Are Films and TV Having a Creativity Crisis?

William Rudkin on 24 October 2023

David Tennant coming back to play the titular character in Doctor Who. Hugh Jackman having one
last hurrah (again) as Wolverine in Deadpool 3. Disney shovelling out remake after remake of their
classic tales. Are we relying too much on nostalgia to fuel our entertainment?


It definitely seems to be the case. Recently, film and TV have been heavily relying on that good old
feeling of nostalgia to itch that spot in our brains and to make us go “that’s Tobey Maguire as
Spiderman!” And yes, I would agree that it’s a delight to experience your childhood characters back
on screen after a long time. But as the entertainment industry seems to be losing all original ideas
for this blatant nostalgia bait, is that particular itch worth scratching?


Let’s have a look at why bringing back old favourites is such a big thing. The idea isn’t new, but it has
been revolutionised in the past decade. In the past 7 years we’ve seen Disney put out 11 remakes of
their classic films, Indiana Jones has come back for one more adventure twice in the last 15 years,
Marvel have been heavily leaning into their “multiverse” to bring back classic characters, and
Warner Bros. can practically smell the money that they will make from their Harry Potter TV remake.
And that’s the reason. Money. And lots of it.


In 2019, the remake of The Lion King grossed over $1 billion. Bringing back Tobey Maguire and
Andrew Garfield as the titular character, 2021’s Spiderman: No Way Home made $1.9 billion. David
Tennant and Catherine Tate’s return to Doctor Who after starring together 13 years ago has
generated the most attention that the show has gotten since Jodie Whittaker’s poorly received run
as the Doctor. The fact of the matter is that nostalgia brings lots of attention, and even more money
(and as we all know, these corporations love money).


But what does this mean for the creativity of the film and TV industry?
It means a lack of originality.


Film and TV corporations are putting a hefty amount of their resources into their remakes and
resurrections, so less money, effort and attention is being put into new, exciting stories. Of course,
we are still getting great standalone films to this day – the recent successes of Barbie and
Oppenheimer shows that original works are still highly loved and wanted. In fact, it shows that we
need more of them. Imagine the amazing, original, directorially-driven films we could get if the
entertainment industry was not hampered by this corporately-fuelled obsession with the same old
characters and stories.


And will this nostalgia infatuation ever end? Actually, it seems to be slowing down. The Little
Mermaid earlier this year grossed $569 million – a huge number, but much less than previous
remakes, and the film itself received less-favourable views than its predecessors. Similarly, Indiana
Jones and the Dial of Destiny made only $375 million on a $300 million budget, and with an extra
estimated $100 million spent on promotion, it’s a severe low compared to Disney’s expectations for
the film. Personally, I can’t see this deterring this focus on nostalgia bait for a while, with Disney
having planned another 10 live action remakes for the future, but it’s a step in the right direction for
new, original stories to take centre stage.


So, please, move over, Indiana – it’s time for a new age of cinema to take the spotlight.

Rugby World Cup 2023: Once again we’re seeing a two-horse race

Markus Conneely on 24 October 2023

As the dust settles on another epic weekend of World Cup Rugby, the chances of a northern
hemisphere team winning the World Cup for the first time since 2003 look all but over.
England are just about hanging in there, having been blessed with the most sympathetic of
routes to a semi-final. Both France and Ireland expected to lift the trophy, and though there
was nothing in it and either game could have ended differently, the southern hemisphere
titans South Africa and New Zealand prevailed. They showed exactly why they have won
two thirds of all Rugby World Cups. Tournament rugby is unpredictable, the stakes and
pressure are so high. So how do these two nations manage it so often?


For South Africa everything exists in a four-year cycle. They always save their best rugby for
the biggest, most important stage. Fans and administrators alike fully expect their country
to win the cup every time. Much is made in the Rugby world of the dangers of ‘peaking’ too
early, and yet again it seems as if, despite a loss to Ireland in the pool stages, the Springboks
have perfectly timed their push to the final.


