Why do we give things names?  It's obvious right?  We give things names in order to identify them.  When children are born they're given names usually by their parents.  The naming is the first step in creating their identity separate from all others.  As one's personality develops some people will even at some point receive a nickname to further reflect what they represent.  But, what is a nickname?  First regarded as an "eke-name" meaning an additional name, which later became "neke name" due to an incorrect word division mixing noun with indefinite article, and by the Middle English era nickname meant a known variant.
It seems like everyone and everything has a nickname.  Nicknames can be good and bad, a good nickname can do one wonders, yet a bad one such as one given by a school bully can stick and negatively effect somebody their entire life.  We don't only label other human beings with nicknames, we give everything a nickname e.g. lollipops may be referred to as "lollies" or "suckers".  In cases such as this it seems that we assign nicknames because they are shorter and therefore more efficient than the original name.
Moreover, whether nicknames are providing a more expressive name to a person or making language more efficient I think nicknames are usually a good thing.

It was in 1939 when the world first met Batman in Detective Comics #27.  Batman, Bruce Wayne who as a young child witnessed the murders of both of his parents and feels responsible and dedicates his life to the service of justice.  Wayne doesn't do this by becoming a lawyer, judge, or police officer, no because it's fiction and a comic book instead he funds his alter ego, Batman, a superhero who utilizes technology opposed to powers to clean up the streets of Gotham.  I'm sure everything above is old news, everybody and their mother has general knowledge about Batman, but why does everybody know about Batman?  How did Batman go from a character featured in a comic book in 1939 to a character almost a brand known globally.
Just as Batman the character evolved, Batman as a pop culture icon evolved.  Since his inception in 1939 Batman has stayed relevant hardly ever fading.  Today, Batman whether it be in comics, movies, video games, on T-shirts, clocks, wallpaper, socks, you name and it has a Batman variety all of these things together make Batman a profit generating machine.
Batman is just one example of fiction or story that becomes a brand.  The same is true about Superman, Spider-man, Captain America, and almost every superhero they go from appearing in comics o appearing on everything from t-shirts to bow ties.  And, its just not comic book characters the same applies for characters and such from novels for example everybody knows who Harry Potter and Bilbo Baggins both characters from books(Harry Potter books, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy).  The same thing can occur with popular TV shows and movies such as Star Trek and Star Wars.
This phenomenon when literature, movies and TV, all of which are encompassed by story inspire other literature, movies, TV, and even video games and go from a story to a brand is an incredible thing. I feel as though this speaks to society's infatuation with story that something as simple as a character can inspire books, movies, TV shows, clothing etc.

Language was developed as a necessity, to fill a void, a need, at its most basic as a primal function language allows for communication etc.  From language story was developed.  First, story was told verbally, than written down, than there were television and movies, and even videogames now tell stories.  As a new medium is developed not long after a method of telling story through the particular medium will develop. 
One such new medium is Twitter.  I'm all but certain that you already know, Twitter is an online social networking and microblogging service that enables users to send and read "tweets", which are text messages limited to 140 characters. Registered users can read and post tweets but unregistered users can only read them.  One would imagine that with the limiting factor of only 140 characters would restrict creativity and particularly the ability to tell story through the medium.  In fact, Twitter seems not just more suited for things such as breaking news and personal expression, but only suited for things such as breaking news and personal expression.  However, this is not the case.  Much to my surprise there is such a thing as Twitter fiction which includes but is not necessarily limited to fiction which fit within a 140 character space.
Here is an example of such 140 character fiction:
She asked, “Will she be OK?” He said, “Her brain tumor was the size of a fist. What do you think?” Silence burdened the descending elevator.
Other Twitter fiction authors have told their story using not just one 140 character tweet, but instead multiple 140 character tweets drastically changing the dynamic of the story.  Elliot Holt is one such author.  She told a story of the death of a woman through multiple tweets and multiple characters in the story.  Here's the story.
Story evolves to fit every medium, so what's next for story?
For more information on Twitter fiction and Twitter's evolution etc. check out the video below.

