Is the verve or is it the persona? How much of an influence does the performer's name have on the crowd? Would Johnny Cash, Eddie Money, Tom Cruise, River Phoenix, Chris Rock, Paris Hilton be any less fascinating in physical presence alone? Explore the notoriety or the appeal of the name behind the spectacle. Does being a Barrymore, Sheen, Fonda, Howard, or Coppola make something out of nothing? Does Hollywood provide the grit or does the audience induce the alchemy?
Some names are catchy, others are not. Does that make a difference in success. A good idea for an article. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
With the release of Aquaman, viewers are torn on its impact on DC's popularity and current direction. Examining some of the reactions, as well as what DC needs to do to close the ever-growing gap with Marvel (In terms of popularity and revenue) may be interesting.
Much has been debated over what fuels producers, screenwriters, directors, and actors in their quest to deliver the finest storytelling. Yet, one need only to look back a few decades to notice how audience appetite was satisfied with outer space dilemmas or even common, mundane concerns. Clint Eastwood, Michael Douglas, Arnold Schwarzenegger are names that come to mind when retreating back to determine what drove legions of viewers to the silver screen or the television screen. Eastwood and Douglas both acted as the cop on the beat (Dirty Harry and Streets of San Francisco) and eventually starred in roles on the complete opposite side of the law (Escape from Alcatraz and Wall Street), respectively. Schwarzenegger initially capitalized on villainy (Terminator, Conan the Barbarian) and then showed a softer side in Kindergarten Cop as well as other comedic jaunts. Explore the impulse for this effective formula of screenplay, whether at home, abroad, or any distant time or place. On what basis does the actor make the decision to reverse his posture throughout his career or, as is most often the case, venture onto the director chair or embark on political agendas (Ronald Reagan, Shirley Temple)?
There is something here that could be good. Focusing on what brings about change regarding, say, a few actors- how they try to adapt or try to remain consistent to their images. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
Characters facing conflicts make for an interesting story, and we know characters may experience different types of conflicts with other characters or even the world they exist in. How, then, do ideologies fit into this? Many people have a set of beliefs to follow, but what happens when one of their beliefs contradict another belief they have? Just an example of many, but consider Simba from The Lion King and how he has to choose between leaving home to achieve freedom or return home to fulfill his role as heir to the throne (obviously there are more examples of other characters facing competing ideologies, this is just the first that came to mind). How do ideologies add interest to the story and how do competing ideologies perhaps enhance the story altogether?
Interesting topic idea. I think ideologies often make for interesting character conflicts, because they're intangible yet can be constraining. – WesternPaladin6 years ago
Analyse the depiction of family units in horror films. Discuss the idea that horror films throughout the decades have highlighted moral panics in order to save the sanctity of the traditional family unit. For example, in The Exorcist (1973) a single parent family is attacked, insinuating that the possesion of Regan may not have happened if both parent were present. With this in mind are we subconciously being conditioned to continue the current or prefered sociological trends that surrounf the family unit.
Good observation. What would or should the ideal horror film do instead? – Kevin6 years ago
You could argue the same thing in the original film adaptation of Carrie (1976). – RetroDarling6 years ago
Aquaman has been incredibly successful since its release. While many analysts and critics were skeptical of its chances at success, the film has done incredible business, being the repeat number one at the box office for 3-4 weeks. The film is now DC's most successful film overseas and has the potential to be a billion dollar films (sits at around 800 million currently). What qualities or circumstances have helped make Aquaman so successful, compared to the lackluster Justice League (which was both critically and commercially disappointing for many fans and critics).
It is probably one of those instances when people are more interested in an origin tale than an ensemble of superheroes with no background. – AthenDawn6 years ago
Aquaman as a sole hero versus a group of them (Justice League) might matter regarding success. This may be related to the the way a story develops on the screen--it may be easier and more enjoyable to follow one rather than too many heroes. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
This is just my own observation of the two films.
Prior to Aquaman, I would always say that I would choose to watch Justice League over Batman v Superman. BvS was a film that took itself too seriously and lost its comic-book quality. And also, (unless you watch the extended edition) character motivations are questionable. Justice League had a very problematic plot and its special effects were absolutely awful-- but it was able to have fun. That scene when Flash tries running behind a newly revived Superman? EPIC. But it was also a film that could not decide between being serious or comedic and shifts in tone were jarring to say the least. This could also be because of the sudden shift in directors, Snyder to Whedon.
