With the rise of remake films with all female casts being on an upward trajectory, what are some of the pros and cons for doing this? Does this have an effect on how the viewer rates and discusses the movie? If so, how, why? If not, why not?
I love this question! I don't know the answer. But, here is an an example of how ( I believe) it has been a change for the worst: the recent re-make of the Ghostbusters film. Compared to the 1980's all male ( main character) cast, the women actors seemed overly directed and controlled. They are funny women. They are intelligent and they have have gobs of talent, yet, it seemed they were not allowed to fully flesh out their characters, interact and riff off of each other, nor flex their comedic muscles as freely and fully as their male counterparts ( Murry, Akroid, etc.) did in the original. – Joslyn Robinson7 years ago
This is a good question, especially with the controversy around recent franchises like Star Wars and Ghostbusters. It seems like a double edged sword. On the one hand, having more female representation is better than nothing. On the other hand it could be viewed as being superficial, just a name change at best, or blatantly sexist at worst. Most of the "stick to the text" fundamentalism seems pretty stupid to me, given that there have been far more egregious changes to text (like Spiderman's powers in the Raimi movies, or the revisionist ending to Jurassic Park) without the controversy. In general, it seems better to have more female characters, but it would be better if there were just more roles for women in general from the start. – tedytak7 years ago
A discussion of how a character's perspective on time influences their identity.
Some films to consider: Mr. Nobody (time and memory woven and re-runable), The Time Traveler's Wife (time as uncontrollable), Kate and Leopold (does ones place in time impact their identity?), Age of Adeline (the effect of aging differently), About Time (how does taking control of time impact the Characters?), and In time (Time as a limited commodity). For fun a whimsical look at the new Alice Through the Looking Glass could also be interesting.
Analyse Wes Anderson's ability to maintain empathy in a highly constructed world of systems and artifice. Investigate the success or lack thereof of film school graduates who mimic Anderson's style: are they able to replicate his empathy as well as his visual technique? See Simon Baron-Cohen's E-S theories.
1. Define "empathy in a highly constructed world of systems and artifice." – T. Palomino1 year ago
2. Give yourself a summary of BC ES theories and explain why they are relevant. – T. Palomino1 year ago
Also known as "whip zoom" or "crash zoom", this is a cinematic technique where the camera rapidly zooms in on an object for dramatic effect. In modern cinema it can be seen in the works of both Edgar Wright and Quentin Tarantino – the former using it as a form of comedic irony, and the latter using it as part of his homages to older cinema. That being said, the snap zoom can also be seen as a classic trope in westerns and kung fu films as well as horror movies. This article would be a historical overview of the snap zoom; its origin, its place in different genres (i.e. the potential difference between a "western" snap zoom and a "kung fu" or a "horror" one), and perhaps how it has evolved from a simple camera technique to such a stylistic stamp.
A fascinating suggestion, even if somewhat specialised. Nice one! You have my vote. – Amyus7 years ago
When Disney announced their intent to acquire a large chunk of 21st Century Fox on December 14, cinephiles and television enthusiasts alike released a harmonious d'oh! Although the deal could take more than a year to close (if regulators approve), I think we are all left wondering what this merger could mean for the future of media consumption. Domestic box office attendance in 2017 is reported to have been the lowest in 25 years. With Disney simultaneously planning their own streaming service, could this merger signal the death of theatre going as we know it?
The death of cinema has long been predicted. Perhaps with digital media, the demise of movies can be expected. This topic is timely. – Munjeera7 years ago
Definitely interested to see what the writer comes up with, not only in terms of how the merger will affect cinema, but how it will affect both companies and their fans. I'm already seeing memes, comments, and so forth rejoicing over the fact that Anastasia could be considered an official Disney princess, for one. I see some potential new fandoms and fan culture popping up here. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
If Anastasia becomes a Disney princess, so should Esmerelda from Hunchback. But I digress... – Munjeera7 years ago
Digress all you want; she is my favorite honorary princess and I agree, she should be made official. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Perhaps also talk about the Murdoch empire and their recent run in with regulatory authorities in England. – derBruderspielt7 years ago
The recent Andy Muschetti film 'It' (adapted from the titular Stephen King novel) has been a monstrous success (pardon the pun). Is it the 1980s setting and vibe that connects with adults and kids today? Is it the links it shares with thematic elements of the wildly successful Stranger Things (a show gleefully inspired by Stephen King)? What has made this horror film such a hit?