Please humor me if you will and just take a moment to think.  Think about anything your dog, your cat, school, dinner anything just think.  Now, I would be willing to bet that during this brief moment of thought, that you thought with language, with words.  Consider now the idea of thought without words.  Think again but this time try to think without the use of words.  Could you do it?   It's a loaded question it would be nearly impossible to think about a question displayed with words, by simply thinking the question you would have in turn thought words.  As a human beings language is so deeply ingrained in our being that thought without language is seemingly impossible.
However, we do know that while thought without language is impossible for most human beings it is not impossible for infants, deaf with no comprehension of language, and animals.  For instance, your dog doesn't talk yet when it observes cars passing by from the yard behind the fence feeling that insatiable need to chase after them, the dog is without a dog thinking, but it's thinking without words.
Once we are introduced to language it seems impossible to think and or form concepts without it although without language one would be just as well off but would not use language to form thought and concepts but would still be able to.  So, this poses the question as to whether language dictates thought or thought dictates language?  This is where the question gets fuzzy and there is a definite gray area because we don't actually fully understand this idea thus we can't really explain it.  Without digging to far into the works of Benjamin Lee Whorf, Edward Sapir and other in the field of linguistic relativity, we just don't know the answer and we continue to argue the question.
Moreover, thought would still occur without the implantation of language into ones life, but does language enrich thought and concept?  Language, allows us communication, story, books, concept, etc.  Language makes life easier.  Does it make thought better?

Story can be told verbally or be written down and read and now more than ever have its essence captured through motion picture.  Recently there's some form of motion picture for everything whether it be a movie or a cartoon motion picture exists for countless stories old and new.  There's movies based on books(World War Z), comic books(The Dark Knight Trilogy), ancient stories(Troy).  Film wasn't always possible.  Before the 1800's and the invention of the movie camera there was no way of capturing film. 

Just as story evolved to incorporate film, film itself is evolving constantly.  As new technological advancements in film are achieved it gives the film maker more room to work with and more possible ways to tell the story.  Before synchronous sound there was the silent age of film characterized by slapstick acting being used a tool to convey the characters' emotions and the idea of the story, but with the incorporation of synchronous sound into film the film maker was than able to use dialogue, and sound to convey a message, idea, concept, or the feelings of a character.  Color too which is often taken for granted was not always an available asset to the film maker.  The Wizard of Oz does a great job illustrating the effect of color on the plot of a film.  While in Kansas Dorothy's world is conveyed in black and white.  However, the land of Oz is displayed to us in color giving dynamic to the film that otherwise wouldn't be there if the film were done in entirely black and white or color.

Advances in equipment such as portable devices and camera rigs gave film a completely different feel than what audiences were accustomed to by shooting of film on big Hollywood sets.  On sight shooting a different shots while seemingly replicable give film a different feel when authentic.
Digital film and DSLR combined with the ability to use CGI that they come with have most recently effected the ways in which films are made.  In the era of the photochemical chemical film process the film maker could only really do well on camera what could actually be done in real life.  For instance, a sequence in which Spider-Man may be seen swinging by web from street light to street light in New York City could not have been done in the same capacity in 1950 as it was in the most recent 2012 Spider-Man film, The Amazing Spider-Man.  The effect of digital film on the film industry is further examined in Side by Side.

The examples by which the evolution of technology effecting the way in which a film maker can present their story are countless.  The ways in which a movies can be made is changing continuously and everybody agrees but at the same time most agree that the core of the story remains the same. James Cameron was recently quoted saying, “I think the future of storytelling is: You think of some good characters and you have them do some cool stuff that you can relate to and go through hell and come out the other side of it changed in some positive or negative way, and then it ends,” which has always been his story telling process yet he continues to make great strides in the advancement of film making technology on such films as Avatar.http://www.fastcocreate.com/1683090/good-characters-and-cool-stuff-james-cameron-on-the-evolution-of-storytelling

Moreover, while the way in which film can be made continues to change the quality of the story remains relatively the same.  For example, Casablanca and Django Unchained are two completely different movies separated by decades both are still quality films and one can't seriously argue that Django Unchained is a better film simply because it is newer.