Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) and Jurassic Park (1993) are considered landmark films in regards to their special effects; the T-1000 and the dinosaurs were considered ambitious projects modeled around still-new computer generated imagery. Two decades later, it feels that the modern summer blockbuster uses these effects to a fault rather than to intimately inform the narratives as was the case in those two films. Have filmmakers taken CGI for granted?
I think this a fascinating topic! These two films (T2 and J Park) were on the forefront of the technological cutting edge for their time (they still look and feel amazing today) and have informed how CGI and other special effects are used within movies. Very relevant and important topic for the current film landscape and movie making process. – SeanGadus8 years ago
I would say that yes in many cases it has but in the case of Dr. Strange for example it was cgi done right and allowed a movie about a comic some worried would fail when put on the big screen to actually succeed. Since its depictions of magic through cgi was impressive and allowed the narrative to be told without being wacky. – NickC8 years ago
This is a great topic, because after learning how much movies today use a green screen, it just makes me sad. In some cases, like NickC referencing Doctor Strange, CGI really makes a movie great, but honestly, it's not needed one hundred percent of the time. – Leweasel8 years ago
Any genuine Star Wars fan cannot deny how closely the plot of The Force Awakens resembles that of A New Hope. Fans have generally had mixed feelings about this idea, but there are points to be made in the reasons as to why they're so comparable. Just because they have similar plot points does not make The Force Awakens just a re-hash; in fact, The Force Awakens is as every bit as strong as any other Star Wars movie. Any comparable aspect of The Force Awakens has a reason behind it, and that's why people can't say that it's just a remake of A New Hope.
I think this is a really great topic. Unfortunately, it's already been done (quite well), in the form of a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbaliPyihCY . To the prospective author of this article, do not start writing until you've watched this video in its entirety. If you think you have anything to add, than by all means, move forward. If you feel as though Mr. Stuckmann has summed up your thoughts quite well (and perhaps even better than you would have), then maybe we don't need a re-hash. Just my two cents. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
To add to the conversation, you might also add a section that predicts how later movies in the franchise will compare to the previous ones as well based on what is found to be similar between Ep 4 and Ep7. Will Ep5 and Ep8 be similar? Would this be a good or bad thing? – Kevin8 years ago
What are your thoughts on the prevalence of live action remakes of animated classics on Disney's upcoming release schedule? How do you feel about the ones already released e.g. this years The Jungle Book. Is it cheap of Disney to invest only in the cost of CGI for these animal tales, knowing they have a sure thing on their hands financially, rather than in innovation and creativity to produce new stories? Finally, are you looking forward to your favourite animated classics being retold, live action, with your favourite actors, or would you rather these remain untouched?
How bout also the positive outcomes of seeing from cartoon to live-action? Beauty and the beast as one of them along with the little mermaid and mulan. Which ones deserve to have live-action remakes? – cjeacat8 years ago
Another consideration are whether these live-action versions improve on the original or not. For instance, I would say the live-action Cinderella improves on the cartoon, but The Jungle Book, while not bad, is still too indebted to the original to really work on its own, and, in my opinion, a live-actin version of Beauty and the Beast is absolutely unnecessary. – Allie Dawson8 years ago
What causes people to enjoy watching horror films? Naturally, fear is an emotion meant to keep us away from danger. When it comes to horror movies many people choose to run straight towards fear and the skittish feeling it leaves its viewers with. Why are some people more affected by horror movies than others? In a culture where viewers anxiously await the newest release of horror movies, where did this culture begin and why?
