Topics

How does the experience of watching horror film differ when watching on streaming and on-demand services at home? With the rise of Netflix originals, is there still a place for cinema screenings of these films? In particular with the genre of horror, how much is the setting of your viewing an important part of the experience?

Analyse how schools should upgrade their current material to better prepare students for the modern world. May include a change in curriculum, how social media is/may be taught to them, security control, etc.

There is a vast array of literature that, in its time, was written with the intention of some form of social justice. An example of this is the much-cited "Uncle Tom's Cabin," by Harriet Beecher Stowe. However, as modern ideas progress and the willingness to allow every human their basic rights grows, we look back on texts like this and realize that the philosophy within it is antiquated and that its ideas on how to overcome racism simply don't suffice.

This in mind, how should we deal with texts like hers? Should we look at them graciously and say that, given the lack of understanding about true social justice, the author did the best she could based on limited knowledge? Or should we stop circulating and supporting texts like those because they do not go far enough in their attempts at fighting the social injustices of our day? Is there a middle ground?

The writer does not have to choose "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as their example–any older text with out-of-date social justice views would suffice.

We’re always told that potential employers will look at your online platforms and turn you down if you don’t fit their image, but is this idea losing importance now that you can become your own employer using a platform like YouTube. Yes, it takes time and effort but it can be done. Write!

A new Netflix original movie has caused a bit of a stir in the land of social media. A story about a teenage girl that feels isolated because of her height, has faced criticism for its focus on what people think is a rather minuscule issue. Does Netflix owe it to its viewers to produce content that centers around oppressed societal groups? That gives its voice to people that need it? Or is content really just that, meaningless content?

With a myriad titles being re-released on the Nintendo Switch at their original full price, the question is raised if games should still be worth the same amount as time progresses. Are we expected to pay the same for products that are re-released or should there be some reduction? It requires work to port and in some cases remake sections so profit is needed to pay for salaries, however, is the game still worth the same after time has passed. For example, Skyrim on the Switch is worth around £50 (original RRP) despite being 8 years old.

Following the release of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, the beloved franchise faced a substantial backlash from begrudged fans. Aside the criticisms for its slow pace and inconsistent storyline, the film and indeed the trilogy itself have been controversially criticised for its overuse of nostalgia and alleged focus on socially-driven plot details.

Analyse whether the Star Wars franchise has indeed applied an overuse of nostalgia in The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi or whether the fanbase is overtly critical of any additions to the film lore.

As someone who is an avid reader, I'm always going to bookstores and browsing through stacks of books. However, every time I return to a bookstore, I notice that the prices have significantly increased. Many people are not crazy about e-books; they prefer the written word. Therefore, it is difficult to justify spending so much money on a few books. On average, I have observed that they range anywhere from $25-$30. Why is it that movies can be rented for $4.99, but valuable pieces of literature cost almost triple that? Shouldn't the reading of literary masterpieces be encouraged? Books are outrageously expensive, and that detracts customers from wanting to spend the money. If books were less expensive, perhaps more people would read. Putting such an expensive price on creative writing seems non-sensical, and the world could benefit from this being changed. Authors must make commission somehow, but perhaps more people would buy the books if they could afford them. Yes, there are libraries, but bookstores have a wider range of books, and people can customize them by highlighting their favourite phrases or making notes. To put it simply, the increase in the price of books is unnecessary and creates more harm than help. The world could benefit from reading more literature.

Both The Walking Dead television show and the comic book series are incredibly popular, sharing similarities but so different in story and character arc that they constitute separate universes. Less well known (relatively) is the series of novels, written initially by Robert Kirkman with Jay Bonansinga, and later taken over by Bonansinga as the sole writer. These novels, set in the comic universe, explore the rise of the Governor in more depth, and then follow events in Woodbury after he is gone. What ways do the novels expand the world of the comics, in terms of character and plot development, and how does the post-governor Woodbury relate to other types of societies seen in the series?

In Showtime's "Billions", Asia Kate Dillon portrays the first non-binary lead character on television. Their well-developed character humanizes a group of individuals that struggle to find inclusion in our society. And their representation familiarizes Americans with the proper use of the "they" pronoun.

Why did Phil Connors experience a time loop and what caused it to end? What do the cause and effect of the time loop say about human nature?

What is it about YouTube videos that makes them more accessible and appealing to today’s inquisitive audiences? Why do people seem to prefer YouTube web video celebrities with little to no credentials or credentials in unrelated fields? Is it a matter of charisma? Confirmation bias? Laziness to read? A mix?

When studying history, scholars refer back to artistic work done in the time period to learn more about said time's societal behaviors, mannerisms and even etiquette. Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde speaks loudly of Victorian society, Uncle Tom's Cabin of American society, The Ulster Cycle of Irish history, and more which gives us insight of past eras.

Which therefore made me question what history would say of us. What does the million of viewers/readers for Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, etc, say about current American society, if it says anything at all? Would there be an inaccuracy if future historians were to base off their knowledge of our culture on our literature top hits? Or is history based on literature, in fact, entirely inaccurate?