The incredible physicality they bring to every game and their hyper-focus on the breakdown
make them a phenomenal knockout Rugby team. Armed with some of the world’s most
devastating backs, lesser teams with weaker coaches may have been tempted to veer from
their forward dominated game plan. But outside noise never cuts through to Rassie Erasmus
and his Boks.


There are few bigger challenges in the game than knocking out a host nation at their own
World Cup, and it’s no coincidence that the South Africans have managed to do this at the
Quarter Final stage in each of the last three editions. They revel in spoiling the party.
Following a helter-skelter opening 8 minutes, France looked like they may blow away their
opponents after a succession of immense collisions was backed up with the most aesthetic
handling. The Boks though, have enough World Cup winners in their squad to fill out a full
matchday 23. They composed themselves at a stage where few teams would have been
able, and hit back with an opportunistic try. This was the story of the half, as two rugby
heavyweights traded punishing blows. France were absolutely magic throughout, and must
have found it hard to believe that they lead by only three points at half time having thrown
every weapon in their arsenal at the visitors.


Come the second half, the tole of an epic first 40 minutes was clear to see. They were
unable to cut through the Springboks’ defensive line in the same manner. Fond memories of
Tokyo and Yokohama surely eased the nerves, as the Boks used all that experience to
manage the second half to a tee and win the game.


New Zealand benefitted from a similar wealth of knockout stage knowledge. Indeed, it was
veteran Sam Whitelock, playing in his 151 st test, who eventually turned the ball over and
broke Irish hearts after a desperate 36 phase assault. He is likely to find himself in another
World Cup Final, and should he win it, he will become the first man to win 3 World Cups.
Few would have predicted that was possible a year ago, when the All Blacks blew a 19-point
lead against England, in the dying embers of Eddie Jones’ tenure. Coach Ian Foster looked a
dead cert to be sacked before Jones, but the faith shown was resoundingly rewarded in one
of the great Test matches.

The victory was as much to do with former Ireland Head Coach Joe Schmidt, now part of the
All-Blacks brains trust, as it was Foster. Schmidt brought Irish Rugby out of the dark ages,
but he is now responsible for one of its biggest setbacks. A first phase try, that obliterated
arguably the best defence in the competition at a crucial stage in the game, had Schmidt’s
blueprint all over it.


The game-plan required sterling individual contributions, namely from Ardie Savea and Sam
Cain who almost certainly had the best performances of their lives. World Player of the Year
Josh Van Der Flier, ever present Peter O’Mahony and world beater Caelan Doris never made
an impact, in the biggest game of their careers.


It’s hard to ascertain why it didn’t happen for Ireland. Some believe in the curse of the
Quarter Final, with Ireland yet to reach the semis at any World Cup to date. A team that had
won everything there is to be won in the years leading up to the tournament, and produced
the goods in the pool stages just weeks prior against Scotland and the Springboks, didn’t
look their usual self under the intense scrutiny of a knockout game. New Zealand, by
contrast, looked at ease throughout. They have been there and done it before. The fact
Ireland had beaten them three times in their last four meetings was utterly irrelevant to a
nation that goes the distance in World Cups almost every time.


Barring nothing short of a Rugby miracle, England and Argentina too will exit the
tournament and the final will see old foes do battle once more. Another World Cup where
the Northern Hemisphere nations were simply the appetisers, eaten and done away with
before the real main course business began, looks likely. That said, Ireland and France will
only get better. They have some fantastic players coming through, and will take some
beating four years down the line in Australia. England too, will surely be improved.
But the privilege of having players who have been there and done it in the knockout stages
cannot be understated. That experience, in games of the finest margins, is the difference
between progression or not. It is not something you can fake, or stumble upon. It must be
earned. For now, South Africa and New Zealand will continue to have that advantage, until a
team good enough comes along and rips it off them.