Aquaman seems to have a good balance-- the only faults that I saw it have was that it was too long and the inclusion of the Black Manta plotline was not necessary since the more obvious concern was Oceanmaster v Aquaman. Also the special effects are beautiful.
Wonder Woman still reigns as the best DCEU movie for me, but I would probably place Aquaman as second or third. – FabiAlejandra6 years ago
I think the star power and marketing had a huge effect. Jason Mamoa has the looks, and even better, he's charismatic, so people will want to watch him. The movie was also marketed as being more silly and not taking itself as seriously as the other DCEU movies. I haven't seen it so I don't know how valid that is within the movie's context. I'm personally a little surprised by Aquaman's success just due to him being a joke in pop culture and most people disregarding him as an actual, or at least useful, superhero. However, considering the success of modern blockbusters, especially with the MCU and DCEU (financially anyway), I'm not surprised general audiences gravitate towards a movie that features a CGI fest of people riding sharks and fighting a war underwater. It's a perfect film for popcorn spectacle and escapism. China apparently also had a lot to do with the movie's box office success. – ImperatorSage6 years ago
With directors like Cronenberg, Lynch, Carpenter body horror emerged as a distinct genre around 70's and 80's where the body was treated as susceptible surface of rupture and deformations. The backbone of science and its possibility of bodily transformations (more than the happy possibility, it was more like "science experiment gone wrong") held the motivation behind the spawning of the genre with films like The Fly, The Re-Animator, Shivers etc. The inspiration behind the genre, to some extent comes from science fiction, and its deployment on the body. To understand the genre of body horror, one has to look at how science fiction films as well as texts treat the human body
all good body horror films tend to traverse between the borders for horror and other genres. as you rightly point out, The Fly can be considered as a science fiction film with horror inflictions. Many science fiction films incorporate the body or transformation of the body for the greater good or progression of us as a species. the genre science fiction is broad and encapsulates many topics that can be visualised from a horror perspective – BrainFart6 years ago
In Ex Machina, Caleb is picked to have conversations with an artificial intelligence, Ava. While it is clear that Ava is an android, Caleb is introduced as human. However, there have been many theories that Caleb himself is a robot. Caleb even suspected that he might not be human at one point and slices his arm open to confirm it.
What details in the movie and Caleb’s characterization point to the possibility that he’s an android? For starters, Caleb is introduced to us like a blank slate and sometimes appears robotic. During his conversations with Ava, he’s the one in the box, while Ava has free space to roam her room. When asked whether he likes Mozart, Caleb says he likes “Depeche Mode,” a music group in the electronic genre. Even his reaction to cutting his arm open is unsettling.
Perhaps, if Caleb isn’t an android, other questions that can be addressed is: Why was he picked to test Ava? What does his character bring to the realm of artificial intelligence? Was he doomed from the start or did he have a chance? How is his characterization approached in the film and does it offer any insight to human interaction with artificial intelligence, such as an emphasis to the differences (or similarities) between humans and androids?
So I may be mistaken because I haven't seen it in a while, but isn't there a scene where Caleb cuts open his arm with a razor to see that he isn't a robot? – Sean Gadus6 years ago
Yes, you’re right! That scene is meant to debunk the whole “Caleb is a robot" theory. He bleeds, thus he’s human. I guess to me the scene still seemed kind of unsettling and off in some way. Caleb’s reaction was strange with the smearing the blood and punching the mirror. Also, the way he vertically cuts his arm could actually be pretty damaging to his veins but he seemed unfazed from the pain. This might be pushing it but in the film Nathan tells Caleb that the model after Ava is going to be more advanced and groundbreaking. By more advanced, he could mean more human. Perhaps, a more humanized android would be able to mimic bleeding like a human. After reviewing the movie though, I think the topic would be more sound if it also revolved around Caleb’s characterization and what it shows about human interaction with artificial intelligence rather than only whether Caleb is a robot. – jay6 years ago