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.
I wonder if this is an issue with veracity, a sense of truth in what we're seeing. One of the most unerring examples I remember was 2001's Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, a film with such weirdly photo-realistic animation it made little sense that real actors were not simply used. It's different with physical creatures or aliens, or say Caesar in the Planet of the Apes trilogy, as they can benefit from strong motion capture, but humans? I suspect it feels like a blurred line. – A J. Black5 years ago
Interesting topic. It would be topical to tie it into the upcoming "Cats" adaptation. I suggest you check out Patrick Willems' recent YouTube video essay on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1nQoWnFBSw&t=1264s – Matt Hampton5 years ago
I think it's important to define a "wise" use of technology. How much is too much? Is it possible to draw a line applicable to all films or do we have to take it on a case by case basis? We rush to embrace technology for all of its spectacle and newness, but do how often do filmmakers ask themselves, "Is this really necessary?" I'm of the opinion (for what it's worth) that technology should be used as sparingly as possible. As an audience member, too much technology overwhelms me and creates an emotional distance from the narrative. – fspinelli5 years ago
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
This is a really intriguing topic and can lead to various areas of discussion both from the psychological and physical dimensions of horror that can surround questions involving ones family. I think it would be awesome to also consider how family can also be a means to exploring the haunting of one's individual psyche and identity and their subsequent growth. – ajaymanuel5 years ago
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.
An example of Jesus Christ would be Robert Powell from Jesus of Nazareth. He is so committed in his role that 99% of the time he does not blink. Of course, his line delivery is convincing. In fact, whenever I think of a live-action Jesus now, I think of Powell's performance.
To play a real role responsibly and respectfully, you would need to study that character's life and habits and replicate them to the best of your abilities. Experience in, say, boxing would help if you are playing Muhammad Ali, and having an authentic accent would help if you are playing someone of another race.
A good example of how Hollywood casting ruined a character (and actually disgruntled her real-life counterpart) is Ingrid Bergman as Gladys Aylward in The Inn of the Sixth Happiness. The look was wrong (Gladys had dark hair and was short), the accent was wrong (she had a Cockney accent), and her story was portrayed inaccurately (most of the details were correct, but Hollywood added a love story).
Maybe include a rant of sorts of how Hollywood likes to add (or used to add) unnecessary love stories, even if there was no hard evidence for it in real life. – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
This is an amazing topic! I wonder if the responsibilities change depending on the fact that the character of portrayal is still alive or not. As great as both movies were, Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocketman, I have to admit that I was more invested in Rami Malek's performance as Mercury as opposed to Egerton's because I knew that Elton John is still around. – kpfong835 years ago
I think it takes a lot of research, first and foremost as well as passion to get to understand the person you're portraying to such a level where you almost morph into them. Recently I really loved Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly in Stan & Ollie, particularly Coogan, who went beyond the well-known image of Stan. He could have played him as a caricature. Instead he made him human and relatable to the point where, even though we don't know that much about Stanley Laurel as a person beyond his performances, we believe him to have been as sensitive and complex as he was portrayed by Steve Coogan.
On the other hand we have Renee Zellweger, who although did her research very well, didn't go beyond the caricature level. I know I'm in minority when I say this, given all the accolades, but I wasn't as invested in her Judy as I wished I could have been. I wanted to sympathise with her, instead I found myself noticing the pout and the way she talked thinking "okay, she studied her quite a lot". – danivilu5 years ago
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?
An interesting idea that's not often thought of. I feel like there might even be other factors that impact the experience of viewing horror--not just the location, but also the time of day, and who else is around you (if anyone is at all). – Debs5 years ago
I think the location when viewing a horror film is extremely pertinent in the viewing experience. Watching something alone in a cinema may give a completely different reaction than watching with someone in a brightly lit lounge room streamed to the TV. I think it's dependant on what kind of film you're watching, which influences what setting you should watch it with. – monbronte5 years ago
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?
I think something important to keep in mind whilst writing this would be the fact that there are two sides to this argument. Yes, it may seem as minor issue for most, but different situations affect people differently. No matter how mindless or meaningless this movie might seem to most of the general public, the general message of loving yourself for who you are is an important message for younger people in this day and age. I think Netflix producing "Tall Girl" and them needing to produce content that centers around oppressed societal groups are not mutually exclusive. Maybe it would be worth exploring more the idea of having all the content possible rather than this duality of if you have one, you can't necessarily have the other. – mariannelabrie5 years ago
Following the release of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, the beloved franchise faced a substantial backlash from begrudged fans. Aside the criticisms for its slow pace and inconsistent storyline, the film and indeed the trilogy itself have been controversially criticised for its overuse of nostalgia and alleged focus on socially-driven plot details.
Analyse whether the Star Wars franchise has indeed applied an overuse of nostalgia in The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi or whether the fanbase is overtly critical of any additions to the film lore.
Great topic and right on time after the release of the new trailer (half old footage and half new ones)!
I would be interested to know how people would translate fan interest. Commercial success? Rotten tomatoes ratings? Can we even measure it? That may be a key point to this topic. Cheers – kpfong835 years ago
I think this is definitely a great topic, one that needs to be dispelled as partly true as far as nostalgia's concerned, buy widely false when considering the inconsistent original trilogy, socially driven plots of the prequels, and its overly attached fanbase. – dtsnow5 years ago
I agree with the problem that measuring fan interest will be difficult, especially since the more extreme fans, those that either despise the new ones or will defend them with their last breath, are the more vocal and active sections of the fan base; it will be important to establish a metric for this early on.
Another thing to consider is how could new Star Wars movies exist without nostalgia?In a universe so focused on connectivity, removing any and all references to previous elements would seem to deliberately erase everything that came before. So finding the balance between creating something new while still honoring what has come before is something to think about. – InvertedMobiusStrip5 years ago
An interesting juxtaposition might lie in contrasting original trilogy fans (apparently summarily dismissed by Disney execs and talent alike) versus today’s children (cultivated by Disney without remorse through omnipresent product promotion and programming). Perhaps consult surveys, RT, sales demographic breakdowns, and blogs running census for the figures. – Will Nolen5 years ago
After watching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi (and looking at the plot for The Rise of Skywalker), I definitely feel they rely heavily on nostalgia, besides the fact that a sequel series wasn't really needed. Yes, the prequels were supposedly not great (I haven't seen them yet, so I can't judge), but they at least had a purpose of existing. – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
