Critics seem to have a strange relationship with comic book movies. They've enjoyed and even loved most of the MCU movies. The same can't be said on when it comes to DC. However should we judge moves that are part of a shared universe solely on their own merits. Movies that are part of a shared universe rely on each other to tell an overarching story. Some of these movies set things up that one resolve till years down the road. Should we find a new way to critique these movies?
Interesting point. I think you can look at how movie adaptations are critiqued for a start. There are two points you can consider: judging how well a movie adapts from the original source, and how well it stands on its own, needing no prior knowledge of the original source. With a shared universe, I agree that it should be critiqued collectively, but also how each subsequent addition to the universe expands the overarching story. – Starfire7 years ago
I strongly feel each movie should stand on it's own, as an individual story, even when it is part of a shared universe and story. I think the DC movies don't receive the same adoration as the MCU movies, simply because they're not as good (Wonder Woman notwithstanding). They prioritise flashy explosions and action sequences over character development. The MCU movies have been leading up to Avengers: Infinity War for nearly a decade, but each movie still told a self-contained story, as well as contributing to the shared over-arching story. The DC films are yet to pull this off. – rachelfreeman7 years ago
I agree with the comments made by Starfire and rachelfreeman. My comment isn't so much about reviewing MCU films as much as it is about reviewing films in general. Your last question about finding new ways to critique these movies is especially I think that we need to find new ways to view, critique, and interact with ALL movies. In my opinion, many people view films too passively. I think that every film should be actively supplemented (or complemented) by the viewer's empathy and imagination. The viewer must actively try to meet the film halfway by encouraging themselves to empathise with the films characters, to imagine the unseen implications of the film's central plot line, and by encouraging themselves to actively consider and extend the themes and ideas presented by the film. It can't just be about the passive consumption of a story. Anyway, I think that one of the benefits of having a shared universe is that it invites viewers to consider what happens at the periphery of the main story. It encourages viewers to imagine the implications of any given event across time, space, and other films. Furthermore, comic book movies have such passionate fans that deeply enjoy debate, critique, discussion, imitation, emulation, and so much more. Maybe this is the beginning of a new kind of film criticism? – Vertov.Isou7 years ago
Although 'A Quiet Plan' is heavily advertised as a horror/thriller movie, there are definitely underlining themes of family and what family is willing to do for one another. Not only does the love of family truly shine in this film, but it also shows how strong a family can be when their life is on the line everyday.
Yes, although "A Quiet Place" is labeled under the horror/thriller genre, the underlying theme is togetherness and communal efforts. I think this is apparent considering the film emphasizes the importance and value of each of the characters. Each character serves a different purpose at some point in the film where the entirety of the family wouldn't be able to survive with the removal of one of them. They are all necessary, and the most moving example of this has to be the conclusion where the only handicapped character ends up saving the day due to her discovery that she made in her father's office. – ralphpolojames7 years ago
This is definitely something I found in the film. I think it would be interesting to look at how director and co-writer John Kransinski has talked about it. He has mentioned multiple times that he saw it as a film about family and even described it as a love letter to his children. I think that would definitely add some weight to the discussion of this theme in the film, considering it seems to be a big part of how he conceived of the story – Beth Jones7 years ago
I agree that the love and dedication with the family members is the piece that holds the film together. Overall, if the family dynamic wasn't as compassionate as it was portrayed in the film, there wouldn't be as much pathos. It is a film about family that uses the horror/ suspense genre as a cloak. They stand by one another, even in the threat of being attacked by the film's creatures. For the parents especially, they stay alive not just for their own survival, but for their children's survival. – Kellie7 years ago
Orientalism as explained by Edward Said is the emphasising and exaggeration of particular cultures, often portraying them as exotic, uncivilised or even dangerous. Disney's Aladdin is one example of this behaviour. Analyse some further examples of Orientalism in the media, and the implications of such behaviour in the 21st Century. Explain how this exemplifies Said's theory.
