Even prestige television shows require something of an episodic format, and the plot must progress as a series of mini-climaxes and narratives for each episode. One of the advantages of television is the fact that the repetitive nature of the episodic structure lets us see the character in a gradient of contexts. Some recent films and "cinematic universe" projects seem to be following the television model, and place characters through iterative encounters to reveal more and more about them. The Marvel films are the most obvious example, but even series like John Wick are taking this approach. As big "intellectual properties" and sequels grow increasingly important to the success of films, is film starting to treat its characters more like television's and less like the traditional film protagonist?
While it is crucial to note the profitability of franchise in the movie industry, and that has been a huge trend since the start of this century really, but it is undeniable that this television-style arcs have established better understanding and depth of the characters (I’m referring to the multidimensional ones worth dwelling into), consequently audience connections. To answer your question, yes, the movie industry has been going at length to, say, milk every possible layer of a blockbuster. That’s partially, in my opinion, because us the fans are curious to see if the sequel lives up to or outdoes its predecessor. However, no franchise can be in existence if creators are not sharp in stearing the wheel. – LisaV1325 years ago
History has given us many amazing and unbelievable stories which have inevitably been immortalised in cinema for the better or for the worst. Due to the enormous exposure that mainstream cinema can have, many historical inaccuracies have become embedded in the popular public's consciousness. Gladiator (2000) being just one contention. Should films be required to be entirely historically accurate to teach as well as entertain, or is this really the domain where artistic license is, and should be, paramount? Because after all, films are fundamentally works of art.
I think this is an interesting and timely topic--and certainly one I want to read more about. My only suggestion is that it seems, at the end of the topic, that you are biased towards films being allowed to take creative liberties ("after all, films are fundamentally works of art"). I'm not sure if you meant to include your opinion in there or not or if you wanted to remain subjective. – rachelwitzig5 years ago
So sorry--I meant "objective" and not "subjective" at the end of the last comment. – rachelwitzig5 years ago
Yes I do see what you mean. I suppose I more included it as part of the counter argument. Fundamentally I believe films should be as accurate as possible but on the other hand, film is an art form and doesn't have to be strictly educational. – Thomas5 years ago
Great topic! I would also consider the effects of marketing/reception. The public in general has become more and more attentive and vocal about historical inaccuracies and depending on the reception (or backlash) during the marketing campaign and initial release, it can spell success or failure for those movies. – kpfong835 years ago
I am certainly intrigued to see where you go with this topic. If you haven't already thought of it, I hope you consider some discussion of Quentin Tarantino's recent films like Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. While these movies both deal with real world events and people who actually exist/existed, historical accuracy is largely thrown out the window on purpose in favor of creating a sort of alternate Tarantino universe. This sort of thing is quite a bit different from something like Gladiator in that, with a film like Gladiator, which also draws from history and contains representations of historical figures, I think that there's more of an intention to have the audience perceive that there's some truth in the story, even if many of the facts were changed for the story. In Tarantino's case though, I think he might agree that the point of his blatantly inaccurate historical pieces are fundamentally to produce works of art meant to entertain. Because these are re-imagined histories, and marketed as such, it seems permissible. However, he is still portraying people on screen who are actual people, and likely doing so without consent of those who might be able to give it, which makes it kind of a complicated issue. Personally, I appreciate his movies as works of art, but I'm not entirely sure about how I feel about some of the issues that arise from his choices. Either way, it might be a possible topic of interest to explore in this piece. – bradleyhewittk5 years ago
While, I, as the viewer struggle with screaming at the screen over historical inaccuracy when watching a film, primarily due to my fact-checking nature, I think that it is acceptable to bend the facts a bit as long as there is a disclosure that the film is "based on a true story". I also think artistic license takes priority over historical accuracy. Given that history is long and often has large portions that are irrelevant to the meat of the story, it is necessary to keep the story interesting and compelling and that is the job of the artist, even if he/she has to manipulate the facts. In the end, a film is just a story. And history is essentially the same. The idea that what we know as our history is actually accurate is improbable. – govalen295 years ago
Over the past year I have watched more action movies than I had ever cared to and I couldn't help but notice that each one is exactly the same. Sure, the plot might be altered just slightly but they follow an identical formula in an identical pattern: brief exposition – initial complication – bland nothingness – punching – running – car chase – running – punching – final monologue – more punching – and everything's fine. If we can sit through this repetitiveness over and over again then are we not complacent with repetitiveness in our lives?
I couldn't agree with you more, although many at the Artifice would disagree with your opinion. Perhaps an angle to take would be to look at why formula works - and not just in action movies. Romance films also have a formula, as do crime films, detective films etc. I'd therefore suggest that people sit through the same old same old, over and over again because of its familiarity and the sense of comfort that offers. We know that the hero/heroine will always beat the bad guy, we know that when boy meets girl (or vice versa), boy will inevitably lose girl, only to find girl again and all will be fine. Is this complacency? To a large degree, yes, but then many mainstream cinema goers are there to be entertained not challenged. – Amyus5 years ago
I think something that could be helpful here is clarifying whether or not you believe the comfort of repetitiveness is inherently wrong or not. It seems that you are inclined to think it is not a virtue. Also, another thought--does repetitiveness of a movie necessarily reflect the lives/characters of the audience enjoying said movie? – rachelwitzig5 years ago
Since the early 2000s, the superhero genre has saturated our screens with no intention of slowing down. And I wonder why this is. Why are Marvel and DC superhero movies the front runners in the current cycle of action cinema? What might be the cultural conditions which boosted the popularity of this genre? Is it simply a matter of evolved special effects adding a more realistic spectacle to the narrative, or does our love of superheroes expose a wider cultural anxiety about the need for national protection (an after-effect of 9/11, perhaps)?
