With film being more accessible on personal devices such as laptops, tablets and phones, movies are just as likely to be viewed in solitude as with family or friends. How great would the impact of those around you be on the experience of watching a film?
One always has to take into consideration how others act and because of this, it's sometimes nice to watch television alone. I know some people who like to talk and ask (sometimes unnecessary) questions during a movie/show which is distracting and frustrating. Watching a show/movie with family is not always easy either because no one wants to watch the same thing and an argument potentially follows. – JennyCardinal9 years ago
Film genres should also be considered. Comedies are typically enjoyed best with friends, while psychological thrillers may be best digested with solitude – Dominique Kollie9 years ago
I'm inclined to argue that a plot driven work is proportionally more rewarding to watch with company, as you have the formal mechanisms of plot to engage with socially, discuss, whatever. More "character driven," perhaps dialogue heavy films, you're expected to turn your social faculties over to the characters. Here, company in watching it might not detract from the experience, but you're only immersed insofar as you're leaving your company behind. – TKing8 years ago
I enjoy watching a thriller or intellectually heavy film with others where you're bouncing off theories amongst one another. When it comes to melodramas--such as emotional period pieces--I tend to become emotional, and therefore prefer to watch this particular genre of film alone. – danielle5778 years ago
How can we make this topic less about psychology and human preferences, and more about film and TV shows as art expressions? – T. Palomino3 years ago
A look at films in recent years that weren't sequels or remakes that received fairly good ratings, but made little money at the box office. An example that comes to mind is American Ultra (2015), which received better ratings than many of the other films that opened the same weekend (all of which were remakes or sequels), yet was a box office flop. The film's screenwriter, Max Landis complained that "American Ultra lost to a sequel, a sequel reboot, a biopic, a sequel and a reboot."
This phenomenon seems self-perpetuating. These failed new ideas will cause studios to hesitate before investing in further new ideas, which seem risky. It may be more economically encouraging to go with a sequel or remake that is bound to make money, and we therefore find ourselves inundated by constant remakes and reboots (just look at Pokémon Go, which seems to be successful not because it is particularly good, but because its content is familiar).
A few psychological theories could be invoked here in order to explain this phenomenon. One is the mere-exposure effect, a phenomenon wherein people tend to prefer things that they are familiar with (this is how subliminal messaging is thought to work). Therefore it could be possible that people are disproportionately likely to go out and see a film with a familiar name (such as the new Independence Day), even if it has worse ratings than something novel and unknown. Further, people tend to be risk-averse, and may want to avoid the risk of seeing something unknown and not liking it.
you are 100 % right. Nowadays people are taking the easy route by making more adaptations or reboots because its economically less risky. Audience will still want to watch a reboot or adaptations just out of curiosity. On the other hand, when there is a new idea for a movie out, people are less likely to watch it because of the fear of not knowing what to expect. – Tkesh8 years ago
It would be interesting to see how movie budgets have changed over time, say in the last 30 years or so, as an examination of the viability of indie films versus major studio films in theaters. Was the difference in budgets between an indie film and major studio movie larger or smaller than it is now, and what were the respective profits? – chrischan8 years ago
What type of musical instruments make for a perfect soundtrack? How does a specific musical instrument evoke specific emotions needed for a scene?
