One of the biggest reasons why the most recent Beowulf movie (2007) was so disappointing to some viewers is because it deviated too much from the original text, mainly in regards to Grendel's mother and the circumstances of Beowulf's death.
Is it important for modern adaptations of medieval works in film to be true to the text? How much liberty can/should be taken with a text before it "goes too far" and loses the original flavor of the work? Does this liberty affect how people view the original text, and is this an important thing to consider when making such a film?
This is a very subjective topic, and I think the answer lies in the quality of the adaptation rather than its trueness to the original work. A faithful adaptation appeals to those who love the original, but a remake that deviates from its source can keep hackneyed stories interesting throughout the years. Consider Shakespeare: there's an abundance of successful adaptations of Shakespeare's many plays, both traditional and creative. The more traditional 1968 version of Romeo & Juliet was highly successful, as was Baz Lurhman's ultra-modernized 1996 version. Whichever direction is taken, an adaptation's success relies on the same thing as any other film, such as good acting, good cinematography, etcetera. Although Beowulf is admittedly an extremely difficult text to bring to the screen, I think the 2007 version of Beowulf failed because of reasons beyond plot deviation (I'm not a filmmaker, but the acting and CGI are among the many points criticized in that version). That said, the Beowulf text has remained an untarnished classic. A classic text stands on its own merits, regardless of whatever adaptations are made. – NotVanHooten9 years ago
Analyze storytelling techniques of independent filmmaking in the 21st century vs. earlier examples of independent films. Are stories better as technology has improved and become more affordable? Or are independent films more visually appealing but lack depth in their ability to tell good stories?
To make filmmaking a more easily accessible practice has got to be a good thing generally speaking. A lot of film history particularly in Hollywood, France and England (these are just some examples) spent a lot of time as an exclusive 'members-only' sort of world. If young, aspiring filmmakers can produce decent footage nowadays on a smartphone and edit it themselves at home, surely this just widens the net of budding genius directors of the next generation.
There are obviously two sides to this argument - filmmakers that lack creativity or talent will inevitably begin utilising this low-cost production method - but you have to let the bad in with the good. There are some interesting articles about young filmmakers creating feature films on low budgets that have gone on to screen at festivals and even made a name for themselves. – MaireadEllen9 years ago
In fiction, all writers (American ones that is) aspire to write "The Great American Novel" and in theater there is "The Great American Play." What particular novel or what particular play happens to claim the top spot is a matter of heated debate. However, in screenwriting there doesn't appear to be any such debate about screenwriting and screenplays. One reason for this is the nature of film business, where writers have no control over their screenplays once they sell them. Another writer, assigned by the studio, or even the director can make whatever changes they deem necessary. The resulting screenplay may be nothing like the original writer intended, but does that take away from the merit of a good screenplay? Does "The Great American Screenplay" exist or is it made impossible by the Hollywood system?
"The Great American Screenplay"sounds identical in practice to The Great American Novel. There's always a so-called "Great American" anything for each generation. Even then, people's opinions vary too much towards creative works whether novels or films to have just one that captures the definition universally. – dsoumilas9 years ago
"The Great American Screenplay" is slightly different to novels and films because they are never really studied on paper. Even plays, which are written to be seen, are studied in lit classes. You might be able to claim a "Great American Film" by writer/directors such as Woody Allen, Tarantino, Orson Welles. But your right in that a screenplay never really stands alone and untouched because it will always be edited up to and after filming. – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
What would the Great American film look like today? – george9 years ago
I don't think it's the medium that defines a "great American Screenplay," any more than a novel defines the "great American Novel," or a play would with a piece of theatre. Instead, the innate "American-ness" of it is; people say that Steinbeck was a great American novelist because his work was innately American rather than innately "great" in an abstract sense. – Sam Moore9 years ago
Because screenplays are written with the intention of being filmed, they're more likely to be considered in the context of the completed product. Moreover "Great American" anything is a fairly meaningless distinction. That said, Charlie Kaufman's screenplays are often considered masterpieces even before they make it to film. – markplasma9 years ago
Anyone who is a fan of Stephen King's work knows that the vast majority of the film adaptations of his books are absolutely horrible. There are a few notable exceptions: The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and Stand by Me (based on the novella The Body). Using specific examples of some of his book-to-movie failures (Dreamcatcher immediately comes to mind), discuss possible reasons for why his books make such bad movies. Or conversely, compare one of his movie successes (Shawshank, for example) to one of his film failures, and discuss what aspects of the work/screen writing/acting/directing/etc. made the one successful and the other a failure.
When talking about this, make sure one uses the Shining as a reference. How the Stanley Kubrick adaptation was successful, it was hated by Stephen King himself. Wasn't till years later he managed to make it into a miniseries with his vision but was critically panned. Probably showing the difference of how he's better for writing for stories, but sadly his vision doesn't translate well to the silver screen. – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
It's also worth noting that The Shawshank Redemption, while a masterful piece of storytelling and filmmaking, wasn't such a success at the box office, instead making its name through critical acclaim and a cult following that developed. Interesting that the film wasn't fully appreciated or even widely noticed on its release. Perhaps it would be useful to mention this when talking about the general appeal of King's work. – IRBurnett9 years ago
Look into the recent franchise reboot craze, and diagnose the loss of Hollywood originality.
