Topics

There is a very interesting blog entry on the Harry Potter Amino Apps page that compares Lord Voldemort (nee Tom Riddle) from the Harry Potter series to Andrew Nehman, the protagonist of Whiplash. The main thrust of this argument is that both characters come from a long line of mediocrities, and develop an obsession with being the best in their chosen fields in order to counter this, even if it costs them their humanity and personality. They also share at least one other similarity that goes unremarked upon in the blog: namely, that both of their mothers died in childbirth.

The question is, does Voldemort have any other traits that make him similar to other obsessed creatives (real or fictional) besides just Nehman? What, if any, artistic talents does he possess, and what are some of the lengths he goes to master them? In terms of his characterization, just how essential a role does creativity play in making him who he is? Is there actually anything to the idea that Tom Riddle/Voldemort’s backstory and arc are that of an obsessed artist or creative personality, or does he just happen to have some traits in common with one obsessively artistic character purely by chance?

Audrey Hepburn, Julie Andrews, Vivien Leigh, Marilyn Monroe, and several other actresses are legends in Hollywood history. Although most are now deceased, these women have made indelible marks on their genres and the film industry as a whole. Most of these "screen queens" are in fact so iconic, one mention of certain films they starred in brings that actress to mind. Some have played roles so well, their names are inextricably linked with their characters, to the point that some viewers believe no one else could ever fill that actress’ shoes.

Compare and contrast 2-3 of these "screen queens," or others you might think of. What did they bring to iconic roles that arguably, no one else could? What did their presence do for Hollywood history, and what changes did they precipitate? Can any of today’s actresses hope to live up to these women, and are there in fact "modern" versions of them today? If yes, do the modern actresses do their forerunners justice?

From Tomb Raider (2001, Angelina Jolie) to Sonic the Movie (2020, Jim Carrey), there have been quite a few games likewise adapted into movies, though to varying degrees of failure or success. Tomb Raider was somewhat considered a flop when it first came out, and it currently has a 5.8 on Imdb: (link) a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes from the critics, and a 47% by audiences: (link) and a 33% on Metacritic: (link) though some consider it underrated: (link) By contrast, the Sonic the Hedgehog movie had a 6.5 on Imdb: (link) a 63% critic rating and a 93% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes: (link) and a 47% on Metacritic: (link) The success of the Sonic movie garnered it not one, but two sequels.

The topic taker should analyze the trends of adapting a video game to a movie, including the history of it, and what makes so many of the adaptations fail. The topic taker should really dive into what made good video adaptations good and see what trends their analysis reveals. The topic taker may also consider the future of video game to film adaptations and whether they think there will be more successes or failures as well.

To help the topic taker, consider looking into the following films to start forming trends based off their reception via reviews/to start forming the history of video game to film adaptation as they see fit:

Tomb Raider (2018) in order to compare/contrast it with the 2001 film
Sonic the Hedgehog 2
Detective Pikachu
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
Assassin’s Creed
Doom
Super Mario Bros. (1993)
The Super Mario Bros. the Movie (2023) to contrast with the 1993 adaption

While Ancient Greek tragedies loved to have divine characters speaking on the stage, modern movies seem to hesitate a lot. In the movie Troy (directed by Wolfgang Petersen and written by David Benioff,) no deity appears on the battlefield despite the exciting descriptions of their fight in Homer’s epic. Similar things happen in other movies based on mythology. For instance, Aphrodite never appears in the Argonaut movies, although she is quite important in the epic.
What might be the reason for this phenomenon?

Many Star Wars fans consider Anakin Skywalker effectively a different character from Darth Vader. However, analyzing Anakin’s character progression from Jedi to Sith can be very interesting, especially depending on viewing order. For fans of the original trilogy, the prequels’ portrayal of Anakin may have been startling. On the other hand, a chronological viewing, especially one that includes the Clone Wars series, may depict a slow but steady character arc for young Skywalker with a tragic but inevitable conclusion.

