living thing which 'weeps' and 'defends itself'. What if the Wall represents the human mind's need to protect itself from the madness which would result from a direct confrontation with its most profound fears?

If someone ever though the Endless Eight were bad, use this list to show them the most despicable time loop shenanigans ever shown in anime. Did the time loop have some obvious logical fallacies that make people wince? Did the reasoning for time travel come straight from left field — or have no reason at all? Was the time loop so convoluted that it made Homestuck look like nothing? Explain what made these time loops bad for the show as a whole, and contributed negatively to the experience of the show.

Zombie apocalypse stories in TV, film, etc. deal with "survival" in some way or form. How do stories like The Walking Dead, Resident Evil, World War Z, Shaun of the Dead, The Girl With All the Gifts and others deal with this theme in thought-provoking ways? Are zombie apocalypse stories defined by a basic need to survive, or can we approach them in new, creative ways?

Orientalism as explained by Edward Said is the emphasising and exaggeration of particular cultures, often portraying them as exotic, uncivilised or even dangerous.
Disney's Aladdin is one example of this behaviour. Analyse some further examples of Orientalism in the media, and the implications of such behaviour in the 21st Century. Explain how this exemplifies Said's theory.

Throughout history in both movies and television there seems to be a recurring trend that the women badass is somewhat always second fiddle to their action or male counterparts. I think of movies like Underworld and Resident Evil, while both lead characters are both extremely badass and women, in one of the movies they have to be told by a man that they are badass because of a specific reason (their blood is stronger now because of being blessed by the last male heir of a line of vampire killers or because they are a clone of a weaker version of yourself, and were created by a man seeking power and control) However, recently there has been an increase in movies that show women as being rightfully badass without needing men to justify that they are this way. Why is that while there is an increase in women simply being badass because they are by their own rights, is still many interpretations of women's badassery needing to be justified by men?

While writing fanfiction can be time better spent on one's own original creative endeavours, are there benefits? I've read fanfics that have elevated original works in interesting ways, showing a deep understanding for characterisation, narrative structure, and significantly, the pitfalls those original works might have fallen into. So, can writing fanfiction teach us to be critical and inventive in *what* we write, therefore benefiting how we construct our own original works? Or can its normalisation of appropriation do more harm than good? (Then again, what goes in a post-modern society?)

The anime has characters such as Endeavor who is known as the number 2 hero despite having villainous qualities such as abusing his wife and children. On the flipside, they have Stain, a villain who ruthlessly kills people yet values true heroism. In a show promoting the idea of becoming the best hero in the world, what does it mean when characters hold opposing traits from their roles in society? Additionally, can characters such as Bakugo, Deku, and Todoroki be considered as true heroes considering their reasons for becoming heroes?

Movies like American Beauty or The Grand Budapest use bright or dull bland colors to set tone and provide atmosphere. Can the same be said for exposition? Example, Sin-city is a mainly black and white movie where they use colors only to draw attention to details. So, again, I pose the question, Can colors be a main source for exposition in film?

Recently, Hollywood has been focused on franchises, adaptations, and remakes that are guaranteed to have an audience (Disney live action remakes, Star Wars continuations, Ready Player One, Jumanji, comic book movies, etc.) What movies have come out recently that the film industry took a big chance on, and have they done well or have they flopped?

Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë is a singular novel. Especially within a Victorian literary context, the heroine Catherine Earnshaw is a singular woman. Passionate, haughty and violent, even as she succumbs to Victorian strictures governing femininity and relationships and eventually dies, she forever sticks in my mind.

Though she is decidedly unlike most other Victorian heroines, I wonder if more recent literature has created characters in which she is reflected? Does Catherine live on in other literary figures? Whom most resembles her?

As an academic writer, I am aware of many "myths" about academic writing, which many people call rules. But what are the rules? Or should we abolish the notion of rules and become writers in our own voice rather than being so "academic"?

Over the past few years, some of my favourite TV shows (particularly animated ones and those with deep story) have come to an end – by complete choice. Especially animated ones like Regular Show, Gravity Falls, Over the Garden Wall, etc. I've been thinking about this for a while but especially as the approaching end of my absolute favourite animated series, Adventure Time, nears ever closer. Whilst this angers dedicated audiences, many others, just as loving of a show, are happy and in support of studios' choice. This topic has a lot to it and fascinates me. For example; Why do shows end by choice even though their rankings or following is not decreasing at all? How SHOULD a show end? How do producers bring justice to a show before it disappears from our screens? Most of all, I believe audiences who look deeper, like ourselves, as well as the regular every-day audience should understand the multitude of factors that bring a show to an end. There's a multitude of answers and questions regarding this broader topic and I would love to see people's opinions and comments on it!

With social media being readily accessible in today's age, it can be hard to stand out and have original ideas. Getting noticed is also getting more difficult, and creating consistent content can prove to be problematic.

Discuss and analyze how many tv series adapt a sense of nostalgia. Many hit tv shows present an underlying sense of nostalgia. For instance, Hulu's This is Us intertwines plot events that take place in not only the present but also the past. In Netflix's Stranger Things, the series takes place in the 1980s. Aside from these examples, there have also been many older shows that have gotten modern day spinoffs: Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World, Full House and Fuller House, and That's So Raven and Raven's House. How does nostalgia function in tv and what does it say about our society?