The year 1960 saw the release of George Pal's imaginative production of H.G.Wells' 'The Time Machine', considered by many to be a classic. At the end of the film, the main character 'George' returns to the distant future to help the newly liberated yet child-like Eloi build a new society, taking just three books with him to aid his venture. As his friend comments to another character '…which three would you have taken?'. Considering the wealth of knowledge we have access to in the 21st Century, which three books (factual or fiction) would you choose and, more importantly, why?
A great topic to consider as it will require addressing the roles of particular texts - do you take manuals, do you take "great literature", do you take religious texts? What is most valuable in literature in relation to history and cultural change and how do we measure this? – SaraiMW7 years ago
The 90'c classic 'Clueless' is one of my favourite re-watchable movies. However, the more I watch it, the more questions I have regarding the plot. What was the point – was it to follow Tai's journey to a new school, was it to follow Cher's love life, was it to watch Mr Hall and Ms Geist's romance blossom? The multiple storylines aren't overly complicated and all seem resolved in the end, but it just leaves me wondering. I doubt I'm putting too much thought into a movie that can blame this mess on being out-dated, as we saw Iggy Azalea's imitation of the film in her 'Fancy' film clip in 2014 and the world was shocked by the film's Brittany Murphy's 2009 death. Was this simply the style of a fun 90's film, or for that matter the comedy genre – to fill it with multiple storylines in order to keep it fun, light and entertaining? And if so, why is this plot-messy classic the one we still remember today?
Also note that this is based on the Jane Austen novel 'Emma'. – SaraiMW6 years ago
Love Clueless! Alicia Silverstone’s performance is flawless. – Munjeera6 years ago
Recently, the producers of 'Solo' announced that the character of Lando, played by Donald Glover, is pansexual. However, this is never explicit in the film and certainly, the word 'pansexual' is never said. The LGBTIQ community has responded to this with much criticism, arguing that this doesn't count as proper representation because not everyone who watches this film will pick up on Lando's queerness and as such, not everyone will be able to relate to him in this way. This is very similar to the controversy surrounding JK Rowling announcing that Dumbledore is gay, even though it is never clear in the Harry Potter books and even though the producers of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them have said that they are going to erase this part of Dumbledore's character. This then raises the question of what is 'representation' and what is good or harmful 'representation'?
I like this topic; it reminds me of the recent stir Charlie Day and Steven DeKnight created when they confirmed that they wanted to play Newt Geiszler and Hermann Gottlieb as a queer couple in Pacific Rim: Uprising (which, of course, did not happen) and the way Korra and Asami's relationship was handled in Avatar: The Legend of Korra. It's a strange phenomenon that's racked up in the last few years, in which queer coding ceases to be subversive (as it was in the early days of film) and is starting to seem like a half-baked courtship of as many demographics as possible (both the queer community and the religious right). On the other side of the spectrum, there are characters like Bojack Horseman's Todd, who came out as explicitly asexual and connected with the ace community in his area, where the basic tenants of asexuality were essentially explained point blank for the benefit of an uninitiated audience. Obviously, we can't expect all forms of media with a queer character to infodump about queerness (nor would I want it to; I think it worked well in Bojack Horseman, but it's a clunky and awkward thing to have to write into a scene), but the trend of silently queer characters only to be "confirmed" in interviews with actors and content creators does feel like empty pandering. – TheCropsey7 years ago
I think this is a really interesting topic! It seems as though these producers want to profit off of the LGBTQ+ community by stating that a character is queer without the backlash of explicitly stating it in the movie/series itself. – ivanavidakovic7 years ago
Those who watched Obama's Nelson Mandela Lecture (17/07/18) on YouTube may have noticed the added dimension of an adjacent comment section scrolling in real-time alongside the event — the medium being the message, and all that rot. One thing that I could not help noticing among the barrage of nonsense assaulting my peripheral vision was the frequency of comments saying something to the effect of "Wakanada forever," "Is this Wakanda?," or even just the single word, "WAKANDA." Evidently, the mere presence of an African setting is enough to be immediately equated with Black Panther's residual impact on the popular imagination's impression of the entire continent.