I think this makes for a compelling discussion. Having seeing both 'IT' and 'Stranger Things', the 80's horror aesthetic and visual is very much so trending right now. I think Stranger Things has pioneered modern pop culture by reviving this style in mainstream television/film. – AdilYoosuf7 years ago
I think a great point to add to this is the nostalgic aspect of such revivals of the 80s settings, which are appealing to the demographic of movie goers and TV viewers that grew up during this period. I think also that the desire to throw back to this period is akin to most nostalgia media in that it allows for a greater sense of connection to occur between the viewer and the product. An interesting discussion to have. – SaraiMW7 years ago
Amidst a string of 80s nostalgia driven tripe (with the occasional good one), I cannot think of a better time to release an It movie that is not only true to the book, but also a great movie on its own merits. It was exactly what we needed in this current uninspired, wash-rinse-repeat market. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
I belief the success of 'It' stems from its source material. Stephen King is a bit of a unicorn in the adaptation world - movie renditions of his books rarely flop. You might explore the reasons behind this. For example, Stephen King spares no detail when it comes to character development. Perhaps the wealth of personality he provides in his novels helps the films adapt themselves (so to speak). And if character development is a contributor to the success of 'It', what does that say about other, lackluster recent releases? Is Hollywood lapsing into one-dimensionality? At least when it comes to developing characters? And our we, as viewers, beginning to notice that lack? Interesting topic! – Jude Romines7 years ago
*POTENTIAL SPOILERS* In the wake of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, one of the main negative points that critiques emphasize is the lack of narrative fulfillment. Many plot-arcs and burning questions were either left unanswered or unexplained, priming Disney to release other forms of media, comic books or novel series', to fill the gaps in the film. There is precedent for this technique in the gaming community, with Gears of War 3 introducing characters who were fan-favourites from comic book series' and Destiny including plot-relevant lore to be explored outside of the game and on the game's website. Will this present a negative impact on the way stories are told on different mediums? Are the release of expanded works intended to deepen our appreciation for a universe, or exploitation tactics by greedy content creators? Does exploring different characters and story-lines add depth to a franchise, or allow it to short-cut the narrative process?
First off interesting topic. Need to change the title - these are not literature universes, perhaps pop-culture or cinematic? Depending on how you want to narrow this very large question down. In relation to the question I think you would have to take into account merchandising and one avenue might be to look at the original merchandising deals from SW that made Lucas so rich, added to this is Disney's main money makers are not their movies but all the related sales iconography, which to me is the single reason we have new SW movies, because it definitely wasn't because anyone had written a decent script (gripe, gripe). I think this is a conversation worth having. – SaraiMW7 years ago
In the wake of its release, Hugh Jackman's "The Greatest Showman" has received a handful of negative reviews due to its inaccurate portrayal of P.T. Barnum. Several negative reviews argue that the film leaves out P.T. Barnum’s true nature and behavior, such as his exploitation of his circus “freaks” and the fact that he and/or his circus abused the animals in the show. Moviegoers have given the film poor reviews simply because they dislike P.T. Barnum and the fact that the film did not portray him as the person he apparently was—not because they dislike the movie.
This then begs the question: How much should we care about accuracy in films? Should we take the film for what it is, a movie intent on promoting whimsy, family fun, great music, amazing dance sequences, and general themes of inclusion and self-love? Or should we care that the film did not show the true, nitty-gritty details of a man who was not as “great” as the film cracks him up to be?
The writer does not have to focus on "The Greatest Showman," of course. S/he can focus on any films that do not accurately portray the person that they are portraying. In doing so, assess the importance of accuracy, its effect on us and our opinions, and perhaps how the alternative truth(s) might affect us and our opinions. What do we gain and what do we lose by receiving an inaccurate portrayal of a person that our culture idolizes and celebrates?
It is apparent that the general public is either not willing to accept, or just simply does not consider, that an adaptation of a narrative or story from one art form to another, will never be a carbon-copy of the original, and will have its own distinctions based on the two art forms. However, more subjectively, there should be an onus on movie studios, or whatever business is adapting an original work, to emphasize that their interpretation of the narrative is different from the original, either through their own artistic vision, or lack of depth of the medium (e.g. novels as movies). An example of this would be how King Arthur (2004) blatantly acknowledged that its story diverged from the traditional Arthurian legend into a Roman empire-inspired piece. Regarding the review of such adapted movies, there will of course be parallels drawn to the source material, especially if the adaptation is marketed as having drawn inspiration from such. However, it is also important to critique films for their own characteristics, such as cinematography and acting, as they can have a significant impact on how the narrative is told. An example of these two lenses would be how Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight was critiqued in accordance to its source material, DC's A Killing Joke. – Gliese436B7 years ago
What I see as central to this topic is the ethical responsibility of art. If we say artists (in this case, filmmakers) have an ethical responsibility, then they should care about accuracy and not sugar coating someone's character for the sake of a warm and fuzzy resolution or better entertainment. However, if creative license is truly creative license, then we cannot critique artists for bending reality. This could even go into the idea of whitewashing--"should we care," or I think, more analytically, do filmmakers have an ethical responsibility to hire actors that accurately represent the ethnicity of the characters portrayed (whether fictional or not)? So when we talk about "accuracy" this is a large term, especially in the context presented here, because it isn't just about making a few small changes (like in a Harry Potter type film), but really about the ethical responsibility to the accuracy of a story and whether or not that choice is erasing difference that is not often represented on screen. – shoberry7 years ago
I'd say those high standards would be warranted for a documentary claiming to be non-fiction, but not a movie telling a story with the purpose of celebrating the good things a person did, or at least the interesting things. The Social Network, Hamilton, and Saving Mr. Banks all may have stretched the truth, but they certainly made the points they were trying to make.
On that note, The Social Network was partially about pulling down a celebrated icon. Is this topic applicable to the inverse concept? – noahspud7 years ago
