Films tend to fall into one or two categories: they are either smart or they are dumb blockbusters. But If one were too realy look at the core difference between the two, it comes down to how the story is written. Either the plot forces the character through a lot of hell, or the character go through hell because they decide to. My question is which one is better?
To me this sounds like a question that depends on your psychology. If your focus is on people, character-driven plots seem more attractive; if objects/things, then plot driven. One thing that seems clear to me is that you need elements of both in order to get the best final product. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
Great topic! However, I don't think that this topic should focus on the fact that plot driven or character driven is ultimately "better" than the other. Some readers/viewers are content with plot driven stories (like fans of YA novels) and others are content with character driven stories (like fans of the literary genre). This also doesn't mean that someone who would enjoy character driven stories won't enjoy a plot driven story and vice versa. To make such a statement, I think, is actually quite bias. What I suggest in approaching this topic is weighing the pros and cons of both, their similarities and differences, and how they affect the story being told. Maybe even consider how if a character focused novel was rewritten as a plot focused novel, how this would affect its narrative structure, pacing and audience reception. – SpookyDuet5 years ago
This sounds like it would be very much an opinionated idea, and would not really provide insight into the analysis of how a story is written as proving which is better. I think rather than stating which is "better", a better idea would be to compare and contrast them, so as not to make such an opinionated statement, therefore leaving the reader open to considering both ideas, without having an opinion thrown at them. – Alyshabuck5 years ago
I'm a big fan of character-driven stories because I like to get inside their heads, so I'll be interested to see where this article goes. – Stephanie M.5 years ago
Given the schism between plot- and character-driven stories/authors, I think such an article could prove useful. Especially one that not only analyzes both sides, but also makes an argument for why both plot and character need to be treated equally with regards to forging a tight and deep narrative that's thematically cohesive. To put it in simple terms, story could = plot + character = theme. – Michel Sabbagh4 years ago
"Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)", was released on February 7th to generally favorable reviews, but the film has failed to fallen well short of its box office projections within its first week. The female lead and female directed D.C. films has been a long anticipated film and is one of the first comic book films to have an all female team (Harley Quinn, Huntress, Dinah Lance, Renee Montoya, and Cassandra Cain). Despite the film's similarities to a film like Deadpool (both films have an R-rating, with a narrator who is known for irreverent humor and fourth wall breaks), it is unlikely the film will even approach the box office success of that film or a more serious R-rated film like 2019's Joker. Despite similarities and common links to other popular properties, why hasn't "Bird of Prey" been more successful with audiences?
Good question. One angle you could take is that audience and critic tastes clearly differ. Rotten Tomatoes review metrics can show this. Go from there after that. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
Good question. From what do have been hearing is that Bird of Prey isn't the Bird of Prey fans are familar with.
It's okay for film makers to take liberties with the source material but if they are to really make it work they still need to make it recognizable.
One big red flag is that the protagonist is Harley who doesnt exist in the Bird of Prey comic. When I heard the title of the movie I thought it was going to be about canary after all she is a member and she is named after a bird for goodness sake.
second red flag is that the film is after suicide squad that was a failure.
The final red flag is that it was promoted as a feminist film and had an all female cast. Now there is nothing wrong with a feminist film, however there has been a big backlash towards feminist films in the past few years.
I never did watch the movie but I knew it was doom to fail. The only reason why I know this is by a bit of research. – Amelia Arrows5 years ago
CGI is to modern films as peanut butter is to jelly. However, there has been a recent phenomenon of big-budget films that have unappealing visual effects turning people off of the film. Why is this happening so frequently? How do these projects get approved and released without anyone realizing the backlash it will face? Think: CATS or Sonic the Hedgehog
Totally an article we need. You could also look at the Transformers or The Hobbit series which rely heavily on CGI. Or, even better, The Lion King (2019).
