Analyze how the direction in the first film succeeded tremendously in terms of both narrative, complexion, and horror. How did the second film in the franchise fail to live up to these expectations?
Sequels need to add on to the original, Sinister 2 was much of the same. – mkparker8 years ago
Although viewers expected something similar to Sinister, they did not expect almost exactly the same. Sinister 2 failed to add anything onto the concept of the child-hunting ghoul. The only thing that was different was the family that was experiencing the haunting. I think the audience was excited for something new to be added onto the story, more information/background to be revealed, or an entirely new story line similar to The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2, and Annabelle. – Marina8 years ago
Analyse the history of horror films from their origin to present day. Focus on important gory films such as Carrie, Saw, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Discuss how horror films have gotten away from their once blood filled shots to now multiple pop up scares. Also discuss the incorporation of social media in horror films that are seen today.
What about older horror films like Hitchcock? Is this topic looking to examine a general history of the Horror genre? What other trends can be seen? – Kevin8 years ago
I have actually come across a lot of contemporary gore films. The trouble is, I think, that gory films have the tendency to be B-listed and now, since filmmaking is so accessible, the over saturation of the film industry has drowned them out. The simple point is that thrillers are more broadly marketable and so they get the bigger budgets and far more attention. – mkparker8 years ago
I personally have to agree with this statement. I have seen very many many horror films, and classic films such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Saw are just so original. Even though they released years ago, they are still popular and relevant in the horror genre. I have noticed the different tactics that producers and cinematographers use to scare now versus in older movies. Re-makes of movies are not always successful. – Marina8 years ago
I actually think the incorporation of social media in today's horror films is a good topic on its own. Or the writer could take a look at the role of communication technology in horror films in general. (Consider, for example, the telephone in films like "Scream" and "When a Stranger Calls," or the camera in films like "Insidious" and "Shutter.") – OBri8 years ago
When most people talk about movies that they've loved since they were little, they are most likely talking about theatrically released films. However, if you were born during the heyday of video rental stores, such as Blockbuster Video, there is a chance that your favorite childhood film never made it to the silver screen. While most straight-to-video films are not considered crown gems, to say the least, that does not mean that they should be ignored and forgotten. This article will go into the history of direct-to-video films aimed at the child market, as well as an in-depth reflection of my favorite childhood straight-to-video film, Disney's Where the Toys Come From (1983). I would also encourage readers to post their own favorite straight-to-video film and their reasons why, so I can discuss those films in a later article.
When they're not simply a supporting character for comedic relief, the "gay character" in American films are usually outward stereotypical. It's been getting better over the years, but mostly only in the independent scene (most recently "Moonlight").
But even beyond that, gay films themselves have been seemingly only interested in their sexualities. The film's plots – with gay characters – are strictly, and only, about being gay – as if that's the one and only attribute of such a human being. Films rarely ever explore things beyond their sexual orientation (the only recent one I can think of is Ira Sachs' "Keep the Lights On", which was a film about drug addiction tearing up a gay couple).
When will American film be able to present a gay character in such a way? So uninteresting or "normal" like heterosexual characters are presented in various genres?
There's a really great documentary about precisely this topic, called The Celluloid Closet. It would be necessary for whoever attempts to write this article to watch that, and take it as a jumping-off point. Being made in 1996, I see this article as a good "picking up where they left off," particularly dealing with how the increase of social tolerance toward LGBTQ people at the turn of the 21st century may or may not be reflected in cinematic representation. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
reesepd, maybe explaining how gay cinema outside of the USA better handles the topic might help to clarify the problem of gay stereotypes in American cinema. I hope you don't think I'm criticizing the topic negatively. It will be enlightening for me to read, and I appreciate you writing the topic. – Tigey8 years ago
Reesepd, here's another thought: You mention Ira Sachs’ "Keep the Lights On" as the only recent example of a film not using gay stereotypes. Maybe part of the topic is the question, "Is the use of gay stereotypes actually getting worse in American cinema? Why?" Again, a very interesting topic. – Tigey8 years ago
This would be such an important and engaging topic to explore. Maybe even further exploring the history and progression of LGBT representation, and touch on the fact that we see more instances of m/m gay romance more so than any other part of the LGBT community. Looking forward to reading this! – Abby Wilson8 years ago
This article will analyze the relationship between modern day film and film of the earlier eras. It will be a comparison of story plot to draw out the cause of American paranoia. During the 20th century, film was a depiction of hope, change, and what our idea of the American Dream should be. Today in film, we see the consequences of our own decisions and individualities. There is the message of "if you do this, this will happen" which wasn't a thing in American Culture and film during the 20th century. The newly released film When The Bough Breaks takes the innocent act of surrogacy and twists it into a diabolical plot against an unsuspecting couple.
