The relationship between audiences and science fiction films have changed over the century. This has been affected by the political struggles of each era. How have the focus of these films changed over the decades. How similar or different are our fears between the 1950's to today.
It is interesting to see how Sci-Fi has gone mainstream. Why is that? How did sci-fi become part of pop culture? Has it lost anything or does it mean that audiences are more open than in the past? This is a good topic. – Munjeera9 years ago
This may be relevant, since it deals with political issues. In a film class, we discussed James Cameron's Aliens and American films' (primarily action films, but Aliens is also sci fi) portrayals of masculine action stars (counting women, i.e. Ellen Ripley and Vasquez) and how they were influenced by Reagan's public persona. This may be taking allegory too far, but Ripley is essentially a hard body using violence to go up against an Other, which is in this case actually aliens. American sci fi tends to deal a lot with a fear of the Other/invasion (Red Scare, hostage crisis), but that's just one take to potentially explore. – Emily Deibler9 years ago
Specifying a certain countries' sci-fi films could help focus this article, since sci-fi is often used to explore and speculate on social issues, which change depending on where the movies are being made. – chrischan8 years ago
The Matrix was a very good "fear of technology" movie, made just as the internet was becoming omnipresent in daily life. – Tarben8 years ago
Interestingly enough, the sci-fi stories themselves have changed through the years with new and advancing technologies in the real world, but I feel as though the overall drive and goal of the genre has remained the same: To give humanity hope for the future. – Bluejay8 years ago
The "science" in movies nowadays is more ridiculous and at the same time believable as compared to those Sci-fi flicks made .30 years back – DevanshSharma8 years ago
Due to poor reviews and box office mediocrity of both Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Suicide Squad, does the Wonder Woman film – set for a 2017 release – have a good chance for critical success? While the released trailer shows promise, what can one expect regarding the quality of the film?
I should've written, "Change your two sentences to read..." – Tigey8 years ago
Discuss and analyze why the other films in the DCEU have not met expectations of both the viewers and the critics. What do the critics think actually could make a good quality film? – Deana Murphy8 years ago
Wonder Woman will surpass the others. The trailer portrays an aura of mysticism. Audiences are showing a huge interest in going back in time. Look at the popularity of the TV series "Game of Thrones" and "Outlander." Expect quality to triumph.
– Lorraine8 years ago
Describe maybe what will happen to the overall DCEU if Wonder Woman is in fact below expectations as most of the past films have been. – DallasLash178 years ago
BvS and Suicide Squad have actually been box office hits, Suicide Squad even surpassing Captain America: Civil War. What's more interesting and relevant here is perhaps the constant and stark divide in criticisms. There is either love or hate for DCEU films so far. Is the current slate of comic book movies (Marvel) informing audience's expectations? Who are DCEU movies made for? It certainly isn't the general Marvel watching audience. – Laura Andrea8 years ago
This topic is about families of actors, and directors, not movies about fictional or real families. Besides the long line of Barrymores, who are drama's greatest families? The Bridges? Kirk Douglass, his son, Michael Douglas, and his sons? Blythe Danner and daughter, Gwynneth Paltrow? John Carradine and sons, Richard and Keith?
Who are they? What makes them great? Is their dramatic influence expected to continue? By which younger family members? In acting or directing?
Relatively speaking, this could be a mother of a topic.
Donald and Kiefer Sutherland are also father/son acting legends. The two recently starred in a father/son role together in a western called "Forsaken". – ZBetts8 years ago
AMC.com's "The All-Time Top 100 Voices in the Movies" list begs for debate. It's top ten is below. These are not the rubber-voiced talents of a Mel Blanc or Seth McFarlane whose faces don't appear on screen. Nor are they the distinctive but (to many) annoying – pipes of a Melanie Griffith, Gilbert Gottfried, Rosie Perez, or Bobcat Goldthwaite. These are the actresses or actors whose dulcet voices are as memorable as any other part of their skill set.
