Film

The vigilante archetype in superhero movies push the boundaries of societal rules and morality. Last year, audiences were treated to the release of Marvel’s Venom, Deadpool 2, and DC’s Arrow season 7, and these all have strong vigilante archetypes. These characters regularly circumvent the rules to enforce their own type of laws in the name of justice. But does rectifying violence with more violence solve anything? Does bypassing the local law enforcement when they fail to protect the city make a hero? When an antihero blurs the line between good and evil, serving their own form of justice, where do audiences stop and say “this isn’t heroic anymore.”? Characters to analyze could include (from both Marvel and DC respectively): Venom, Batman, Green Arrow, The Punisher, Deadpool, Wolverine, etc. The article could explore: what makes an antihero, what makes a vigilante, and where heroics breech the boundary of evildoing.

So often we are drawn to the darker side of life, a quick purview of most films coming out in the last 5 years tends to support this. Yet why is this?

Why are we so drawn to the dark, to the evil, to the bad?

Is it a desire to engage safely with taboos? Does this appeal to our baser natures that desire an interaction with danger and amoral ideas? Or simply do we want to watch safely from our seats the downfall of others?

There are obvious genre appeal in watching horror or thriller films, an aspect of the viewing is the narrative structure and the expectation of the horror themes. But what about drama or action or even romance films that are also engaging with these darker tones? Why is there a trend towards the macabre, the sinister and the frightening?
Consider 'Coco' a Pixar animation in the land of the dead, or 'Three Billboards' about the lack of progression in the investigation of the murder of a young girl, or even 'I, Tonya' with its brutal depiction of domestic violence, even the romance 'The Shape of Water' features a rather horrific villain.

Steve McQueen's Widows is an excellent film but the film that was advertised in trailers is not the film that audiences received. How did this deception, and the deceptive marketing strategies of other now-beloved films (think Shyamalan's The Village), affect Widow's box office gains (or lack thereof) and critical reception?

Now that Glass has finally been released, analyzing the themes, film style, and dramatic elements of the series might be interesting to movie fans.

Is the verve or is it the persona? How much of an influence does the performer's name have on the crowd? Would Johnny Cash, Eddie Money, Tom Cruise, River Phoenix, Chris Rock, Paris Hilton be any less fascinating in physical presence alone? Explore the notoriety or the appeal of the name behind the spectacle. Does being a Barrymore, Sheen, Fonda, Howard, or Coppola make something out of nothing? Does Hollywood provide the grit or does the audience induce the alchemy?

With the release of Aquaman, viewers are torn on its impact on DC's popularity and current direction. Examining some of the reactions, as well as what DC needs to do to close the ever-growing gap with Marvel (In terms of popularity and revenue) may be interesting.

Much has been debated over what fuels producers, screenwriters, directors, and actors in their quest to deliver the finest storytelling. Yet, one need only to look back a few decades to notice how audience appetite was satisfied with outer space dilemmas or even common, mundane concerns. Clint Eastwood, Michael Douglas, Arnold Schwarzenegger are names that come to mind when retreating back to determine what drove legions of viewers to the silver screen or the television screen. Eastwood and Douglas both acted as the cop on the beat (Dirty Harry and Streets of San Francisco) and eventually starred in roles on the complete opposite side of the law (Escape from Alcatraz and Wall Street), respectively. Schwarzenegger initially capitalized on villainy (Terminator, Conan the Barbarian) and then showed a softer side in Kindergarten Cop as well as other comedic jaunts. Explore the impulse for this effective formula of screenplay, whether at home, abroad, or any distant time or place. On what basis does the actor make the decision to reverse his posture throughout his career or, as is most often the case, venture onto the director chair or embark on political agendas (Ronald Reagan, Shirley Temple)?

Characters facing conflicts make for an interesting story, and we know characters may experience different types of conflicts with other characters or even the world they exist in. How, then, do ideologies fit into this? Many people have a set of beliefs to follow, but what happens when one of their beliefs contradict another belief they have? Just an example of many, but consider Simba from The Lion King and how he has to choose between leaving home to achieve freedom or return home to fulfill his role as heir to the throne (obviously there are more examples of other characters facing competing ideologies, this is just the first that came to mind).
How do ideologies add interest to the story and how do competing ideologies perhaps enhance the story altogether?