Potterheads enjoy asking each other which Houses they're from, and once you become a Potterhead, one of the first things you want to do (at least in personal experience) is get formally Sorted via a well thought-out quiz or app. It's not uncommon to go on social media and find people sorting their favorite media characters into Houses, putting HP Next Generation characters into Houses through fanon, and debating the traits of certain Houses and how they are or are not represented. (I myself am a proud supporter of Slytherin House redemption).

But, why all the fuss over this little bit of HP canon? Why do people get sorted over and over again, identify with more than one House, and so on? Several reasons worth exploring exist. For one, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are just sort of "there," while Gryffindor and Slytherin get all the attention. House Sortings are the closest we're probably going to get to a "real" Hogwarts if we can't afford trips to Orlando. Sortings help us craft new, fantasy-based identities that may help us handle some real-world problems to a degree. We might be looking for a "perfect" Sorting experience that hasn't been achieved yet.

Is it all of this? None? Are there facets not yet considered? Discuss.

My most recent Artifice article was about the feminine spirit in Holocaust-centered YA literature, and I enjoyed every minute of prepping and writing it. I also enjoy Holocaust-based fiction (in small doses) because it so often focuses on heroism and brutality in real, thought-provoking ways. The stakes are already built in and a lot of times, couldn't be better.

But then I had a thought. Lilac Girls, The Guernsey Potato Peel and Literary Society, Lost Roses, The Girl in the Blue Coat, Flight Girls…there is a LOT of WWII women's fiction around these days, not all Holocaust-based. And I wonder, what is it about this sub-category that is or has become so compelling? Are other women in other time periods as compelling, and what could authors explore to give them their due? Have writers overused this category or are there more stories to be explored?

Star Wars has been a popular culture icon for decades now. The revival of the early episodes and the continuation of the later that have altered the canon of literature, comics, and games have brought in a new generation of fans. Now with the move to Disney there are high expectations of the money-milking enterprise of a thousand spin off variations, yet interestingly there is the new tv show 'The Mandalorian'. It already has a youth friendly vibe with a limited range of onscreen violence, no swearing and an over produced cinematography and sound track, yet still…it is the story of a bounty hunter, a criminal…but [SPOILER] he chooses at the end not to kill his bounty when faced with a "baby Yoda." Are we to assume then from this that the story will focus on a lone warrior with his own code, or will this be a redemptive arc – the hero was always within. It indeed fits into the franchise that has always been about hope above all else. The question will be though, like the most recent films, does this show actually have anything new to say or will this once again be a reiteration of the single monomyth that has plagued the SW franchise?

Goku, Sailor Moon, Vash the Stampede, the examples are countless. In anime, being an idiot is a shorthand way to show that a character is all-around good or at least innocent. It's prevalent enough to have its own trope: Lawful Stupid. It's not limited to anime but it is most prevalent there. Why is this? Is there a cultural or literary tradition? Is it just a fun trope to play with? The dea is definitely worth examining more in-depth.

Disney launched earlier this week (11/12/19) and reportedly had 10 million subscribers in the first 24 hours of its availability. This number is expected to continue to grow over the next few weeks. How will the streaming landscape be affected by Disney 's release? What effect will Disney have on Netflix and the upcoming HBO Max? Will Disney push these companies out of the streaming business? Will Netflix and HBO Max be forced to adopt new strategies to entice customers? The article would speculate/analyze how Disney is changing the streaming landscape and business.

We are slowly seeing a rise of all female or at least female dominated films in genres that have not traditionally been female friendly. Traditionally action films, whether they are specifically categorised as Action or Action slash (/sci fi, /western, /crime), have focused on varying interpretations of the masculine lead. Sometimes he is flawed, and sometimes he may as well be a plastic figurine for all the depth of character demonstrated, but always he is strong, determined and takes action, and is accompanied with weak or "temptation" women whose role is to look good half dressed. Yet a handful of recent films are starting to challenge the role of the female action hero.

The supernatural action genre has given us three intelligent, funny, and active women in 'Ghostbusters'. The heist genre laid out eight women of varying skills whose expertise held up against the original male roles in 'Oceans 8'. The sci-fi action adventure has most recently given us three power and diverse roles in the latest 'Terminator'. However, the question is this – does this indicate a substantial change in Hollywood's approach to the representation of women in film, or is this just a trend that will fade away again to be replaced with atypical machoism?

Over the past decade or so there has been a none-too subtle incursion of what once would have been considered pornographic films, into mainstream cinema. Vincent Gallo's 'The Brown Bunny' (2003), Lars von Trier's 'Nymphomanic' (2013) and the recent 'A Thought of Ecstasy' (2017), directed by Rolf Peter Kahl, are three such examples. All feature scenes with, what is euphemistically referred to as, 'unsimulated sex'. Experimental cinema, avant-garde, neo-erotica – whatever label is applied, it seems that some mainstream actors and actresses are prepared to have their names attached to these projects and, in the case of 'Nymphomaniac', even have their faces and torsos superimposed over body doubles, although in the fallatio scene from 'The Brown Bunny' no doubles were used. Discuss whether 'unsimulated sex' in mainstream films can have any actual artistic merit, or is this just another way for controversial directors to circumvent censorship and so push their own sexual fantasies? In a world increasingly bent on instant gratification, are we being desensitised to accept without question the open exploitation of sex in mainstream as 'normal'? Where should the line be drawn?