Analyse different movie franchises and their array of characters other than the protagonist, specifically, where these side-characters or villains seem to contribute more to the widespread allure of the movie/series more than the hero. And then, discuss the reasons behind their contribution i.e. quality of acting, depth of character, character popular appeal, etc. There are many examples one could run with, for example, Han Solo in Star Wars, Legolas/Aragorn in LOTR, Joker in The Dark Knight, etc.
What can be said of "side-characters" if they eventually become protagonists in their own spin-off stories? – pjoshualaskey8 years ago
Would this be including love interests as side characters? I only ask as I've noticed that your list contains only male characters in franchises (which is certainly fine as those are powerful and interesting characters), but going down this road something could (or should) be said of female side characters so as be sure to keep gender balance. If you aren't defining a side character as a love interest, seeking out female side characters would be essential (or pointing out the lack thereof). – Mariel Tishma8 years ago
Agree with Mariel, I think it would be important to define "side-character", as you could probably write this type of article based on villains alone. – Sonia Charlotta Reini8 years ago
4D movie theaters are known for their immersive qualities including smells, seat vibrations, the simulation of certain weather conditions, etc. to replicate for the viewer what is being experienced in the fictional narrative presented onscreen. So far, 4D movies haven’t exactly dominated the movie-going experience but their existence does raise questions about how reflexivity will be achieved in the future. Self-reflexive films make viewers aware of the fact that they are watching a film, revealing “the artifice” as it were of the narrative and the characters involved. It’s a technique that’s often associated with art house or new wave cinema, though it can be found elsewhere in more palatable and consumer-friendly forms. Moviegoers usually like a fully immersive movie-going experience rather than be reminded that a film is a construct (it provides a nice escape from the tedium of reality for a few hours). With the increasing popularity of virtual reality in gaming nowadays, how will these increasingly more immersive technologies impact future movements in self-aware cinema? Will it undermine it all together? If not, how can reflexive techniques find a loophole around it to engage viewers as participants (not just spectators) again?
Cinema is designed to be communal. VR and video games are designed (for the most part) to be experienced alone, or at least in the domestic sphere of the home. Examining the aspects of place would be a critical view into your questions. There have been very few successful cross overs of video games to films (Lara Croft being an exceptIon) primarily because the social geography is different, and filmmakers rarely take that into account. An environment designed for personal consumption has some personal geography that is difficult to translate to a communal experience. So the question becomes, not how the reflexive techniques will find a loophole, but how the social geography can best be brought into the reflexive, because that is where the difference will really be made. Note to self, don't leave the page to look up an author's name... lest your note be deleted! Check out Lynn Spigel's work. – staceysimmons8 years ago
With most major franchises releasing timelines of sequels, prequels, and spinoffs years in advance, it has become increasingly obvious that sequels are a fast way to create interest and reap box office revenue. However, it has also become increasingly obvious that many movie-goers are tired of this industry tactic, and have called for a return to original content. Discuss the relationship between a sequel being successful, and of it being necessary/wanted by the public.
Sequels aren't inherently bad, but they can be abused. It really comes down to loyalty and attachment. Does the Star Wars prequel and sequel trilogies need to exist? No, but because so many people are invested in the universe and the characters, they'll keep making Star Wars movies. The same can be applied to any successful movie franchise. The only ways a sequel won't get made is if the movie does awful or the creative team makes a bold decision not to make another one, even if it means losing out on profits. – MarkSole8 years ago
This topic would benefit from market analysis, though I imagine your quality of "being necessary/wanted" will be hard to quantify if that's not tied to box office revenue. – Kevin8 years ago
Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, X-Men, and the list goes on. There is no way that any of these movies would have the same impact without their sequels. I can definitely see your point, that some sequels are just cash tactics, but the great many seem to make sense to the story. – MikeySheff8 years ago
One interesting angle you might pursue: Who determines which movies get a sequel, and who should be determining that? For example, Hollywood decided Despicable Me should get two sequels plus a Minions movie, but did the original movie warrant it? What makes content good enough for we as consumers to say, "I want more?" And why (besides the almighty dollar) does the media refuse to listen to what consumers want? – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Watching movies has always been a favourite pastime for many people around the world. However, many people do tend to criticize the fantasy and surrealism of films as they tend to askew audience's expectations of life. Discuss whether or not movies need to be more self-aware of this surrealism and whether or not there should be a balance between fantasy and reality.
