Yes, this is such a pertinent topic, especially thinking about how we as a culture view cinema today. It might even be interesting to look at how the Oscars have been viewed since the start. Did the Academy Awards truly value real art more in previous decades (like the 50s and 60s) then they do today? Why do millions of people (like myself) continue to tune in every year, even when there is always going to disappointment or snubs? Is it all just arbitrary? These are the same questions I ask myself, so this would an interesting debate to look into. – Rachel Watson9 years ago
Many complain that movies at the moment are primarily sequels and remakes of TV shows/movies from the past. Is there merit, story-wise or is it purely a money grab by studios to rehash old ideas instead of trying new things?
I feel like it's a little bit of both. On the one hand re-makes are a nice way to pay respect to the old film. For me it's kind of like a director's cut. If they re-make a really old film today then they can give it everything it tried to have in the first release but couldn't achieve due to limitations in special effects technology, budget, etc. On the other hand, if they don't add anything new to the story-line, character development or twists along the way and really do just re-make it for the better actors/effects then it does not need to be done and is more a money grab for all the old fans to want to watch it remastered and to draw in new fans with the release hype. – Slaidey9 years ago
There are a few variables to consider when asking this question: Who is the director? Who is the producer? What is the film's budget? Personally, I would like to argue that studios are doing re-makes because of a lack of originality among their writers, but I have no professional insight into that matter. If this IS the case, however, then the remakes are just attempts to turn a profit for the companies by producing something rather than nothing. Yet, we also are given remakes that are just as satisfying as the originals (my thoughts jump to the new Star Trek movies). Perhaps this is because of the director's careful integrity to the original films, but it also could be a result of contemporary technology being able to portray better effects. It is risky to play with the story of an older film. Lovers of the original film may not take well to an altered storyline, but they could just as well fall as madly in love with it as the first one. It's a gamble, for sure. Furthering character development would--in theory--be a more palatable method for old fans of the story rather than re-vamping the entire plot. I feel that the new Star Wars film this December will prove an excellent case study for this phenomenon- it is using old material for a new story. – Nicole9 years ago
I feel like it's a little bit of both. We understand that there are so many movies and shows that have done successfully in the industry and have a huge name on every platform. What creators and directors consider in my opinion, while making the decision to recreate or add a sequel, may not only be to amplify that success or showcase the impressive creative media they produced and gives them credibility, but perhaps also to align that creativity with the current time and bring it to an updated level that doesn't make it seem like their productions are all in the past. I think the reasons for sequels and renewing old movies/films is to be remembered and to rerun an old story to bring it back to the world, new and improved or updated, and let the world see it in a different light. – aqsanaveed9 years ago
I think it can be both, however in Hollywood money defiantly seems to be the major factor in any endeavour. I think a key point in any remake is to look at the changes made and look into why they were made. Were they made with careful consideration or just to pander to a modern audience? Some remakes just have the name of the original while others follow the plot with updated and modern scenarios for the given time period. I think remakes are a difficult path to walk, but ultimately I think money is the underlying factor when it comes to remakes because there is an already established audience. – LexzieRulz9 years ago
Between the overpriced admission, and the fact that "I can just see it on Netflix when it comes out," movie theatres could be going the way of records and the radio. Is the Romantic ideal of seeing a movie in public still enough to keep audience interest? Are in-theatre app games and loyalty points enough to keep the next generation coming back?
I also feel that theatres are dying. One thing is for sure, with the advancing of technology, the role of theatres has been diminishing over time. They're not what they quite used to be. Also discuss the role of 3D in keeping the theatre business alive, the ways of localised advertising and its shortcomings, and of course, the extreme ease of watching movies on DVDs, downloading torrents, and even watching them on smartphones and how it's made things harder for theatres. Give real life examples of the decreasing number of theatres and some facts, maybe from Wikipedia. – Abhimanyu Shekhar9 years ago
Another resource the writer could look at is the demise of the Drive-in movies. The writer could compare and contrast the reasons for the closure of Drive-in's in reference to decline in movie theaters. – Venus Echos9 years ago
I worry about this too, because I think watching a film at the cinema is the best movie experience. If only theatres just reduced their admission prices... – NurseManhattan9 years ago
Very interesting topic. I think Hollywood may come face-to-face with unintended consequences when they made "The Interview" film available online, choosing to forego a theater release out of fear of terrorist threats.. We love immediacy and taking things in from the comfort of our own home, and Hollywood uploading "The Interview" online allowed us to do just that. The film also made a ton of money, despite it only being available online. Now that consumers have gotten a little taste of watching newly released films on their own time and on their own devices, will they eventually demand more of this, and will Hollywood deliver? – JHaas9 years ago
Movies are getting more expensive. Still, movies are still making big profits. People still love the theater experience. – Joseph Manduke IV9 years ago
Interesting finding: I went to see Mad Max last (Tuesday) night. The movie is not new, but the house was packed. What made this happen? 1. Cheap Tuesday, 2. This was the one showing that was not in 3D. Audiences are not in awe of 3D anymore; it's just something extra we would rather have to buy. – Nicola9 years ago
So many films have cameos now. The Marvel films always have a cameo from Stan Lee. but this is getting pretty excessive, ridiculous and pointless. So what exactly makes a good cameo now? How can cameos feel warranted within a film? This could make mention of Quentin Tarantino's cameos in his films and embedding them into the narrative slightly and any other director who similarly does this. Maybe also mention the rumoured cameos set to appear in Batman vs Superman and how many of those are going to be purposeful. Or are cameos solely just there as a nod to the fans/audience and are nothing more than a glorified easter egg.