Though it may be difficult to discern whether this is the result of true malice or simple ignorance, there is certainly something to be said about the co-opting of the fictional nation to become a vehicle for such regressive discourse. Given that Black Panther has been unilaterally received as a moment of progress for African American filmmaking and Black culture in general, attention must also be given the unfortunate consequences of its omnipresence, particularly as it has been received by white (and especially conservative) audiences throughout the West.
This article should examine the subtle process by which the film's iconography has acquired these less-than-favourable connotations, and what that may mean for its continued existence in this highly fractured media landscape. Does this fallout in any way negate the film's thematic emphases on the legacy of colonialism and globalization vs. isolationism? In a real-world political climate wherein an American president refers to Africa as being comprised of "shit-hole countries," does the mass exposure received by a fictional Afro-Futurist utopia serve as a genuine antidote to these misconceptions? Where is the line between empowerment and sophistry? What impact might this cross-pollination between popular culture and current politics have on the advancement of the latter, as Obama's lecture was undeniably meant to represent?
An interesting topic. I loved Black Panther, but when a friend who I'd recommended it to watched it, she said it "wasn't that great". I had to explain what the film meant for the whole culture and industry; using people of colour in the cast, traditional names for those people's characters, a soundtrack written and produced by black artists that put songs from a different genre on the top charts. Perhaps it is just ignorance, or perhaps the people commenting "Wakanda forever" simply don't understand why this culture association can be seen as offensive. It's a tough question, but I'm sure you're not the only one to notice these comments so maybe there's some research out there you could try to find to help make your point? – Gemma Ferguson6 years ago
Many of the relationships portrayed in romantic comedies are presented as fun and flirty in the film, but would be considered abusive in reality. Stalking and other abusive behaviours are common to the genre. Power imbalances are also common. Everything is put aside so the female protagonist can be made whole by finding a male partner. Much of what the genre presents as romantic or funny would be good reasons to call the police in reality, so why is it acceptable in the movies?
A good example would be Sweet Home Alabama, in which the female protagonist goes back home to try and get a divorce from her husband who she hasn't seen in years. He refuses to sign the divorce, forcing her to stay longer and doing everything he can to try and force them back into a relationship. In 27 Dresses, the male lead defaced the protagonist's planner and lied to her about his intentions. There are almost as many examples as there are rom coms.
This is an interesting topic considering what is going on in the film industry right now. It might be worth considering grouping this topic with the #MeToo movement. Another interesting note is Molly Ringwald's interview about The Breakfast Club. I'd also think it is important to discuss more recent romantic comedies (last year or two) since they more accurately depict the film industry we are dealing with now. Obviously, sexism has been a problem but there is a change going on right now so it is very important to consider. – Connor7 years ago
Is it because they're more human than the traditional hero (see: Captain America, Superman, any character who is Inherently Good and Morally Right). There are studies that have shown that people like to watch/read about characters who are on good moral high ground, that they feel elevated by this. So then, why are characters like Deadpool, Loki, Severus Snape, Robin Hood–even Jack Sparrow–so popular? Are they easier to relate to? Should they be idolized, as may be seen with the more traditional heroes?
in many ways the anti-hero is often idolized for their ability to make their own rules. opposing the traditional hero, who is bound by moral imperatives set by society which may often weaken them or cause them mental/emotional anguish, the anti-hero is often shown as disregarding the social/moral law in favor of their own rules. Friedrich Nietzsche and Plato write about this phenomena quite a bit, their work may provide a nice starting point for anyone who chooses this topic. – ees7 years ago
There's too many 'superheros' these days, who wouldn't want to be a villain or anti hero, they can sometimes be more relatable. Even though we all love a good hero as they can depict the good in the world, even hero's have their problems and anti heros or villains more or less are truthful about those demons which in my opinion is more entertaining
I have recently started to watch Gotham and the young Joker character played by Cameron Monaghan is so inspiring to be, as a hopeful writer and lover of film and television, he is a villain and evil but he has such profound emotions and the actor makes you feel like his feelings are real even though he is portraying a character – ambermakx6 years ago
Moe, Larry, and Curly (forget Shemp, Joe Besser, Curly Joe) made movies between 1934 and 1946 and still are popular today. Almost anywhere in the country a TV station is running Three Stooges short movies. A song called "The Curly Shuffle" was made in 1983. Sam in the TV series Cheers frequently referred to the Three Stooges. MASH had an episode in which three Korean doctors were referred to as Moe, Larry, and Curly. A movie was made in 2012 and one is scheduled to begin production in 2018. Why is there such an enduring affection for these three characters more than seven decades after Moe, Larry, and Curly made their last short movie?
