Mockingjay part 2 has just come out with the last Divergent movie in the line up for release. Write about the top movies that are adapted from young adult novels. How do they stand up in time? Is their target audience broader than young adults? What similarities or differences are there between them? Movies of interest may be the Hunger Games, Divergent, The Maze Runner, Enders Game, The Fault in Our Stars, Twilight…etc.Of course, there are more out now than ever and the list does not need to be confined to trilogies, so long as it is adapted from young adult books.
This is very interesting. I really like this topic, especially your emphasis on the target audience, and what makes them stand in time. You could even talk about the Eragon series. – emilyinmannyc9 months ago
Oh God that Eragon adaption was infuriating! I like to pretend it never happened. Thanks for your feedback. – Jordan9 months ago
I feel like there really aren't too many differences in most of the movies you mentioned. Almost all of the movie-adapted young adult novels are in the apocalyptic/science fiction genre. Many of the movies all have the same "feel". I still think this is a good topic though! – Dominic Sceski9 months ago
What an interesting topic! One could even start looking back time and considering older (pre-Twilight) young adult adaptations, before the genre exploded as a "thing." The Harry Potter series, for example, or less "huge" films Inkheart or the Narnia movies. Maybe the question is, why has young adult become SO popular as a genre? – sophiacatherine9 months ago
I think "Twilight" would be a good one to talk about. Along with Harry Potter. Those are two series that come to mind when I think about YA movie adaptations. Especially since their Fandoms are so loyal and unwavering. – diehlsam8 months ago
Too funny, Jordan: my daughter's opinion of the Eragon movie "Ugh. Horrible." – Tigey7 days ago
Who are the ten cinematic creators or performers whose untimely deaths have most deeply affected cinema? What is/are their lasting impact(s) on cinema? Which, if any, posthumous advances in film seem likely to have been achieved by these cinematic legends if not for their early deaths?
I like this topic due to there being so many different direction in which the writer of this article can delve into. I cannot wait to see what people come up with. Very nicely done. – danielle5773 days ago
Sherwood Anderson’s Winesburg, Ohio – a collection of short stories – presents what the authors refers to as "grotesques," people who harm themselves by believing in one truth or ideal while ignoring all others. The eight-Oscar-winning film, "From Here to Eternity," seems to follow the same theme. Which characters in the film are "grotesques?" To what truth or ideal does each "grotesque" cling? What truth(s) or ideal(s) do(es) each "grotesque" ignore? How do these characters suffer for their constrained beliefs? How would each character – if they expanded their beliefs – not only reduce their own suffering, but better their own life, as well as (perhaps) others?
I'll pm you. I don't want to suggest/state too much and steal an epiphany from someone. – Tigey3 days ago
Danielle, I'm assuming my email clarified things, so I marked fixed. If not... oops. I can always try again. – Tigey3 days ago
A recent conversation with a friend about his strange, meaningful dreams led to a conversation about dream theory. Which films, current or not, use significant dream sequences, and what messages do those dream sequences convey? What symbols and metaphors appear in the dreams? What messages are conveyed via this imagery? Which dream theory or theories are employed by these film makers? And, last, how – if at all – does a film maker’s cultural and religious background affect her film presentation of dreams? A list of films to consider might include Un Chien Andalu, Spellbound, 3 Women, The Wizard of Oz, 8-1/2, Waking Life, Living in Oblivion, Inception, and Kurosawa’s Dreams.
Do you notice how a movie can feature one death after another and there is not one shriek from a member of the audience until the killing of an animal occurs? Why does the audience accept the loss of human life yet become upset and unsettled when a dog is shot to death? Is it a matter of innocence? The animal lacking the same mental faculties as the human and therefore placing it in an inferior, and therefore more sympathetic position? This is a phenomenon I have witnessed countless times across a number of different audiences, and I, too, have the exact same reaction. Another interesting aspect is when the victim is an infant or young child, though still in the process of development, clearly superior to a dog, but still conjuring a higher level of sympathy. This leads back to my prior questions: is this a matter of inferiority? A matter of innocence? Please discuss whether or not you have witnessed similar reactions and what is your thinking behind this disparate response?
It might be interesting to look at human babies versus dogs. I would imagine that there is a similar response between those forms of deaths because of, as you mentioned, a lack of mental capacity. Most likely we react poorly because we are socially in a position to protect dogs (and in conjunction with the last point babies as well) so seeing harm come to them is especially hard to watch. Dogs also do not have he same reasoning abilities as humans, which means often they are blissfully unaware of some dangers. – LondonFog2 weeks ago
Well said, LondonFog, and I do like that idea of the human baby, or young child. That would add an interesting and difficult dynamic. – danielle5772 weeks ago
When the charging pit bulls were killed, in "No Country for Old Men," everyone in the theatre breathed a sigh of relief. When Gayle Boetticher ate a bullet, it was a waste. – Tigey1 week ago
This is such an interesting topic, and so important in today's society. I agree with TKing- I think it will be important to consider circumstances and also the connection that viewers have to both the animal and the person in question. – LilyaRider1 week ago
What might also be interesting to explore with this topic is the origin of dogs in particular, as they were bred to protect humans. Shouldn't we be accustomed to seeing our body guards die and more affected seeing our own kind perish? – rowenachandler1 week ago
Interesting topic. I think the audience cannot accept an animal being killed on screen mainly because they are living in "more civilized" society, where various groups of people speak up against animal brutality. They like animal rights and they think that mankind, as master of creatures, should have a responsibility to protect any kind of creatures. It sounds bizarre and sarcastic (because we do kill pig for pork, cow for beef, sheep for lamb.)
