Marvel has used the superhero movie genre to tell a wide variety of stories – for instance, a heist film (Ant-Man), a spy thriller (Captain America: TWS), and a war film (Captain America:TFA). The same is true on television, where the Netflix series deals with such serious issues of race, sexual abuse, toxic masculinity, and much more. As the slate of superhero content stretches out massively into the future, can it be constantly used to tell varied interesting stories, or are the limits already beginning to show?
This is a great topic! Especially in the wake of Deadpool 2! The first Deadpool was a rom-com, while the second was a family movie at its roots. Because this is such a bizarre approach for a superhero movie, there's theories floating around about what the next Deadpool will be. (The AtZ Show on Youtube speculates that it might be a mock-umentary, something to look into btw.) – M K Keane7 years ago
What is the 'Marvel Formula'? I like this topic but the formulaic aspect is unclear to me. Are you saying that Marvel movies are usually action type films? Huh. If so, I think Marvel's use of humour can be a limitation, in the sense that it's a staple in Marvel films. On another note, there's the overarching plot (or continuity) that blankets all individually released films—the past few led up to Infinity War. But what's next? Marvel's cinematic universe is amazing, but I worry for the day when it could seem 'dragged out'. (Then again I'm an uncultured non-comic book reader who doesn't know what'll happen after Infinity War, ack.) – Starfire7 years ago
T’Challa is not the typical hypermasculine black superhero attributed with traits like emotional sensitivity, thoughtfulness and respect. On the other end, Killmonger the villain of the film has many traits closely associated with the black action hero and the stars of the blacksploitation films. Explore and contrast the gendered depiction of T’Challa and Erik Killmonger and how masculinity is constructed in Black Panther.
There haven't been a whole lot of black superheros. Is it sensible to talk about 'hypermasculine black superhero' as a large grouping? Maybe better to broaden this to all male hypermasculine superheros.
Also, it would be wonderful to get a clear sense of what the specific traits are that Killmonger shares with conventional black action heroes.
Great topic though! – hwilkinson7 years ago
Thank you for the feedback Hwikinson. While hypermasculinity is a part of all male superheroes, the black superhero is doubly fetishized, due to their race. This is particularly true in the blaxploitation films of the 70s that first brought many popular black male superheroes to light and served as role models or many others - think Shaft, Superfly, Luke Cage and Black Lightning. These were more often than not one-man inner-city vigilantes, detectives, and ex-cons waging a war against the establishment. Often in Blaxploitation films, the hypermasculinity of the male action hero was used as a tool to replace old stereotypes of submissive blacks with new stereotypes of hyper-sexualized, violent, anti-social blacks living in a fictionalized ghetto world characterized by vice and lawlessness. These traits are remarkably more similar Killmonger, who also wants to destroy the system that he considers as oppressive than to T'Challa. – bansari7 years ago
It seems that there are 2 theories regarding the ending of Inception. If we accept that the entire movie is not a dream and that Cobb did in fact escape his limbo with Mal, then it is reasonable to believe he also escaped his limbo with Saito.
It is possible that the entire movie is a dream, and that Cobb never left his own limbo. Which one do you think is the correct one? Or do you have a different theory?
I'd love to see how this is answered. Can I say how frustrated I was with the movie's ending? I do think that it would be interesting to discuss why it was left so unsettled and how this communicates the themes of the movie. – tclaytor7 years ago
I was under the impression that the ending being ambiguous was intentional. I haven't watched Inception in ages so my memory is a lil fuzzy, but I thought the whole movie was, in essence, about questioning what is reality and what we want to be real. I think the ambiguous ending encapsulates that existential debate. I don't think there's a correct theory; at least, I don't think there should be one. – Starfire7 years ago
Nolan was greatly influenced by Satoshi Kon's 'Paprika' (2006) and I'm of the opinion that since both deal with the 'dream' world and reality, then the meaning within both 'Paprika' and 'Inception' is very much down to personal interpretation. So, either theory regarding the ending is correct - it's all about how we personally perceive it. Good topic suggestion! – Amyus7 years ago
Animals are widely used in the film industry for various reasons, but are they always accurately represented? In the reboots of "Planet of the Apes," I highly praised the use of non-verbal communication between the animals, as a lot of the way animals communicate is through body language. However, horses are commonly portrayed as loud and always making a sound if they are on screen, which is very inaccurate of horse communication. Film is an intriguing medium that uses both sight and sound, so a lot of animals have sounds inserted to add to the verisimilitude, but it can actually detract – in my opinion – when animals who wouldn't normally be making sounds are indeed doing so. Thoughts?
This is a neat idea for a paper, and I like the example of the horse (I know nothing about horses, so I never would have guessed how they really communicate). This reminds me of the classic "bald eagle on screen with a red tailed hawk's cry, because bald eagles sound like chickens, and an accurate cry would spoil the drama of said eagle" thing. However, I'd like for this topic to have a clear thesis; what are the ramifications of inaccurate portrayals of animal behavior? What are the merits of accurate animal portrayals versus the merits of tailoring a fantasy about that animal for the viewers to enjoy? – TheCropsey7 years ago
Right, or the use of a tiger's roar in "The Lion King" because they are louder. – Sara L.7 years ago
I think that movie directors try to add as many effects to movies as they can because in their mind it will improve the movie. So I doubt that they will choose to resort to accurate portrayal of animal sounds if they feel that it will result in scenes that are lacking detail. – Health7 years ago
I thought communication was handled somewhat awkwardly in the recent Planet of the Apes films. It was unclear to me why Caesar and others were able to "evolve" to be able to speak, but only at times of emotional stress. I may be misremembering the film, but I thought it was an inconsistent and inaccurate (albeit, fictional) portrayal of primate communication. – Dropoutbear937 years ago
Dropoutbear93,
The evolution of the primates is not exactly what I was referring to, as you do make valid points to that unrealistic representation. I am referring to when they communicate to each other through a lot of gestures (not strictly in sign language), and body language in addition to the general grunts and howls we think of when we picture ape communication. – Sara L.7 years ago
Recently we saw how the lack of sound impacts the cinematic landscape in John Krasinski's A Quiet Place, but, of course, it is not a new phenomenon. Another wonderful example of the absence of sound (or rather music) in a film would have to be Michael Haneke's 1994 film 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance. It would be interesting to see how this absence lends itself to the film's plot and whether it strengthens or hinders the work. The exploration of sound/music in film is still a relatively new study, and I have not seen much in the way of discussing its absence, so it would be really fascinating to track the progress of sound and how it impacts spectatorship depending on its presence or lack thereof.
