Due to the controversy surrounding the new Ghosbusters film, what does it say regarding our society and the relation of fandom to changes in existing franchises and fictional properties? Many recent film examples could be used to explore the current state of film and other media.
I think that a good reboot finds ways to honour the original series. For example, the new "Ghostbusters" has so many great cameos. Also, the story and dialogue felt the same as the originals to me. – Lauren Mead9 years ago
I just think, in many cases, not all, it feels as if people are so lazy that they just sit in a writer's room and discuss old movies they can remake. What about novel ideas? Exploring creative ideas or novel subjects that will draw in crowds? Also, such as with Ghostbusters, this is a difficult one to draw viewers into because younger generations are likely unfamiliar with the movie; whereas older generations love the original, and do not want to see yet another remake. The one time when I feel a remake is apropos is when the filmmakers, and creative team, are truly passionate about the movie and want to give it it's proper cinematic representations. Then I applaud them. – danielle5779 years ago
The movie Inception, released in 2010, is a wonderful amalgamation of a smart, powerful plot, excellent acting, and the high action scenes current film goers crave. The premise resided on the use of dreams to manufacture thoughts into the minds of powerful CEO's, as well as a means of stealing money and important documents from these said named individuals. The influence of dreams has always been a point of interest in film and literature. As for Inception, it truly took these questions to a whole new level by adamantly stating, or answering the question whether dreams can affect reality. There are numerous psychological explanations regarding dreams including Freud's discussion on latent versus manifest content, as well as wish fulfillment. Threat-stimulation theory discusses dreams as a defense mechanism revolving around the individual to revisit events and learn to successfully conquer them–this can be connected to Leonardo Dicaprio's character in dealing with his deceased wife–in preparation for future, similar events. Expectation- fulfillment is a release of emotional arousal encountered during the day in order to actively complete or fulfill these emotions to make room for the following day. On a neurobiological note, Activation-synthesis is the theory that dreams are devoid of meaning but just a state of electrical impulses occurring in the brain that conjure images from memory ( a very controversy theory that has been consistently disputed by evolutionary psychologists). Lastly, Continual-Activation theory regards dreams as a process of memory storage in which information is encoded for long-term storage, and the process of accommodation occurs allowing for the building of new connection between synapses to successfully transfer these short term memories to long term information easily recalled. Yet, how does Inception fit in with all of these differing theories? Does Inception fit any one of these theories, a couple, or none? Inception also utilities high-tech instruments to not only induce sleep, but to also connect individuals to one another's dreams. How does this affect these possible theories? Is the movie attempting to investigate the power of dreams, the complexities of the human psyche, or the connection between both of these intriguing, difficult to answer concepts?
This topic is really important. I come from a philosophy background and find the idea that dreams can be "devoid of meaning" both sad and in my view completely untrue. Whether the narrative or content of our dreams have any necessary relation to our day to day lives, it's clear that our experience of the dreams are equally valid experiences of our lives that shape and define what it is to be our selves. I also think there is great creative power in dreams. During our waking states, we tend to be distracted by what's real and have a hard time falling into pure imagination. I think we are, of all things, lucky to have dreams because they allow us to experience other worldly lives and see colors and shapes that are purely synthetic imaginings based off the real world but found nowhere in it. We are free to ignore or focus on our dreams as per our preference, but there's no way, as I see it, dreams aren't a crucial part of life. – maayano9 years ago
Inception is full of Descartean philosophy -- primarily paralleling Descarte's confounding questioning of our very reality, claiming that in truth we cannot even know the validity of our own world. I think you should add some of Descarte's philosophy to this text. – Brandon T. Gass8 years ago
There has been much analysis over what makes certain films "so bad they're good." This article would take this idea a bit further by discussing what makes a good B-Movie (a movie made to be laughably bad intentionally). The key to the article would be to explore how these films portray "do bad they're good" material in a way that is entertaining and without seeming overly manufactured. The article would also likely juxtapose what makes B-Movies like Sharknado or Eight-Legged-Freaks entertaining and other B-Movies very forgettable.
