Analyze Korean director Bong Joon-Ho's filmography (specifcally Memories of Murder, The Host, and Mother) and present how he uses visuals, themes, and insertions of comedy and tragedy to show the incompetence of the Korean police force.
This is a phenomenal prompt. Deconstructing patriarchal institutions has been a major aspect of modern South Korean cinema, especially as a reaction to the dictatorship of the fifth republic in the 1980's. Someone familiar with Bong Joon Ho's filmography and other benchmark works of Korean cinema could do wonders with this. – PeterThelonious8 years ago
There have been many films that follow a romantic relationship from hopeful beginnings to an optimistic future and there are those that take it to the other end: when a relationship fails and the repercussions that entails. While some take a more realistic approach to the emotions riding through a former couple and their separation, there are others that follow one partner and see the other as almost literal monsters. Examples like David Cronenberg's The Brood which gives the main character's wife the ability to create child monsters or Andrzej Żuławski's Possession having from Mark's perspective seeing his wife Anna become a crazy sociopath and another woman as almost a double of the former, go into an almost otherworldly plane to explore how painful separation from a loved one can be. There might be other examples of this, like maybe Hideo Nakata's Dark Water, which is more of a focus on how divorce can effect children in the short term and long term in the realm of a ghost story. So I think the article should be an exploration of films that go into themes of love lost that goes more into the horror aspect and how people can seem to change into monsters when the rose tint is taken away.
Hmm, I would also suggest looking into Spike, a 2008 horror adaptation of Beauty and the Beast. – Emily Deibler8 years ago
Superman arose in comics in the aftermath of The Great Depression. Captain America was designed to fight Hitler. The X-Men were a brilliant allegory to the Civil Rights Movement. Comic book superheroes were created or rose in prominence when readers saw them fighting their enemies or representing and overcoming their struggles. Although the last 10 years haven't featured any crises of that scale, superheroes have dominated our media. Has the stigma of comic books simply elapsed and everyone can be a nerd in the mainstream or does the rise of superhero media indicative of a country looking to be distracted?
i don't understand this topic. how is entertainment different from escapism? which represents the way that comics can operate as allegorical or literal consideration of big issues? why does the topic's author claim "the last 10 years haven’t featured any crises of that scale"? how about the global financial crisis / the great recession? how is the rising acceptability of comic books/nerd culture opposed to a society "looking to be distracted"? and again, if the two are indeed in opposition, which is "entertainment" and which is "escapism"? it seems the whole topic is premised on a false dichotomy and an irrelevant preamble. – Richard Marcil8 years ago
I would examine the superheroes & see what aspects of society they represent and check to see how they have transformed in pop culture over the years – BMartin438 years ago
I like the idea you have going. I wouldn't say that the last 10 years haven't featured any crises on that scale though. – Bfitts8 years ago
It's an interesting idea you have going, but I think you should explain your theory more, – shazia8 years ago
The criteria of crisis measurement should be disclosed before releasing affirmations such as the ones above. – T. Palomino3 years ago
Justice League will debut next November. The Justice League, also known as the Justice League of America, has been DC Comics most prominent super hero team for 56 years! Now, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg will now join forces to fight the forces of evil and defend the innocent on the big screen.
However, there is one long time member of the Justice League that is missing…Green Lantern. Green Lantern is one of DC Comics "flagship" titles and has been a long time staple of the Justice League. So why no Green Lantern? Is it because the Green Lantern film from 2011 starring Ryan Reynolds bombed in the box office? Possibly.
But another reason may be the fact that DC Comics has been retooling and updating Green Lantern for decades, in order to make Green Lantern a more diverse character. As a result, there have been seven prominent versions of the ring wielding hero. Hal Jordan, who is Caucasian and was played by Reynolds in 2011, has been DC Comics definitive Lantern since 1960.