Cool. Maybe consider how the genre of the film can influence instrument selection? – chocmalt10 years ago
Discussing the importance of genre and examining famous composers could be an interesting way to attack this. For example the difference between scoring horror and adventure blockbusters. The difference between Howard Shore's approach to Silence of the Lambs and the Lord of the Rings Series. Or the similar devices used by John Williams and Hans Zimmer to create memorable and iconic soundtracks. Horns and Violins seem to be imperative to their styles. – skairnagh10 years ago
There's sort of a psychological aspect to this. Could certain instruments reinforce particular emotions or feelings in listeners? There are several big composers who came from rock bands who almost completely abandon that sound when they start to compose film music. (Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman are two that come to mind.) Recently, there has been a huge shift to integrate electronic sounds into scores. An example that immediately comes to mind is the Facebook soundtrack, but one of the first early successful examples of this would be the sound track for Witness (starring Harrison Ford). You could explore the balance between familiar and new music and what kinds of films or TV shows these soundtracks are paired with. – dannyjs10 years ago
Great topic. I can see someone breaking this down by movie genre. – Tigey8 years ago
I wonder if there are necessary, fundamental differences in instrumentation. Couldn't any instrument theoretically be used in any film, provided it was done right? I'd genuinely be interested to hear someone's theory there. Promising stuff. – TKing8 years ago
TKing, generally, I think you're right, but I can't imagine hearing a Jew's harp in, say, The King's Speech. – Tigey8 years ago
That would depend on the movie. And no musician think of "right" instruments to evoke emotions. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Just from the new Kong: Skull Island, much can be asserted about the aesthetic and narrative relationship between Kong and Jurassic World. Both films are enormous block-buster snowball movies filled with star-studded casts thrown in disaster scenarios of utter peril and outrageous visual effects. A parallel/examination of the two movies and what they say about the state of hollywood would be highly relevant.
While I expanded on the concept, I don't, however, feel that I need to "guide" the person who might take the topic. I shouldn't have to hold another writer's hand, and I don't think they'd want me to. – luminousgloom9 years ago
Why just those two movies? Based on the similarities listed, you could substitute either out for Gareth Edwards' Godzilla. What in particular about the Kong: Skull Island trailer makes you think first and foremost of Jurassic World? – chrischan8 years ago
Most chick flicks out there these days (and from last 10-15 years) consist of broken-hearted over some guy or girl who broke up with them. The movies lead to them crying in front of the TV watching sad movie. Where did it say in the guide of movie making of how a women/girl grieves a broken heart? The movies over the years like Legally Blond, how to lose a guy in ten days and Bridgette Jones Diary all have the women at some point crying eating chocolate or Ice Cream crying over the guys in their lives.. Where did our women power go? When did chick flicks define how we women grieve over relationships?
Also it's an interesting contrast compared to how men are allowed to grieve for relationships which I think often includes things like bashing women as a whole and either getting angry or trying to get the woman back. It seems like the active role is more left for men where as women are expected to be more passive and like you said, sit at home and cry about it – Briar9 years ago
I wonder whether it's men or women writing these scenes and movies, and what that says about how either gender thinks women (should) process their sadness. – chrischan9 years ago
I'd be careful about beginning from the assumption that these films have successfully defined how women grieve, and thus constitute a dissipation of female power. Yes, they often express a certain limited understanding of the emotional states women (and men) experience over the course of a romance, and depend for affect on their disinterest in other parts of that real world experience. But I wouldn't take it as self-evident that they effectively impose that understanding onto the lives of a viewership otherwise inclined toward something more. In a good movie, one finds something truthful. In a lazy, badly told, uninventive work of cliche, one will find only the leftovers of better films, and either move on or be satisfied. – TKing8 years ago
I don't think it's so much that chick flick style grieving is what women feel they must do, but since so many people learn about experiences they don't or haven't had from TV and movies, they come to believe that that is how women do or should grieve. Where it gets frustrating is when women are criticized or misunderstood because they don't react to a breakup in the way people will expect. – chrischan8 years ago
Often, I find myself speaking up for Ang Lee's Hulk, a film that is widely disregarded as slow, pretentious and generally misguided in its execution. Inevitably, the matter of the Gamma-ridden poodles will be brought up. However, I hold up Hulk as an artifact of the early days of the present super movie craze when each film was a distinct treatment of its source material, and each time the artistic voice of the director brought something new. This is before the monetary and perceived artistic success of one or two comic book movies, needless to name here, came in and flattened everything out. Is anybody with me?
