Lumière

“The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle.�

Stanley Kubrick

A Note from the Editor The short story "The Pedestrian" by Ray Bradbury describes how, in the year 2052, everybody is glued to their television screens with no independent thoughts. This is 2015, and it could be said that we live very similarly to the people depicted

by Bradbury. We spend our days and nights fixated on screens, whether they be televisions, phones, tablets or computers, consuming television programs and films. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

We watch these programmes and films and we learn. We learn about the world and the people around us. We learn about worlds and people that are completely fictional and could not be more different from ourselves, but if we just peel back a few layers we can actually see ourselves reflected back.

Watching a show or film can be a private or public process. It can be spending whole days in bed watching a TV or movie series until you feel that you are a part of that world, and you forget that you actually belong in the world on the other side of your bedroom door (and one day you might get really lucky and discover somebody that can spend the day in this other world with you and make that world even better - but that's a different story).

It can also be sitting on your train home with headphones in watching half an hour of your favourite show on your phone, because that's the only chance you're going to get and you just really want to forget about the terrible day you've had at school or work. On the other hand, it can be sitting in a crowded movie theatre with your best friend and 200 complete strangers and for the following three hours feeling like a child again as you are told a story that completely blows you away.

Or it can be settling down with your family to watch a few hours of programmes that none of you particularly love, but it is a routine that you have been in for years and so you put up with watching your mum’s soaps and your dad’s documentaries because maybe at 9pm you'll get to choose what you all watch.

Lumiere is a magazine that hopes to capture the magic and warmth and familiarity of watching your favourite show and combine it with the excitement of watching a new film for the first time. We want you to read this magazine and at the end of it feel inspired, or like you have learnt something new, or like you really want to go watch your favourite film again. Or even all of these things, and more. Hopefully, you enjoy reading this magazine as much as we have enjoyed making it for you. Maybe it will even find it's place alongside your favourite films and TV shows. To paraphrase Julia Roberts in Notting Hill - "We're just a magazine, standing in front of a reader, asking them to love us."

Thank you.

Georgina Smith

Editor

Meet the Team Georgina Smith Editor

1. Favourite film and why?

It’s a four-way-tie, between Stand By Me, The Lost Boys, Juno and Pitch Perfect. Stand By Me is the first film I ever watched that made me become interested in how exactly films are made, fantastic script, soundtrack and performances. The Lost Boys is just the right side of scary that I can still watch it on a dark night and not need to triple-lock the doors. Juno is one of the few films that make me both laugh and cry; fourteen-year-old me thought Juno was the coolest person in the world. And Pitch Perfect is just a film that makes me laugh every single time I see it, it also has a fantastic soundtrack and a really strong female cast.

2. Favourite TV show and why?

This is so hard for me to choose, because there is so many that I am obsessed with. Pretty Little Liars, The 100, Orange Is The New Black and Orphan Black, whilst all extremely different genres are all fantastic and feature incredibly well-written female characters. The Walking Dead is also a favourite; it’s well-written with great effects and consistently getting better.

3. Favourite movie/television character ever?

Movie-wise It would probably have to be Professor Minerva McGonagall, she’s everything I want to be when I grow up.

Television, it would be Carol from The Walking Dead or Brooke from One Tree Hill, both strong female characters that have great character development over the seasons.

4. Favourite quote from a film/show?

“We are Groot” – Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy, the only tree that has ever made me cry. Close second: “Anyone who ever gave you confidence, you owe them a lot.” Holly Golightly from Breakfast at Tiffanys.

5. Who would you want to play you in a movie of your life?

Either Ellen Page or Anna Kendrick. Both extremely talented, short and socially awkward, like myself.

Cameron McInnes (Re)Designer

1. Favourite film and why?

A difficult question. I’m always tempted to go with John Carpenter’s The Thing, an absolute masterclass in sci-fi horror. It manages to be both tense human drama and a seismic creature feature at the same time. I’m also a huge fan of the orginal Godzilla. It’s a monster film as natural disaster - a sombre exploration of nuclear terror from a nation that witnessed it first hand. I’d be hard pressed not include Robocop and the Monster Squad as well.

2. Favourite TV show and why?

I adore a little known show called Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace. It’s essentially a satire of a Stephen King story presented as a showwithin-a-show set in a hospital built over a hellmouth. It’s difficult to describe but an sbsolute joy to watch. I’d also recommend Community and iZombie.

3. Favourite movie/television character ever?

It has to be Ash from the Evil Dead trilogy. He’s an amazing blend of buffoon and badass - Clint Eastwood via the Three Stooges. The Evil Deads wouldn’t be half the cult classics without this boomstick toting demon slayer; “Hail to the King baby!”

4. Favourite quote from a film/show?

“Take car. Go to Mum’s. Kill Phil, grab Liz, go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over. How’s that for a slice of fried gold?” - Shaun of the Dead 5. Who would you want to play you in a movie of your life?

I could only trust my engaging life story to Oscar winner Nicholas Cage. The man stole the Declaration of Independence!

Liam Hamilton

Writer

1. Favourite film and why?

Torn between two I am afraid.

I love Goodfellas - the acting, the storyline, the action and the sheer quality of cast. Robert De Niro is my favourite actor of all time - him in a gangster role coupled with Ray Liotta and Joe Pesci is sublime.

The soundtrack is fantastic, too. My other favourite film is Vanilla Sky. A bit unorthodox, seeing as very few people have seen it. It stars Tom Cruise as a billionaires son who has it all, but loses it all - along with his mind. The viewer never knows what is going on in this film until the end and I think it is the mystery I like more than anything else. Catch it if you haven’t seen it!

2. Favourite TV show and why?

My favourite TV show was Lost. Again, I loved the mystery. I also really liked how there were no linear characters - everyone had a story and everybody’s story got told. The cliffhangers were brilliant and really kept me interested right up until the finale - after 6 years of watching.

3. Favourite movie/television character ever?

Got to go with Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro) from Goodfellas. A gent until someone messed with him. Ultimate gangster.

4. Favourite quote from a film/show?

“60 percent of the time it works everytime” - Brian Fantana, Anchorman.

5. Who would you want to play you in a movie of your life.

Probably Will Ferrell. I think only he could capture the comedic element as well as I would like.

Kirsty Morrison Writer

1. Favourite film and why?

My favourite film is Grease because it is a classic film that is loved by so many people. It features a great cast, interesting plot lines and brilliant costumes. It is a musical with a feel-good factor.

2. Favourite TV show and why?

My favourite TV show is The 100 because it is such an interesting show with a diverse cast set in a post-apocalyptic universe. There is fantastic female representation with nearly every lead character a woman and many women of colour.

3. Favourite movie/television character ever?

My favourite movie character ever is Elle Woods from Legally Blonde because her character challenges the stereotype that looks are based on intelligence.

4. Favourite quote from a film/show?

“I’ll show you how valuable Elle Woods can be!” said by Elle Woods in Legally Blonde.

5. Who would want to play you in a movie of your life?

I would want Emma Stone to play me in a movie of my life because I believe she is one of the best actresses of our generation and has a strong emotional depth to her acting.

Angus MacDonald Writer

1. Favourite film and why?

Hot Rod. It’s the most ridiculous film I’ve ever watched and I just love everything about it. Andy Sandberg reminds me of myself.

2. Favourite TV show and why?

US Office. The characters in it are perfectly played and you can relate to all of them. It’s one of the easiest shows to binge watch.

3. Favourite movie/televison character ever?

Creed Branton (from the US Office). He has such a small role that many people might not notice him but everything he says is hilarious.

4. Favourite quote from a film/show You’re not a doctor... you’re a big, fat, curly-headed f***!”

5. Who would you want to play you in a movie of you life?

Ashton Kutcher. Equally smart, equally handsome.

Michael Gallacher Writer

1. Favourite film and why?

I couldn’t possibly pick just one, I’d struggle to even make a top ten list so I’ll narrow it down to a few favourites, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, deservedly winning Oscars for best picture and lead actor way back in 1976. Jack Nicholson gives the performance of a life time as the rebellious Randle McMurphy who learns about true insanity after bluffing his way into a psychiatric home. In Bruges is one of the best films ever made. The whole thing is just so aesthetically pleasing, The performances by Colin Farell and Brendan Gleeson, two hit men who are sent to Bruges after a job gone wrong, are brilliant. The score by Carter Burwell is a huge factor for me in choosing it as one of my favourites as it sets the dark yet humorous tone in this black comedy.

