The Dark Knight is widely regarded as one of the best movies of its kind. It is officially a sequel to Batman Begins, but unlike most sequels, audiences don't really need to watch the first movie to understand or enjoy the plot of the second. The only major plotline that continues between the two (apart from Bruce Wayne Being Batman, of course) is Bruce and Rachel's relationship ("If there is ever a time when Gotham doesn't need Batman, we can be together.") Does the stand-alone nature of this movie make it a better sequel? Or a worse one? What metrics do you use to measure the quality of a sequel? We don't determine the quality of a horror movie by how much it makes us laugh, for example. Do we determine the quality of a sequel by how much it depends on the story of the first movie? Compare to Terminator 2, Rocky 2, John Wick 2, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back, and other movies considered some of the best sequels of all time.
Godfather 2, Aliens, Toy Story 2, Logan as well. – Sunni Ago2 years ago
I think it's important to remember the difference between this sequel and the other's you named-- source material. I'm not saying it lacks originality, I adore THE DARK KNIGHT but there were characters and relationships that we as a culture were familiar with before the first film even released too. Might be interesting to explore the effect it had – hudsonmakesmovies2 years ago
Also Back to the Future Part II, Shrek 2, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, X-Men 2, Spiderman 2... – noahspud2 years ago
James Gunn and Peter Safran, the new leadership at DC Films, recently announced a slate of ten new projects that will start a new era of DC Films. The team is moving on from much of the properties and actors associated with DC's past films (for example, Henry Cavill will not return as Superman). The author would analyze the slate of releases announced by Gunn and Safran, as will as discuss the viability of their approach to developing a new connected television and film universe. The author could also touch on their handling of outside universe projects like Joker 2 and The Batman Part II.
For many people, true stories are far more compelling than fiction and so there is an ever growing market for documentaires and tv series based on true stories. However, there are some ethical considerations that need to be taken into account.
Firstly, when filming documentaires, do producers have an obligation to represent information as wholly and accurately as possible? We can see the simple of nature documentaries wherein the lion eats the zebra, but the event can be seen as either a victory or a defeat depending on whether the documentary focuses ont the lion or the zebra. Do those who make documentaries have a responsibility to represent both perspectives?
Secondly, what kind of obligations should be held in regards to the subject of a documentary or a film based on a true story? Especially in the case of a tragedy, it is possibly for filmmakers to take advantage of a person's grief for the sake of the story. Finally, does the dramatisation of true stories in some way glorify the event? This is an especially pressing issue when it comes to films about serial killers, for example ted bundy when he was portrayed by Zac Efron, or Jeffrey Dahmer who was protrayed by Evan Peters. Following the release of Dahmer in particular, there have been complaints from the families of victims and a response from viewers that was shockingly unempathetic. Extremely wicked shockingly vile and evil even garnered fan girls for the serial killer Ted Bundy. Do dramatisations of tragedies create a warped discourse surrounding these tragedies?
This is a brilliant and relevant point. In the onslaught of "based on a true story" kind of entertainment, I think there should be requirements for creators to go through to green-light certain projects. An example is Dahmer's father never giving consent to release tapes or create any of the documentaries surrounding his son. Blonde is a great example of the fetishization of Marilyn Monroe's trauma to the point of fabricating traumatic events while using her name to push a narrative that is only tangentially related to her. They knew that if they created a fictional starlet as the vehicle for violating and violent sexual assault, people would be horrified and it would never be cleared. There is an ethical issue at the heart of this topic. It would be crucial to provide equal examples of when it's done right in honoring the topic and when its simply glorifies one side. – LadyAcademia2 years ago
This is still so relevant today. Every time I see a serial killer documentary or a series like Dahmer, it kind of annoys me. I wish people would stop glorifying these killers because every time they're released it only creates new crazed fans of these killers as seen in the aftermath of Dahmer. It also most definitely is disrespectful to the victims and their families who have actually have to live through these events and now have to relive them because of these fans. – farhana11022 years ago
This is a great topic and can innovates many thinkings around ethical storytelling. I think it is important to give distinctions on documentary, film and TV series. For documentary, the producer is looking to approach the true story as close to reality as possible. Hence, it requires less drama and more objective view. For film and TV series, I think producers must respect every person who involved in the true story. That means they should not misinterpret and over glorify the evil. The script or screen writer is also important when discussing this topic. They also have the obligation to know the story thoroughly and not making the script sounds silly. – Eddie2 years ago
As a viewer, among other reasons, we watch movies and TV shows to escape and be entertained. However, the use of dark imagery has become a trend in many productions, which can contribute to a bad watching experience.