Great topic! This could make for a really interesting article. I would imagine that a cameo is purposeful if it does something to move the plot forward. This being said, I think you'll need to consider whether easter eggs and nods to the fans/audience are truly meaningless. Even if a cameo does not advance the film in a particular way, are there other ways that cameos can add value to a movie or to an audience's reception of a movie? – NicoleEWilliams9 years ago
One of the more memorable film cameos I can recall is the appearance of Marshall McLuhan in Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" (1977). This does nothing to advance the plot -- though that implies the film has a really coherent plot. What this does accomplish is to puncture the pomposity of people who try to sound like an expert on a subject about which they know nothing. It's a very rewarding scene. – jgwilson9 years ago
What makes a film a classic? This article would examine what elements from "classic" films made them so, and if these elements exist in any modern movies. The purpose would be to determine if the idea of a classic movie is dead, or if we're just not removed enough from modern films to tell.
What a great article idea. I suggest looking at films such as Casablanca or Breakfast at Tiffany's for instance.
I would also build on the question and ask what the interpretation of classic is/should be. Does it mean old? old school? old-fashioned? Is an old movie automatically considered a classic? Is it the values portrayed in the film that make it a classic? If so, what values are viewed as classic? – MariaSK889 years ago
Many books have been turned into film or television in the last decade and the debate is always, what's better? You may have people who aren't interested in reading the books and settle for the movie, but do people decide to read the book after they've watched the movie or television show? Or does it just spoil it for them?
Yes, this is a long-spoken debate. This will make a good article, but I'm not sure whether it has it what it takes to make a popular article. Anyway, you can explore the "classic"-ness of books -- that collectors, avid readers, etc. prefer books and have a reason. However, film critics and people like us don't want to consume so much time and the film gives us action, drama, and effects, so that makes a more enjoying and profitable experience. Nevertheless, the book is equally important. – Abhimanyu Shekhar9 years ago
I think you can enjoy both the book and the movie/TV adaptation as two separate stories. Obviously movies can't include everything from the books and sometimes new material is written for them (e.g. The Hunger Games). I tend to prefer TV show adaptations because they are able to spend more time developing the characters and the narrative. However, movies tend to have bigger budgets and are able to spend more on special effects. I usually read the book first and watch the adaptation after and, as a result, I tend to be more critical of the adaptations. People are fickle- some like spoilers and some will avoid them at all costs. – ShaneWebb969 years ago
I think it is always better to read the book first because this way you can imagine everything yourself in your head which will be always better than what you will or have seen on the screen. Books have more depth to the story and a better progression rate rather than the movies and sometimes the movies are just so disappointing. For example, they cut out or leave out parts of the book to save time but really sometimes those are necessary to grasp the whole story itself. I'm a book nerd, I like reading better than watching the movie. – Dilarak9 years ago
Almost always the original, in my experience! – Luke Stephenson9 years ago
Thanks to sites like (link) we know that this isn't just something "squeamish" people worry about. Examine the usage of dog death in movies (example: Kingsman, The Babadook) and its shorthand meanings.
With the increasingly mainstream status of geek culture and the rise in popularity and awareness of art forms previously conceived of as low culture (comic books, melodrama, erotic fiction), do we need to re-evaluate how we use the term “guilty pleasure”? Guilt tends to be attached to activities we wouldn’t want widely known because they’re assumed to somehow be beyond the realm of good behavior. Can these pleasures be sources of guilt, therefore, if they gain mass popularity?
What types of films/TV shows/ books tend to be described as guilty pleasures? Look at what types of works tend to be labeled guilty pleasures to identify common tropes, genres, story types, etc. and track the history of public attitudes toward them to try and determine why they would be considered guilty pleasures and if those attitudes are changing.
In my estimation, the concept of a "Guilty Pleasure" should no longer apply. Of course it could be argued that it never "should" have applied, but now, in an era of rampant de-stigmatization, we should be able to move beyond these deep seeded feelings of guilt and dread. Consider this: "The Golden Girls" is (in my opinion) one of the most intelligent and hilarious shows ever to hit the silver screen; I've spent many a lazy Sunday marathoning the antics of Blanche, Rose, and Dorothy. And for as long as I have watched it I've considered it my biggest guilty pleasure. Why? Because the Golden Girls is typically something that is associated with middle aged women and er..."flamboyant" men (not necessarily an unfair assumption - Liberace did spend his last days watching it). But that's all changed now, or at least it ought to have. This is a brave new world, brimming with brave new attitudes. I could dress in sequinned tuxedos, wear chromed cuban heeled shoes, and spend my days talking all about how amazing TGG is, and I wouldn't be thought a complete looney. I might actually make some friends. This concept of the guilty pleasure is now in decline, and we are here to witness the death rattle. It used to be the case that enjoying something that the majority didn't like was considered a guilty pleasure (the religious right usually helped dictate this). But as time has progressed, the religious right has lost it's power and we're about ready to move on. The point I'm trying to make is this: as we become more open and accepting, opinions begin to change and become more of a fluid thing - guilt is beginning to wane and it is a glorious thing.
– hunterB319 years ago
I think the term "guilty pleasure" still holds meaning, primarily because the concept of guilt still holds meaning. Guilty pleasures are actions that you know you shouldn't do, and yet still do them (and therefore not necessarily restricted to the Film category or whatever). For example, many people (myself included) would agree that Facebook and 9gag are prime examples of guilty pleasures, especially when studying for an important final exam. So although society has changed regarding what causes guilt for people, my point is that there will always be *something* that causes guilt. And there will always be something pleasurable about giving in to that temptation... – yuany49 years ago