2. Favourite TV show and why?

Again this is a tough one. I’m really into Mad men at the moment, the whole 1960s back drop is so fascinating to me and I love the styles. Lost was probably my favourite, after watching it for 6 years week in week out it was a huge investment of my time and I think it was worth it. People said it was too confusing but I think the complexity of the story and the characters was what attracted me to it.

3. Favourite movie/television character ever?

Probably Tyler Durden from Fight Club, the ultimate rebel. The whole point of his character is he’s what we all want to be like, free from “society” and the commercial nature of life.

4. Favourite quote from a film/show?

“You’re only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!” – Michael Caine, The Italian Job 5. Who would you want to play you in a movie of your life.

It depends entirely on how my life goes, if it’s a comedy full of laughter I’d like a young Jim Carrey, if it’s dramatic Leonardo DiCaprio. If I had to choose one it would be Paul Newman in his prime.

News The Lord of the rings Cinematographer, Andrew Lesnie, has died at the age of 59. The Australian-born cinematographer worked on a number of films such as King Kong, the Hobbit and the Water Diviner, although his most successful work was with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. In 2002 he earned one of the 17 Oscars that were awarded to The Lord of the Rings films. It’s reported Lesnie died in his home of a heart

attack on the afternoon of Monday April 27th . Actor Russel Crow became good friends with Lesnie after working together on The Water Diviner; he turned to Twitter to share his devastation about the loss saying ‘Devastating news from home. The master of the light, genius Andrew Lesnie has passed on.’ With an impressive body of work the world of film will suffer after losing Mr. Lesnie

By Michael Gallacher

A sequel has been announced to the surprise hit Kingsman: Secret Service. The film took over $400million worldwide, a figure that surprised even 20th Century Fox. Director Matthew Vaughan was open from the start about his hopes for a sequel and it is now being reported that Fox have given the green light for a follow up. Although the first film contained a pretty major character death it is expected that this could be

worked around with some flashbacks or even by the work of some kind of gadget. There’s also plenty of supporting characters whose storylines a sequel would have the opportunity to develop.

Fans of the spy flick will have to wait a while though as Matthew Vaughan is currently tied up with a new Flash Gordon film and comicbook adaptation The Golden Age.

By Angus MacDonald Amy Winehouse’s family have criticised the upcoming documentary about her life.

They believe that the documentary about the singer, who died in 2011 at the age of 27, portrays them in a negative fashion and that some aspects are not totally accurate.

Director, Asif Kapadia, has been slated by the family, who are no longer associating themselves with the documentary, which portrays Winehouse’s problems with drug and alcohol abuse that ultimately led to her death. The family initially supported the documentary, but they now feel that it suggests that they were not there for Amy, with her

father being particularly upset. They are also unhappy with some of the allegations made towards them in the documentary.

The family released a statement saying, “The film suggests for instance that not enough was done for Amy, that her family and management pushed her into performing or did not do enough to help her.” Her father Mitch Winehouse also spoke to the Sun on Sunday, “I felt sick when I watched it for the first time. Amy would be furious. This is not what she would have wanted.”

The documentary is set to be released on July 3 2015.

By Georgina Smith Suicide Squad director David Ayer has given us the first look at Jared Leto’s interpretation of The Joker. The director released the picture to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the characters first appearance in the comic books – and it is fair to say that it has divided opinion.

The image showcases the Jokers new look – gone is the painted on smile to be replaced by some painful-looking metal fillings. He’s also covered with tattoos related to the character – including “damaged” across his forehead, just in case you weren’t able to work that out based on the script. Or the acting. Or common sense.

Of course many comparisons were made to Heath Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker, with many people preferring his interpretation.

However, there have been reports that the image shared isn’t the going to be the final look for the villain. Photos taken from the set seem to show that his character won’t actually be covered in tattoos. It seems fans will have to wait until August 2016 to actually see the Jokers final look, but it’s guaranteed to be alarming.

PAUL WALKER A Tribute

By Liam Hamilton

P

aul Walker died in a car crash on November 30th 2013 in California. He was most famous for his role as Brian O’Conner in the ‘Fast and Furious’ franchise. At the time of his death they were half way through the filming of ‘Fast and Furious 7’. He was mourned across the world,by co stars and fans alike.

Members of the cast such as Vin Diesel had worked with Paul Walker since the very first Fast and Furious film in 2001 and had since built up a great bond. It was Vin Diesel, along with other members of the cast, who were the most vocal in the press about commemorating Paul.

Diesel spoke of his closeness with Paul in another interview: “When the tragedy happened, I lost my best friend. I lost my brother.”

Movie producers Universal and director James Wan made the decision to finish the film as a tribute to Paul. In a separate interview James Wan said: “I didn’t feel I had to necessarily finish this movie for the sake of finishing this movie,” said Wan. “I, like everyone else, felt like we had to finish this movie for Paul.”

Wan added “It became our obligation to finish this movie as a tribute to honour his memories and his legacy,” Wan said. “That became our number one goal when we

However, they faced the obstacle of Paul not being there to shoot the remaining scenes his character would be in.

scenes to film be made real. This would normally be in the fashion of using CGI to create special effects which add to the experience. This is the first of its kind where CGI has been used to replicate a dead persons likeness in a film.

The studios reached out to Paul’s brothers Cody and Caleb Walker to help with filming. They look remarkably alike to Paul in stature and facial appearance. It is hard to imagine how difficult this must have been for both his brothers and also the cast who had to interact with Paul’s character but not Paul himself.

Another very fitting and apt touch used by director James Wan, for the dialogue, was to use previous voice clips from Walker on previous Fast and Furious films.

This adds a nice feeling knowing when Paul’s character is speaking - it is still Paul, even though he is no longer here.

James Wan mentions how difficult it was, in particular, for co star Jordana Brewster (his on screen wife) to film the scenes after his death: “It was a tough one for Jordana, for her to try to do the dialogue with him and he’s no longer there - it was just so hard.”

In the making of the film it must have been difficult to decide how to end the continuation of Paul’s character and pay a final tribute to Paul. This would mean choosing an appropriate ending for the film. With filming already started the studios and James Wan already had an ending planned, but after the tragedy of Paul’s death they knew it was only right they changed it.

picked up the pieces and we went back to work.”

For those close up scenes of Paul’s character, James Wan brought in the use of CGI to superimpose Paul’s face onto his brothers’ bodies. CGI has revolutionised that entertainment industry by allowing impossible

James Wan talks of how the studios producing the film had the same ambition to honour Paul with a fitting ending: “They realized how important it was to make a movie that finishes and that just outright is a tribute to Paul Walker. So I give them a lot of credit for being bigger than that and going along with this ending that is the right ending to go with.”

the one used in the very first race between Walker and Diesel’s character in the first film. The two ride off with Vin Diesel talking over the clip saying “you’ll always be my brother” and whilst they’re driving we’re shown a montage of iconic and loving moments in the franchise for Walker’s character. When this ends Walker’s car takes an exit and the film ends ‘For Paul’.

After the two hours of fast paced driving and action sequences the Fast and Furious franchise are known for the tone of the film changes and it becomes a tribute to Paul. Brian O’Conner, his character, decides to give up the ‘Fast and Furious’ life and settle down with his family. This scene shows Paul playing with his on screen child on the beach and the rest of the crew watching on. Tyrese Gibson’s character Roman says “Things are going to be different now”.

This scene has been widely applauded from fans as paying a great tribute to Paul. The song which is used in the scene, called “See you again” by Wiz Khalifa, sold in excess of 2 million copies in just its first ten days.

We are then shown a scene of Vin Diesel at a crossroads. Paul Walker’s character pulls up in the next lane in a bright white car - which is very similar to

Fast and Furious 7 has been hugely popular in the box office, smashing previous Fast and Furious records.

The film has made 1 billion dollars in just 17 days and has surpassed all expectations to be the highest grossing film of the year so far. Surely this is a fine tribute to Paul.

“

Give a girl the right shoes, and she can conquer the world.

“s”

Marilyn Monroe

HOW COSTUMES ENHANCE THE WORLD OF FILM

By Kirsty Morrison

“E

ven a sweater is never just a sweater on film; it is a powerful creative tool.