What is it about their voices that sets them apart? Which cinematic performance is their most interesting and distinctive? Who would you add – say Valeria Golino, Ossie Davis (my favorite male voice), Gene Hackman, Marion Cotillard, or Bryan Cranston? – to the list? Who would you drop, if anyone, from the list? And, finally, what makes the voice of someone such as Holly Hunter (my favorite female voice) so attractive, while another's voice misses the mark?
AMC.com's "Top Ten Voices" list:
10. Peter Sellers 9. Holly Hunter 8. John Wayne 7. Al Pacino 6. Marilyn Monroe 5. Jack Nicholson 4. James Earl Jones 3. Christopher Walken 2. Orson Welles 1. Clint Eastwood
I think the Marilyn Monroe should have been the fourth instead of James Earl Jones just because I find her more passionating. – mmq28 years ago
What about Morgan Freeman -I adore his perfect tone and enunciation – ZBetts8 years ago
In about 45 days (about the time it takes to write an article for this site), on October 15, it will be the 102nd anniversary of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, which laborer leader Samuel Gompers called “labor’s charter of freedom,” exempting unions from anti-trust laws. It also legalized boycotts, pickets, and strikes. It also banned the monopolizing practice of price-setting.
Below is Time Magazine's list of Top Ten Labor Union Movies
How Green Was My Valley, 1941 Native Land, 1942 On the Waterfront, 1954 The Pajama Game, 1957 I'm All Right Jack, 1959 The Organizer, 1963 Harlan County, U.S.A., 1976 Norma Rae, 1979 Matewan, 1987 Waiting for 'Superman,' 2010
Choose at least one film, either on the list or not on the list, and analyze whether the film portrayals of labor unions have been prophetic, inaccurate, or somewhere in between.
This just in from your House of Representatives via govtrack.us ((link) my fellow Americans:
"Every time you drink a beer, you pay extra because federal law adds an excise tax. In fact, an estimated 40 percent of beer’s cost is due to taxes, higher than for many other consumer products. A bill currently pending in Congress would eliminate that tax for more than 90 percent of distributors. And even for the biggest distributors like Budweiser and Miller, it would still significantly cut the tax for them too. Which would mean lower prices for you."
Congress' conversations about alcohol taxation, of course, begs the question, What are the best movies about alcohol, be they legal booze, Prohibition and mafia-produced hooch, or films about alcoholism – such as Leaving Las Vegas, Lost Weekend, etc.? What makes the films especially valuable? Should movies about alcohol speak only of the dangers of booze or should they show just the fun side of alcohol, or can they show both the fun and dark sides of the stuff? Feel free to use as many or as few films to make your point(s).
A relevant article that was published a while back: https://the-artifice.com/11-movies-to-sober-you-up/ – Misagh8 years ago
Thanks, misagh. I enjoyed the article. – Tigey8 years ago
I have never been a fan of Ben Affleck. His solo scene in Good Will Hunting in which his character (Chuckie Sullivan) realizes that Matt Damon's character (Will Hunting) has indeed left for California is awful. However, in Argo, his acting was much better.
This topic is not about the Jack Nicholsons, Robert Duvalls, and Michael Caines of the cinema world who started off as gifted actors who've achieved greatness. It's more about the Paul Newmans who initially got by with looks (like Redford), but improved exponentially with experience (unlike Redford). Nor is it about the Harrison Fords who started out mediocre and never got much better.
Which actors, in your opinion, have shown tremendous growth after a less than auspicious start? How does this happen? Which early performance(s) left you underwhelmed? Why? Which later performance(s) convinced you of their improvement? Why?
One challenge of this topic is communicating the actor's progression beyond, "Pauline Kael says…" But hey, that's a start.