Mean-world syndrome can be explored as a part of this topic. – Aaron9 years ago
In my view yes! I have enough reality in my life. But I know so many who are interested in documentaries about tense issues for those who disavow escapism. – Munjeera9 years ago
I think even fictional films shouldn't always be used for escapism. There's plenty of great films that hit close to home. Even Miyazaki films or other Studio Ghibli films don't always allow an escape for me, because they challenge me to engage with certain social issues. – chekhovsraygun9 years ago
This is an essential, complex question to debate. I would recommend erring on the side of "no," due to considering the problematic associations attached to consuming uncritical, naïve cinematic portrayals of "reality." This is particularly relevant to the complex art medium of film. – Lucas9 years ago
Re Munjeera's point, I wonder how age and socioeconomics affect viewing habits. I wonder if younger viewers watch more documentaries while older viewers watch more escapist programs. The same might also be true of wealthy or healthy viewers vis-a-vis poor or unhealthy viewers. There just has to be some reason explaining why my otherwise intelligent great-uncle, in his 80's, willingly watched "Walker, Texas Ranger." This is a rich topic. – Tigey8 years ago
No. Escapism is a feature of entertainment -- in the blood of entertainment lies the ruin of art. – Brandon T. Gass8 years ago
Escapism is important for entertainment especially to cater to someone's mood. – Mal4158 years ago
It depends on the content and the theme. Some films carry heavy content or have a message to be relayed and require critical awareness for delivery. Some films are all about imagination, playfulness and the absurd. It's okay for there to be different types. Some films are hybrid. Everything has its place. – bluishcatbag8 years ago
Perhaps one could include the effects/inspirations that films have on people, especially in dealing with contemporary/topical themes. Films are often used as social commentary, and it could be interesting to explore that side of the industry. – SuzannahRL8 years ago
"I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which 'Escape' is now so often used. Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? The world outside has not become less real because the prisoner cannot see it." --Tolkien, On Fairy-Stories – C8lin8 years ago
In my opinion, it depends on the movie and the audience. Disney movies, for instance, are aimed at families--mostly children--even though millions of adults enjoy them. Because the primary audience is children, they can and should be primarily escapism. But other genres, aimed at other audience types, can and should make us think. Making us think also doesn't mean impugning a genre's integrity. For instance, Chocolat is a chick flick, and it has a lot of romantic comedy/chick flick conventions. But I watch it partially because it makes me think about issues like the dichotomy between grace and truth, freedom and legalism, the church and the secular world. Even movies that are not escapism can still provide some escape as well. For instance, I don't think anyone really wants to watch the Titanic sink--again. Nobody wants to watch the atrocities committed in Schindler's List. The reason we do is because these movies contain a hope element. They speak, however briefly or imperfectly, to the triumph of the human spirit. Even though they are not meant as classical escapism, like say a Disney movie would be, that hope element does provide some form of escape. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
As technology marches on, special effects in movies have gone from being practical to doing everything on a computer. Now as far as convenience goes, going digital is for the better. However, some will argue that digital effects will never compare to something that's in front of the camera. So is it necessary to keep marching onward and keep improving digital effects or should we take a step back and try to make practical effects an honored practice again? We would need to realize the advantages and disadvantages for both of these special effects if we are to bring out their full potential.