Interpretable and evocative; costume has stories to tell and secrets to spill.”

Clothes on Film had this quote from an article on how to ‘read’ costume design, in an abridged version of a feature originally published in Moviescope magazine in December 2010.

It reinforces the fact that costumes are essential to the filmmaking process. They are just one of the aspects in shaping the way a film is perceived. They make you understand a character in more depth. Whether it is a costume for a heroic protagonist with a strong moral compass or a troubled antagonist who leaves a path of destruction, the outfits that characters wear are vital to telling a story.

Costumes have been a focal point in cinema for centuries. Ever since the Nickelodeon (the first theatre in the world exclusively devoted to showing motion pictures) was opened on June 19, 1905 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the costumes seen on screen have developed with the times to portray countless characters. The modern Costume Designers Guild was founded in 1953 by a group of 30 motion picture costume designers. According to Richard La Motte who wrote the book Costume Design 101: 2nd Edition: The Business and Art of Creating Costumes for Film and Television, “Before that [The modern Costume Designers Guild], there were a few studio staff Costume Designers; others would be called out from Broadway on a show-by-show basis, usually to do stars’ costumes or largescale musicals, while the bulk of the shows’ costumes were delivered by the Wardrobe

Department Supervisors.” Many years later, the Costume Designers Awards would be founded in 1999, honouring Costume Designers in Motion Pictures, Television, and Commercials annually. For multi awardwinning costume designer Rebecca Hale, who has worked on films such as St Trinian’s and St Trinian’s: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold, costume design has been something she has been interested in from a young age and was what prompted her into that field of work.

“As a kid, I grew up in a family which is basically writers and playwrights so I was always

very interested in the art of storytelling. I’d be going to the theatre to see my aunt’s productions because she was a stage designer. It was a natural love of clothes. My mum was very glamorous and I always enjoyed clothes,” she observed.

“Be true to yourself and be true to the script and fight hard for what you believe in because in this day and age everyone has an opinion.”

Costume designers have long been praised of their creations in films, of which some have received many awards and accolades. At the 87th Academy Awards held on February 22, 2015 at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, costume designer Milena Canonero of the Grand Budapest Hotel won Best Costume

Design. The film is grand in itself, with fancy outfits and lavish cinematography. The costumes are aesthetically pleasing and full of vivid colours, perfectly encapsulating the era of the film. Tilda Swinton’s old dame Madame D is a character who wears a lot of different, varied costumes.

According to Empire magazine’s article on their website entitled, “The Top Ten Movie Costumes Of 2014 (in which The Grand Budapest Hotel is at number seven), her [Madame D’s] “Giant hair from the Belle Époque, hat from the Roaring Twenties and ‘30s-era evening dress equals a sad, decrepit woman still trying to recapture her heyday, neatly echoing the fate of the Grand Budapest Hotel itself.”

If two different films are in the same genre, then they will most likely have costumes that are similar.

Back in the mid-twentieth century, the 1967 crime film Bonnie and Clyde depicted the titular characters, played by Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway respectively, as American outlaws and robbers dressed in smart suits, knitwear, scarves and hats. This type of costume was typical of the sixties. The costume designer of the film Theadora Van Runkle was nominated for Best Costume Design at the 40th Academy Awards. In 1991 the film Bugsy was released, which also starred Warren Beatty this time as mobster Bugsy Siegel.

Annette Bening starred as Virginia Hill. Albert Wolsky won Best Costume Design for his work on the film at the 64th Academy Awards. Siegel and Hill’s costumes consisted of suits, glittering gowns and sunglasses, showing some similarities but also changes to how costume design progressed as the years went on. It is vital to have a structured design process in order to create good costumes.

This will enable you to have a definitive idea of what you want the final product to look like. Hale emphasises: “The most important part of a film is the script. If a script is well written and the story is good then that will really inspire you. It’s a collaborative effort between you, the director, the actors and the production designer. You all have different takes on the script and you work off each other. … It’s how you interpret the script and how you all take it along from there.”

The 2007 film St Trinian’s, about a anarchic school for unruly girls run by outlandish headmistress Camilla Dagey Fritton, played by Rupert Everett, is the sixth in a long-running series of British films based on the works of cartoonist Ronald Searle,

specifically the cartoon St. Trinian’s School. The film is a rebooting of the franchise rather than a direct sequel.

The costumes the characters wear, like in any film, are essential in identifying where they fit in society. Hale attests: “With St Trinian’s it was an iconic film and it had been steeped in history and everybody recognised it. I was brought up with St Trinian’s as a child and so it was very dear to my heart, I understood it as a product. It was all about the social tribes in St Trinian’s. They all had a certain importance in the script. You had the ‘emos’, you had the ‘posh totties’, [and] you had the ‘geeks’ [and] the ‘chavs’. …

Gemma Arterton [who played Head Girl Kelly Opossum Jones] was a classy girl all on her own so you had to make her look different but classic.”

These cliques emphasise the different ways in which they style their uniform in the films, some more conservative than others.

For anyone with an intuitive mind and an eye for fashion, a costume designer is the perfect career.

“My advice is to be observant and true …

Really look at people’s lives … It’s a much deeper issue … what they wear … it’s a bit like peeling an onion; you’ve got to take off all the different layers and imagine their lives. Be true to yourself and be true to the script and fight hard for what you believe in because in this day and age everyone has an opinion. You have to collaborate with other people but still keep … to the essence of what you believe in,” Hale remarks.

With all things considered, that is one of the main things to take note of when working in costume design. If you have a strong vision of what you want to create, then this is your starting point to creating clothing that reinforces the storyline.

That is a “powerful creative tool” indeed.

DAVID vs

GOLIA

Th

in an

ATH

he battle between ndependent nd mainstream cinema

By Michael Gallacher

A

lfred Hitchcock once said “to make a great film you need three things, the script! The script! And the Script!” That’s all very well but few of us have the talent or motivation to follow in the footsteps of the master of suspense, most of us have to settle for simply watching films and this could prove to be more complicated than you first imagined.

Where’s the best place to enjoy films in Glasgow? it comes down to a choice between the consistency of main stream companies like Cineworld and Odeon or the undefinable allure of more quirky off beat locations like the GFT. Cineworld, Renfrew Street is the tallest Cinema in Europe at 6 stories high. With over 18 big screens and high definition surround sound it sets the standard for the consumption of pop culture. However, what smaller independent cinemas lack in height and quantity they more than make up for in charm and grandeur. With the mainstream Cineworld towering over the independent GFT which is just a stone throw away, it’s a story of David and Goliath as the two compete for your custom.

Upon entry to Cineworld you can’t help but shake the feeling like you’ve been here before, an effect described in pop culture as “Starbucking” suggesting that all branded chains have the same vibe. From the dark blue colour scheme of the carpets and walls, to the vibrant red of the staff’s uniforms, it all just feel so familiar. Undoubtedly if you were to be blind folded and taken to one of the 80 Cineworld locations across Britain you would know within seconds where you are.

This strength in brand familiarity is what all businesses strive for and as a capital driven business it’s branding is hugely successful. However, its lack of individuality or subtle charm could be it’s biggest detriment.

The GFT in Glasgow looks old, it feels old, it is old, giving it an air of authenticity. Its décor is comparable to an oldfashioned hotel , giving the cinema a sense of prestige similar to that of the theatre. The style of the

building is obviously heavily influenced by art deco. It’s also very dimly lit on the inside. The compact size of the GFT contributes to a more intimate feel while the few screens lead to a greater feeling of significance and importance, as opposed to Cineworlds 18 screens that lack personality.

The GFT can’t survive on charm alone. Obviously its lack of screens puts it at a disadvantage in terms of less money being injected into the cinema. Its less frequent and often inconvenient movie times gives Cineworld the advantage when it comes to those who decide to go to the cinema at the last minute.

The GFT tries to please everyone with a combination of blockbusters, off beat, often independent films and a few classics giving us all the chance to enjoy the magic movie moments from over the years. Cineworld offers a similar chance to catch some of the old hits; most recently it’s showing of cult Sci-fi favourite Blade Runner sold outdays in advance.

Although both offer the chance to relive tinsel town favourites watching them in an old fashioned cinema like the GFT brings an air of authenticity, as you know that in many cases films were christened in cinemas just like this one. They were intended for a place like this and the grainy 70mm film used in films like the My Fair Lady and 2001: A Space Odyssey serve best in a similarly outdated surrounding.