However, DC Comics has allowed minorities, such as John Stewart from the Justice League animated series, to take the ring for a time. A film focusing on the Green Lantern Corps is supposedly coming out in 2020, but Warner Bros has yet to reveal which Lantern will lead the Corps. Should DC Comics and Warner Bros remain faithful to the source material and fandom by giving Hal Jordan a second chance, or should they let a more diverse character become the definitive Green Lantern for their Cinematic Universe, and an entire generation of young super hero fans? This article would go into the histories of each major Green Lantern (Alan Scott, Hal Jordan, Guy Gardner, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, Simon Baz, and Jessica Cruz) in order to see which Green Lantern should join the DC Comics Cinematic Universe.
I think, in order to create the cinematic universe it so covets, DC has to introduce two or more Lanterns in one movie. Then they could do a great character dichotomy/foil thing, which would develop multiple characters (as pretty much none of their characters are developed at this point, in part due to lack of substantive character interactions). I'd say intro Hal as Parallax, and they develop Guy and John (so much great contrast there, I love it), but I was always a fan of chronology. Probably with John as the protagonist and Guy as comedic relief. Alan....doesn't count in my head, ha. Kyle is great, but they could start him off as Ion to avoid overcrowding GLs. Simon and Jessica probably don't have enough stories to adapt yet. Now I really want to write this topic, but don't have the time... Good luck to whomever writes this! I greatly look forward to reading it. – m-cubed8 years ago
A couple of weeks ago, DC officially announced that Green Lantern Corps would be made starring both Hal Jordan and John Stewart, so maybe the article could instead focus more on the comic origins and significance of those characters and what they would be contributing to the DCCU? And possibly why another Lantern may have been a better decision if the author feels that way. – LC Morisset8 years ago
Oftentimes, particularly if a movie is an adaption from a longer novel, fans moan and complain about key details and scenes left out. Sometimes it is even released later that those scenes were filmed and subsequently cut to save time. "We'll watch a 6-hour movie that is an exact replica of the book," they say. But would we? And more importantly, would movie theaters play them? In the ever growing market for adaptations, it might be time to examine the pros and cons of making longer, more accurate films.
I have friends who have watched the extended edition of Lord of the Rings on more than one occasion, so I would say that if the storyline is something they're devoted to, it's quite possible that people would be willing to sit for it. The con to that would of course be the small attention spans and the chance that nobody would ever want to watch the movie again. I've seen Titanic at least ten times in my life, so I would say that six hours may be pushing it, but saying that the average movie length of an hour and half may not give the viewer the full effect they're so craving, would not be an understatement. – Shelbi Sarver8 years ago
I think 6 hours is a lot but I would not mind watching a 3 hour movie if all the key scenes from the novel were present and that the editing is well done that the movie is not dragging. – sheffieldprintco8 years ago
Analyzing audience is a vital part of weighing the stakes. If you develop a longer film, which is heavily detailed according to a novel,etc., you run the risk of limiting your audience to watchers that consist of a preconceived fan bases of the novel, comic book, video game. Whereas, a viewer with no prior knowledge of the story might be turned off, as details don't often translate to an entertaining film, as suspense is at a higher risk of diminishing with longer bouts of time. However, the reverse is also a potentiality. You may serve to expand film goers', who generally seek instant gratification over quality of character and plot development...just a thought. – TortoiseGlasses8 years ago
Does a film require narration to reveal a character's personality in a film? To what extent can visual details and dialogue override the necessity for a narrator? Director Terrence Malick specifically uses narration in his overall body of work (ex. Tree of Life and Knight Of Cups) in a unique and powerful way, but a movie such as Blade Runner (the original 1982 cut) featured narration that offered little insight that was not already obtained from the dialogue/visuals. What films use narration in a unique way that is integral to the film? What films implemented narration, but may not have required it? Offer a comparison between specific films, examining the extent to which narration contributes to each one.