There's a lot that can be explored here. One thing I have noticed is a movement toward using technology to achieve a pre-technology effect in cinema and animation. I think this largely stems from nostalgia, or a population that mourns the loss of traditional effects. One startling example is the Disney Lion Guard series - the creators have actually engineered the animation to look hand-drawn, with digitally enhanced "pencil" strokes similar to its film forefather, The Lion King, years before Pixar. Some would argue that this is a regression, but maybe this is how we attempt to move forward digitally while still paying tribute to practical effects. This brings up more questions like, is artistry completely lost in the digital landscape? Will digital become the only artistic platform left for effects? Is nostalgia the only reason to cling to practical effects, or are we also missing essential artistic elements by going with cost and convenience? – wtardieu8 years ago
Very important movie is Mad Max: Fury Road, whose practical special effects are almost good enough without CGI enhancement - however some CGI added to make it perfect. – Kevin8 years ago
Many directors who have a very distinct style; however, some are criticized for not adhering to convention (Batman V Superman's lack of establishing shots, Le Miz's use of handheld and disregard of the fourth wall*) while others are praised for it (Wes Anderson's constantly symmetrical shots, which ignore the Rule of Thirds). Why are these so differently received? Which filmmakers are successful when they challenge convention, and why? Success here is defined by critical and popular opinion ('majority rules'), rather than box office returns.
This topic should mainly address technical aspects of filmmaking such as lighting, camera-work, and cinematography, rather than plot or character.
*from Film Crit Hulk's excellent review
Interesting observation, but I think what these directors are being critiqued or praised for is not so much the mere act of "breaking conventions," but rather the results of their artistic choices. To use your examples, Snyder's lack of establishing shots may be a creative choice, but it makes the plot harder to follow, which complicated the viewing experience. Alternatively, Anderson's symmetrical framing enhances the viewing experience, adding to the overall whimsy of his trademarked style. (I won't comment on Hooper, because I rather liked what he did with Les Mis, attempting to replicate theatre aesthetics in cinema. However, I feel that Joe Wright did this much better that same year in his Anna Karenina, but that was also torn apart by the critiques.) My point is, iconoclasm in and of itself has no inherent value; it depends entirely one what is being revolted against, for what reasons, and what comes of it. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Looking at The Force Awakens as well as canon novels, comics, film-maker's comments, and even previous Star Wars films, suggest a reasonable theory or theories on who Supreme Leader Snoke could actually be. Snoke is the man behind the curtain in The Force Awakens and looks to have a very important role in the Star Wars universe moving forward. This would be an interesting topic because like Rey the question of Snoke's identity remains unknown.
I think it could be useful to also interrogate how these theories relate to the act of story-telling itself. What do the candidates for Supreme Leader Snoke reveal about story-telling structure within Star Wars? How do these candidates relate the conflict between the author and audience's desire for how a story should progress? I'm thinking of this within the larger Star Wars franchise and how this has played out historically within the past. – Matt Sautman8 years ago
Although Frozen has been praised for introducing the idea of familial true love, both women exhibit poor logic, emotional flightiness, and naivete. While Disney has come a long way from the submissive Snow White to the empowered and knowledge-seeking Rapunzel, Frozen's leading ladies seem to succumb to manipulation and victimization much more easily than those in earlier films. Are Ana and Elsa representative of a step backward in Disney princess evolution? What characteristics do they exhibit that might be damaging for young girls to emulate?
Are all humans not subject to exhibiting poor logic, emotional flightiness, naivete, manipulation, and victimization? Hercules was emotionally flighty near the end of his movie, and he was also heavily manipulated, as have several other men throughout Disney's movies such as Aladdin, Simba, and Tarzan - who are all thought of as very masculine characters, yet they are still subject to emotion, poor logic and so on. Allocating such characteristics as being predominately feminine might need to be analyzed before the question itself is explored. – Steven Gonzales8 years ago
Very good point. I think it will be helpful to focus mainly on the comparison of these main characters to earlier princesses, rather than the characteristics, themselves. – wtardieu8 years ago
One thing to consider is whether it's actually a step forward; perhaps their flaws make them more human and relatable. Anyway, that's another viewpoint that could be explored. – Laura Jones8 years ago
I agree with Steven Gonzales that characters like Elsa and Anna succumb to manipulation and victimization simply because they're human (or in the case of characters like Simba, non-human with human personalities). I don't know of anyone who hasn't been made a victim or manipulated at least once. The key is in how you handle it. I definitely think though, you could make an argument that one sister handled the victimization better than the other. Whether that's Elsa or Anna is a matter of opinion, but there are cases for both sides. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