When scenes are overly dark or lack proper lighting, it can make it difficult to see what is happening on screen. This can lead to confusion for the viewer and detract from the story being told. It can also be physically uncomfortable to strain our eyes to see what's happening.
While it's important to respect the author's intent, there are ways to incorporate mood and atmosphere without sacrificing the viewer's experience. Lighting should be used to create tension or set the tone without compromising visibility.
Additionally, it's essential to think about accessibility. Dark imagery can be particularly challenging for viewers with visual impairments or older audiences who may struggle with their sight. It's important to ensure that everyone can enjoy the production fully.
Is this really a question of opinion or fact? Some even say that the alleged similar experience faced by a character in the dark is not faithfully reproduced on screen because of the way our eyes and vision adapt to dark surroundings.
I suggest you Google this trend because it is a trend. Check Variety and others.
Accessibility is totally on point here. How can you appreciate a movie if you cannot see the scenes?
14 million people in the US are visually impaired (2006, according to the National Institute of Health).
http://surl.li/ghnlm — Check it, a quick Google research on the theme.
And I do not need to give tons of examples and stuff. This is a topic suggestion, not an article afaik.
This is not a personal matter at all, this is considering other people who might have other problems with accessibility.
– Beatrix Kondo2 years ago
This is a topic I've seen complained about recently. In discussion of it, I often see a quote from the cinematographer of the Lord of the Rings movies brought up: when asked on a set where the light comes from, he simply said 'same place as the music'. Some people (me included) see this as a good approach, with lighting being important to have even when it's not 'realistic'. – AnnieEM2 years ago
This is a fantastic observation of an aesthetic issue. The film industry has relied on lighting to provide depth and ambiance since the golden age of Hollywood. Many black-and-white movies relied on stark lighting differences in order to communicate the tone and the weight of the moment, such as On The Waterfront, Stage Fright, and other films. Another aspect is the use of color. Wong Kar-wai is a master in mood lighting without sacrificing color or suspense. Seeing the ways that old Hollywood mastered communication through lighting and the way that international cinematographers create visual complexity could be a good aspect to explore. – LadyAcademia2 years ago
Dark aesthetic is beautiful but I agree, one can only appreciate it if one can see it. Both Peter Jackson and Gullimore del Toro have commented on the artificial 'unreal' lighting on their sets, that it's perfectly fine to have dark aesthetics, but one needs to see the art you create so you have to take some liberties in order for it to be appreciated, and I completely agree. – Veara2 years ago
500 Days of Summer features Zooey Deschanel as Summer, a quirky, aloof, "perfect" woman who quickly becomes the object of main character Tom's obsession. Her main purpose is to complement and complete him, rather than embark upon any character arc or self-improving journey of her own. Is this a harmless play on a stock character, or is it offensive on a deeper level– suggestive of women as only objects or commodities to enhance the lives of men? Furthermore, Tom is totally blind to reality or anything else around him when in the presence of Summer. Does this mean her character is manipulative and bitchy, or simply that she is so explicitly designed to be his perfect object of desire that no one else can possibly compare?