When I thought of this I immediately thought of "The Princess Bride" and how the use of narration made it truly a fairy tale. I also thought of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" and that style of almost audiobook level of narration. Other quality narrations I think of would be "A Clockwork Orange" and "Trainspotting". Maybe a look into movies based on books and their use of narration? I shudder to think of what someone has to say about the movie "Dune". – TheFoxBeard8 years ago
There are probably thousands of comic books, with hundreds of heroes and villains. Surely, getting new iterations of Spiderman and Batman for the third time (for Spiderman, the third time in the last two decades, the last one being in 2014) isn't really necessary nor is it pushing the boundaries to new ideas. Why are we getting new iterations? Is it because the general population will only pay to see superheroes they know? But with the increasing superhero overdose, wouldn't studios make more money if there were new superheroes with new villains and new powers being put on the big screen?
I would be careful of the use of the word "remakes" because if you look at Christian Bale's Batman vs. Ben Afleck's Batman, the characters have distinct differences between them, with different stories and elements highlighted. In this case, I feel that the word remakes might not be the best fit. Maybe "new iterations" would be more appropriate for what you are discussing. The topic is very interesting and relevant overall! – SeanGadus8 years ago
Good point, but check the wording in the second sentence. More specifically 'necessary of interesting'. I'm not sure what you were going for, but I feel like you can word that part better. Other than that, you are good to go. – MikeySheff8 years ago
I think Batman especially represents a lot of interesting aspects of the human subconscious, which is possibly why he is so enduringly popular, but I do think that with nearly 100 years of mythos in Batman, the filmmakers could do more to integrate the entirety of the comics. For instance, the only Batgirl we've gotten was in the terrible Clooney movie, which is not at all representative of Barbara Gordon. We haven't seen anything of Jason Todd, a hint of Nightwing at the end of Dark Knight Rises, but there's so much more to Batman than just Batman, and I think that's being really underutilized. – rmwalker8 years ago
In the wake of the massive success of "Deadpool," many other films (mostly superhero movies, a la "Logan") have decided to also jump into R-rated waters. Is this transition going to have an overall positive impact on the industry, or is it just a needless aping in an attempt to make lightning strike twice?
Intriguing topic, considering how often films have wanted to avoid an R-rating for the purpose of appealing to a much wider audience. Defining what "positive" means in relation to the film industry will be key. Does that mean more profits? Better content? Should super heroes be adult themed? What kind of effect does that have on the younger audience, specially if they can't view these films without parental consent? – mazzamura8 years ago
Interesting topic. Although I don't think filmmakers coming out with R-rated films (or deliberately aiming to receive R ratings) is really anything new, since the R rating has been around and in popular use for a long time ... unless you mean to specifically focus on R ratings in superhero movies? – OBri8 years ago
I suppose the heart of this issue is that they are limiting the potential of an entire demographic (i.e. children) from being patrons to these films. Traditionally, children have been the primary audience for superhero movies, with even more profits coming from the expansive merchandising than the box office. However, when filmmakers pander directly to the action-figure market, we wind up with Schumacher's Batman movies. Since circa 2005 to 2008, when Nolan revived Batman with a gritty, semi-realistic reinvention of the character that was most certainly not targeted toward children (regardless of whether or not they saw and enjoyed it), it inspired a more adult-oriented trend in the superhero genre. Deadpool, then, took this further by replacing the darkness and brooding with raunchy comedy, thereby expanding the market in a new direction. Time will tell whether this newfound adult audience will be sustainable enough to compensate for all of the children being excluded by these R-ratings. This shift in demographic targeting should make for a worthy investigation. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I think it should also be noted these rated R movies are only succesful because the material itself where it originates from is for a matured audience, so it really depends on what kind of material is being adapted to a R-rated film and whatever the material has a loyal audience. – cgclass8 years ago
I think the key will be content. Are movies adding unnecessary additions just to get the R-Rating? Or does the content actually call for it (such as Deadpool)? – alijulia878 years ago
It may be worth noting the reason for the rating? I find myself somewhat skeptical when a movie I thought would be rated R is, in fact, PG-13. I worry that the film will be limited by that rating, that something which should indeed be gruesome, adult, serious, or otherwise "mature" will be watered for the sake of potentially young viewers. In that case, it borders censorship. But, I also find the notion of making a movie rated R, or incorporating uselessly ostentatious deaths without true benefit to be equally as unsettling. – Josh8 years ago
