Film

Analyze how these two films balance multiple, often opposing, genres to create something unique and engaging. In what ways are the films similar in their approach to genre-switching? How do the liberties or risks each film takes illustrate that risk-aversion in movie making can be limiting?

An analysis of existential themes in cyberpunk fiction. How does the genre deal with questions of human nature? What is the value of the human experience when it can be replicated? Good examples can include Ghost in the Shell, Blade Runner, Neuromancer, etc, tackling existential situations from those perspectives.

Is there a connection between the human bias towards visual stimuli and the way people react positively to the prospect of having something they love (a book, a video game, a comic strip, a play, etc.) brought into the screen realms of either television or movies? Conversely (or complementarily), is there something similar in the way people react adversely to having something they love "done badly" onscreen? Does the visual override other sensory inputs? other memory centers (be they intellectual or emotional)?

Analyze why Harry would've been romantically better for Hermione. If not, why is Ron best for her? Compare them in both the books and the movies.

What happens when an actor takes on a character played by someone else within the same franchise? I'm not talking about reboots that completely refresh the cast (as in Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and most recently Tom Holland as Spider-Man). I'm talking about a single franchise where the film brings an entirely different actor to play the same character. For example, in the Harry Potter film series the initial actor who played Dumbledore passed away and Michael Gambon had to step in for the rest of the series. There are also The Mummy movies, where Rachel Weisz dropped out of the cast by her own volition and was replaced by another actress for the third film in the franchise. In my experience, the different Dumbledores didn't bother me at all but to have Brendan Fraser's character with a different woman playing his wife was confusing. How have these transitions fared for films that have replaced actors in the middle of the same series? Were they considered jarring and rejected by audiences or did they do little to affect the series as a whole? Does the nature of these replacements have an effect as well (i.e. an unprecedented event such as an actor's death vs. an actor's or studio's decision)?

In both formal and informal marketing efforts, modern horror films are often compared to classic horror films. It's not uncommon to see statements that a new horror film, for example, "evokes" or "is the scariest film since" a classic like The Exorcist (Friedkin, 1973) or The Shining (Kubrick, 1980). But do these comparisons ultimately help or hurt modern horror films? And how, specifically, do these comparisons contribute to marketing efforts that are effective (or not)? I think the role of factors such as hype and viewer expectation may be particularly interesting to consider.

Analyse different movie franchises and their array of characters other than the protagonist, specifically, where these side-characters or villains seem to contribute more to the widespread allure of the movie/series more than the hero. And then, discuss the reasons behind their contribution i.e. quality of acting, depth of character, character popular appeal, etc. There are many examples one could run with, for example, Han Solo in Star Wars, Legolas/Aragorn in LOTR, Joker in The Dark Knight, etc.

4D movie theaters are known for their immersive qualities including smells, seat vibrations, the simulation of certain weather conditions, etc. to replicate for the viewer what is being experienced in the fictional narrative presented onscreen. So far, 4D movies haven’t exactly dominated the movie-going experience but their existence does raise questions about how reflexivity will be achieved in the future. Self-reflexive films make viewers aware of the fact that they are watching a film, revealing “the artifice” as it were of the narrative and the characters involved. It’s a technique that’s often associated with art house or new wave cinema, though it can be found elsewhere in more palatable and consumer-friendly forms. Moviegoers usually like a fully immersive movie-going experience rather than be reminded that a film is a construct (it provides a nice escape from the tedium of reality for a few hours). With the increasing popularity of virtual reality in gaming nowadays, how will these increasingly more immersive technologies impact future movements in self-aware cinema? Will it undermine it all together? If not, how can reflexive techniques find a loophole around it to engage viewers as participants (not just spectators) again?