With the rise of technology over the last decade, horror movies and the horror genre have drastically changed. Is this because of lazy writing and producing that relies on cheap jump scares or is it because modern technology has ruined the terror of isolation?
One reason why horror movies worked so well in the past is because the technology we have today did not exist. You couldn’t just whip out your smartphone and go on Google Maps. If you forgot your wallet you had no money, period. You couldn’t pull out your phone and paywave instantly. The characters had no one and nothing to rely on except themselves.
So what are your thoughts? Watch any past horror movie and pretend it’s set in 2018 and I can guarantee you the movie would be over within the first half an hour.
The fact that advanced technology exists does make an interesting point, but maybe what also could be explored is the shift in storytelling. What are the differences between the characters and topics included in past and present horror films? Do modern horror films rely on too many clichés, or not enough? – Gabby7 years ago
Horror movies have definitely changed with the rise of digital tech, but I would argue that they're nearly as prominent in the mainstream as they were during the 80's horror boom in terms of sheer output. There are even horror movies that make explicit use of the internet as a catalyst for horror, like Unfriended (2014), Megan is Missing (2011), and The Den (2013). This isn't to say that those are good movies necessarily, but they still manipulate the technological advances of the day the same way Scream (1996) and One Missed Call (2008) used early cell phones, and The Ring (1998) used VHS tapes. There are also recent, successful horror films that still make use of the terrifying sense of isolation that cell phones eliminate, like Get Out (2017), Split (2016), and The Babadook (2014). Smart phones and the internet can be obstacles in terms of building tension, but they can also be assets. We live in a world where abduction, trauma, and even allegedly supernatural occurrences still befall people regardless of their access to mapquest or emergency services. We still have weak points; it's the horror writer's job to find and exploit them in fiction. – TheCropsey7 years ago
This is an expansion on what Gabby and TheCropsey stated already. I'd agree that there is an increase in cheap/lazy horror movies but I don't think they are necessarily dying. In fact, I think they are on the rise again. With films like Get Out (2017) and A Quiet Place (2018). There are plenty of other films, but these are two strong examples of well-crafted horror films in the new age. I think it is important to consider the reasons why there are more horror films succeeding recently. Technology inhibits telling horror stories the same way as the past, but that doesn't mean they can't adapt. Some films even play on this. But other films like the two I listed earlier, along with It Follows (2014) and others, can work even in the confines of technology. The shift in storytelling is important, since some horror films can still work even if based in a different time period like The Witch (2016). There are a number of factors to consider, and this topic can easily work, I think it just has to cover how horror has shifted storytelling tropes and ideas for a 21st century audience. – Connor7 years ago
I don't think horror movies are dying. Rather, they're being reinvented for audiences familiar with the genre. We've become quite used to typical elements of horror (e.g. supernatural creatures, out-of-shot shadows) that we've vicariously speculated on how to defeat them. While technology can limit that sense of isolation, there are other ways it can pronounce terror. Reliance on technology can ratchet up a false sense of security before it all goes the hell. I agree with what's been said already; horror is in the storytelling. It's up to the writer to decide if they want to write a horror movie that only checks the boxes, or one that goes beyond that, and craps on our hastily built failsafes. – Starfire7 years ago
I do agree. Horror movies aren’t the same and they either aren’t scary or they are remakes of originals. – 2klonewolf6 years ago
Technology itself can actually provide a sense of horror that was not present in previous decades. I think of Black Mirror's emphasis on isolation, misplacement of identity, dehumanization, and other horrific symptoms of advancing technology. Definitely lots to work with if you're willing to evolve with the times. – Heather Lambert6 years ago
It might be interesting to consider the pros and cons of technology and cgi in horror movies. Yes it can be overdone and over saturated depending on the type of horror movie but special effects have improved drastically over the years and now some costumes and special effects are what make the movie. If you look at the original Friday the 13th with Kevin Bacon's horrible fake neck for his scene I for one am thankful technology has improved since then. – Emily Murphy6 years ago