Social media warriors are wading in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and it’s harmful for everyone

Katie Hudson on 24 October 2023

The events which have unfolded over the past few weeks are heartbreaking and devastating for all those involved. The loss of life and human rights violations which we have seen in the news bear a heavy weight upon readers and the journalists alike. Naturally, being such a heavily politicised topic, we all have something to say about it – and while political debate is healthy and to be encouraged, sharing deeply misinformed commentary in a sudden spur of passion is not.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a recent phenomenon – it has a deeply complex history which can be traced back to before the First World War. In 1917 Britain liberated Palestine from the Ottoman Empire – establishing the British Mandate of Palestine, and promised Palestinians the future establishment of an independent Arab state. Although no formal declarations were ever made, British correspondence with Arab leaders between 1915-1916 implied that Palestine would be included. Less than two years later, Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration formally promised the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the state of Palestine.

It is here the main problem arises – the British promised Palestine to both Palestinians and to Jewish people as a new homeland. By 1918 these conflicting hopes were backed by strong nationalist movements – Palestinian Nationalism and Zionism.

Throughout the British Mandate period, Palestine experienced significant population growth – from increases in Palestine’s indigenous population as well as Jewish migration. Competition for land ownership amongst an increasing population heightened nationalist tensions, and in some cases led to riots and ethnic violence. Because the British Mandate of Palestine was always intended to be a temporary measure of governance, the United Nations (UN) devised UN Resolution 181 – the partition plan for Palestine. This called for the division of Palestine into one Jewish and one Arab state – a controversial idea which led to a catastrophic war between Palestinians and Jews in 1948.

This brings us to the present day. For decades the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been centered around the struggle for statehood and national identity. It is a conflict concerning ethnic national identity, not a conflict of religion. There is no place for antisemitism. There is no place for islamophobia.

More and more of us are using social media to access the news. A survey from statista.com breaks down just how reliant we have become on social media – 78, 65, 61, and 55 per cent of respondents from Nigeria, Chile, Greece, and Hong Kong respectively use social media to access the news. Granted, not all of these respondents entirely trust what they view – however, they continue to access the news in this way. In countries including Poland, Croatia, and Portugal, over 50 per cent of adults admitted to getting their news from social media.

As we become increasingly dependent on social media for our political education, it is vital that what we share and view is based on fact not fiction.

Designated a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, Japan, and Egypt – the Islamist militant organisation ‘Hamas’ is not representative of the Palestinian people. Hamas may have won the parliamentary elections in Gaza in 2006, however, no free elections have taken place there since. The most recent poll from July 2023 found that 70% of Gazans would prefer the governance of Palestinian Authority (PA) which is a governing body under the secular political party of ‘Fatah’.

The portrayal of recent events in Palestine and Israel on social media is worrying. Supporting Hamas’ attack on Israel as they murder, rape, and abduct Israeli men, women, and children is not being pro-Palestine – it is being antisemitic. Supporting the Israeli government’s retaliation as it bombs innocent civilians and terminates vital supplies of electricity, gas, water, and food in Palestine is not being pro-Israel – it is being anti-Palestinian.

When we partake in supporting these narratives on social media, this encourages prejudice against people in our communities, and it brings about very real consequences. When political activism pages with thousands of followers on social media advocate these antisemitic or anti-Palestinian beliefs, it emboldens people of all ages and of all beliefs to justify and act upon their prejudices. Since Hamas’ first attack in Israel, the UK has seen 89 reported cases of antisemitic behaviour, with 50 reported from London alone – including the appearance of an image of Adolf Hitler on a wall in central London.

The mindless reposting of infographics on social media without taking the care to fact-check them first sustains this seemingly endless cycle of hatred, prejudice, discrimination, and violence. Remaining politically engaged is our best chance at living in a more peaceful world, but ultimately, we will not achieve this if we continue sitting behind our screens, posting carelessly.

On this week: 23 October – from the archives

Josh Elgin on 23 October 2023

‘On this week‘ is a new weekly column by our news editor Josh Elgin which offers a window into the past through the pages of The Gryphon archive. Exploring the events and stories that unfolded during the same week in history – enabling a deeper understanding of the context that shapes our present.