Rock and Roll as a genre is extremely controversial. Given its appropriative history, this goes without saying. Often times, Rock and Roll is also viewed as the hyper-masculine genre of music. Looking at the soundtrack and music references in Richard Linklater's School of Rock, does this film reinforce the misogynistic reputation of Rock and Roll?
Nice suggestion however, you might want provide some specific examples of where this occurred in the film? – Jason0527149 years ago
If we look at works which are both critically and financially successful we often see writers adapting previous works a la comics, books and in some cases films to tv (Fargo) Do writers hinder their own original ideas because of how an existing property is already ripe with ideas that can be changed or looked at in a different way.
Could you give some more examples of adaptations and specify according to type of translation to medium?
For example: Sex and the City - TV to book to movie
MASH - movie to TV
La femme Nikita - movie to TV
Wouldn't it be to a writer's advantage to get more mileage out of their ideas? The only written work I know of is SAGA, a comic book series that was specifically written so it would not be conducive to a film adaptation. Other stories like Spiderman were instances where Stan Lee chose to wait for the technology to do justice to his comics. I think it would be good to look at writers of novels or comics or movies that did not want to transcend the original medium in order to answer the question you have put forward. I hope this helps in what you are intending to answer. – Munjeera9 years ago
In response to Munjeera. The principle writer that has not supported adaptations of their work is Alan Moore. He has noted time and time again that the adaptions of his work are not good because of his own personal feelings on adaptation and that his work is designed for comic book (or graphic novel if you must be that guy) and with comics blowing up in terms of popularity his creation 'Constantine' is now a tv show without his consent and has no interest in exploring the class themes that the character was designed to explore. When it comes to novels to film successes there are countless, o name a few: Jaws, Blade Runner, Snowpiercer, any Kubrick. But there is a significant number of authors that do not agree with their work adapted to another medium. My question was whether this stifles writers, if a writer is constantly building off an already made work then do they limit their own imaginative works? – JChic9 years ago
Thanks for clarifying. I looked up Alan Moore and the topic suggested could be narrowed down to just on Alan Moore himself, a fascinating topic for an article. I would suggest writing about him and his work on this platform so that people like myself, who do not know much about him, can learn about his views. I only knew about him from "V for Vendetta." His beliefs and philosophies are definitely relevant to your topic and there is enough material to write a good article. Also Bill Watterson, of Calvin and Hobbes fame, successfully resisted all efforts to make his comic strip a movie. His dad was a patent lawyer so I am sure he was conscious of how his art could be exploited right from the beginning, an advantage that other artists may not be as aware as an "evil" they may have to guard against to retain their artistic purity. Watterson's rare interviews always touched on this topic. He is another example of an artist who eschewed financial gain for artistic integrity. If I am understanding you correctly, then perhaps the concept you are referring to could be how creative control, or lack thereof, affects the writer? When writers develop their concepts and these concepts are exploited, how does affect an artist? It would be interesting to learn about artists who do not sell out, create and protect their material in the original form. Let me know if I have understood you, at last. – Munjeera9 years ago
It also seems noteworthy that if a adaptation does not do well as a film, or in Tv, then then producers always look to the other one as the saviour. This seems to convolute the markets as now the original work has been adapted twice, therefore taken twice the amount of space for original Tv and film. – thomassutton949 years ago
I think this idea is interesting because it's different from the typical "book vs. movie" argument. I would opt to focus on TV adaptions for sure. The first two series that come to mind are naturally "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones," both of which tend to have vastly different opinions between the book/comic readers and those who watch the show. Something like that could be interesting to discuss. For example, when does "changing the material" take away from the original source? If you are looking into movie to TV adaptions, "Fargo" is an excellent example, along with "Hannibal," "Ash vs. Evil Dead," and, though the original movie was rather poorly received, the stellar TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." – Filippo9 years ago
Focusing on what makes these 80s and 90s movies classics (Clueless, Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and what she can bring to her new movie currently in the works.