Compare and contrast the two characters. What traits of Anakin’s remain in Darth Vader, and how are they portrayed differently? Where do we see traits of Darth Vader peeking through in Anakin during the prequel era? Does this change how we see other heroes and villains, like Luke Skywalker or Kylo Ren, and even characters from other franchises?

Duality (doppelgangers, alter egos) is a common theme in thriller/horror texts and films. This goes as far (or further) back as the Victorian period (Dracula and Van Helsing as mirror images/Jekyll and Hyde), and continues today (The Nun, Valak and Sister Irene as foils to each other/the twins in Malignant).

‘US’ (2019) deals with doppelgangers – every citizen has one, and these ‘Tethered’ counterparts live in dire poverty in the tunnels beneath the city. They are ‘savage’ and ‘monstrous’, unlike their peers who live among us.
Peele’s film has strong themes of class and social inequality.

The ending, however, reveals that the protagonist of the film was never one of ‘us’, but in fact a tethered doppelganger who had switched places as a child. Unlike the rest of the Tethered, she speaks and moves fluently, behaving ‘civilised’ as opposed to ‘savage’.

There is clear commentary in this twist of how the environment and social upbringing of an individual can create a stark contrast in how their identity, behaviour, and habits are formed: The protagonist turned out so different from the rest of the Tethered, only because of the economic and social support she recieved as she was brought up.

How does this twist impact the themes of duality present in horror and thriller genres? Does it make us reflect differently on the monstrous villains we see in Michael Myers or Dr Hyde? Does it make us reconsider their motivations?
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde/The Unborn, for example, are strongly contextualised by economic and political commentary.

Two movies: Barbie, directed by Greta Gerwig, and Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolen are getting massive publicity before they come out because of a social media trend.

Why are these two movies sparking so much excitement, and will this help get people back into theaters?

It would be interesting to analyze the new era of film marketing and what made the marketing of these films successful.

The subconscious is the basis of both Christopher Nolan’s movie Inception and is one of the most foundational theories created by the iconic Swiss psychiatrist. It would be interesting to see the correlations and the strands of ideas Nolan had taken from Jung’s work on the subconscious and applied it to the big stream. Taking a look at what are some of the "Easter Eggs" Nolan had within the film as an ode to Jungian thought.

Uncut Gems is a Netflix original film about a jeweler Howard Ratner played by Adam Sandler who makes a high-stakes bet that could lead to the windfall of a lifetime but simultaneously could end up in his death.

We see throughout the film, Howard takes numerous unnecessary risks as a gambling addict. In the end, even as he wins, he is murdered in cold blood. In a traditional story, this would be a sad ending, a tragedy.

But, viewing the film in the modern era, as a tale not about flying too close to the sun and instead about the greatest catharsis, an ultimate victory, and the immediate cessation of future suffering.

Howard if he continued living would have inevitably found himself in trouble, his addiction had led him to his death after all, but in the film during his greatest high, he is quickly and painlessly removed from any potential of that feeling to be lost by. He dies with his victory.

Is that not a happy ending?

Black Swan, the obsession with being the best at the cost of all else.

Tar and the abusive teacher

Whiplash, the synthesis of obsession and abuse leading to a sort of harmony.

The films concern the performing arts in their various forms, each taking a distinct POV. But all of them run a similar line of thought which is "But at what cost"

At what cost do we sacrifice our essential being to become, "a great" in Whiplash?

Consequently what price is too high for "perfection" in Tar, and who pays when the tab is due?

If we aren’t our accomplishments, who are we in Black Swan?

In a society driven by a consumptive need to be the best, how much is too much to attain it?

Explore regency era nostalgia and how it is a big part of contemporary culture. Also discuss the role of technology and how and why people yearn for the pre digital age.

Look at film and TV adaptations of the Regency era, such as Pride and Prejudice, Bridgerton, Emma, Becoming Jane, Belle, Sanditon, Death Comes to Pemberley, etc). Many of these are based on or around Jane Austen and her works. Discuss Austen’s influence on the Regency era and the subsequent rise in “Regencycore” in fashion and entertainment.

