Topics

What are the benefits and drawbacks of a genre or franchise gaining mainstream acceptance? For instance: in what ways does Marvel benefit from being mainstream? How does grossing popularity damage Star Wars (or does it?). How does the MCU gain artistically from its mainstream appeal? What sacrifices must it make? Are the monetary benefits worth the trade of artistic integrity?

A game writer might focus on the social benefits gamers receive from the de-stigmatizing of video games vs. the "selling out" of catering to the main stream. The writer of this article could focus on any medium of entertainment, from television and movies to games, examining both privilege and hipster-esque shunning that comes with the main stream.

While I've provided an overly-broad range of ideas for medium, the writer of this article would focus on only one aspect of entertainment (film; television; games), not all three.

In the last few years Hollywood has both recreated and rebooted a number of classic films, ranging from superhero stories (like Spider-man), beloved franchises (like Star Trek), to cult classics (like Red Dawn), and modern masterpieces (like The Magnificent Seven). Choose what you feel are a few of the best and worst examples of this trend, and make an argument for or against Hollywood's "rehash" habit.

From "Romeo Juliet" to "Oh Brother Where Art Though", reworking classic stories like Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" to Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey" with popular appeal is either a fun and creative on-taking or crass money grab, depending upon who you ask.

Examine similar instances in film where classic plays and literature have been given a new breath and identity through popular appeal, modernized sets, and creative directing. Are there instances where this process has succeeded in maintaining the artistic integrity of the original work while making something visionary? Are there instances where this process was a disaster? Does this act successfully cater to a new generation, or is it pandering/talking down to an audience that would prefer authenticity?

Bruegel the Elder's painting depicts the famous passage from Book VIII of Ovid's Metamorphoses in which Daedalus, the father of Icarus, provides his son with feathered wings, glued together, and warns him not to fly to close to the sun, for he will be burned, and not to fly to close to the water, for he will drown. The boy does not listen; flies too high; the glue begins to melt; and he plummets to the water in which he drowns. The moral can be understood as moderation as the key to living a successful and fruitful life.
What I am most interested in is why does Bruegel paint an interpretation of this famous passage; yet, as opposed to placing Icarus in the foreground, Icarus is placed off to the side. Why concentrate on this Greek Myth but place the workers of the present day (~1560) in the foreground, and the classical mythological component, whom the painting is based on, off to the side? What is Bruegel the Elder trying to convey? The painting can easily be found with a basic search of the title. What do you believe was the theme Pieter Bruegel's aesthetic piece was attempting to communicate to onlookers?

While it is common for the second film in a series to ruin the franchise, many of them MAKE the franchise; such is the case with Kill Bill and The Dark Knight Trilogy. Perhaps these films' sequels were so monumental because they were planned out to take place over three films or two films, rather than the corporate industry suits just wanting to force, say, another Iron Man onto the screen to make more money. These turn into hollow films.

Author Orson Scott Card said "Science Fiction has rivets, fantasy has trees," implying that the two genres are effectively the same, only the set dressing is different. There are many tropes the two genres share, many stories in both genres that follow Joseph Campbell's archetypical "hero's journey," and a lot of elements that are near identical in nature but dressed differently to fit the setting.

But is Card's statement true? Are there elements of one that define it, other than the setting? Are there fantasy stories that would not work as sci-fi without fundamental changes to the story and outcome, and vice-versa? If there is a defining line between the two, where is it?

On a deeper level than selling an important item or getting the wrong upgrade, what about actions in gameplay that cause regret and or shame in the player? How can developers use this to further the emotional connection between the player and the game? When is it effective and when is it frustrating?

A good example of a game with this theme would be "Spec Ops:The Line", where the horror of the game comes from forcing the player to endure uncompromising and increasingly meaningless combat, difficult and no-win choice scenarios, and the violent shift in tone in the characters.

Explore the rise of "spoiler culture" – especially in relation to TV shows and movies – looking at its current prevalence in society, possible origins, and perhaps some famous/infamous instances of "spoilers" as a preface to how "spoiler culture" impacts an audience's interaction with the work and fellow audience members.

i.e. inability to any longer freely engage in the discussion of a work, whether that inability to discuss effects the way people process that work, isolating one's self from others to avoid spoilers (to the point even of limiting one's social media)

Might be interesting as well to see if "spoiler culture" persists within well known material. For instance, are people less concerned with spoilers when consuming media of a historical nature like WW2 movies?

Everyone has heard the ongoing arguments about which is better, the book or the film? The film or the book? But what is the right balance, if such a thing does exist?

Certain traits are different when writing a script than a book and there have been some wonderful adaptions, in fact I'd say most adaptions are pretty good, some of the examples of my favourites being The Godfather, American Psycho, the Harry Potter series and The Martian.

But why do some go wrong and to those who are right, what makes them so?

With film being more accessible on personal devices such as laptops, tablets and phones, movies are just as likely to be viewed in solitude as with family or friends. How great would the impact of those around you be on the experience of watching a film?

The skepticism towards Politics is nearly as old as history of political system. Various literature throughout the history, including the Attic Comedy of Aristophanes, satirize the political systems and the prominent rulers.

In many ways, Aristophanes can still appeal to the modern audiences thanks to his unforgiving wits and humor against the leading politicians like Cleon. Comparing Aristophanes to the modern satirists such as stand-up comedians or cartoonists could help us understand which aspect of politics changed or remained the same since the ancient Athens.