Most recently the GFT showed a documentary about the life of Nirvana lead singer Kurt Cobain. Nirvana as a band prided themselves on their unconventional and alternative style so it’s appropriate that the GFT chose to show it while neighbours Cineworld ignored the documentary about the

“In one screen sits a piano, ra the me of it a dimen exp

grunge stars life. It’s not uncommon for The GFT to catch the more academic or artistic films that other cinemas miss. Cineworld’s more appropriate to catch a casualmovie, a last minute affair, whereas the GFT’s a treat in itself, steeped in history it makes going to the movies a unique experience.

The GFT and Cineworld both supply you with what have become the norm at all cinema chains, various confectionary and both have a bar/café area. The GFT’s café has a touch of class; it feels unique, individual and very understated. In comparison, in both the bar and lobby areas of Cineworld you are bombarded with overpriced popcorn and drinks as well as all the latest offers, leaving a very commercial aftertaste.

Paul Gallagher a prolific film critic and organiser of the Glasgow Film Festival began working at the GFT 6 years ago and explains why it’s the place to be; “We’re unique, there’s nowhere else where you’ll get such a diverse choice of great films” and he’s right the GFT is one of the few places shows the more obscure films. It has an air of sophistication that depending on what sort of person you are you could either embrace or it could make you uncomfortable, Cineworld doesn’t have this same integrity but it has a more relaxed feel. For lack of a better expression Cineworld has a lower standard, which is often more comfortable.

e of the bigger ns in the GFT an old grand arely used but ere presence adds another nsion to the perience.”

Paul says “at the end of the day it’s the quality of the film, although if the venue is terrible it can ruin a great movie. So as long as the sound and picture quality’s good the content should be the most important factor.”

Obviously the quality in the actually cinema is one of the most important factors. The sound systems in both GFT and Cineworld are flawless and both offer a variety of different screen sizes to suit. In one of the bigger screens in the GFT sits an old grand piano, rarely used but the mere presence of it adds another dimension to the experience.

It forces you to think of a time when pianos were used during showings to add the music to silent films and you’re hitwith the sudden realisation of how old this place really is, Cineworld can’t offer epiphany’s such as this but that’s not to say it doesn’t have its benefits.

Inside the actual venue once the lights are dimmed you could be anywhere. As the movie is projected onto the screen it takes over and completely commands your attention, making the venue essentially irrelevant. However, until those lights are dimmed and the film ratings appear you are completely aware of where you are and the subtle,and not so subtle, differences between the chain and the independent. It comes down to a choice between the consistency and convenience of Cineworld, which will get the job done, or whether you have the time to take in the surroundings of the GFT? Do you have time to look for a film and check the times in advance and relax in the café noticing the unique designs of the building? If you do it definitely pays off to visit the GFT, but if your sole interest is the film and not the experience as a whole, Cineworld is the place for you.

THE RISE OF THE SUPERHERO FILM

By Angus MacDonald

S

uperhero movies are flying onto our screens at a fast pace.

Since X-Men was released fifteen years ago, there has been a noticeable rise in the number of Superhero movies that have hit cinema screens all across the globe. After X-Men managed to gross almost three hundred million dollars, producers began to release that superhero movies were not being utilised as much as they could be. There were several superhero movies that had come before, such as Batman and Zorro but there was a lack of a big superhero movie franchise. All that has changed in recent times.

The first superhero movie was released almost 100 years ago, in 1920, when The Mask of Zorro was first screened as a silent movie. Since then there has been hundreds more created and there are

several to look forward to in the near future. The battle between DC and Marvel has also made the transition to the movie screen, with many movies based on the characters from their comic books.

DC Comics created heroes like Superman, Batman and Catwoman whereas Marvel created the Hulk, Captain America and Spiderman.

It was really at the turn of the century that superheroes, and their movies, became BIG. Although there had been hugely successful superheroes movies before (Batman Returns grossed over $250m in 1992 and Superman II grossed over $100 million in 1980) they had now became the in thing for movie producers to invest in. We have seen almost 100 movies based on superheroes in the last 15 years, with some grossing as much as one billion dollars at the box office.

Generally speaking, the most successful superhero films are those that come in a series.

The Dark Knight is widely considered one of the best trilogies of all time, as it made almost $2.5 billion from the three movies at the box office.

Spider-Man managed to generate over $1 billion at the box office, while the first Avengers movie was the third highest grossing movie in cinema history, the sequel to which has just been released. These movies highlight how successful a genre can be as superhero movies are clearly the big hitters at the moment, with westerns being similarly popular in the past.

Jonathon Hewitt, 24, who works at Geek Retreat in Glasgow, a shop that is a combination of a comic book store and coffee shop, said, “The popularity of superhero movies has soared in recent years. It is really amazing how it has almost spiralled out of control.”

And with 40 more superhero based movies set to come out in the next 4 years, the trend doesn’t look like it is going to stop anytime soon.

Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice is one such movie that superhero fans across the globe are looking forward to with two of the biggest superheroes colliding in one film.

Hewitt said, “I don’t think it is particularly good or bad thing for the film industry but it highlights the

lack of original ideas producers nowadays have.

There are very few completely original ideas and most movies are just remakes or sequels, it would be refreshing to see some completely new ideas that we’ve not seen before. Batman vs Superman is the one everyone’s looking forward to but there are a lot of movies coming out to be excited about.”

Hewitt makes a good point. For example, there will several movies released this month, such as Pitch Perfect 2 and Monsters: Dark Continent, which are both sequels. This just emphasises that the film industrymay be losing some of its originality.

In terms of how it has affected comic book stores like Geek Retreat, Hewitt said, “Recent changes in the cinema industry have not really had a huge effect on our stores. The only significant change is that there are a lot more superhero action figures, with Batman and Spider-Man being among the most popular. But overallI don’t think the rise of superhero movies is a particularly good or bad thing, it is just a phase.”

It may be just a phase, but for the foreseeable future superhero movies are as unmovable as the Hulk from cinema screens across the globe.

“The popularity of superhero movies has soared in recent years. It is really amazing how it has almost spiralled out of control.�

Review

AVENGERS AGE OF ULTRON

By Georgina Smith

A

s possibly the most anticipated film of the year, there was a huge buzz of excitement surrounding Avengers: Age of Ultron. But there was also a slight fear around it, a whispered doubt that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn’t quite live up to expectations.

Its predecessor, Avengers Assemble earned over $1.5billion worldwide, becoming the third highest grossing film ever, and was loved by both critics and fans. It was a hard act to follow. Thankfully, Avengers: Age of Ultron is even better than Avengers Assemble.

The film opens with the six heroes attacking a HYDRA base and their team dynamic is more pronounced than ever. The relationships between the main characters are one of the films greatest strengths and they are explored in more depth than ever before. This leads to some stylish moments during fight scenes when characters such as Captain America and Thor team up to take out enemies, helping to freshen up the action sequences with something new. It also creates some entertaining dialogue between the group and lends itself well to Marvel’s, by now, extremely recognisable style of humour – such as a particularly funny joke about Captain America’s dislike of bad language, which runs through the film.

The attack on the HYDRA base introduces us to the Maximoff twins – Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, who are incredibly fast and have psychic powers respectively. Aaron Taylor-Johnson has the difficult task of making the character his own following Evan Peters performance as Quicksilver in X-Men: Days of Future Past last year. However, he is more than up to the job and, apart from a few shaky moments with his Eastern-European accent, he creates an instantly likeable and amusing Quickilver. He is at his strongest when interacting with his sister, their extremely close and intense relationship bringing out the best from both characters. Elizabeth Olsen is fantastic as Scarlet Witch and it is great to

see another female superhero that actually gets some screen time and a storyline. On that note, Black Widow gets even more to do than ever before and the audience finally gets to see some of her history. This, and her tentative relationship with the Hulk, makes her one of the films highlights.

The groups interactions with the Maximoff twins and their discoveries at the HYDRA base lead to Tony Stark creating Ultron. Designed to be a peacekeeping AI he quickly goes rogue and decides that the best way to keep peace is to destroy all humans. James Spader gives a mesmorising performance and actually makes you believe that this robot has independent thoughts and feelings. The only problem with this villain is you never quite believe he’s actually going to win – but maybe that’s because we know there’s a lot more filmsstill to come.