Media literacy is the ability to understand and analyze works such as movies, television, books, and even video games. That said in recent years there’s been a notable lack of nuance in media discussions and even worse a rise in pushback against anything that challenges the audience’s comfort,
claims such as "All sex scenes are useless", "protagonists shouldn’t be bad/do immoral things" and "There should be a clear lesson in a story"

46% of American adults in a survey say that they didn’t learn media literacy in schools, which begs the question of why not? What consequences have arisen due to low media literacy and how can they be corrected going forward?

"The Idiot Plot, of course, is any plot that would be resolved in five minutes if everyone in the story were not an idiot."
— Roger Ebert in his review of Narrow Margin (1990)

The 2008 black comedy "Burn After Reading" by the Coen Brothers is a film of fools doing foolish things to disastrous consequences. Each character for the most part overestimates their own standing and refuses to see the world as it is, but is that ideologically driven, do these people within the story have ideologies? For a film that is based in D.C. and told from the perspective of a C.I.A operative it’s politics are remarkably scant, so then what drives each character to behave the way they do?

The MCU is timeless and well loved by many–both in its decades of comics, and in their evolution to a for-the-screen franchise. Afterall, the MCU was irreversibly expanded with Iron Man’s debut in 2008, and the 30 movies to follow. Amid these movie’s grandness, however, shows such as "Agents of Shield" served to fill in the gaps. They were not necessary for understanding the plot of each new movie, though they added extra glimpses of the MCU that the movies missed. More than this, they helped to tie eager audience’s over while each new movie was in production. In recent years, however, the role of MCU shows seems to have changed.

Without watching "WandaVision", audiences would only have half the story of Wanda’s fall in "Doctor Strange: Multiverse of Madness." Without "Hawkeye," audiences would lack the entirety of Kate Bishop’s introduction to the MCU. In short, Marvel tv shows no longer seem to be the periphery stories they once were. More and more, the plot points, characters and events in these shows are pivotal to understanding the movie that comes next. One might claim this new emphasis has incited new investment in these shows–a depth of quality necessary for matching their film counterparts. At the same time, is the new weight placed on these shows too great?

One of the most wonderful aspects of watching the Avengers movies, from first to last, was the shared experience for the audience. Each new movie was an event in itself, a key step toward where every arc intersected. But the necessity of MCU shows has created a far less linear path–one that is near impossible to follow without a subscription to DisneyPlus. Have the quality and value of MCU films been diluted by their television counterparts? Were MCU shows more enjoyable without the pressure of their greater plot stakes? Has the MCU simply spread itself too thin? While the MCU’s magic seems to be rooted in its ability to carefully weave many plots into one, have its shows thrown too many threads into the mix? For any franchise to remain in the public eye, it has to keep their attention–though one might wonder if MCU shows are the best way to do this. This article could go in a couple of different directions–both in support, or against MCU shows-examining one, or many. This is just a change I feel has greatly impacted the MCU in recent years, and one that might be interesting to examine.

Digital de-aging has been around in the film industry for some time now, but its use has increased substantially as CGI technology continues to improve. Age-acceleration is also used, but winding back the clock instead is usually the more difficult feat to pull off well. What was once laughably unconvincing has now become an eerily good imitation. Instead of relying on younger actors to portray popular characters in flashback scenes, one can simply strip away the wrinkles and keep the visuals of the original actors intact. Think of a de-aged Johnny Depp for flashbacks of his character Jack Sparrow in The Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales or Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones in the recent Dial of Destiny film, for example. Beyond that, one can digitally resurrect lost talent whether their deaths were abruptly in the midst of shooting a film or they passed away long ago (and never would’ve imagined such technology could exist). When Carrie Fisher unexpectedly passed, existing footage was apparently salvaged and cobbled together with CGI to fill in the gaps to reproduce Princess Leia for The Rise of Skywalker film. For a Dove Chocolate commercial, a likeness of deceased Hollywood icon Audrey Hepburn was used. Give some examples of films that successfully handled digital de-aging or resurrection as well as others that missed the mark. What went wrong and what went right? Before this technology was ever imagined and accessible, how did films handle the aging and deaths of actors? What does this mean for the future of the film industry, in terms of actors and production companies, etc.?