24 October 2003

TWENTY YEARS AGO – the halls of residence Eldon Court, which at the start of this year was evacuated and ordered to close after a damning fire report, was still under construction.

Rob Hamblin reports that the developers of Eldon Court received a backlash from residents and were investigated by Leeds City Council after they built more floors than they had been given permission.

A fresh planning application was submitted in December 2003 which was approved the following year, with the building eventually opening in August 2005.

In January, up to 300 students were told to evacuate and the building was ordered to close after a report by the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service found that there were “inadequate means to ensure the means of escape can be safely used in case of fire” and insufficient means to reduce the risk of fire spread.”

Northend Management, the owners of the building, were expelled from the ANUK and Unipol National Code in May 2023. Rooms were advertised for the current academic year, though universities in the city were asked by Unipol to inform students that the hall was no longer certified by the code.

21 October 1983

FORTY YEARS AGO – the University of Leeds and Leeds University Union created a “positive anti-apartheid” scholarship to pay for all necessary expenses in order for black South African students to study in the city.

In 1983, South Africa was run under apartheid, a system of institutionalised racial segregation and discrimination that was enforced from the white minority population from 1948 to 1994.

The rights and opportunities of black South Africans were severely restricted during this time which led to significant social and political inequalities.

26 October 2007

SIXTEEN YEARS AGO – the University of Leeds asked Facebook to take a student group down after its members were accused of harassing a lecturer at the University of Leeds.

The anonymous lecturer told Virginia Newman and Charlotte Griffiths that they were subject to “wall to wall” comments by students who were dissatisfied with their module.

After a complaint was made, the University of Leeds asked Facebook and the students to take down the posts.

Facebook, which was created in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, had 50 million users in October 2007 and the iconic like button wouldn’t be implemented until two years later.

The platform now has 2.9 billion active users and its moderation policies have been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny, as it attempts to protect users from harassment and stop misinformation from being shared whilst also upholding freedom of expression.

A spokesperson for the University of Leeds clarified that its policy was not to “monitor” students’ social media, but if an issue was raised they said “we have a duty of care to our staff and students and the overall reputation of the University.”

With thanks to Special Collections which is located in Brotherton Library – visit their website to learn more about the collections they hold.

A review of Leeds International Festival of Ideas – Who does our political system benefit?

Oliver Bhutiani on 23 October 2023

The Leeds International Festival of Ideas is in its third year running, and this year it has massively expanded in size: relocating to the Quarry Theatre in Leeds playhouse with a maximum of 850 Seats, and in its line-ups: from attracting the likes of former home secretary, Amber Rudd, to renown actor Christopher Eccleston. It is organised by the not-for-profit, Leeds BID, who work on development for the city centre and represent 648 businesses in Leeds.

I attended the discussion on “who does our political system benefit?” where a panel of recognisable faces discussed their perspectives on the question, and what could be done to improve UK Politics in relation to this question.

The panel was hosted by Lewis Goodall (replacing Jon Sopel), who helped find agreement between the panellists, and brought the debate from topics such as electoral systems to discussion over simultaneously growing apathy and disgust both with the system and individual politicians. Discussion was (as is now unfortunately rare in modern politics) respectful and thoughtful between panellists, and each had a unique perspective on issues raised, and possible solutions for these.

I was surprised that the figure emerging as a crowd favourite was Scarlett Westbrook – a 19-Year old climate justice advocate – whose more pessimistic stance on the state of politics appeared to resonate with the audience. Rounds of applause given at multiple points, including where Westbrook voiced disillusionment with the primary political parties, and when she commented on the cost of living crisis as being avoidable. This attitude was shown in particular when an audience member in the Q&A segment commented on panellists Amber Rudd and Tom Brake “assuming” that questions were directed at them, giving the first response to questions, and having spoken more than the other two panellists.

