Film

What happens when an actor takes on a character played by someone else within the same franchise? I'm not talking about reboots that completely refresh the cast (as in Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and most recently Tom Holland as Spider-Man). I'm talking about a single franchise where the film brings an entirely different actor to play the same character. For example, in the Harry Potter film series the initial actor who played Dumbledore passed away and Michael Gambon had to step in for the rest of the series. There are also The Mummy movies, where Rachel Weisz dropped out of the cast by her own volition and was replaced by another actress for the third film in the franchise. In my experience, the different Dumbledores didn't bother me at all but to have Brendan Fraser's character with a different woman playing his wife was confusing. How have these transitions fared for films that have replaced actors in the middle of the same series? Were they considered jarring and rejected by audiences or did they do little to affect the series as a whole? Does the nature of these replacements have an effect as well (i.e. an unprecedented event such as an actor's death vs. an actor's or studio's decision)?

In both formal and informal marketing efforts, modern horror films are often compared to classic horror films. It's not uncommon to see statements that a new horror film, for example, "evokes" or "is the scariest film since" a classic like The Exorcist (Friedkin, 1973) or The Shining (Kubrick, 1980). But do these comparisons ultimately help or hurt modern horror films? And how, specifically, do these comparisons contribute to marketing efforts that are effective (or not)? I think the role of factors such as hype and viewer expectation may be particularly interesting to consider.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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