Not necessarily orientalism, but it might also be interesting to have a look at indigenous cultures from this perspective. If we're going to go for another Disney example, Pocahontas seems to really exoticise/appropriate Native American history and culture. It's particularly interesting that at face value, this isn't something everyone would pick up on I think (i.e. I didn't pick up on much of the problems with Pocahontas until I had them pointed out to me), so does this mean that this sort of thing has been normalised??? – PhoebeLupton7 years ago
An upcoming film to analyze for this topic would be Crazy Rich Asians and how many stereotypes about Asians are subverted in the movie. – bansari7 years ago
Throughout history in both movies and television there seems to be a recurring trend that the women badass is somewhat always second fiddle to their action or male counterparts. I think of movies like Underworld and Resident Evil, while both lead characters are both extremely badass and women, in one of the movies they have to be told by a man that they are badass because of a specific reason (their blood is stronger now because of being blessed by the last male heir of a line of vampire killers or because they are a clone of a weaker version of yourself, and were created by a man seeking power and control) However, recently there has been an increase in movies that show women as being rightfully badass without needing men to justify that they are this way. Why is that while there is an increase in women simply being badass because they are by their own rights, is still many interpretations of women's badassery needing to be justified by men?
Some great examples would be the recent Wonder Woman film, CW's Supergirl, and many of the female characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, including Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, and several in the Black Panther film. These are just some suggestions for you to consider. Great topic! – EmskitheNerd7 years ago
Another point to consider might be how making women invincible badasses is just romanticizing them further-while it means we're no longer infantilizing women by using the virgin/madonna trope, in many ways, making them impossibly invulnerable badasses is just the exchange for one impossibly constructed trope for another. – emmybrett7 years ago
Interesting topic! Your examples make me think of how in a lot of movies, there are a lot of characters who are badass women who are usually the 'sidekick' to the main character, who usually fills this "underdog" role and is usually incompetent and most often are male. A recent example that I saw this happening was the movie version of Ready Player One. I'd really like to see this written about and taken further. :) – volarelejos7 years ago
What measure is a badass woman? What, indeed? Lovely topic. Consider defining "badass" early on as specifically as possible, so readers know what characteristics you're examining or looking for in a potential heroine. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Recently, Hollywood has been focused on franchises, adaptations, and remakes that are guaranteed to have an audience (Disney live action remakes, Star Wars continuations, Ready Player One, Jumanji, comic book movies, etc.) What movies have come out recently that the film industry took a big chance on, and have they done well or have they flopped?
this is a very interesting topic, considering last year Hollywood made one of their biggest gambles on Darren Aronofsky's Mother! The film, for me, felt like a test production to see if audiences would gravitate to more artistic and experimental projects. It failed, and it is rather rare to see big studios funding new and original projects unless the director has a certain weight (ex. Spielberg). I think this could work, but I think it would be important to discuss the trend, specifically in the 21st century, of big studios supporting riskier projects and when it seems viable to do so. There should be specific films, like Mother!, but the topic should be more weighted towards Hollywood trends and what the general public is more likely to lean towards as far as genres/ideas in films. Specific films don't always work as an indicator, it is better to focus on trend and changes, even sociopolitically, anything that could influence viewership. – Connor7 years ago
Analyse the concepts of gender and sexism in Gracie Hart's supposed journey ugly duckling to beauty pageant swan, weighing the various kinds of positive and negative depictions of women, particularly beauty pageant contestants. How are common tropes of the though guy/girl, the ditsy blonde, etc. presented? Are the viewers expectations challenged? If so, is that the intention of such a film? How does the film hold up?
I think the film did a pretty great job at representing real-life women with Sandra Bullock's character. I think the idea behind the stereotypical females in the pageant was purposeful but they used Sandra to counteract that. But I do see your point about whether or not that challenges us. – hannahshort7 years ago
I don't think it's worth distinguishing between 'positive' and 'negative' portrayals of women unless you define both definitions. What's a 'positive' depiction of a woman? One who is confident in themselves and how they present their gender? Are these definitions defined on the basis of how the characters see themselves, or how WE see them (as either validating or opposing our ideals of how women should be depicted?) You could talk about men and how they might be the ones constructing these positive/negative depictions of women... But, I would much rather say that these depictions are intentionally stereotypical to serve the wider narrative, which in my opinion, is about women competing for self-empowerment. That's what the Miss America pageant is all about, right? Why antagonist Kathy Morningside wants to crap on everyone's parade, and why Gracie struggles to get her boss (and stylist) to see her side of things. Gender certainly plays a role in these situations, and the movie shouldn't be excused for bordering on sexual harassment at some stages. But I personally think the film sends a good message. I think, on a basic level, the film subverts (or experiments) with what we'd typically associate with a 'strong, confident woman'. A strong, confident woman can be a badass like Gracie, or an attention-seeking maniac like Kathy, or fire-baton twirler Cheryl. The film first uses these stereotypical depictions to distinguish between Gracie and the rest of the contestants, but by the end, it tells us that hey, it's okay to have the best of both worlds. One thing to note is that Gracie didn't achieve self-empowerment by becoming a 'beauty pageant swan', nor did she ever lose that confidence entering the pageant as an 'ugly duckling'. She became empowered through her newfound female friends, the only thing she, a strong confident woman, was lacking. That, I think, is the significance behind 'Miss Congeniality'. Besides world peace. Yeah. – Starfire7 years ago