On the other hand, we ponder human deaths to be a general phenomenon because of our nature. I mean, our nature as animals. Our society is indeed competitive. There are winners and losers. Like animals, tigers would chase their targets and kill them for healing their hunger. The laws of jungle not only belongs to the wild animal but to us. – moonyuet5 days ago
Cultural background is relevant, too. People from rural areas look at animal slaughter as normal, while urbanites - to paraphrase Aldo Leopoldo - believe food's from the grocer and heat's from the furnace. – Tigey4 days ago
More and more these days we see actors who started out young growing up into very troubled people. Lindsey Lohan, Shia LeBeouf, Amanda Bynes, Demi Lovato; they all have their share of craziness and major obstacles they’ve had to try to overcome. Is this pattern of child actors going bad related to their career starting out early? Is growing up in the film industry influencing the outcome of these actors’ mental health and habits?
I feel that you could world your topic a bit more concisely to add to the flow of the wording. For example: "More and more these days we see actors who started out young growing up into very troubled people," -->"It is very common to see child actors grow into troubled adults." It's the same thought, just simplified. I like this topic, as it is discussed, but more so on the gossip platforms, and it would be interesting to hear what people that truly have a love for cinema and television have to say on this topic. I look forward to reading more on this topic! – danielle5771 week ago
Don't forget Tatum O'Neal. I met her. Very unpleasant. Hopefully she's better now. – Tigey1 week ago
The Harry Potter crowd - Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint - are a good example of child actors who didn't get ruined by their own fame and success. Meanwhile, one of the most startling and tragic story is Drew Barrymore's. – Tarben6 days ago
It's extremely thoughtful but challenging. It's difficult to dig the topic into deep.There are lots of reasons which devastate child actors' life, while nearly no authorized research or paper explores reasons why their mental health devastate. You might refer to the phenomenon of Tiger Parent. But it only exists within prodigy. It's really hard to examine the core issues which leads them to diminish their career and even their health and habits. – moonyuet6 days ago
I'm fascinated by this topic, and it's the family side, not the acting side, that draws me. Moonyuet's insightful comment made me think of chess prodigy, Bobby Fischer, who, because of his hatred for his mother, became anti-Semitic and likely insane. For Fischer, it seems hatred consumed his sanity; I wonder, for these others, what imbalance(s) messed them up and if and how their parents may have unintentionally fostered their child's problems. – Tigey6 days ago
Regardless of one’s personal opinions of film remakes, there’s something rather culturally significant about making a new Ben-Hur in 2016. Since the release of the 1995 documentary, The Celluloid Closet, it has become well-known that Gore Vidal went into writing the screenplay for the 1959 film with the idea that Ben-Hur and Messala were former lovers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxecELnxMYU), which drove much of the subtextual conflict of the story. Though the audience of the day, via their substantially heteronormative attitudes and expectations, was predominantly unable to detect this secret inclusion, today it is viewed as a successful attempt at LGBT representation in the early days of film history.
Fast forward 57 years, to a time when society has progressed enough that homosexuality is no longer the social taboo that it once was and is not at all prohibited from cinematic representation. To remake a film like Ben-Hur at this time presents a world of possibilities, namely that the filmmakers are now able to present the homoerotic tension between these characters more explicitly and overtly than was allowed in 1959. However, based on the two trailers [the film has not yet been released at the time of my writing this], there appears to have been a conscious creative choice to make Ben-Hur and Messala adoptive brothers in this new rendering of the story. One might be inclined to speculate that this decision was made to exorcise the spirit of the story’s homoerotic past, thereby using "brotherly love" in lieu of "ambiguously gay duo" to unburden their hard-core action movie with something that they believe to have "non-masculine" qualities.
Discuss the differences between the two films in this respect. How does it reflect views toward LGBT characters in the film industry, particularly in the action genre? What might it say about the shifting standards for what can be deemed as acceptable and unacceptable film content? Clearly something is a little socially retrograde if a movie in 1959 is able to do a better job of including gay characters than its 2016 counterpart. Might the remake’s heightened religious emphasis have something to do with this? What other examples of recent films might exemplify this phenomenon? Furthermore, what value is there to remake certain films if not to better express aspects that can receive new meaning in our contemporary context?
If there's space in this discussion, I'd like to see some exploration of the encoded homoeroticism of the "sword and sandal" genre generally, beyond the politics of explicit representation. This massive scale celebration of exposed male flesh and sweat, associated with Greek homoerotic pederasty, seems a curious counterpoint to the social conservatism of the 1950s, and yet it existed at the very core of the mainstream. – TKing2 weeks ago
With the latest bunt in the cinematic superhero world, Suicide Squad, it has become clear that critics are collective tired of the ringtone narrative that nearly all superhero films cradle. Suicide Squad specifically, held the concept of ‘fight fire with fire,’ which obviously entails that things won’t work out. Examine the failures of Suicide Squad as a whole and what it might take (if possible) to have another good superhero film like The Dark Knight.
It was choppy, boring, and had absolutely no clear direction. Millions of dollars wasted – Riccio2 weeks ago
I hate to be smug, no really I do, but it is DC and not Marvel. – Munjeera2 weeks ago
The critics are really harsh on this movie. I believe that a labeling theory within "criminals as heroes" is a reason why the movie gets many rotten tomatoes. The initial idea is unhealthy and logically bizarre, thereby the hate speech from movie experts. – moonyuet2 weeks ago