Magid Magid – former Lord-Mayor of Sheffield and Green Party MEP – voiced strong reservations both to the First Past the Post voting system, and the lack of cross-party dialogue. He focused both on structural weaknesses of the political system, and the worsening political culture – MPs increasingly treating their position not as a privilege, but as a right.

Tom Brake, who now serves as director of the pressure group, Unlock Democracy (formerly serving as a Liberal Democrat member of the coalition government) highlighted a number of representation problems, with the central message that unfit politicians, rather than democracy itself, were at fault for disillusionment with politics. He gave a number of policy proposals that Unlock Democracy were seeking to implement, including Citizens Assemblies, banning of second jobs for MPs, and lack of transparency or controls on donations to political entities.

Finally, Amber Rudd – former Home Secretary and Conservative MP – came out largely in support of the system: noting that it got rid of two Prime Ministers when they were unable to further serve the country, and stressing that during a period of political abnormality and instability, that our system had survived. Although she does not believe in reforming the voting system, as First Past the Post has produced a coalition and minority government of recent, at times when there was insufficient support for one party to form majority government. She did call for expansions to localism with more power to devolved bodies, and was applauded for defending MPs where they have to deal with abuse and threats.

While I was expecting the audience to be made up of mostly young people with particular interests in politics, the opposite would be the case – the majority were working-age to retired: teachers, architects, and retired people with no major interest in politics all made up the audience. One member I spoke to reflected the attitude shared amongst many – the exhaustion of the current state of affairs, and wish to see a reconnection between people and politicians. This intergenerational attitude of course explains Scarlett Westbrook’s popularity, and may worry former colleagues of panellists in parliament.

I did thoroughly enjoy the discussion – I think it certainly served its purpose of educating the public about the issues of the day, and where the solutions to these may lie. If I were to suggest improvements, I think the biggest weakness was the lack of disagreement: as areas where the panellists did not have consensus could be better explored. Equally, while the panel was impressive, the lack of a Labour Party oriented member does mean a large section of current political debate was absent.

But overall, the panel discussion was a popular success – providing a note of hope for an improved political system. This event follows a growing trend of public interest in politics outside of the two party structure, showing us that while the parties may be losing unconditional support from some members, that public interest in politics is not wavering as a result.

What is the consensus on scrapping HS2?

Zara Lake on 23 October 2023

In the Conservative conference in Manchester Rishi Sunak officially announced cancelling the rest of the HS2 project. He now promises to reinvest “every single penny” into new transport projects in the North and in the Midlands that will make a “real” difference. 

This multi-billion high speed rail route was meant to bridge together the north-south divide, connecting northern cities like Leeds to the economic centre, London.

Sunak has now announced that everything beyond Birmingham will now be cancelled, even though it is already under construction. The project will now create £36bn worth of savings which will be switched to more spending on local transport based projects under the Network North scheme.

His words were “the facts have changed, and the right thing to do when the facts change, is to have the courage to change direction”. He has now vowed to create a “Midlands rail hub” that will connect 50 different stations, including building a tram system in Leeds along with upgrading a series of major roads and extending the West Midlands metro.

The High Speed Rail Group criticised Sunak saying he has caused the “biggest and most damaging U-turn in the history of UK infrastructure”. Scrapping a 14 year project that has been plagued by delays and cost overruns cannot just be done because “we’ve changed our mind”. 

A key question would be, what has been the reaction of the North to Sunak’s decision? Collectively, the newly announced smaller transport projects could positively affect a wider area and benefit people in smaller northern towns. Such as Sunak pledging a £2.5billion investment in a new tram system for Leeds alongside a number of other schemes in Yorkshire.

Tees Valley Conservative major, Ben Houchen said “good riddance” to the cancellation of the project as he believed it would offer ”absolutely no benefit” to wider regions in the North. 

Alternatively, towns such as Crewe in East Cheshire that were promised so much now worry about its future. Mrs Mellor says that “the railway was what kept the town running”. The hopes of brighter opportunities for jobs for younger generations has now been left forgotten. Conservative MP of Crewe spoke of his “extreme disappointment” as the HS2 project would have transformed their local economy.