Joss Whedon faces the difficult task of creating a film that simultaneously brings one story to a close while setting another up.

At the same time he is introducing several new characters (Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Ultron, The Vision, Ulysses Klaue, Dr Helen Cho...) while trying to give characters from previous films (Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Falcon, War Machine...) the screen time they deserve.

This can lead to everyone feeling a bit jammed in, but overall Whedon manages to avoid this, partly by having characters such as Iron Man, Thor and Captain America take a bit of a back seat and allowing Black Widow, Hulk and Hawkeye time to shine. There are some moments that it is obvious are there purely to set up future films (Captain America and Iron Mans arguing, Thor’s discovery about the Infinity Gems) but the film itself is so good that this can be overlooked. It manages to be a sequel that is both bigger and better than its predecessor and is as incredible as its big green character that likes to smash things up.

Review

MONSTERS: DARK CONTINENT

By Liam Hamilton

F

ive years on from the original ‘Monsters’ film and it still faces the same problem - the lack of monsters. The alien monsters threatening the destruction of earth is more of a backdrop to the story rather than the actual main story - as the title implies. It’s like WW2 to Casablanca. So, a misleading title to kick off.

Monsters: Dark Continent is based 10 years after the original film where aliens have spread to the middle east and the army’s mission is to rescue four marines from an area plagued with insurgents.

Original film Director Gareth Edwards (better known for Godzilla) lends his name to this sequel as a producer, but none of the storyline or dialogue which made the first ‘Monsters’ watchable are present here.

Poor dialogue makes the characters lack individuality and blend into one another. This means the viewer is not engaged with the different characters and will likely not care about their fate. This is a shame as the film includes some up and coming British actors such as Joe Dempsie from ‘Game of Thrones’ who definitely have the ability to add more to the film.

Going for a rustic camera feel to immerse the viewer is an ambitious move but unfortunately in this instanceit doesn’t have the desired effect. The viewer is left confused and disorientated and rather than bringing them

closer with the story it makes them lose touch with what is going on.

The one saving grace of ‘Monsters: Dark Continent’ is that, although the rest of the movie feels low budget, the cinematography and special effects are brilliant. The landscape and monsters (which may as well be landscape) look real and help the viewer forget about all the clichés and linear characters, well at least until someone starts speaking again. It’s just not enough to save the movie.

It feels like the film is trying to replicate ‘Cloverfield’ - a film based in New York where an unknown monster reeks havoc on the city, but instead of focusing mostly on the monster the film focus’ on the human relationships throughout the film. This is the kind of effect ‘Monsters: Dark Continent’ is trying to have but in ‘Cloverfield’ the monster directly affects what happens to the characters and the characters themselves feel realistic. In this film, the monsters may as well be a backdrop and the characters feel plastic.

This movie is not something I would recommend to go and see. However, if you’re completely determined to go and see it then don’t expect too much monster involvement or character realism: expect the opposite.

Review

THE GOOD LIE

By Angus MacDonald

Y

ou would be forgiven for thinking that ‘The Good Lie’ is like many other ‘Western’movies, with the American girl (Reece Witherspoon) being the saviour. However, it is in fact three refugees from Sudan that are the real stars.

‘The Good Lie’ is based on true events and takes the audience back to the 1980s, when a civil war was breaking out in Sudan. At the start it focuses on six children who all escape as their village is attacked and houses are set on fire by soldiers, with these six being the only survivors. They need to run away in order to survive. The children stumble across another large group of people running from the soldiers and follow them in the hope they will reach safety in a refugee camp in Kenya.

Eventually, after walking hundreds of miles they make it, with a few casualties along the way. There are only four of them left by the end.

The film then fast forwards 13 years and the children are now adults. As they start to lose hope of ever leaving, the four that are left have their names put on ‘the list’ to leave for America. Enter Reece Witherspoon. There’s a problem though. The one girl is separated from the three boys. The movie centres round them reuniting. The ending is emotional, but the movie has a strong message about how we take things for granted and how selfish we can be.

What stands out is it feels so real. The acting from ‘the Lost Boys’ as they are referred to, is so genuine. As children they need to steal food from jaguars and drink their own urine

in order to survive while as adults their joy when they are finally told they are leaving is completely believable.

The performances from Arnold Oceng (Mamere), Ger Duany (Jeremiah) and Emmanuel Jal (Paul) make the Good Lie a really interesting watch, as they are fascinated by the strange Western culture.

The fact that the heroes are African is a refreshing touch as well. There are also scenes like when they have their first McDonalds which is a nice touch. It is the little scenes like that which makes the film.

They find their first joke hilarious (why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side). They also have their first experience with drugs alongside many other first times.

It is these moments which really make the movie.

The Good Lie tackles a very serious subject and it does well to raise awareness of the Lost Boys of Sudan and shows the audience what horrible conditions the children had to grow up in.

However, the movie does exclude any hardships the Lost Boys may have suffered when they entered the Western world. For example, they find jobs relatively easily and no mention is made of any prejudice they may have suffered.

Overall the Good Lie is a moving film with a powerful message. It is not without its flaws, but just like the Lost Boys, you cannot help but like it.

News

By Michael Gallacher E4 has decided to shut down broadcasting on this year’s election day, in order to promote the importance of voting within young people.

broadcasting for a day to try and increase polling figures for young people. With less than half of under 25s voting last year E4 hopes to boost these remarkably low figures.

The most youth orientated branch of Channel 4s organisation, E4 has launched a campaign advertising its impendingshut down. In a satirical manner typical of E4 they introduce Darren, “the man who keeps E4 on” sitting next to a huge ON, OFF switch. When the polling station open at 7am all that’s to be seen is Darren sitting manning the controls.

It’s difficult to see how this will make any difference to the

The leading TV channel for those aged 16- 34 has opted to stop

Sky has announced that it will axe its 3D channel, just five years after it started.

The channel was introduced with the hope that it would revolutionise the way viewers watched TV but it will shut down in June later this year.

The 3D channel has not been as successful as other options that Sky offers such as the HD channels and on demand. 3D content will still be able to be viewed on demand although Sky has not confirmed or denied if viewers will need to pay to watch it or if the price of on demand will up in price.

youths of Britain. With the majority of it’s shows being reruns of The Big Bang Theory, How I met your mother and the Inbetweeners. With the online availability of TV shows as well as hundreds of other TV channels, it’s hard to imagine anyone who is going to be seriously motivated to go and vote by this.

The dropping of the3D was expected, as Sky stopped their 3D sports channel in 2013, which was one of the main reasons they introduced it. To get the 3D channels viewers also needed to buy a 3D television, which is substantially more expensive than a regular TV or HD TV. BBC also briefly dipped their toes in the 3D marketplace but shut their channel down in 2013, as it was clear it was not going to be successful.

By Angus MacDonald

By Gerogina Smith The Walking Dead star Andrew Lincoln has said he would like to see a movie released, based on the hit series. The actor, who plays the groups leader and ex-sheriff Rick Grimes, told a reporter from The Inquirer “What would be amazing is that you can play with form, time and chronology and maybe also rediscover characters who are no longer in the show. Certainly, with that format, you can do something very interesting and ambitious.”

A movie based on the series would create a lot of options for the creators to explore things that they can’t necessarily show on screen. No watershed to worry about would mean they could have even more gruesome special effects. and a character might even get to say a swear word (because there’s no way we would be THIS far into the zombie apocalypse with no F words). And as Lincoln said, depending on when they set the movie it would give a chance for some fan favourites to return – who doesn’t want to see Daryl Dixon reunited with his brother Merle? For now though fans will just have to make do with the spinoff series Fear: The Walking Dead, which premiers this summer.

SAM SIMON A Tribute

By Michael Gallacher

I

t was once said “We all die. The goal isn’t to live forever; the goal is to create something that will”.

Sam Simon has certainly achieved this as co-creator of The Simpsons one of the most successful and innovative creations of our time.

The father of animated comedy as we know it passed away at the age of 59 due to colon cancer.

Sam Simon may not have been a household name but his cocreationis renowned around the world and has inspired creative minds in all walks of life. The Simpsons began in 1989 and since then it has grown and grown, winning awards and hearts everywhere.

As co-creator, writer and producer of the Simpsons he has left behind a legacy to be proud of, with many strings to his bow, the Simpsons is just one of the gifts he gave to the world.