You could also mention films that use CGI well. For example, The Jungle Book (2016) excelled in the visual effects/CGI department. – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
You could also look into the process of how these films were made.
There is a reason why making a movie cost so much.
Also look into to the treatment of VFX Artists. In the case of sonic, the VFX team were overworked and some lost their jobs and in general VFX do not get the recognition they deserve. – Amelia Arrows5 years ago
Cats alone could make an entire article. I mean, I'm a cat-lover, and just seeing the promotional photos turned me off. WAY off. – Stephanie M.5 years ago
Seems like a significant amount of older films that are historically important/culturally significant have some serious problems in the context of today. For example, Carousel perpetuates the idea that domestic abuse is normal and okay. How are these films useful to us now– can we look back on them and appreciate them for what they are/were, or is that problematic? How should we talk about these films now?
I can see the deliema.
The Disney classics were sexist and racist, yet people love them to the point that they will remake them but with out the racism and sexism parts.
but I feel like they should be celebrated as a way to see how much society have progressed – Amelia Arrows5 years ago
What is important is that viewers and critics such as ourselves be ready and willing to acknowledge and criticize these problematic parts of media. This practice is common in the literary discipline, where pretty much all works admitted into the canon are problematic in some way shape or form, but I feel as though popular culture does not have this practice applied to it. There is a tendency now a days, especially among the younger generations, to reject all media that has any sort overtly problematic element to it. This results in people being unable to discuss positive aspects of problematic media and we as both critics and consumers miss out on a lot of well crafted media or are driven to feel guilty for enjoying it. I would even argue that problematic media is more important to be viewed and discusses, so long as there is an understanding and criticism of the problematic elements, as it allows us to be able to observe our culture in all aspects, not just the positive ones. – IvanBlue5 years ago
One of the important and rather interesting aspects of Joker is Arthur's position of an unreliable narrator. He invents an entire relationship with a female character in the film, which makes the question of his paternity that arises later even more interesting, with questions around whether his mother did the same, based on the reaction from the Waynes when he attempts to investigate.
Arthur's lack of reliability also seems to suit the typical murky origins of the Joker character, as having appeared out of nowhere and not really having a clear "origin" compared to the other characters in the DC universe.
Explore the use of unreliable narration in the film. How does it contribute to the film's overall message? If there weren't these same questions in the film, how would the film have changed?
Feel free to draw on other examples of unreliable narrators in film or fiction, or on other depictions of the Joker for examining this.
This is an excellent topic. Also could look at a film like American Psycho with Christian Bale as another example of a unreliable narrator. – Sean Gadus5 years ago
It could extend even further, you could look at other works based on this like memento, shutter Island, fight club, mr robot. Plus it could also be a discussion about how the audience will side with the character they've spent the most time with despite their actual actions. As an example, despite Walter white's actions the audience still roots for him to win. – Shinji155 years ago
Something to be cautious of or to jump into is especially his mental illness. Some believe that the Joker is a terrible portrayal of those with mental illness, that it’s too extreme. Is there a way to think about how this unreliable narration could be a source of that? That maybe Arthur views himself as worse than he is? The portrayal of himself is very fascinating. – lizzietheck5 years ago
Agreed with Sean... EXCELLENT TOPIC!! It may be helpful to reference characters like the narrator from Fight Club, Amy from Gone Girl, and Leonard from Momento... These are the three most unreliable narratives I can think of throughout any film that I've ever seen. Hope this helps!! – carly5 years ago
The best instances of unreliable narrator I've seen show up in the works of Caitlin Kiernan. Both the author and many of her characters have schizophrenia, and so in any given story it's often virtually impossible to tell whether something's really happening to a character or whether they're just imagining it. – Debs5 years ago
The early forms of comedy in mass entertainment (vaudeville, the Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges) were unapologetically absurd. They embraced silliness. We see that tradition in more modern British comedy (Monty Python, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore). And yet, American comedy seems to suffer from an unwillingness to be silly, as if silliness is somehow beneath us. There are notable exceptions of course (The Simpsons, Steve Martin's early standup), but, by and large, we seem to be mired in a bog of socially relevant comedy, or rigidly responsible satire. Where's the silliness? Is comedy allowed to be funny for funny's sake? And here, I'm referring mostly to film and sitcoms, not to stand up comedians who are as varied in their style as they have always been.