Excellent topic! I noticed this in Signs as well. There was music, but it was only in certain points of the film. I remember feeling weird when I watched the movie the first time, but I couldn't pinpoint what it was. It was only when I watched it a second time that I realized how the lack of background music made the movie feel like real life, which was unsettling and made the movie more intense for me. – tclaytor7 years ago
A bit more mainstream, but two episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that engaged in this are an interesting study in the use of music and sound. The episode Hush, which won an Emmy, has no dialogue only music - the score (orchestral only) and the gestures of the characters tells the entire story for one episode. The other interesting use in a show that is heavy handed with its inclusion of both musical scores and popular songs, was in the episode The Body where she finds her mother dead. The episode includes only dialogue and diegetic sound, no soundtrack. – SaraiMW6 years ago
I think it would be interesting to consider the movies of different decades and how they define the different generations. As a child of the 80s, I grew up watching Goonies, Space Camp, and Red Dawn which all impacted the way I viewed life. They presented a picture of adventure (with danger), enemies to fight, and things to hope for. What about the movies of the 90s or the early 2000's?
This would be a great tie-in to the history of cinema through the decades (a topic I very much enjoyed in my Film Analysis class back in college). It would also be interesting to discuss the ways those films from those decades emulate the culture at the time, as films tend to do. – Sara L.7 years ago
Sara--Film Analysis sounds like a fascinating class! I agree too that films emulate culture as well as create it. – tclaytor7 years ago
Movie prequels have become increasingly more popular. Are they simply a cash-grab and do we need them? When you already know the outcome of a movie, do you even care? Do screenwriters have to work harder when writing a prequel in order to make the audience "forget" that the end is predetermined? Do we even need prequels? Is there a need to have an explanation for every tiny reference that was made in a previous movie? The Star Wars franchise is one of the biggest examples of this trend. Another franchise that comes to mind is Underworld. The third Underworld movie, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, was a prequel. Do prequels have to work harder to make us care? Or do we need them because we care too much about those characters?
I like this topic a lot! I've avoided watching prequel movies for this reason. I don't personally feel like they can offer a lot to the overall story if everything is well-established in the original movies. I suppose further character development can be achieved through prequels (i.e. how Darth Vader came to be, or Han Solo's backstory) but at the same time, a part of me doesn't necessarily care *how* Han Solo came to be the pilot of the Millennium Falcon, for example. I think prequels are sometimes a burden on the original stories, especially if they retcon or change traits or facts we know about characters. – Karen7 years ago
I think prequels do have to work harder to create interest. I do, however, think Rogue 1 was one of the best prequels I've ever seen and is one of my favorites in the Star Wars franchise, even though I knew how it would end. The movie actually helped me appreciate Star Wars and what went behind getting the plans to the Death Star. Perhaps compare this to one that didn't do so well? I'm not hearing great things about the Hans Solo movie though I haven't seen it yet. – tclaytor7 years ago
I'd just be wary when looking into Star Wars since yes, it is prequel-ception that helped boost the franchise into popularity, but Star Wars also have books, games, tv cartoon series, and comics that play into the overall canon of the universe. For instance, in the new Han Solo prequel, they actually based it on a Star Wars book and -- trying to not give away any spoilers -- they validated what happened in the Rebel animated series, therefore making it official canon. I think an interesting angle could also be the Marvel universe. Arguably, the hero 'trilogy' films are 'prequels' for the larger Avengers films as most Avenger characters don't appear until their solo-films have been released. – Pamela Maria7 years ago
I think prequels are fun, because it creates the potential for world building. I agree with tclaytor about Rogue One. Yes, we know how it ends, but we got to see what lead to it happening rather than just hearing about it in passing. Prequels explore lore not previously seen in the source material. Another good example is The Hobbit. It tells the story of how Bilbo Baggins got the One Ring, but it also works just as well as a stand-alone story. – RebaZatz7 years ago
How are the LATINAMERICANS portrayed in the films and TV shows on time? Only the MEXICANS are mainly considered in US films?. What about the image from other countries?
Good topic. Could you capitalise Latin Americans and Mexicans? Also, "portraited" may be "portrayed." – Munjeera7 years ago
Sorry, I believe there is a misunderstanding here. I meant just to capitalize the first letter. Hope this helps. – Munjeera7 years ago
I don't yet understand the importance of "mental health" to your topic. "Mental health" is given in your title but isn't discussed in the body of your topic. Your use of the keyword "stereotypes" makes me think you're talking about how popular representations of Latinamericans unfairly characterize them as somehow unstable or excessively violent or overly possessive. Am I close?
You might add more detail in the body of your topic. Maybe list some specific questions that you think someone should answer in a fully developed essay. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
Mental health? On time? The image? – T. Palomino2 years ago