Starting his career drawing sports cartoons for his college paper Simon chose his career path at a young age. After enjoying success working on shows like Taxi and Cheers Simon hit his big break co-creating the Simpsons. Along with Matt Groening, the two managed to perfectly combine sharp wit and sweet sentiment leading to the success of the show. Although his talent was undisputed he wasn’t the easiest man to work with admitting himself “work turns

me into a monster”. Groening described him as “brilliantly funny … although unpleasant and mentally unbalanced” A hugely successful character, coworkers were yellow with envy at the talents of Simon.

After leaving The Simpsons in 1994 Simon took an alternate route. Using the royalties from the Simpsons he pursued other passions such as Art Collecting, playing poker and becoming heavily involved in philanthropy. In 2002 he started his own charity “The Sam Simon Foundation” which rescues dogs from shelters and trains them to help people with disabilities.

Ending his career with a return to TV, in 2012 Simon went to work as a consultant on hit show Anger Management and was later diagnosed with colon cancer.

After leaving his £100 million fortune to charity, Simon was praised and honoured across the world with people whose life he touched paying respect on Social Media. As Mr Burns would say he was an “excellent” man. The Simpsons in its classic, touching style included a clip of Simon describing the purity of creativity in a recent episode ending with the message “Thank You Sam” Hopefully drinking Duff in heaven Springfield and the World will miss the talent and generosity of Samuel Michael Simon, 19552015

W

hen cable television in the UK, most notably Sky, rose to prominence in the mid 90's it revolutionisedthe entertainment industry. Hundreds of channels including sport, nature, reality and movies. It started a Golden Era for television, with more people watching than ever before. There really was no rival to this level of choice and convenience. Until now.

Streaming video sites such as Netflix and Amazon are the new revolution to the entertainment industry.

For a monthly fee to one of these subscription based streaming services the customer gets access to thousands of hours of TV series' and movies, all on demand - all at a fraction of the cable monthly subscription.

Paul Tucker, former BBC producer and lecturer at UWS University in broadcast journalism, said: "When we moved into an area where people were allowed to delay things with Sky Plus this gave people more freedom. This was one of the reasons Sky was so successful. Now streaming sites offer more freedom."

Gone are the days of switching on the television and having a look at the TV guide; Netflix

and their counterparts can be accessed on computers, laptops, smartphones and tablets as well as through the old school TV. The ability to watch on tablets and smartphones allows the users to watch content on the go. The idea of watching a TV show or film on your way to work or University was unimaginable 15-20 years ago when satellite television came into play. Everything was centralised on the box in your living room.

While this kind of choice may seem better than scheduled programming on TV, Paul Tucker argues: "People like a curated schedule. Something that is organised for them. This means that when the latest show comes on it's a shared experience with other people who watch the show."

Tucker added: "What's better, a song playing on your ipod by choice or a song playing randomly on the radio? I think most would agree the latter."

In an attempt to get the customer to replace the remote with the touchpad Netflix and Amazon introduced exclusive programming - which may well put the last nail in the TV coffin. Tucker explains: "The main reason I got Sky was to see the second series of the West Wing straight away. So people may feel the same about 'House of Cards' or equally any other exclusive shows. It's all about the

content."

Netflix original series only became a game changer when they introduced 'House of Cards' , starring Kevin Spacey, in 2013. This show (now on its third season) was a remake of the British show of the same name from the 70's. Serious investment in the show, especially the cast, helped make this an instant hit - that could only be seen on Netflix.

The popularity of this political drama encouraged Netflix studios to produce many more shows, including the also hugely popular 'Orange is the New Black', and most recently 'Better Call Saul'.

Amazon didn't take long to tap into this market and started to produce their own shows to compete with Netflix and gain more customers. Producing quality shows that can only be seen on either streaming service if you're a member has become a real bargaining chip in gaining new customers for both companies - often at the expense of traditional satellite companies.

Whilst the features of streaming sites seem to edge out the television

on paper. It seems really difficult to imagine our lives without television.

Tucker said: "There is talk of streaming sites making television obsolete. I would be wary of saying that. TV was supposed to kill of the cinema and radio and that's not happened.

Tucker added: "There will be a shuffle about of popularity and everything will nudge into place.

Some people will prefer TV and some not. There is room for everything."

By Georgina Smith

T

he Native Americans have a saying: "It takes a thousand voices to tell a single story". As human beings we have an almost primal need to be told stories, and we consume them in any way possible. From books to plays, films to musicals, songs to paintings, we are surrounded by stories, all battling to be the one that we choose to listen to. Television programmes are one of the most simultaneously simple and complex forms of storytelling that we have. They offer the audience a chance to, for a short period of time, immerse themselves in another world.

One that contains characters that we can love and characters that we can hate. Characters that we can admire or pity or respect or laugh at. Most importantly they offer us characters that can inspire us and we can see ourselves

reflected back in. For a person who is maybe struggling with a certain aspect of their identity, seeing a character that is similar to themselves being successful and accepted can be invaluable.

Everybody wants to see their story be told. However, unless you are a white, heterosexual male it is very unlikely that you will be seeing your story be told.

Around 49.6% of the worlds population is female, basically half. So you would assume that basically half of all series regulars (a series regular is defined as character that appears in every or the majority of episodes) would be female.

However, of the 813 regular characters on American broadcast primetime television only 40% of characters are women – a fall of 3% from the previous year. Of these 813 regular characters

only 26% are people of colour, which again is not a particularly accurate representation in terms of general numbers. To break down that 26%: 13% are black (105 characters), 8% are latino/a (64 characters), 4% are AsianPacific Islanders (36 characters) and just 2% are multi-racial (18 characters). If you compare this to the breakdown of people of colour living in America today, it is evident that television programmes are falling woefully short.

Unfortunately the figures do not get much better when you look at their representation of the LGBT community. Out of the 813 regulars characters only 32 can be defined as LGBT, just 3.9%, although there are an additional 33 recurring LGBT characters. Of these 65 characters in total there are 18 lesbians, 35 gay males, ten bisexual females and just two bisexual males. And if you're thinking there's something missing from there you're right – not one of those 813 characters are transgender. Although the statistics are slightly better with programmes that appear on cable television, the majority are still falling short.

However, there are some shows that are leading the way and consistently getting representation right.

Pretty Little Liars is one of these shows. Premiering in 2010, Pretty Little Liars focuses on four teenage girls whose best friend disappears. They then start receiving threats and messages from an anonymous figure that threatens to expose all their secrets. Although it makes several clever observations on the ways in which we view teenage girls and the pressures they are put under by society, what makes the show really stand out is it's numerous strong female characters. The four main characters, Hanna, Emily, Spencer and Aria are all extremely wellwritten and the relationships between the girls are shown to take priority over their romantic relationships. They are all smart, confident girls who do their best to make their own decisions in spite of the situation they find themselves in. Over the series they are all shown to be in romantic relationships and each are given equal treatment – even though

Emily came out as a lesbian in the first season.

Her coming out scene was one of the most realistic we have seen on television in recent years, in fact it is perhaps only rivaled by the coming out of another Pretty Little Liars character Paige later on in the season. When asked about how he approached Emily's coming out scene the director, Norman Buckley, said: “Most importantly, I wanted the scene to be honest. I think that PLL works best when the scenes revolve around emotional stakes, and the stakes for Emily in this scene couldn’t be much higher.

I remember telling the actors who played her parents to feel the emotion, and to experience the disappointment that attends to their realization that Emily’s life wouldn’t unfold the way they planned, but to never forget that they loved their daughter. “ What makes the shows portrayal of Emily’s sexuality so authentic is that it isn’t her defining characteristic – it’s just one aspect that influences who she is. This is the same for the shows numerous other LGBT characters – all of whom are so much more than just

LGBT characters. But they stand out because they are all depicted in such an authentic and honest way. As Buckley describes, “I think about how can I visually direct this in such a way that it’s honest on an emotional level. Tell an honest story, even with its difficulties and reversals, and people will experience the truth.”

The true strength of the show comes from the female characters. Considering it features so many teenage girls it would be so easy for it to fall into the trap of them all being stereotypes – the blonde bimbo, the queen bee, the arty one, the nerdy one, the tomboy...the list goes on.