I cannot, in good conscience, say that I enjoyed Hulk. However, I believe you have isolated an interesting difference between pre- and post-MCU superhero films. Should make for an interesting article. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I liked this version of Lee's Hulk. The cast was stellar but in this case I think it was a case of too many writers spoiled the broth. I think this Hulk story is also a reflection of the stage of where comics to film adaptations reflected a certain lack. Not necessarily because of the movie or content but back then superhero movies weren't as popular. With the release of Spiderman after 9/11 maybe we all feel the need for superheroes to feel safer. I would frame the article with the context of the times and why this Hulk version was underappreciated while acknowledging the story was a bit convoluted. – Munjeera8 years ago
I will always be quite lenient towards this film, as it introduced me to the character that has become my most favorite superhero out there. However, I will admit that as a Hulk film, its purpose could have been served better. But putting aside the character's fan perspective and taking on a more objective approach, I have come to appreciate this more as a comic book-inspired monster movie, almost like a recall to Universal's glory days in the genre up until the early 2000s or so. 15 years later, and it's quite saddening that not many people have come to appreciate the film as it deserves to be. – Veerji127 years ago
Examine the elements of horror movies that are generally considered the most effective at scaring, disturbing, or unsettling audiences, and how these have changed over the decades, from early silent films to Hitchcock's masterpieces to modern remakes.
One direction this article could go could be to make a list of the recurring motifs in horror film according to film theorist Robin Wood, which are Psychos, Nature, Satanism and possession, the Terrible Child, and Cannibalism. It could also explore the idea of repression and the Other in film, not to mention the idea of horror originating from something totally normal being scarier than horror originating from the outside world. – VelvetRose9 years ago
What's interesting to note here is the mood and setting when sitting down to watch a horror film. The setting created by the atmosphere of the movie and the music's score help turn things which would normally not be scary for some, and makes them terrifying. Example, I am not scared of clowns but you be darn sure I freaked while watching IT for the first time. – cdenomme969 years ago
Whoever takes on this article should also consider comparing older films with their remakes and examine the changes. Classic horror movies are known for being terrifying while remakes are often bland and watered down. It may be easier to pinpoint what makes a movie scary. – Vexliss9 years ago
Great idea! Music is so important too. – Munjeera9 years ago
The psychology of scaring people is fascinating, especially once you get past the often-cheap jump scare: the mechanics of tension building are deeply interesting, and the part that music plays in making something terrifying cannot be understated. – Barselaar9 years ago
With the recent popularity of #StarringJohnCho, discuss the history of Asians in Western Television and Film and the possible reasons why there is so little Asian representation today. Why are there so few leading Asians in film, and why does Hollywood tend to stick Asians into stereotypical supporting roles?
Hollywood's formula at its most reductive is a film which attracts the largest consumer or the most specific one (camera angles, landscapes, fandom etc.). This isn't to say Asian America doesn't consume film. Rather, it means there is a presumed range of audience-consumers who watch films for pleasure and, as a result, won't care whether the portrayal of the Hero who exercises restraint and is later rewarded is White or Asian. But there lies the paradox: films which are enjoyable because characters express a philosophy or individuality audiences can live through vicariously means that there is an emotion or performed emotion which is accepted as universal. Justice looks like this, honour like that. However, this axiom (self-evident truth not up for discussion) has been established alongside, in response to, or disavowing a history which is, fundamentally, racist. The term carries hostile connotations, yeah, but it also speaks to a legacy of bad blood recognized and enforced by the law to keep the peace. Asians in supporting roles confirms what is imagined as quintessentially Asian. This specificity is something the cast, rather than the lead, should accomplish because authority, which the cast defers to the lead, is assumed to lack or exist in spite of such associations. Thus, the lack of Asian leads is because there is the implicit understanding that Whiteness is unquestionably located in a philosophy that aspires to transcend or progress past racialized and ethnic histories and identities. Bring an Asian into the picture to represent a role considered unhindered by this baggage and the narrative is disrupted. Most times, it is then critiqued for attempting to insert politics into a space reserved for enjoyment—and unquestioned for its White legacy. – JMIWrites9 years ago
Great topic -- has anyone done this already? Asians are a massively underecognized ethnicity in film. As an asian american myself I am always on the lookout for asians in hollywood. – sophiacatherine8 years ago
