ainjelwings

Contributing writer for The Artifice.

Junior Contributor I

  • Articles
    0
  • Featured
    0
  • Comments
    3
  • Ext. Comments
    3
  • Processed
    0
  • Revisions
    0
  • Topics
    1
  • Topics Taken
    0
  • Notes
    2
  • Topics Proc.
    0
  • Topics Rev.
    0
  • Points
    34
  • Rank
    X
  • Score
    22
    Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.

    Latest Topics

    4

    Consumerism and Film Media

    What does it mean to consume media rather than to simply view it? Are remakes and sequels that are made 10 years after the original a newly emerging form of art, or are they simply a cheap means to make money? Is there such a thing as artistic integrity?

    • Hmm, this is a neat idea given how relevant it is nowadays. For me, I see this a lot with the many video game remasters over the past few years. Movies do this a lot as well, and I think it would be interesting to discuss how some movies that were iconic during their time (ex. 80's, 90's) lose their originality and novelty in a modern era. You can also discuss how nostalgia plays a role in defining what made an original movie superior to a remake. As far as money goes, you can also play the nostalgia card here to explore how producers try to cash in on people's memories of the past by bringing back the classics (via reboots, remakes, sequels, etc.). – Filippo 4 years ago
      0
    • How much of this sped-up aspect of entertainment is a Future Shock-esque reflection of technology, advances of which now making themselves almost instantly obsolete? Will what we consume consume us? – Tigey 4 years ago
      0
    • There is such a thing as artistic integrity; it's rare in hollywood. Maybe mention something which could hold the title of having artistic integrity with something that doesn't, like Jurassic World for example. – luminousgloom 4 years ago
      1
    • Not sure what films you have in mind but the 10 year gap shows how much they are clutching at straws. In a world where it's increasingly hard for the studios to make money so the films become safer; utilising familiar characters/place/story.The industry more than ever demands us to consume. Rather than take a critical view we are bombarded with advertising and hints how to keep enjoying the franchise and giving them money (i.e branded merch) even after you've left the cinema.A good comparison may be how The Hobbit was sqeezed for all it's worth into 3 films. In European cinema the trilogy is rare and completely different. It tends to be centred on the directors personal experiences/childhood (Bill Douglas trilogy, Apu trilogy etc) or may be even more tenuously linked through theme like the Three Colours trilogy, not relying on recognisable characters for garaunteeing custom. It is much more interesting deployed as an artistic device, not consumerist strategy. – JamieMadden 4 years ago
      1
    • Interesting...and you make numerous valid points. One thing that baffled me was that Danny Boyle was working on Trainspotting 2, 20 years after it's original release? Yet, once I looked into it, this was his plan from the very first movie--so, an interesting, planned act of creative ingenuity. In his case, this decision was made many years ago and some madness behind that divine brain decided to wait for 20 years to follow-up that insane, disturbing, yet strangely addictive film (pun unintended!). – danielle577 4 years ago
      0
    • Speaking of films made only for making money, product placement is disturbing. – Tigey 4 years ago
      1

    Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.

    Latest Comments

    I agree wholeheartedly. There is nothing wrong about killing off characters, but there is something wrong with permanently silencing queer people. This problem occurs when a show decides to kill off one of the only LGBTQA+ characters they have, with little reason more than shock value. When you silence these characters, you silence representation and the voices of millions of people who desperately need to be heard.

    Queer Death in Media: Drawing Attention to the Bloodshed

    First off, I love this article. While reading it, I began to think about the role of the protagonist. Is there something about the protagonist that makes us root for them? I have seen my share of protagonists that I don’t particularly agree with, or like, but I still find myself celebrating when they succeed and getting stressed when it looks like they won’t (I’m thinking about Piper Chapman here). There is something about seeing the world from someone’s point of view that makes you want them to succeed. Maybe we, as consumers of stories, like protagonists who are morally ambiguous because they live the dangerous life most of us can only dream of. Maybe we all want to be a little bit bad.

    Breaking Bad: The Appeal of Walter White

    I hate to admit it, but Pottermore feels like a scam. I was one of those fans who stayed up all night for my chance to join the beta and Pottermore, and I let my excitement control my disappointment. Even back when it first opened, it was clear to me that the only “fun” was being sorted, and even that felt cheap: being sorted into one house if I choose “left” and another if I chose “right” feels like a cope out. In fact, I feel like everything Post-Potter has been a disappointing scam, from Pottermore to Cursed Child to Fantastic Beasts. I’m hoping the movie doesn’t disappoint, but with the track record, it’s hard for me to have high hopes. JKR, sometimes, you just have to give up and let it go. Somethings deserve to be left in the nostalgia of the past.

    The Lost Civilization of Pottermore