Instead each of the girls is shown to be their own individual person – they have layers, they have flaws, they have imperfections. They are the kind of girl you could know, the kind of girl that you want to know. About the shows female characters Buckley says: “I think the show has always been about the women. I would assume that is a conscious decision on the part of the writers, but again—I’m not a writer on the show so I can’t speak to that. I know that I enjoy directing shows with women because women tend to be more in touch with their emotions and emotion is what interests me as a filmmaker.”

Pretty Little Liars isn’t the only show that contains strong female characters. The 100 is a sci-fi series in which the women are the leaders and warriors, and the men are the healers. As well as these flipped gender roles the shows protagonist is a teenage girl who has had relationships with both males and females – and not regretted either. The shows creator Jason Rothenberg told fans: “In The 100, they don’t label themselves. If Clarke’s attracted to someone, gender isn’t a factor.

Some things improve post-apocalypse.” He

also went on to say “Clarke is a bisexual character. Remember that in this society, no one’s worried about it. They’re worried about spears to the chest.” He has also said that sexuality in the world of The 100 isn’t binary.

There are several other shows such as Orphan Black, The Walking Dead and Orange is the New Black that also all contain strong female characters that identify as LGBT. All these characters are making a difference.

Every time a family sits down together to watch television they invite these characters into their house, into their living rooms and into their hearts. Teenagers and parents alike get to see LGBT characters that are accepted, successful and just like you and me. There is always room for more diverse characters though, as Buckley says: “I am a big believer in shows that represent the worlds we inhabit, so yes. The more diverse the better.” But he also agrees that it is getting better, when asked if he thinks there will eventually be a time when LGBT characters and people of colour are well represented and not treated like a novelty he says “I think we are well on the way to that, and hopefully the culture will continue to expand to accommodate it. “. We currently have television shows that depict everything from superheroes to vampires.

Hopefully, one day we will have just as many strong females and characters that are LGBT and people of colour. Because as much as superheroes and vampires deserve to have their story told, the teenager in a small town who feels different from everybody else and like they don’t belong deserves to have their story told even more.

The Battle of the Offices And everthing inbetween

By Angus MacDonald

T

en years ago, the US Office was shown for the first time in America. A decade later and it is considered one of the most popular television series in recent memory as it managed to rack up an amazing 201 episodes and ran for nine seasons before coming to an end in 2013. It was of course based on Ricky Gervais’ creation of the UK Office, with the first two series being extremely similar.

Almost 12 million people tuned in to the first episode of the US Office and the viewing figures remained consistently high (although not quite at 12 million) throughout all of the nine seasons. There are several aspects that made it successful, from Michael Scott’s lovable idiocy to Pam and Jim’s love affair.

The huge potential audience in the US is what made it the success it was though.

The UK Office was not considered a big

success when it first hit screens in the UK and it was not until the Christmas special that it began to gain recognition. After that episode, NBC decided to take it on in America. David Brent, the manager of a paper company in Slough, was replaced with Michael Scott, a manager of a paper company in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Tom Chick, who played Gil in the US Office (Oscar Martinez’s boyfriend) had heard of the UK Office before he knew the US Office even existed. He said, “I was a huge fan of the UK Office. To be honest, I don't know the US version of The Office at all! I haven't even seen the episodes I've been in. I've seen various scenes over the years, but I had very little interest in watching sitcoms back then.

“But I do feel that the UK Office is a seminal bit of comedy for how it's tone and style influenced American television. It is

astonishing to me how the concept of "camera awareness" is so widely accepted in shows ranging from Parks and Recreation to Modern Family.”

And it is not only the US Office that has made a successful transition from UK screens to their American counterparts. House of Cards made the same switch and has become popular in America as well. Although based on completely different ideas, there are striking similarities between House of Cards and the Office as the UK versions of both shows only aired for a few episodes, whereas the American adaptions managed to last a lot longer, with House of Cards currently in its third season. There were some successful reality programmes that made the move across the pond as well. Shows such as Jeremy Kyle proved to be a hit in America.

The simple talk show idea has drawn parallels to shows like Jerry Springer (minus the violence and nudity) which was also extremely popular in the US. Simon Cowell released the X Factor in America after its huge success in the UK. These shows are relatively ‘risk-free’ ideas as they are tried and tested with other similar shows, like Pop Idol, which were successful before them.

However, it does not always run so smoothly. When the Inbetweeners was released as a US version it was met

with a heavy backlash. They attempted a similar approach to the US Office with most of the first series being almost a straight rip from the UK version. It did not prove successful, though, and the show was pulled after the first series.

The type of humour did not suit the American actors and the jokes were not appreciated by the American audience. Another example of when this tactic did not work is with the American version of Skins. The UK show was a big hit, especially with teenagers who related to the characters, but the US show did not reach those dizzy heights and was pulled after just ten episodes. Also, the US version of Broadchurch, renamed Gracepoint, flunked in America and was cancelled after just one series.

In general, there are not as many UK television shows that are based on their US counterparts.

The Apprentice was brought to British shores in 2005 and Alan Sugar replaced Donald Trump in the hot seat, bringing with it the iconic “You’re fired” line to the UK. The Apprentice is one of the few successful US to UK shows, with Geordie Shore (Jersey Shore in the US) and

I wish we had more of the British appreciation for the actual craft of the process. Britain knows how to make quality stuff.”

Total Wipeout being two other popular shows. Several shows have flopped, like Impractical Jokers UK and So You Think You Can Dance.

As for up and coming shows, there are few for the UK audience to look forward to that are based on their US counterparts.

Lip Sync Battle will debut on British TV on the newly launched Spike channel (which also has Breaking Bad). It is based on an element of Jimmy Fallon’s US talk show where celebrities compete with each other by miming to famous songs, then the audience vote on who wins. There are barely any US remakes of UK based TV shows for the American audience to look forward to either, House of Cards and Sirens, a comedy running for the second series, aside. In recent times there have been more UK shows airing straight on US television without the need to be remade. UK shows such as Babylon are now some of the most eagerly anticipated to hit American TV. Chick had this to say about British TV, “American television would do well to learn from British television. When it comes to acting and creating entertainment, America

has done a great job perfecting the commercial appeal. We know how to make profitable stuff. But I wish we had more of the British appreciation for the actual craft of the process.

Britain knows how to make quality stuff.”

The US Office is not alone in its success of copying a UK show, but it is rare that a show will go on to achieve the sort of popularity that it did.

To last on the air for 8 years they must have been doing something right, it is just a shame not all UK to US television shows could replicate that type of success. As for US television programmes that have been turned into UK programmes, the less that is said the better.

“E

veryone has secrets. Everyone tells lies.

Everyone is fair game.”

That is the tagline for the new TV series Scream, based upon the slasher film series of the same name and set to premiere on MTV in June. The trailer premiered at the MTV Movie Awards on April 12, 2015 and had everyone talking, cult followers of the original movies and cynics alike. But can the TV show version really be better than the original film series?

Films have been made into TV shows for decades.

From the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, based on the 1992 film of the same name, to Bates Motel, based on the 1960 film Psycho, the TV adaptations cover a broad range of genres, from supernatural fantasies to suspenseful thrillers.

The Scream film franchise garnered critical success and was a hit with the public. It had a budget of 119 million dollars and at the box office made 604,281,850 dollars. Back in June 2012, it was announced that MTV was in the process of developing the Scream TV series. It was unclear at the time what role, if any, the director of the film series Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson, the writer of the first, second and fourth films, would have in the project. Later Craven was revealed to be one of the executive producers of the series. Casting soon went underway and on August 6, 2014, both the main and recurring cast were announced.

Created by Jill Blotevogel, the premise for the Scream series is “What starts as a YouTube video going viral, soon leads to problems for the teenagers of Lakewood and serves as the catalyst for a murder that opens up a window to the town’s troubled past.” While the TV series is an adaptation of the film series, it will feature a new cast. There will also be some new characters introduced, such as Willa Fitzgerald as Emma Duvall and guest star Bella Thorne as Nina Patterson. Thorne has said she would be playing the equivalent role to the one played by Drew Barrymore in the original 1996 Scream film, and that she would be re-enacting the film's iconic opening scene.

From what we’ve seen so far, there are many similarities and differences between the Scream TV series and the film series.

Most notably, fans have been vocal about the change of the iconic Ghostface mask. From glimpses in the trailer, the shape, colour and overall style is different.

To change such a vital part of the franchise is a bold move from the creators and one that will either pay off or not be received well.