I'm not sure the conclusion/narrative arc of the movie backs up this perspective/point of view that Summer is herself a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. In many ways, I feel like the film is a critique to the idea of a manic pixie dream girl. A key part of the film is that Tom does not end up with Summer because she ends up wanting things that are different from him/finds her own path through life. Manic Pixie Dreams girls usually serve to complete the main character. Tom fails to see Summer as a deeply complex person, instead she spends much of the film as the object of his affection or a thorn in his side depending on whether they are seeing each other. The audience almost exclusively sees Summer through Tom's point of view. There is even a scene where a woman Allison asks Tony if Summer lied to him or cheated on him, and this scene helps illustrate that Tom is wrong in many ways about Summer. Tom may see Summer as a Maniac Pixie Dream Girl, but his perspective on her is deeply flawed. – Sean Gadus2 years ago
I'd suggest expanding the discussion to other "manic pixe dream girls," such as Ramona Flowers, Margo Roth Spiegelman, and Ruby Sparks. Perhaps compare and contrast them with each other and with other female characters that are portrayed better. – noahspud2 years ago
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is also worthy of mentioning since it also explored the PDG as a human with a life of her own, at it was released long before 500 days – salty_ink_sauce2 years ago
Precisely! Ramona Flowers and Clementine are perfect examples of Manic Pixie Dream Girls! (And, unfortunately, soon we are going to have an anime for Scott Pilgrim... yes, again... another adaptation...) Timely to discuss Ramona Flowers then ;) – Beatrix Kondo2 years ago
Tragedy in cinema is a large genre (Forrest Gump, Marriage Story, Steel Magnolias, etc.) but why are we drawn to movies that make us cry? Is there a similarity to listening to sad music? Maybe a big, cathartic cry is just what's needed to make it through a tough week. But does tragedy in cinema help us to express our emotions or make us feel worse?
Discuss how tragedy relates to the ideas of romanticism, and why these themes are still prevalent in today's blockbusters.
Traditionally, the intention of tragedy has always been to cause catharsis (pleasure through pain) to the audience. But it has been discussed that many other genres or artistic forms can also produce or invoke catharsis. In the end, it is all a matter of personal or cultural preference. If it is true that some people are attracted to tragic stories, it is also true that many people actively avoid any form of tearjerker, too. – T. Palomino2 years ago
I think this could be examined through a lens of either upward or downward comparison: does seeing depictions of suffering more significant than ours elevate ourselves and make us feel better about our own relatively insignificant problems, or does viewing suffering as adjacent to our own validate our emotions and allow us justification to be upset? – lavenderhatchet2 years ago
Psychologically, negative events affect our brains more than positive ones. Tragic events have the potency to describes the higher amount of psychological arousal that a person experiences and is exposed to a negative or traumatic event compared with a positive event – Kammil2 years ago
Tragedy and comedy are two sides of the same coin- large, visceral emotions that often evoke a physical response in us; the same can be said of romanticism, though in a more subtle state. I think it would be interesting to compare the historical trends of popularity of tragedy in popular media and correlate that with what was happening in wider society at the time. – lbarling2 years ago
Movies of all genres and decades have had probably the biggest impact on the video game industry. Developers have always cited their favourite films and inspiration (Escape From New York inspired the Metal Gear Series, for example, or the works of John Woo inspiring the Max Payne series). Perhaps the biggest influences are the Action movies of the 1980s. Rambo, Commando, Predator, Running Man, Total Recall, and countless others. This genre has helped lead to some of the most visually and interactively appealing games in the industry. But what is the full extent of the connection? And how many games trace their roots to the big screen?
Contra is a big example of a game influenced by 1980s action movies. The game's box art features two characters that look like Stallone and Schwarzenegger. – Sean Gadus2 years ago
I think it could be a great article. From my point of view, I see action movies with a high influence specially on the gameplay and cameras, on how we, as players, situate ourselves inside the game, how we feel the atmosphere, like games as GTA does, for example. Hand to hand combates, cinematic gameplays. One excellent example is the Madagascar gameplay on Uncharted 4. – allan reis2 years ago
In 2005, actor Christian Bale starred in two interesting, if very different films: David Ayer's "Harsh Times" and Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins." Though both films are practically diametrically opposed, they do share some interesting similarities in regards to the characters Bale plays.
Both characters are specially-trained warriors who return to a less-than-familiar home to then try and use the skills they honed in foreign lands fighting foreign enemies to find a new purpose. The similarities don't end there, though, as both characters are plagued by past traumas that manifest themselves in disturbing visions and hallucinations.
This article would be a study of those characters (Bruce Wayne/Batman in "Batman Begins" and Jim Davis in "Harsh Times" and just how their skills, experiences, and relationships shape them into the people they are.