Miss Congeniality, I think, had a lot of female empowering concepts that they used brilliantly. The idea that a woman who was widely regarded as unattractive to the male population and undermined by her superiors ended up relying on herself to save these women who she, herself, first thought were ditsy and a poor representation of the female population but then came to find that they were real women with real opinions. The idea of the Miss America pageant in the film came across more of a battle for Gracie because of the standardised ideas of what beauty means for the female population and how a woman such as herself overcame these. I'd like to see more of how the movie overcame stereotypical depictions of women and pageants, and even villains. The whole movie is a great girl power movie that can be related, in some sense, to the brilliance of Legally Blonde. – CarlyStarr7 years ago
What is so alluring about the love story between the insane and the manipulated. Why must these two characters continue to be televised as madly in love despite the comic books very clearly outlining how Joker manipulated, tortured, and conditioned Harley Quinn into becoming the villain we know and love. Why has Harley's break from the Joker and bisexuality been ignored throughout the development of her character and why the hell havent we seen any development of her relationships with Catwoman and Poison Ivy?
Oh my gosh thank you for this topic!!! I am a HUGE Harley Quinn fan and I absolutely hate the romanticized version of the love story between Joker and Harley. I have always found this relationship breaks my heart more than makes it full. And I hate when girls say they want a relationship like Joker and Harley when they've only seen the romanticized version of this story.. – ChaosMistress58177 years ago
One thing you could focus on is why it took so long for the DC comics to finally make Harley Quinn break away from Joker,and maybe try to identify why the relationship was tolerated throughout the years – tmtonji7 years ago
I'd compare different depictions of this twisted romances. Ironically, the 1992 animated series (wherein she debuted) seems to provide both the tamest and most mature take on their relationship, not reveling in torture porn while having a narrative awareness this is a deeply dysfunctional and abusive relationship, while Suicide Squad ups the ante on the abuse and simultaneously romanticizes their relationship in an objectively unhealthy way. How is it that the cartoon recognizes this is pure abuse and manipulation, while Suicide Squad tries to imply "he really does care"? How is it the film intended for adults is more naive and less realistic than the kids cartoon? Not just these two, of course, but, considering their public profile, I'd consider them first. – Allie Dawson7 years ago
My answer: it's about the Joker. The Joker is a nihilist. He is convinced that nothing matters, that it's all a joke. His goal is to get other people to see the world the same way he does. Harley Quinn is the closest he's ever come (if you don't count the Batman Beyond movie). But because he's, you know, insane, he doesn't love her, and he doesn't want her to love him because that doesn't jive with nihilism. It's a tragic love story, and that's why so many adaptations explore it. – noahspud7 years ago
O.J. Simpson in the Naked Gun movies, Joe Son in Austin Powers, Jeffrey Jones in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Hollywood films are rife with actors who have found their way on the wrong side of the law. Some are for petty reasons or misdomeanors, though some have been convicted (or at least tried) for truly heinous acts. Though does knowing this take away from the enjoyment of the films themselves? Can an audience enjoy and empathise with a character without seeing the criminal (if not evil) actor beneath? Where do we draw the line in our supposed 'suspension of disbelief'? Are there some films or actors that people just simply cannot bring themselves to look at? Do we boycott or condemn the film, and is that fair towards the other innocent individuals that worked on it?
These are all very interesting questions to ponder, since I have thought about them myself. Maybe choose a specific film and actor to talk about, and try to answer those questions. – Gabby7 years ago
It might be interesting to take a look at this topic from a political/historical perspective, as well as 'homages' to them (i.e. Leni Riefenstahl (propaganda filmmaker during Third Reich) and George Lucas (almost exactly copying one of Riefenstahls frames in Star Wars)). – Charly7 years ago
Depends on the crime, people's individual values/morals, but it's a shame as you say that other innocent actors can feel repercussions, – per2217 years ago
One question you can ask is do we boycott everything about said actor or only stuff that comes out after they became problematic. He’s not an actor but let’s say Kanye West, a lot of people who I know decided to no longer support him because of all his controversy but they still listen to his old music. While as others have decided to completely “unstan” him and anything associated to him from past to present. I think the question of time could be something interesting to target. – tmtonji7 years ago