Fantastic Racism is the term for writers creating a non-human race – aliens from outer space, vampires, werewolves, mutants, elves, orcs, etc. – and then using that race as a metaphor for real-world demographics that are the target of prejudice. The strength of this metaphor is that it can potentially be used in place of any minority group.

In the world of X-Men, mutants have served as a metaphor for various real-world minorities over the decades, from Jewish people to Black people to LGBT’s.

In many fantasy worlds, orcs are seen as barbaric, monstrous outsiders. A plot requiring humans and orcs to put aside their differences – such as the film Warcraft – can be used as a metaphor for international conflicts as well as domestic diversity. Meanwhile, in Max Landis’ urban fantasy world of Bright, orcs become a metaphor for any group with an antagonistic relationship with the police, due to poverty, ethnicity, or culture.

Other examples include Skyrim, Supergirl, True Blood, and even Harry Potter. Analyze these and other examples of Fantastic Racism. Do some work better as metaphors than others? Can we learn different lessons from these stories that we may not see in stories about real-world human minority groups?

In looking at how film entertainment has evolved over the years, an especially drastic shift can be seen in the boom of streaming services that followed the Covid-19 Pandemic. At first, these services appeared to be a saving grace of comfort and convenience–allowing one the ability to still bring the luxury of a movie theater into their own home, allowing one to catch up on the newest flicks with a subscription and a click. Though as the world now struggles to mesh the “New Normal” with the normal we all used to know, these streaming services show no signs of slowing down. According to CNBC, the U.S. has given up around 3,000 theater screens since 2019–and those that remain are now tasked with finding ways to remain relevant. In short, the public seems reluctant to dive fully back into the old movie magic of the theater. But what have these screens been traded for?

Each streaming service is a world tasked with populating itself full of movies and shows to keep its audience’s attention–but what do these services sacrifice in the process? Have streaming services begun to trade quality for content, pushing titles with big names and no stories just to fill their slots? What has been lost in the experience of seeing a movie for the first time in theaters now that everything can be watched from one’s couch? Are these changes beneficial, or a deficit to the quality of modern entertainment? This article could go in a number of directions–exploring particular movie franchises, or the evolution of certain streaming services overall. This just seems to be a relatively new phenomenon of the last decade, but one that has altered what and how we watch in extremely poignant ways.

Analyse how Richard Linklater’s debut film Slacker reflects the attitudes of slacker culture (e.g. lack of motivation, the attitude of detachment, disregard for authority and traditional attitudes). Use that as the springboard for a larger discussion of how Gen-X slacker attitudes influenced independent filmmaking from the 90s (Clerks is a good example of a 90s slacker film) to the present day.

With the rising discontent with the MCU as seen on many social networking apps and film and television critics, a revisiting of the last truly dominant Genre of Westerns which held control of the box office landscape never before seen and only really eclipsed by the current superhero/comic adaptation market.

What in particular made the western so popular and what in specific lead to the box office death of the genre? What were the politics behind the genre, the economics, and actors both in a gamesmanship context and a performative context.

While AI scientists and technology specialists are signalling AI’s ambiguous and unpredictable consequences, they constantly stress that we should not be anxious about AI. However, movies and media narratives sometimes promote AI phobia. The embedded messages of many films are how human flaws destroy civilizations through AI. But the collective focus of the audience may see AI as an entity causing massive anxiety and fear. We can discuss how AI is portrayed in films and media, especially now that AI tools like ChatGPT are causing interesting discussions worldwide.