For example, One thing to note is that Aristophanes frequently used ridiculous characters and exaggerated personalities to make this point. Has this been changed much? Does Aristophanes' model lose its charm to the modern audiences?

Compare and analyze the characters, the comic elements, and the message of Arisophanes to the modern comedy(such as the Simpsons, South Park, etc) and others.

A look at films in recent years that weren't sequels or remakes that received fairly good ratings, but made little money at the box office. An example that comes to mind is American Ultra (2015), which received better ratings than many of the other films that opened the same weekend (all of which were remakes or sequels), yet was a box office flop. The film's screenwriter, Max Landis complained that "American Ultra lost to a sequel, a sequel reboot, a biopic, a sequel and a reboot."

This phenomenon seems self-perpetuating. These failed new ideas will cause studios to hesitate before investing in further new ideas, which seem risky. It may be more economically encouraging to go with a sequel or remake that is bound to make money, and we therefore find ourselves inundated by constant remakes and reboots (just look at Pokémon Go, which seems to be successful not because it is particularly good, but because its content is familiar).

A few psychological theories could be invoked here in order to explain this phenomenon. One is the mere-exposure effect, a phenomenon wherein people tend to prefer things that they are familiar with (this is how subliminal messaging is thought to work). Therefore it could be possible that people are disproportionately likely to go out and see a film with a familiar name (such as the new Independence Day), even if it has worse ratings than something novel and unknown. Further, people tend to be risk-averse, and may want to avoid the risk of seeing something unknown and not liking it.

Talk about various science fiction series and the types of technology or concepts which were once thought to be unbelievable, but have become reality, today.

An example of this is how Star Trek and other shows would have holographic projectors or screen talking which enabled the ability of sight in long-distance communications. Nowadays we have various means of video chatting with people from around the world such as Facetime that seem to have been encouraged by shows like Star Trek.

What type of musical instruments make for a perfect soundtrack? How does a specific musical instrument evoke specific emotions needed for a scene?

Just from the new Kong: Skull Island, much can be asserted about the aesthetic and narrative relationship between Kong and Jurassic World. Both films are enormous block-buster snowball movies filled with star-studded casts thrown in disaster scenarios of utter peril and outrageous visual effects. A parallel/examination of the two movies and what they say about the state of hollywood would be highly relevant.

In both Slaughterhouse-Five (1969 novel by Kurt Vonnegut, adapted to film in 1972 by George Roy Hill) and K-PAX (1995 novel by Gene Brewer, adapted to film in 2001 by Iain Softley), the main characters experience delusions of extraterrestrials. (Billy Pilgrim encountering the Tralfamadorians and Robert "prot" Porter believing himself to be a K-PAXian from the planet K-PAX.) In both cases, it is hinted, though never stated out-rightly, that these are coping mechanisms in response to trauma experienced by the characters: Billy's witnessing of the fire bombing of Dresden during WWII and prot's having lost his wife and daughter and subsequently killing their murderer.

Discuss the thematic link between these two novels? In what ways have they employed this trope similarly to one another, and how has K-PAX (being the latter of the two) altered it or taken it further? Why has extraterrestrial life been used by both of these authors as their go-to psychosis? What may have influenced their mutual decision to leave a final verdict on the aliens ambiguous, both having planted a small seed of doubt that the aliens may be real – and therefore everyone BUT the protagonist is "crazy" for not believing him. Furthermore, how does this compare to other abstract depictions of mental illness in literature and film? Are there any other examples of works that use fictitious aliens to in this way to shield characters from hard truths?

There has been some controversy about how video game companies will make the players pay extra for content in a game. DLCs (downloadable content) are good because the company can add more to a game after it comes out. Sometimes it is a fair amount of extra content and it's more reasonable to buy it, like in Skyrim's Dragonborn DLC where the player gets a huge bundle of extra features to interact with which results in a lot more game time. In other cases the companies take away parts of the game that were in previous versions and charges the player extra for it, like characters in Super Smash bros. 4. There is also less content to be earned or unlocked in some games because it is turned into DLC.
How is this making an impact on the way games are made?
How is the video game audience reacting?
What companies are using DLCs wrong/right?
What could these companies do to be more fair to the players?
How is the way DLCs are used evolving?

Many long-running television series have at least one episode where two or more characters switch bodies with one another (generally for comedic purpose). Given that it has debatably become exhausted and overdone by this point, why does this trope continue to be so popular? What fascinates us about the concept of swapping bodies? Is it another form of escapism, or simply a plot device with easy jokes to be made?

Are there series that put a spin on this trope or use it in interesting ways? If so, do they change the formula, or do they apply it in a new way?

From The Giver to the Hunger Games, to Divergent, it seems as if Dystopian novels have become the new Paranormal. Where Twilight had filled book store shelves, now we see novels like, The Maze Runner, and The 100, filling those shelves. But, what if this genre has become too predictable, too generic? Will they die out like the Westerns? Or is safe to say that, Dystopian novels will forever be a staple in book genres.

Through the centuries, writing has been a powerful form of communication. Whether be it a political pamphlet, a provocative essay, or a news article, writing was an important way to translate individuals' ideas and viewpoints. Analyze how writing has helped to empower and shape American history. Compare and contrast historical speeches and/or important, influential writers, authors, or essayists. Simply put, writing helped shape our country.