I'm pretty sure this has already been addressed in studies and other research, at least in the general sense. However, it's always an interesting topic! To differentiate it from what's already out there, maybe the article could focus on a particular horror sub-genre or style. It could also be interesting to focus on the horror of particular countries or time periods (either individually or a comparison of two or more). And I've read that psychologically speaking, horror actually has several interesting commonalities with comedy, so that may also be worth exploring. – OBri8 years ago
Check out Stephen King's article "Why People Crave Horror Movies". It's a short but insightful piece which reaches into the heart of man to discover the darker side of fun. King teaches the reader about their "anticivilization emotions". Should help with your question. – DKWeber8 years ago
It would be interesting to bring violence into this, even if it's just a bullet point of the argument. What are we so fascinated with blood and gore? – daniellegreen6248 years ago
Fascinating topic. I have always been interested in exploring this in more depth. I to have read Stephen King's article and have assigned it my courses. He makes many insightful points about the psychological desires of the human mind and its need for excitement mixed with fear. – egomez798 years ago
We all admire the new techniques and special effects in movies we see in the cinema, but is there actually any value in them? You walk out of the cinema with your eyes full and your head empty. Are movies adopting a purpose just for entertaining? Films from the past, like Luc Besson's Leon, or Blade Runner, or even Forrest Gump carry lots of food for thought, a vast emotional landscape and deserve to be called true works of art. Can we say the same about movies nowadays?
I totally get where you're coming from, but treating this as a symptom of "modern cinema" seems like a bit of a generalization. True, the issue has become grossly more inflate with each passing year since the 1980s, but that's only really one side of the industry, the flashy Blockbuster market designed for mass consumption. Let's just look at one year for a moment, 2014: sure, the box office was dominated by Transformers 4, The Hobbit 3, and Guardians of the Galaxy 1, but this was also the year of Boyhood, Whiplash, and Selma, as well as (in my opinion, two of the best films in recent memory) Leviathan and The Best Offer. Perhaps the issue isn't that all contemporary films are saturated in special effects, but rather that the films which employ extraneous spectacle with little substance consistently out-gross the more artistic films, which may say more about audiences than filmmakers. In fact, this very subject was handled expertly in Birdman (also from 2014), which made great use of special effects to enhance its artistry while simultaneously satirizing the current state of the popular cinema. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Depends on what one means by art, I would tend to agree with you that a lot of movies don't seem to have any substance outside of the over-the-top special effect sequences, action movies in particular. Keep in mind though, that the people working on those special effects more than likely have computer design and art backgrounds. When looking at it from that standpoint, movies like Fast & Furious, The Avengers, X-Men, and so on, are more art-based than The Piano or Forrest Gump. The problem or question at hand, is whether or not studios are choosing more special effects filled mega releases over thought provoking 'works of art'? – MikeySheff8 years ago
I find that although films such as Independance Day: Resurgance do exist, wherein special effects are all the film has to offer, many a time, VFX aid storytelling in films today, and even blockbusters can remain compelling films despite the use of set pieces full of special effects, examples being Edge of Tommorow, Captain America: The Winter Soldier/Civil War, and Ex Machina, a film which used very expensive visual effects to tell a particularly intelligent and compelling story. – JacobSe7en8 years ago
This is a great topic. I think that the Hollywood film is the general type that appears in cinema today where there is flashing and violence and different uses of special effects to keep viewers interested. It seems that films these days are focusing too much on this aspect and not on the emotional aspect and I think this really takes something away from the culture of cinema. – alexadoiron8 years ago
There are lots of bad movies out there, especially when one gets into sequels and part three, four, etc. In opposition to this, there is some great fanfiction written that by far surpasses a poorly made, poorly written movie. Think about "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" and what a disappointment that was to the franchise. There are fanfiction stories out there which are much better stylistically and storyline-wise.
Hi, are you talking about Indiana jones and the crystal skull? Because my assumption from my own viewing and from late 80s and present day reviews of Indiana jones and last crusade was that it was an incredibly well received film by fans and critics. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Hi, yes, sorry, I did put the wrong film in my post. I guess it was just so awful I tried to blot it from my memory altogether. In all seriousness though, I do agree with you that The Last Crusade was a good film, and well-received. I go to a lot of conventions and I don't think I've ever heard a positive comment about "Crystal Skull." Thanks for pointing that out. – NoDakJack8 years ago
I was also devastated by the latest Indiana Jones movie, and I agree that fans often have far more substantive story lines than Hollywood does. It makes us pause and wonder what they were thinking. My guess is that there is a big difference in purpose between the film industry and fanfiction. What drives each of those forces is what ultimately makes or breaks the stories and characters we all love. Maybe an in-depth look at how we can bring fanfiction to the forefront as a well of valuable script ideas would be interesting. Actors, production companies and ticket sales corrupt even the most ironclad franchises, whereas fanfiction is created with the purest intentions of paying tribute. – wtardieu8 years ago
Analyze how the names of each of the characters in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (Charlie Bucket, Augustus Gloop, Mike Teavee, Veruca Salt, Violet Beauregard, Willy Wonka, and so forth) reflect the characters' roles in the movie. Explore the way in which the names hint at each of the characters' defining characteristics, how the names directly relate to the themes present in the story, what ultimately happens to each character.
