Film

In an interesting trend media throughout its existence seems to be afraid to kill off characters, especially important ones. From "Superman" to "Sherlock Holmes" key characters die, only to return due to some thought-up Deus Ex Machina in order to both have a sad catharsis followed by triumphant victory. But is it a true victory when the loss of death is negated? In a world where characters cannot die (IE, Digimon or Pokémon), versus one where characters do meet their permanent untimely end (Game of Thrones) what difference (in message or otherwise) does the audience experience as a result and what is the overall effect each technique causes for understanding of the stories?

There are so many trailers and other film marketing apparatus that portray a film in a different light than it should be in order to sell the film and bring in viewers. For instance in other countries, Brad Pitt was the only face of the poster for 12 Years A Slave, when his appearance was only a few minutes towards the end of the film. The trailer for Click tried to sell the movie as a comedy, when the movie turned out to be a sad film, arguably not for children. This second part might be a completely different article, but many trailers now, because of the time/length requirement, give away too much of the film and perhaps when trying to avoid this, they sell it as a completely different movie. Discuss whether marketing gets in the way of quality of trailers. Trailers are perhaps the most important part of the movie because they are the first impression.

The concept of artificial intelligence has often been used in film to explore philosophical concepts about humanity and living as humans (examples include the recent Chappie and classic sci fi favourite The Matrix). Why do creators use AI as their method for exploring humanity and what do such films show us about how humans see themselves?

One of the most interesting – at least to me – 'thematic explorations' in film is seeing works that depict a society in a state of profound, often radical change. Ozu was perhaps the very best at doing this. As Wim Wenders said:

"Ozu’s films again and again tell the same simple story, always of the same people and the same city: Tokyo. This chronicle, spanning nearly 40 years, depicts the transformaton of life in Japan. Ozu’s films deal with the slow deterioration of the Japanese family, and thereby with the deterioration of a national identity."

I can't think of any other Japanese director that examined the disintegration of the postwar family, and the country's sense of national identity with more profundity, depth and attention than Ozu.

Werner Herzog's Heart of Glass (Herz aus Glas (1976)) is also a fantastic film that looks into a small, isolated village being impacted by the effects of industrialisation.

Further, many Italian neorealist films did a remarkable job at looking into a society completely brutalised by war, and the consequences of a collapsed fascist regime.

Discuss the use of teaser trailers leading up to first trailers which make way for the REAL trailers which give way to smaller, lighter trailers, all of which lead up to a movie. Are the ten extra seconds of footage really necessary? Is a countdown really necessary? Is it genius marketing to make people watch the same footage over and over again in the hopes of catching two seconds of newer footage?

Possible points to cover: The hype leading up to Age of Ultron, the teeny tiny teaser released for Ant-Man, leaked Comic-con clips, the trailers for Mockingjay Part 2, etc.

Double-Barrel shotgun, the bow and arrow, the ak-47 (for when you absolutely have to kill every last **** in the room). Weapons are commonplace in society, and always have been. What this article would examine the history of culture's "weapon of choice." We seem to be exiting the bow and arrow phase (Katniss, Hawkeye, Last of Us, Tomb Raider) and its been a few years since the ak-47 era.
However, it is undeniable that at any given point in time, the entertainment industry, seems fascinated by one particular weapon, and that weapon finds itself in plenty of movies, TV shows, and video games.
This article should examine the history of popular weapons, and/or why these weapons become so pervasive throughout society.

On August 7th, 2015, 20th Century Fox's Fantastic 4 was released to scathing critical reviews and disappointing box-office returns. The bad reception seems to be universal, even right down to the film's own director, Josh Trank, who tweeted before the film's release that "a year ago I had a fantastic version of this" that audiences will never be able to see.

20th Century Fox has had a reputation for interfering with some projects, and this one was a notable example, but the director has also been criticized for erratic behavior that also caused problems during filming. Was Fantastic Four the product of bad studio decisions which rushed the film into the state it is, or an inexperienced director who did not know how to handle a large-scale production like this?

For this article, I think it would be a great idea to explore the reasons why Fantastic Four failed critically and financially, who is to blame for this (the studio or the director), and how much creative control should be given to directors and studio executives in the future.

Analyze the reasons why Hollywood has used it to death, predict how much longer they will use it, and what sort of plot seems to be taking over the big film business these days.