Topics

Which movie or movies show(s) the most realistic human aging? What makes the portrayal of the aging process especially realistic or effective? Besides physical changes, what psychological, mental, or spiritual changes are shown in the film(s)? What, if any, abilities lost with youth are most dearly missed?

Initially coined as an insult, the term 'Space Opera' has now become synonymous with melodramatic space adventure: books written as colourful and dramatic pieces of literature which largely explore the human condition and entertain the question of where humanity might fit among other, fictional races in the stars. To what extent is this insinuation that Space Opera might not be as high-brow compared to other books in the wider Science Fiction genre, correct? Is Space Opera the so-called 'Soap' of the Science Fiction genre, or is it more than its title would suggest? Indeed, would you agree with the negative connotations that imply this subgenre is a 'lesser' form of sci-fi, outworn and tacky? Or is it merely a different, and more interesting, strand of Science Fiction that is less concerned with the intricacies of actual science? Probably worth discussing some of the more popular, and well known, Space Opera books and series and explaining why they might be so popular (as some examples, see: Douglas Adams' 'Hitchhikers Guide', Frank Herbert's 'Dune', Orson Scott-Cards 'Ender's Game', Kevin J. Anderson's 'Saga of the Seven Suns').

Provide the typology of famous detective's sidekicks and analyse the way they have changed over the years. What makes a likable sidekick in modern detective literature. Is the fact that Robin Ellacott is a woman dictated by the feminist trend, by the plot or by any other factors? Does the detailed characterisation of the sidekick make for a better novel? What kind of detective – sidekick tandem would you like to read about in future?

The relationship between audiences and science fiction films have changed over the century. This has been affected by the political struggles of each era. How have the focus of these films changed over the decades. How similar or different are our fears between the 1950's to today.

Sometimes, filler is dreaded. It's a time when an Anime fills in a gap with unneeded material, usually to give it's source material time to give them more material, and fans start letting out a groan of frustration. But it's not always bad. Sometimes, it's good. This article would explore when filler is actually good, and by good, we define it as something that, in a way, adds something to the fictional world or plot of the show.

'The Path' unfolds, largely, through the POV of a member of a cult who deals with his shaken faith and thoughts of leaving his community. The show relies heavily on his family life and wife whom was born into the cult. Other story lines unfold around him as we get a look into the ways the cult hooks, indoctrinates, and keeps its members. There are also key stories involving outside views of the community.

This article could explore the depiction of religion in this contemporary thriller and how it addresses the "American staple" aspects American cults have in American culture. Possibly compare contemporary foreign films depicting cults and how cultures depict them through media. How does the view towards the main character shift the show from a one-sided negative depiction to a sympathetic American issue?

Due to poor reviews and box office mediocrity of both Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Suicide Squad, does the Wonder Woman film – set for a 2017 release – have a good chance for critical success? While the released trailer shows promise, what can one expect regarding the quality of the film?

While essentially escapist in nature, entertainment (especially fiction) has often been defended by its writers as having further intrinsic value.

What draws people to anime? What is Western TV doing to emulate it? What gives anime its unique value as a genre? Or is it merely entertainment and has no worth beyond the superficial distraction of fan service?

Edit 9/8/16 for grammar

This topic is about families of actors, and directors, not movies about fictional or real families. Besides the long line of Barrymores, who are drama's greatest families? The Bridges? Kirk Douglass, his son, Michael Douglas, and his sons? Blythe Danner and daughter, Gwynneth Paltrow? John Carradine and sons, Richard and Keith?

Who are they? What makes them great? Is their dramatic influence expected to continue? By which younger family members? In acting or directing?

Relatively speaking, this could be a mother of a topic.

AMC.com's "The All-Time Top 100 Voices in the Movies" list begs for debate. It's top ten is below. These are not the rubber-voiced talents of a Mel Blanc or Seth McFarlane whose faces don't appear on screen. Nor are they the distinctive but (to many) annoying – pipes of a Melanie Griffith, Gilbert Gottfried, Rosie Perez, or Bobcat Goldthwaite. These are the actresses or actors whose dulcet voices are as memorable as any other part of their skill set.