Another difference is the synopsis of the film series and the TV adaptation. The killer’s inspiration for the TV series comes from a viral YouTube video while in the films, one year after the death of lead character Sydney Prescott’s mother and after two students are killed, a serial killer appears and Sydney begins to think the death of her mother and the two students are related. The voice of Ghostface will also not be included in the TV series. Voiced by Roger

L. Jackson throughout the film franchise, his deep, distinctive voice, along with the mask, is what made the character so iconic. On We Got This Covered website, Gem Seddon wrote an article called “New Mask In Scream TV Series Relates To Story; Roger Jackson Won’t Voice Ghostface” and said that THR contacted the voice actor, who revealed his thoughts to the outlet. According to Seddon’s article, he argued, ”I can’t picture it. How can you have Scream without Ghostface? It’s like Friday the 13th without Jason.”

Seddon also said in her article that according to THR, ”Jackson says MTV hasn’t approached him to voice the killer, or anyone.””

Conversely, there are many similar aspects between the film franchise and the TV series. The same crew members who worked on the original franchise are working on the series. Along with executive producer Wes Craven, Harvey Weinstein is another executive producer for the MTV series as he was on the 1996 film. It is also worthy to note that the set-up of the TV series will enable the story to be told over a number of episodes, instead of around two hours in a film. This will benefit the storytelling process, as it will let the writers be less constricted with the parts of the story that they can fit into the series.

The network that the series will be on will no doubt boost it’s ratings and influence potential viewers of the show. MTV has a list of successful shows such as supernatural action show Teen Wolf, created by Jeff Davis. Also based on a film, the 1985 film of the same name directed by Rod Daniel received a mixed reception. Before the TV series premiered in June 2011, many potential viewers were perhaps put off by the title and assumed it would be a cheesy adaptation. These critics were proved wrong however as before the show premiered MTV announced the TV adaptation would have “…a greater emphasis on romance, horror and werewolf mythology.” The show has really proved itself to be worthy of the supernatural horror genre and is a series with well-developed characters and features twists and turns along the way. Hopefully the Scream TV series will follow in the same thread.

Homepage editor of Forbes’ website Emily Canal wrote an article titled “Why MTV’s TV Series Will Likely Be A Success” and recommends watching the original film and it’s fourth sequel.

“If you haven’t seen the 90s flick, it’s worth checking out, quickly followed by the last instalment, Scream 4, which mocks the original and integrates younger celebrities into a gruesome intro that will have you pulling out your iPhone for visual relief,” she attests. It remains to be seen whether the Scream TV series will rival the film franchise. Judging by the media frenzy and the fans’ vocal opinions, we will have to wait and see whether the show will be a success or if it has too many elements that stray too far from the original series’ concept. Only time will tell.

By Kirsty Morrison

Vikings

Series Three is a great addition to the already well established Vikings series. We see things go awry in England, battles across Europe and inner feuds between the Vikings. Most conflicts are driven by or involve religion.

This battle: between followers of Christianity and believers of the Norse Gods. Religion becomes an even bigger influence on the storyline than ever before. There is a real hatred from Floki and a few others towards Ragnar and Athelstan - as Ragnar becomes even more detached from the Norse Gods.

A lot happens in this series. Michael Hirst (writer/producer) seems to outdo himself each time. The scale of conflicts and battles has consistently heightened since the first season. So too has Ragnar's position. In the first series we had Ragnar fighting in England and eventually for Earl. In the second we had Ragnar fighting alongside the King and strengthening his hold on England. In the third we have Ragnar as the new King and commanding other Viking armies (including his own) in the siege of Paris.

As Ragnar's power and Christian affection rises so too does his greed for more. More power. More money. More Christianity. This transformation of character is unexpected

Reviews

By Liam Hamilton

and certainly, in regards to the power and money hungry side of Ragnar, is disappointing to see and will not be popular amongst many viewers.

The acting, especially from Travis Fimmel (Ragnar Lothbrok) is stellar as always. The acting in this show is one of the strong points and differentiates it from similar medieval style shows where the acting is not as good and therefore the experience is not as real.

The acting takes us to medieval Scandanavia for 40 minutes at a time - and makes it believable. As stated previously, a lot goes on in the new series. Don't skip an episode.

You won't know what's going on. Characters change so much episode by episode. Every episode has its own shocking or spectacular event - of which I won't spoil. So the encouragement to keep watching and stay engaged with the show is more than ever, and you won't be let down.

It's Vikings. Only now more disputes, more battles and more spoils for the viewer. If you enjoyed the previous two series' then you'll love this one. Vikings is available on Amazon with the last episode of series 3 just being made available on the 24th of April.

Mad Men Eight years of alcohol, cigarettes and sex, is beginning to take its toll on the characters of mad men as the final season comes to an end. With only 3 episodes left Don Draper, the slick and charming ad man’s, fate is still very much up in the air. Despite his ever cool persona throughout the seasons Don has been losing grasp of what should be important and as this season progress's more questions are being posed than are being answered. Who’s the mysterious waitress? Where will the company end up? And who told Rodger that moustache was a good idea? Mad Men has been praised for it’s subtlety and it’s remarkable character development, everything is somehow symbolic, there are no mistakes. The season so farhas focused mainly on Don as he seems to be losing literally everything, his wife, his apartment, his furniture, one of the most striking moments of last week’s episode was when Don is told his apartments sold, his flirtatious real estate agent says “now we have to find a place for you.”

The audience is hit with the sudden realisation that Don is now homeless and alone as the camera pans out revealing Don, standing in the hallway with an impending feeling of loneliness as his own front door is closed on his face.

The times have moved on and the current and final series marks the beginning of the 1970’s and the characters have embraced this. Both Rodger and Ted are sporting some

By Angus MacDonald

By Michael Gallacher dramatic facial hair and the rest of the cast’s clothing and the furnishing have followed suit. Weiner has yet again excelled in the details, which are, after all what makes Mad Men so enthralling.

Don seems to be the only one unphased by the time change, opting for his usual classic suit and tie. The only difference is his hair becomes noticeably unkempt.

Draper no longer gets the respect he demanded in previous seasons and despite working his way back to the top and becoming a millionaire in the process he’s still fundamentally unhappy.

Although it sounds like a line Don cooked up to sell underwear, money in actual fact can't buy you love.

Three episodes left there doesn’t seem to be any obvious ending in sight and with so many questions, it’s difficult to see an ending that will satisfy the hordes of Mad Men fans. The theme of loss is apparent yes and the past few episodes have been a piece by piece dismantlement of Don’s life as he stands by but there’s no obvious conclusion.

Hopefully Mad Men hasn't fell in the same trap as so many other shows (Lost, Dexter) and made the show so intricate, so enthralling, that the writers have backed themselves into a corner, facing the mammoth task of creating a suitable ending.

Weiner will have to perform a miracle to give Don and the team at Sterling Draper Cooper Pryce an ending they deserve.

Made in Chelsea

The boys and girls from Chelsea have returned for series 9 of the hit reality show on E4.

The return brings with it all the drama the regular characters create, including the mischievous JamieLaing and the one everyone loves to hate – Spencer Matthews. The show has expanded as there are several new characters that are being introduced. Alex Mitton has bagged himself a new girlfriend, Nicola, which is sure to stir trouble with his ex-girlfriend Binky, who broke up with him after series 8 for repeatedly cheating on her.

Other new characters include Millie Wilkinson and Jess Woodley, which gives the show a fresh new look with different faces on the set. One noticeable absentee from the first two episodes has been Lucy Watson, with the popular brunette not starring so far.

Fans have been assured that she will return though.

The first couple of episodes have already aired on UK TV, with drama already being caused left, right and centre. Shock. Binky has already had a fiery confrontation with Nicola, while the first relationship casualty of the series almost occurred, with Stephanie Pratt and Josh Shephard having constant arguments before eventually making up at the end of episode two. D’aww. As for Jamie and Spencer they have been up to their usual tricks trying to stir up trouble and just generally be annoying. Jamie and Andy Jordan are in a battle for the affections of new girl Millie, with Andy already getting two dates with her. As it has been shown in previous series though, don’t write off Jamie when it comes to chatting up women. There are very few things that are guaranteed in life, but you can bet your house that there will be yet more cheating, lying and general unneeded drama from the Made in Chelsea stars in the new series.