Ultimately, whilst the government has proposed new and exciting plans they have continually been accused of ‘broken promises’ and could be seen to have a lack of trust with its voters. So will these new projects actually happen? After the scrapping of the eastern leg from Birmingham to Leeds in 2021, who is to say we may not have a similar circumstance.

The northern population needs reassurance that transport schemes will take place to improve their connectivity and standard of living in the most beneficial way.

If these projects fall under it will have a substantial impact on the way people vote and view the government from the North.

Is Network North levelling up in action or more Tory distraction?

Joseph Quash on 21 October 2023

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced a brand new transport scheme for the North of England, known as Network North. The announcement was made on Wednesday 4th at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, and follows the cancellation of the Northern leg of HS2, intended to connect Birmingham and Manchester with high-speed rail.

The Leeds line was scrapped back in November 2021.

The purpose of HS2, as part of the wider Levelling Up scheme across the UK, was to create more opportunity in cities outside of London and boost regional productivity. Furthermore, many hoped that such a large infrastructure project would reinvigorate the stagnant UK economy; more than 30,000 jobs have already been provided by HS2. Speaking to The Civil Engineer, the Civil Engineering Contractors’ Association (CECA) stated that “without commitment to fast tracking [the Network North projects] and getting boots on the ground in the immediate future, they will have little impact on the UK’s economic recovery and future prosperity.”

In an official statement on the Government website, Sunak claims that “every penny” of the £36 billion intended for HS2 will be reinvested into the Midlands and the North, providing for a new programme of transport improvements that will benefit “far more people, in far more places, far quicker.”

Of that total, £19.8 billion has been pledged specifically to the North, “on things like connecting its major cities”, according to Sunak. Railways connecting Leeds to cities like Hull and Sheffield are also set to be upgraded, reducing travel times.

The most notable feature for Leeds residents is the new “fully funded £2.5 billion West Yorkshire mass-transit system, giving the region better connections to Bradford and Wakefield” that has been proposed.

Leeds is renowned for being the largest major city in Western Europe without any kind of mass public transport network.

There have been ongoing plans for a West Yorkshire transit system for some years, part of West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin’s “plans for West Yorkshire to become a net-zero carbon economy by 2038”, reports the Yorkshire Evening Post.

Plans for a Leeds-based tram system were originally proposed in 1991, more than three decades ago. The Leeds Supertram, a second iteration, gained provisional government approval in 2001, before being scrapped in 2005 due to concerns over rising costs.

The Proposed 2005 tram route

Brabin herself described the scrapping of the Northern leg as “yet another betrayal of the North” in an official statement posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. In an interview with Channel 4, she voiced doubts about the proposed Leeds transit system, highlighting that there are, as yet, “no timeframes for the money” and citing previous Government rollbacks: “we’ve been promised so much by Conservative government [that has]… been pulled”, referencing the Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme.

Northern Powerhouse Rail, sometimes nicknamed HS3, was proposed in 2014 and was intended to connect Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds by high speed rail. However, the project was significantly watered down in 2021 under Boris Johnson.

Brabin’s reservations gained credence after the Government withdrew its commitment to reopening the disused Leamside railway line in the North-East just 24 hours after the announcement. The reopening of the Leamside line was one of the Government’s “key transport pledges”, according to LBC.

Asked about the proposed Network North projects, Secretary-General of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) Mick Lynch said this in an interview with PoliticsJOE, at the Labour Party Conference on Sunday 8th: “I don’t think any of that’s going to happen. [The Government] didn’t even consult Network Rail about how it’s going to work. They’re now saying that all the money is not there.”

As of yet, the Government has not announced when these projects will be initiated, or when the funds will be delivered to their respective regions.

The question, then, is whether Network North is a genuine, long-term scheme to bring efficiency and prosperity to a Northern transport system that has been neglected for decades, or, as Mayor Brabin puts it, “pure electioneering” for a Conservative party struggling in the polls with a general election looming on the horizon.