What is it about their voices that sets them apart? Which cinematic performance is their most interesting and distinctive? Who would you add – say Valeria Golino, Ossie Davis (my favorite male voice), Gene Hackman, Marion Cotillard, or Bryan Cranston? – to the list? Who would you drop, if anyone, from the list? And, finally, what makes the voice of someone such as Holly Hunter (my favorite female voice) so attractive, while another's voice misses the mark?

AMC.com's "Top Ten Voices" list:

10. Peter Sellers
9. Holly Hunter
8. John Wayne
7. Al Pacino
6. Marilyn Monroe
5. Jack Nicholson
4. James Earl Jones
3. Christopher Walken
2. Orson Welles
1. Clint Eastwood

In about 45 days (about the time it takes to write an article for this site), on October 15, it will be the 102nd anniversary of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, which laborer leader Samuel Gompers called “labor’s charter of freedom,” exempting unions from anti-trust laws. It also legalized boycotts, pickets, and strikes. It also banned the monopolizing practice of price-setting.

Below is Time Magazine's list of Top Ten Labor Union Movies

How Green Was My Valley, 1941
Native Land, 1942
On the Waterfront, 1954
The Pajama Game, 1957
I'm All Right Jack, 1959
The Organizer, 1963
Harlan County, U.S.A., 1976
Norma Rae, 1979
Matewan, 1987
Waiting for 'Superman,' 2010

Choose at least one film, either on the list or not on the list, and analyze whether the film portrayals of labor unions have been prophetic, inaccurate, or somewhere in between.

This just in from your House of Representatives via govtrack.us ((link) my fellow Americans:

"Every time you drink a beer, you pay extra because federal law adds an excise tax. In fact, an estimated 40 percent of beer’s cost is due to taxes, higher than for many other consumer products. A bill currently pending in Congress would eliminate that tax for more than 90 percent of distributors. And even for the biggest distributors like Budweiser and Miller, it would still significantly cut the tax for them too. Which would mean lower prices for you."

Congress' conversations about alcohol taxation, of course, begs the question, What are the best movies about alcohol, be they legal booze, Prohibition and mafia-produced hooch, or films about alcoholism – such as Leaving Las Vegas, Lost Weekend, etc.? What makes the films especially valuable? Should movies about alcohol speak only of the dangers of booze or should they show just the fun side of alcohol, or can they show both the fun and dark sides of the stuff? Feel free to use as many or as few films to make your point(s).

Within comics and movies, heroes have slowly been developing more flaws while villains are beginning to produce a more human face. More so, with the rise fandoms, readers and fans have begun to appreciate both; picking favourites and encouraging this type of development for characters. By examining older heroes and villains and how they have developed/changed over time, as well as, the rise of the "flawed hero" and the "human villain", are we slowly entering an age where there is no right answer? Or will "true villains" be forced to be purely "evil"? Analyze both the negatives and positives of this within a writing context — will this change how plots and characters are being written? Will the definitions of what a "villain" or "hero" are, have to change? And will this bring in a new era of "grey" as opposed to the archaic, early form of writing that was strictly black and white? Or is our perception of the "character", "plot" and writing becoming deeper and more advanced?

Since I first stumbled upon Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss’ Sherlock, I have been a loyal fan of this addicting show. From Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman’s chemistry to the amount of easter eggs and foreshadowing thrown into each episode, fans can analyze every frame until the next season. However, since Sherlock aired in 2010 to now, there’s a grand total of 3 seasons and 9 episodes (not including the unaired pilot) and a holiday special. Understandably everyone from the cast and crew have jam packed schedules, personal affairs that come up unexpectedly, and keeping film locations under wraps can be difficult for shows. How do these two to three year breaks fare in the longterm. Especially with more casual viewers? The new Doctor Who reboot has seen many scheduling changes as well as extensions on its season releases. Another way networks are able to go on hiatus is the mid-season break. ABC shows such as How to Get Away with Murder, Scandal, and Once Upon a Time have adopted this break to reorganize and come back even stronger in the second half of the season. With all these new variations in television breaks and social media interaction with fans, is Sherlock gaining more popularity with its infamous two to three year breaks and passionate fandom, or is it slowly being tucked away in many individuals' mind palaces.

