Film

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?

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"?

Since its technological and artistic breakthrough in the character of Gollum from Lord of the Rings, filmmakers have experimented with the possibilities and limits of the technology, with varying success. From single characters (like King Kong) to whole races and worlds (like Avatar and several Robert Zemekis films), motion capture elicits anything from wonder in the face of its breathtaking realism, to criticisms that overuse of the technology dumps the audience smack dab in the center of "Uncanny Valley." Why does motion capture draw from critics and audiences such polarizing responses? What films use the technology wisely, and which overuse it to the extent of alienating its audience? Look at both the original instances, like Gollum, and more recent instances, such as Alita in Alita: Battle Angel, and analyse how the different instances work and how they avoid or encapsulate "Uncanny Valley" in their films and characters.

The family unit has been at he heart of both salvation and destruction in recent horror films. Analyze some recent horror movies revolving around questions of family (familial curses in Hereditary, family-making in It) and discuss how the family unit can be a source of both fear and strength in these films

Most actors spend their careers playing fictional characters. However, many actors are chosen to star in biopics, Biblical epics, or similar films at least once. When an actor makes the switch from playing a character to portraying a real person, the gravitas factor goes through the roof, and while most actors will try to play real people respectfully and responsibly, there are some who arguably do it "better" than others. Just for one example, look at the many actors who have played Jesus Christ over the years.

In your opinion, what does it take to play a certain real role responsibly and respectfully? How much of a production team's choice is based on "casting type" and how much is based on say, personality or lived experience? What are some of the best biopic portrayals you've seen, of whom and by whom, and why? Discuss.

Saving Mr. Banks (2013) was something of a groundbreaking film for Disney. The company had done films based on true stories before, but Saving Mr. Banks was the first to juxtapose the story of a Disney classic's making with the story of the original work's author. Saving Mr. Banks met with critical acclaim and is also one of my favorites in the canon. In fact, I'd very much like to see more films like this.

Do other films in the canon, live-action or animation, lend itself to this type of storytelling? Would actors or viewers be interested in say, learning about the personal lives and struggles behind the makings of Disney's Golden, Bronze, or Renaissance films? Are there untold stories to be mined from animators (e.g,, Walt's Nine Old Men, female animators, etc.) and other production staff/voice actors? Discuss.

How does the experience of watching horror film differ when watching on streaming and on-demand services at home? With the rise of Netflix originals, is there still a place for cinema screenings of these films? In particular with the genre of horror, how much is the setting of your viewing an important part of the experience?

A new Netflix original movie has caused a bit of a stir in the land of social media. A story about a teenage girl that feels isolated because of her height, has faced criticism for its focus on what people think is a rather minuscule issue. Does Netflix owe it to its viewers to produce content that centers around oppressed societal groups? That gives its voice to people that need it? Or is content really just that, meaningless content?