Film

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has, for better or worse, changed the way that many studios view big budget film making, world building, advertising, and developing film projects. The Marvel Formula, (with individuals films, team ups, and spin offs) has been enormously successful and with Disney's enormous backing and support, there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Will there be a point where Marvel movies will stop being as lucrative and successful as they are now? What possible reasons could contribute to a slowing of this seeming unstoppable engine?

Masks have a long history in many different cultures, but they universally serve the same purpose – to transform the identity of one into another. What I mean by this is that the act of wearing a mask is used to "mask" a person's real identity and allow them to adopt, even if only momentarily, that of another. Examples of this range from simple anonymity where the wearer wishes to hide their identity for a later reveal, to those used in theatre such as Kabuki masks were the mask represents a particular character identity, to the use in ancient ceremonies where the mask is used to symbolise the gods' presence in the ceremony.

As such masks have already been used for centuries in theatre, and are considered a fairly standard aspect of performance art, but this does not diminish the power and symbolism they represent when used well. Many films have seized on the use of masks, either as a central plot device, such as in Jim Carey 1994 film 'The Mask', while others have used it as an aspect of the film, such as in 1999 film 'Eyes Wide Shut.' I think it might make an interesting topic to examine different uses and interpretations of the mask in various films, perhaps even tying them back to their cultural or social heritage.

Recently old tweets (2008-2009) by James Gunn, writer and director of 'Guardians of the Galaxy' came to light and Disney fired him from completing the third in film in the series. The tweets contained "jokes" about pedophilia and rape, obviously inappropriate and not in line with Disney's ethos. Also in light of the recent Hollywood abuse allegations the industry is quite sensitive about such things.

However, the question here is a little muddled, as obviously Gunn has apologised, but not only recently, but previously. He has responded previously to his early career behaviours and has also called himself out over the years for aspects of his "humour." How genuine this is, is of course difficult to gauge. Yet the question remains, how much of a person's past actions should they be punished for? What behaviours are completely inappropriate (sexual abuse, etc.) and what is the work of youthful foolishness? I am still on the fence concerning Gunn myself, but I think in an era of calling for greater repercussions in Hollywood for actions we do need to talk about the lines. Because there is the risk of making every controversial action anathema, which is also not socially healthy as criticism and challenges are what help drive change.

In both the world of television and movie old classics (whether it be movie to movie adaptations, movie to TV, or literature to movie) have been given a new breath of life. Some of these reboots have been successful such as Riverdale, Lethal Weapon, Gossip Girl, Vampire Diaries, 90210 and Pretty Little Liars, Star Trek, Chris Nolan's Batman Trilogy. While others have not been so successful such as Baywatch, Knight Rider, Charlie's Angels, Power Rangers, Robocop, Fantastic Four, TMNT. Why is that some of these Television and Movie reboots fair better than others and what could've been done to turn the not so successful into a success.

It is no surprise that time travel has been used in so many films. The use of time travel in film, as well as in television and books, has allowed for interesting scenarios for characters. It is also a means for the protagonist to gain a second chance or prevent a horrific event from happening.For example, X-Men: Days of Future Past uses time travel in this way. The writers used time travel not only for the benefit of the characters, but also for the writers themselves. They were able to change everything from the previous films just by this one plot device. While the film was a hit, and many fans welcomed the changes caused by the film, others argued that it could lower the stakes in other films in the franchise. If something horrible happens in a film, and time travel is force existing in the film's universe, then the protagonist can go back in time as a means to prevent the event from happening. But does this create more complications?

Analyse and discuss the idea of an "antagonist" without desire, as seen in Alex Garland's Annihilation. The alien being seen in the film is described as "not wanting anything" and displays strange mimicking behaviour, only reacting to the actions of others. However, its arrival heralds the imminent destruction of life on Earth. How can one reason with such a being? How can you relate to an antagonist that has no desire? How does this lack of motivation affect the characters' actions? How does it affect the viewers' reactions?

The year 1960 saw the release of George Pal's imaginative production of H.G.Wells' 'The Time Machine', considered by many to be a classic. At the end of the film, the main character 'George' returns to the distant future to help the newly liberated yet child-like Eloi build a new society, taking just three books with him to aid his venture. As his friend comments to another character '…which three would you have taken?'. Considering the wealth of knowledge we have access to in the 21st Century, which three books (factual or fiction) would you choose and, more importantly, why?

The 90'c classic 'Clueless' is one of my favourite re-watchable movies. However, the more I watch it, the more questions I have regarding the plot. What was the point – was it to follow Tai's journey to a new school, was it to follow Cher's love life, was it to watch Mr Hall and Ms Geist's romance blossom? The multiple storylines aren't overly complicated and all seem resolved in the end, but it just leaves me wondering. I doubt I'm putting too much thought into a movie that can blame this mess on being out-dated, as we saw Iggy Azalea's imitation of the film in her 'Fancy' film clip in 2014 and the world was shocked by the film's Brittany Murphy's 2009 death. Was this simply the style of a fun 90's film, or for that matter the comedy genre – to fill it with multiple storylines in order to keep it fun, light and entertaining? And if so, why is this plot-messy classic the one we still remember today?