This would be a good topic for one to explore the evolution of comedy in the US; how we went from vaudeville & Marx to more contemporary comedic styles. From there, one could argue whether the decline of absurd comedy is just a sign of the times, or a result of something else. – majorlariviere5 years ago
I would be interested to discover if the rise of the United States and the decline of the British Empire as respective world powers had anything to do with a more collective trend toward silliness in comedy. Perhaps it’s a potential thesis, mere speculation or something else. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
Particularly following their purchase of 20th Century Fox and their gallery of successful IP, Disney now stand to own the primary market share of global box office. Many critics are decrying the ‘Disney-fication’ of culture as the death of diversity, a crushing blow to independent production, and the continuation of a soulless future of endless sequels and franchises.
Is this, however, a fair approximation? Are Disney simply representing what audiences have sought since the birth of the blockbuster in the mid-1970’s and the arrival of the high concept in the 1980’s? Is the jewel in their crown, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, not simply the ultimate expression of audiences’ desire for cinema to be the ultimate escapist entertainment? Are Disney destroying originality or simply reconfiguring the way we engage with culture and media?
This is a great topic. I run into many people who think that Disney is trying to monopolize the market, but I don't think it's an evil agenda. I think Disney, like all corporations and businesses, are trying to do their job and make money. If purchasing 20th Century Fox will help them do that then that's what they're going to do.
Disney has been creating entertainment for years and they are in some ways the standard for entertainment. Finally, if you really think Disney is destroying film and is a terrible corporation, stop seeing their movies. If you really believe that's a problem, you are contributing to that problem by watching their movies and buying their merchandise. – OliviaS5 years ago
This would be very interesting to explore. There's definitely something to be said about one company producing the majority of the content released in cinema, which has the side effect of controlling what we're exposed to, would could be harmful under the wrong studio heads. Yet, it could lead to the production of amazing films, as seen in some of their latest releases. What will the future of cinema look like? – BelletheBrave5 years ago
You could look at given historic eras of Disney history to see if there is a difference of quality. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
Prequels are often seen as cash-ins that don't add much to the original text. For example, even Solo's fans tend to admit that the movie wasn't particularly necessary: it does not add much to the themes, ideas, or lore of Star Wars. But other prequels have offered deeper insight (or counterpoints) to the original text. For instance, Rise of the Planet of the Apes was used to deepen the apocalyptic themes of the main text.
So: what makes a valuable prequel? If a prequel isn't adding anything to the original, then should it be "re-skinned"?
I think there are a lot of really good and really important prequels especially in the superhero genre. X-Men is a really good example. Also I think its important to add spinoffs of tv shows that are meant to be prequels because I think you can see a strong difference in a film that is a prequel and a series that is a prequel. – tingittens5 years ago
"Re-skinning" a prequel is a waste of time and money, especially if we keep getting stuck in a rut (with some sequels I can mention).
I think a good prequel gives enough information without being stuffed while staying faithful to the original. Peter Jackson's The Hobbit series would be a good example of how that did NOT happen (at least in the second film). – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
A prequel can be useful in the case of Captain Marvel where it introduce a new character to a series.
Or it can give a character a back story
which is what they are doing with Black Widow, but It is useless to tell the back story when she is dead.
I think there can be a good prequel but it must be written well – Amelia Arrows5 years ago
As with sequels, adding substantive depth in a way that develops the plot and is stylistically pleasing is vital. It’s pretty much like writing a new story, but with a pre-made narrative to work with and to accommodate. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