Or juxtapose the loss of "originality" with the increasing demand for the next big thing- perhaps there is a correlation between remaking an old film and finding a new, high-tech way of presenting an old story.
– Amanda Rose9 years ago
Not just franchise reboots, but novel and comic book adaptations, sequels, prequels, and prologues: how franchises overstay their welcome. I'm sure profitability plays a hand in the madness. – george9 years ago
Certainly this trend seems motivated by profit more than a desire for meaningful storytelling. Production companies now weigh the ability to produce a film based upon its potential to spawn sequels. I'd be interested in exploring the difficulties faced by an unestablished writer/director in obtaining backing for a unique standalone project. Would the moviegoing audience have the patience for that? – JohnArthur9 years ago
List and/or analyze different subcategories of ghost movies, i.e. horror, comedy, drama and give your opinion regarding the best and worst examples in each category.
You can have a look at children shows and films like Gasper the Ghost and analyse how we perceive the ghost figure. Is it always a scary and disturbing presence? Can it be friendly? Why do ghost figures keep fascinating us? – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
There's also Poltergeist (first movie not the crap that was the sequels.) – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Found footage is probably the most popular in the current moment, thanks in no small part to the Paranormal Activity series. That popularity probably stems from the invasive feeling it broaches upon the viewer - we are literally spying on the everyday life of the characters. The best I can personally think of is Paranormal Activity 2; the worst is that flick set in Paris - I can't even recall it's name it was so bad. – DocHamme9 years ago
This topic might be better focused if given a point to explore rather than "your opinion", not that that's bad but there are tons of "best/worst" articles out there. Perhaps explore how the different genres effectively use ghosts to present their themes. – smartstooge9 years ago
This is a tried discussion, but I want to know about younger generations. Is going to the theater even an exciting or desirable escapade? Will you only make the trip so you can see a hyped film upon its release date? Are art house films only being subsidized by Video On Demand services, and theaters only doing well for Blockbusters?
This could be expanded to theatre, as in seeing plays and musicals, or if young people would be ready to got to the theater to watch old films. In my opinion, young people are ready to do any of these things, as long as they are interested in the art but that is the same thing with older generations or adults. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
I agree with Rachel on this. This topic could be expanded to more than just movies, but also theatre, dance performances, opera, and all different kinds of art forms and cultural things you can see in theatres or participate in. I, as a first year student in an college that is focused on acting and cultural appreciation amongst the younger generations, would very much like to read your article on it. – AyakaHoshina9 years ago
I'm concerned that the communal experience of attending movies at the theater is a fading experience. When I ask my students how they access movies and TV, the majority stream both. – mbowman9 years ago
Here's the thing: I am 26, possibly considered a younger generation (thank you), possible not (well, I...) But it's my opinion that... Some media - such as television shows- has upped the game thanks to the way that different generations consume media. In the case of television shows, an onslaught of monstrously good television has taken over the airwaves. Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, House of Cards. Series are now subject to be released an entire season at a time, changing the way that media is created. I don't think change is necessarily a bad thing: I think it keeps things interesting. – george9 years ago
Disney is once again releasing a live action version of one of its classics: The Jungle Book, starring Bill Murray, Scarlet Johansson, Lupita Nyong'o, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Walken and Idris Elba…
What can we expect from the film, in the light of other live-action films made like Cinderella, and the others to come (Mary Poppins, Beauty and the Beast)? What standards should it meet in your opinion? What are the risks of turning the Jungle Book animation film into a live action?
In the case of the Jungle Book, it's important to say it's been done before. There have been live action remakes of that film so looking at how they did and what their poor qualities were might help the substance of this article. Neel Sethi will be playing Moogli so it's also important to point out that this film will not only be starring known talent, but new talent since Sethi isn't relatively well known. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
An article on this topic should also include how Kaa's sex has been made female instead of male, on top of Disney essentially retelling their version of The Jungle Book all over again. Perhaps Disney's remake could've used elements from the original Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling as well (Shere Khan being deformed, Kaa having been an ally to Mowgli instead, etc.) that would've made the remake stand more on its own ground and not be a rehash with relatively unknown actors. – dsoumilas9 years ago
I clicked approve, but I would change the angle of this. EVERYONE can easily poke out flaws and to be honest it is just band wagoning at this point to find fault with a live action remake of this film. Sure it has been done before with the Jungle Book, but they were all crap and unremarkable. Taking a different spin like the positives of the remake would be way cooler and way more interesting. Complaining or finding risks in the remake is preaching to an unimaginative choir at this point. No one is talking about how, yes we loved the animated version, but it was soooo racist. This remake could be visually stunning, still have what we love from the animation, but not be classic disney racist. No one wants to read another negative article about remakes, because we all know what they will say and most people already agree with the points. So do something new, fun, and fresh. – Erin Derwin9 years ago
You are right, although the questions suggested here were not meant to be taken as positive or negative remarks, or criticisms. They are here to help evaluating in a neutral way the expectations we can have about this film, what things we would like to see and problems the team could face. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
I think the cast alone pretty much guarantees the success of this film. – JinKobayashiHearMe9 years ago
