A G Macdonald

Dumb, big-budget blockbusters have been a thing for a very long time (and some of them are well-made pieces of entertainment). But these mass-produced products have staggeringly large budgets that force studios into playing it safe. To counterbalance this, we have always had visionary directors that want to push the boundaries of the visual medium and the stories they can tell within it. This isn't a knock against the blockbuster. George Lucas would be considered one of those visionaries and he created the biggest blockbuster series of all time. But what makes Star Wars stand out is at the time it was a very different concept for film.
This generation hasn't seen the likes of its own Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch, Steven Spielberg (and the list goes on). Obviously, this isn't from a lack of talent. But I think it would be interesting to investigate where we think this generations visionaries that define that generation will be found.
Is it still possible to find directors that defy convention within the studio system? Or will people need to turn to the indie sphere, or possibly even Youtube creators as the next big filmmakers?

Night of the Living Dead sparked a whole range of films that are trying to be 'so good that they are bad'. It would make a really interesting article to have a detailed backstory of how the film, and more importantly the culture behind the film, came to be.

Though it feels like reality television has always been a staple for TV, it is actually a relatively invention. But how did this start? When did we decide that watching people watch television (Gogglebox) or watching women throw wine at each other (Real Housewives) was a form of entertainment. It would also be important to link this to the rise of YouTube, and the obsession with trailer reactions and unboxing videos.

We see people refer to the need for more diverse characters, and of course it is important to hear from a broad range of people, who all have different backgrounds and opinions, but is it important that these characters are always linked to social justice? Every time we have an action story with a female lead like Mad Max: Fury Road, Atomic Blonde, Star Wars: The Force Awakens etc, it turns into a tirade about how this character is monumental and never been done before, and young women everywhere should look up to this characters because there aren't any other female action stars (despite everybody else saying the same thing).

This topic is not intended to question the validity of diverse character, but rather investigate the effects of social justice on these characters. Is this layer of social justice harmful to these characters? If we introduce these characters without strong political and moral lectures, will audiences be more likely to embrace these differences?

An example that could work as a starting point could be The Simpsons: The character of Smithers is homosexual, but he isn't a protected species like social justice would dictate. All facets of his character, including his sexuality, are made light of. A few years ago, The Simpsons was listed as the most influential show for homosexual representation and the breaking down of homosexual stigma. Is it possible that social justice is standing in the way of diversity? I think it would be very interesting to look at the effects of social justice on the advancement on diversity and how we should move forward with more diverse characters.

Fan service has become a staple of modern Hollywood films, and while it's great to see the characters from previous iterations of your favourite franchises, it is also important to have fresh original ideas to go with them. The Force Awakens was criticised for doing this to much: for not just including characters and setting, but for reproducing complete story beats and plot devices. So, the question I would like to see explored is: How much is too much when it comes to fan service?

Netflix recently released its live action adaptation of Death Note, and people were less than impressed by it. A few people who have not seen the original have said that they enjoyed the film for what is was. Without associating it with the source material, is there joy and entertainment to be found here?
Also, is it possible that the whole 'white washing' element cast a dark cloud over the whole production (which seemed a bit odd considering that it is the most diverse iteration of Death Note with a wide array of characters from many different races). It would be very interesting to find reasons while the Netflix adaptation, though flawed, was not as bad as people made out.

Filmmaking is a business. Hollywood knows that, and so does the general population. For a long time, Hollywood has been ensuring guaranteed hits by extending already existing popular franchises. This would traditionally take the form of a sequel like Die Hard 2; Mad Max 2; Terminator 2 (you get where I am going with this), but in recent years there has been a number of prequels cropping up: Fantastic Beasts, Star Wars, Terminator, Star Trek (both the new films and the upcoming television series). This article would explore the idea of why Hollywood thinks prequels are such a marketable storytelling device? Is it because people love throwbacks and little Easter eggs? Do we love a good origin story? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

While Hollywood remakes are rampant at the moment, we have been inundated with a spate of soulless cash-ins; but do video games have to share the same fate? The mechanics of video games are much more complex, and as such can do with a gamelpay and graphics overhaul every decade or two to keep the game alive.
It would be interesting for someone to put forward the case that there is actually a need for remakes within the video game market.