I've always wondered this myself. A great source for this piece would be Robert Kirkman's Secret History of Comics, because viewers see just where these superheroes came from and how they affected society at that time and continue to do so now. Everyone wanted to BE Superman or HAVE a Superman. Marvel comics took a step forward from black-and-white "bad guys" to villains with complex backstories and motivations. I believe that the heart of superheroes continues to be so relevant and prevalent nowadays because we still have that yearning to see good triumph over evil, as well as see these comic book characters come to life. – EJSmall5 years ago
On top of all the factors which you have mentioned, part of me (the optimistic side) believes that the superheroes genre provides a fertile ground for experimentation especially with diversity. Though it is not perfect, superheroes movies tend to make an effort to be inclusive with diverse casts and I believe, rightly or wrongly, that it has contributed to the success and appeal of the cycle of those movies. – kpfong835 years ago
The release of Todd Phillips's Joker film is imminent. With Joaquin Phoenix in the title role, the film received honors and praise at the Venice Film Festival. Though the film has been generating controversy for its content, the film is projected to have an opening week of about $80 million dollars when it debuts on October 4th. This is a massive projected gross for a R rated film. Will the critical and potential commercial success of stand alone (and more mature) films like Joker influence the direction of Warner Bros. and D.C.'s future films?
I notice that you write about Batman quite consistently. But, this new chapter in the scheme has definitely caught my attention. I watched with awe at Cesar Romero in the 1966 TV series, Jack Nicholson in 1989, and the role that brought me back into the mix, Heath Ledger in 2008. Don't see why this highly anticipated depiction would disappoint. I would like to see a good block of writing on Heath Ledger's outstanding and highly acclaimed characterization. – L:Freire5 years ago
I think this is a valid question to ask and unless this movie somehow becomes a stunning flop (which, let's be honest, is unlikely) then I think it will have a major impact on future D.C. films. Taking in the poor reviews for Suicide Squad and other D.C. films lately, it appears that D.C. definitely wants to go in a more artsy and niche direction, something that previously hasn't existed (at least to my knowledge) for comic book adaptations. I think D.C. has been criticized a lot for its inconsistency in regard to the tone of their movies, and this new Joker movie may solve that problem for them. – BakerQ5 years ago
Even during its bloodiest, goriest scenes, Ari Aster's films 'Midsommar' (2019) seems to focus on the unstoppable horror of an unravelling relationship. The protagonist, Dani Ardor, is thrown into a situation where she is forced to confront the ugliest parts of a relationship to her boyfriend which she desperately wants to keep alive. How does Aster manage to convey that the true horror of this film is in staying within a toxic relationship? Is this film ultimately about the liberation from relationships such as these?
Whilst the superficial surface layer of 'Midsommar' focuses on Ardor's deteriorating relationship with her boyfriend, for anyone interested in taking this topic, there is a darker underbelly to be found. Take some time to research why Aster gave his characters certain names. What do these names mean? Why are certain names pitched against each other? Why do others appear to complement or even compliment one another? Aster is telling another story within the one that most viewers see. Pay particular attention to the use of runes. Look at which runes appear in relation to which characters and when they appear in the narrative. Aster is well aware of their meanings - and that's why he used them. – Amyus5 years ago
Movies such as Gravity, Arrival, or the upcoming Passengers and Life films showcase the persistent human curiosity about outer space and who else (if anyone at all) is out there. We're no longer in the era of little green men coming to invade the Earth in their silver flying saucers to abduct us or otherwise probe our brains. Cinematically speaking, how has the human vision of extraterrestrial life and exploration changed over the years? How have certain historical landmarks in the space program transformed what moviegoers want and expect to see in outer space-themed films? Has the recent media coverage about a possible mission to Mars in the not-too-distant future shifted the cinematic focus away from an interest in aliens to issues of human evolution/multi-planetary colonization? Is there something else at work here?
An interesting topic, for sure. Although I don't have the a very eclectic understanding of science fiction in cinema, I wonder if there has been a shift from the foreign/invading extraterrestrial to a interior extraterrestrial. That is to say, I have always perceived a shift from the flying saucer alien to the kind of alien that takes the form of human; an alien that changes our perception of the human body as human. Movies like Alien (where the alien is born from/comes from the human body) and Invasion of the Body snatchers. One might also consider Men in Black and Under the Skin. What we consider to be alien has, in some instances, become remarkably more human, and I think this would be a fascinating angle to take for this topic. – Dethlefs8 years ago
The movies tend to change with science. The more things science figures out, and by extension, theories it creates, just add to the writer's creativity. One possible reason earlier movies were more about alien invasions is the fact that humans overestimated the planet's resources. Up until somewhat recently, people thought that we had a great thing going here. Now we see that the planet and its resources are finite, and that we are going to have to leave at some point. Which is why more blockbusters are centered more around space exploration rather than invasions from space. – MikeySheff8 years ago
What has led to the rise of entrepreneurial filmers in the 21st century and taking the risk by themselves to develop their own company when there are so many out there. What has benefited to the rise of individuals doing so now and not before?