I have never been a fan of Ben Affleck. His solo scene in Good Will Hunting in which his character (Chuckie Sullivan) realizes that Matt Damon's character (Will Hunting) has indeed left for California is awful. However, in Argo, his acting was much better.

This topic is not about the Jack Nicholsons, Robert Duvalls, and Michael Caines of the cinema world who started off as gifted actors who've achieved greatness. It's more about the Paul Newmans who initially got by with looks (like Redford), but improved exponentially with experience (unlike Redford). Nor is it about the Harrison Fords who started out mediocre and never got much better.

Which actors, in your opinion, have shown tremendous growth after a less than auspicious start? How does this happen? Which early performance(s) left you underwhelmed? Why? Which later performance(s) convinced you of their improvement? Why?

One challenge of this topic is communicating the actor's progression beyond, "Pauline Kael says…" But hey, that's a start.

Using The Stanley Parable, look into the tropes used and satirized by the Narrator and game designers to give a unique user experience. How did breaking the fourth wall, the illusion of choice, and the use of comedy challenge the notion of traditional gaming narratives?

At first the games one could find on a smartphone were relatively small games to waste time like candy crush and angry birds. Then those games became extremely popular, one even getting a movie. Now you can find in depth rpgs, detailed world builders and tons of unique games as well as the smaller games. Having games on your phone has been possible and common since before the smart phone (snake anyone?) but now it's almost as if smartphones are attempting to be there own gaming console. Thoughts?

While watching re-runs of the 1960s cult classic, The Avengers, I was reminded of the effortless cool of many of that era’s heroes. With their witty banter and impeccable fashion sense, John Steed and Emma Peel were the epitome of the clever and effortlessly cool hero. Sean Connery as James Bond, the ever-jaded Humphrey Bogart, and even Cary Grant with his many aliases in the comic film Charade all exuded debonair qualities. Nowadays, many audiences gravitate toward anti-heroes instead. We are all about gritty realism, whether that’s by casting non-celebrity faces with minimal if any make-up as in Orange is the New Black, showing explicit content as in Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, or simply having skewed morals as in House of Cards or Dexter. There are even heroes who revoke the traditional heroism thrust upon them as with Jessica Jones. Modern-day protagonists are not often meant to be looked up to, but humanly flawed and as susceptible to be corrupted as we are. Yet it goes even beyond mere human flaws. It seems we enjoy seeing the extremes of bad behavior and the worst versions of ourselves. How did this come about? Is there a way to attain gritty realism without sacrificing the self-assuredness of the supposed heroes?

Over the past several years Disney has churned out Live Action remakes of many of their beloved animated films. Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, and most recently The Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon have all been rebooted/remade. Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Dumbo,The Sword in the Stone and Winnie the Pooh are being remade as we speak or will be in the future. Even an Aladdin Prequel is in the works. Does this slew of live action/future live action films show that Disney is running out of ideas? Would it make more sense to remake/reboot some of their films more than others (such as their lesser known animated films)? Also include how Disney compares to Pixar (which is part of their company), and other animation studios today, and to other companies in general in terms of creativity.

In The Night of the Hunter, serial killer, Harry Powell's (Robert Mitchum) slightly-raised eyebrow is genius, the tiny movement revealing his heartlessness. To those who've seen the film, even still photos of Mitchum in character resend Powell's bone-chilling indifference to life.

Another fine example of communicative expression occurs in The Devil Wears Prada when Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) smugly and finalistically hummed, "Um-huh," not quite under her breath, making audiences frown. Streep's acting was brilliant: anything more or less alters the message.

What other actors in a particular role – as opposed to say, Bruce Willis' role-to-role, smart-assed half-smile – use a powerful, signature expression – including facial, verbal, or body language – to define a specific character? What does the expression communicate? Are there actors able to reproduce this mastery via different expressions for different roles? In which roles? With which expressions?