Is this topic just concerning actors who got parts based on attractiveness (rather than talent), but improved with more acting experience (hence the irony of the "ugly ducklings" title)? If so, then it sounds like an interesting topic since it narrows down the scope from the many actors one can think of. Since it can be such a subjective response, what criteria should one give for how well certain actors performed? – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
It's about any actor, attractive or not, whose craft has improved. The last paragraph alludes to the difficulty of the topic. – Tigey8 years ago
aprosaiintofpisces, how would we know whether if someone were hired for looks alone? Also, what other criteria are you alluding to? If you have something specific, please let me know. – Tigey8 years ago
I agree, TKing. I don’t think we’d ever know that for sure, but there are definitely people whose careers have begun and continued despite an obvious lack of talent. There have been models, singers, or individuals who were simply related to already-established actors. For example, there was that controversy at the Golden Globes about Lady Gaga winning for “Best Actress.” I’ve never watched American Horror Story so I can’t give my own opinion about her performance, but the incident did stir up controversy about whether she won simply because she’s Lady Gaga. Some have succeeded despite a rough start while others haven’t gained much talent despite continued acting careers. I was just talking about actors’ attractiveness as a suggestion since you happened to mention it offhandedly. It could focus on just about anything else that led them into having continued acting careers despite evidence to the contrary. I was only asking for more specificity regarding the types of actors we’re examining. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
I meant to say, "I agree, Tigey." I apologize for mixing up usernames. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
Paulie Shore's mom owns (or owned) a Comedy Store, so he got as much stage time as he wanted. My dad's funeral was funnier than Paulie Shore on his best day. Then there are the awards that are do-overs. Christopher Paul Curtis wrote a beautiful adolescent book, The Watsons Go to Birmingham, the Newberry Award panel goofs, gives the award to a lesser work, then realizes its mistake and "makes up" for it by awarding him the Newberry for Bud, Not Buddy, a good book, but not as good as The Watsons. Likewise, Bob Dylan got a Grammy for Serve Somebody, but nothing for Blood on the Tracks, Like a Rolling Stone or (cue up the angelic choir) Blonde on Blonde. Surely we see through a glass darkly. Don't worry about the name thing. A rosy Tigey burning brightly by another name is just as Swede. – Tigey8 years ago
Multiple articles could be spun from this topic to include more diverse nationalities and industries. Can new kids who get breaks into movies solely on the basis of nepotism learn quickly on the job and become versatile actors crafting special niches for themselves? Illustrate for and against the thesis statement with comprehensive examples. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
Over the past several years Disney has churned out Live Action remakes of many of their beloved animated films. Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, and most recently The Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon have all been rebooted/remade. Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Dumbo,The Sword in the Stone and Winnie the Pooh are being remade as we speak or will be in the future. Even an Aladdin Prequel is in the works. Does this slew of live action/future live action films show that Disney is running out of ideas? Would it make more sense to remake/reboot some of their films more than others (such as their lesser known animated films)? Also include how Disney compares to Pixar (which is part of their company), and other animation studios today, and to other companies in general in terms of creativity.
I believe it's less so a case of "running out of ideas" than it is "easy money." Familiarity has been one of Disney's most valuable resources since the very beginning, making it require less effort to market recognizably-titled classics with preexisting positive intertextual connotations. Pair that with the less effort required in writer's room, and you arrive at a cost effective formula for successful filmmaking and distribution. As the animated Disney films from the past decade have indicated, there is currently no lack of original and/or previously unused content to be made. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I saw a video where the creators said that they wanted to redo a lot of the old cartoons because the "technology is better." That "people want to see it all come to life." Something to think about. – Jaye Freeland8 years ago
I do agree with ProtoCanon's "easy money," comment, but I also think it's a move of trying to stay relevant. Those movies mentioned are outdated and do not really have an audience to speak to any longer. Even when trying to show the films to your children, kids do not respond to the films, no matter how good the story telling may be, due to their having grown accustomed to the graphics of today. Disney is basically attempting to reboot its brand. – danielle5778 years ago
Jaye Freeland, excellent point. Music's the same way. The accurate protestations of Neil Young and Bob Dylan, etc., aside, the "cleanness" of digital recording technology is a boon. If they could clean up Vocalion Records' catalogue - which recorded less lucrative "race records" on bowling ball-quality vinyl - I'd be happy. – Tigey8 years ago