This topic makes me so happy. Besides the obvious (Mike TEAVEE, Willy WONKa), I found the name Veruca Salt absolutely fascinating. Although all I know of Verruca is that it's a wart on the sole of the foot (just like Willy Wonka said, actually), I've wondered if Dahl just wanted to name a character something unpleasant, or if there's another significance. Salt, however, has always reminded me of the Indian Salt Tax. It was a very very expensive commodity at one point (this is what led to the Salt March in India), and could that be a reference to how rich the Salts were?
Gloop phonetically is a very obvious reference to gluttony, and Violet literally violet at the end, but I haven't been able to come up with much else for the other characters. It should be interesting to see what the comments here throw up! – JayBird8 years ago
There are some scholars and linguists who have wrote papers on Dahl’s neologisms and wordplays. Besides the names of the kids who won the golden tickets, the names of Wonka’s rivals are also very meaningful. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Provide examples of films which employ strong narrative and plot to engage the audience, while using one environment to do so. Films such as "Devil," which take place inside of an elevator still use establishing shots and surrounding environments even though the bulk of the movie is shot inside of an elevator. Think about extreme dogmatic approaches such as "Exam," "12 Angry Men," or "Rear Window," and provide evidence of how these films illustrate an outside world, without ever leaving their singular environment.
Have you heard of the Hitchcock film called "Rope" (1948)? The whole film takes place within an apartment and relates to a murder. Hitchcock shot the film by shooting for periods lasting up to 10 minutes, there are only 6-8 visible cuts in the film. It is a really interesting idea that I think is in line with what your topic is examining. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Interesting topic! Even though the focus here is on films, it reminded me of how certain web series are filmed. For example, the YouTube series Carmilla used this tactic of single spaces while at the same time illustrating actions that happened outside for viewers. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
Yep, tv serials work incredibly well with this topic, especially the ones that are able to create drama with the same singular space. Take Louis C.K.'s Horace and Pete, and you might want to look at Dogville. – Matchbox8 years ago
Another film that could be interesting to include is Locke. It takes place entirely in a car, and the plot is moved mostly by the phone calls the character makes while driving. – Marcie Waters8 years ago
Another approach to this topic might be the transition from stage play to the big screen. I can think of several plays that take place in a single location but once they were made into films, the story lost that part of itself as the producers, etc. decided to take the cast outside and around the town, so to speak. – NoDakJack8 years ago
Excellent topic! I feel like this topic can also lean towards dogmatic approaches in literature. I immediately thought of Chuck Palahniuk's novel "Haunted"; the scenery is unchanged while the chosen narrator captivates you with a gruesome story from a journal. Perhaps the topic can address the transition from literature to film and how it distorts or maintains the dogmatic atmosphere? – Pyper Brown8 years ago
This makes me think of this film called 'Manderlay'. Even though its not EXACTLY restricted to one small confined space, it does keep itself to a large field. Although the field has props (in the form of a bed, or some stairs), the film has NO sets apart from these props. Everything, from the house to the trees, must be imagined. – JayBird8 years ago
Dig this topic! I recently watched 'Man in the Wall', an Israeli film by Evgeny Ruman, which I thought really nailed the single setting approach. The whole movie takes place within a couple's apartment; the plot develops by the different people who enter and exit the apartment and the various kinds of exchanges they share. The dialogue and atmosphere are super intense - which I think is a necessary strategy when working with only one place. There's something kind of unsettling about single setting narratives because they have to rely SO heavily on mood. – nicolenaudi8 years ago