Like Airplane and Naked Gun or any movie with Leslie Nielsen. – Munjeera9 years ago
I think it was the American Film Institute that placed Airplane as their number one comedy of all time. Can that really be a B-movie? – Tigey9 years ago
The categorization of B-movies can be biased. When reviewing the notes, theres already contention regarding what is and what is not a B-movie. When I think of a B-movie I immediately associate it with being cheesy, cliche, and silly. For example, though quite dated, the movie Meatballs would likely be referred to as a B-movie.
What might be even more interesting is what is the connection between the common manner in which B-movie's become "cult-classics?" Is it because the movie has been downgraded and people feel they must support it? Could it be something a bit more heavy, such as vocalizing against the mores of societal expectations in reference to cinematic works? – danielle5779 years ago
Discuss the differences and similarities between recluses, for example, Flynn Carsen in "The Librarian"; William Forrester in "Finding Forrester"; and Willy Wonka in "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (either version).
If the discussion centres around Wonka, it would be interesting to compare the reclusive attitudes illustrated by both the eponymous Willy Wonka and Grandpa Joe. – ProtoCanon9 years ago
also, batman?
howard hughes in the aviator?
eastwood's character in gran torino?
– Richard Marcil9 years ago
Carl and Wonka would be really cool to compare! – LilyaRider9 years ago
This might be improved by adding one more factor into the mix. For example, instead of just focusing on how recluses are portrayed in film, you could see how that is changed over time, how different countries seem to portray recluses, or something to that effect. – Ian Miculan9 years ago
Another possible conclusion could be the evolution of the individual characters. How many of them remain reclusive, while others become more accepting of the outside world? What does it mean for the overall purpose of the movie? – Tarben9 years ago
Explain what the Prime Directive is and its history in ST. Examine how ST: TNG emphasized the guiding principle with Picard's pontification on the subject using specific examples where the PD was central to the plot. Conclude with a discussion on how and why the PD has fallen to the wayside first under Rick Berman and now with J.J. Abrams and Justin Lin.
Explore Lin's rise to direct ST: Beyond. Look at how he began as a director and examine what he will bring to the ST franchise. Address the topic of Justin Lin and Star Trek Beyond applied to the rest of the series and how that will effect them. Mention how Lin's background in the Fast and Furious franchise will either be beneficial or harmful to what J.J. Abrams has done
Consider the decline in visiting the cinema and how this (negatively) impacts our appreciation of the visual and sound quality, as purposely designed by the director for the theater. One significant cause would be the rise in subscriptions to platforms like Nettflix and more generally laptop streaming (which includes illegal viewing). What do we lose and gain from this change in spectating?
A useful parallel can be drawn from will email get rid of regular mail. The technology was predicted to bring about the eventual demise of the post office. But, people in the post office have said that email has facilitated more post office deliveries as people buy online among other reasons. It may be that movies are sort of like the hardcover of a book release and then you go to soft cover and then online. I think cinemas will launch their fares and there will be crossovers to crossovers, similar to the movie Fargo in the 90s launching a TV show. – Munjeera9 years ago
I still go to cinema for the movies I have had high expectations for, or for those with large-scale action scenes that could only be fully enjoyed on a big theater screen. Probably this is largely due to the fact that I don't have Internet or cable at home, and all I had was a small TV to play my VHSs and DVDs. Therefore, cinemas still have their charm to me as they offer things that are inaccessible at home.
However, I think most people who used to visit cinemas frequently did so for the experience, instead of for the movies themselves. In other words, cinemas used to be fun. – Chiharu9 years ago
In all honesty, I think a huge factor in the loss of moviegoers is the excessive monetary expense of attending the cinema. A typical ticket costs approximately $11-13, and that's not for 3-D, IMAX, which is excessively popular. Tickets for such films are between $18-21. As a true devotee to the old films of classic Hollywood, all of the action, explosions, car chases, etc., are not appealing to me, personally. Another issue is the constant recycling that takes place, whether it be yet another addition to a franchise, or another re-adaptation. I do agree that the ability to watch new shows and movies on netflix, as well as amazon, hinders upon the cinematic enterprise. It is a shame, though, because seeing a film in the cinema, is an experience. How many times has someone mentioned a movie, and we are so quick to say, "I saw that in the theater." Interesting topic for conversation... – danielle5779 years ago
Going to the movies is still very much a part of my life. I plan years in advance for highly anticipated films. I attend the movies between 1-3 times a month. Netflix, and other video platforms, are reserved for older films and/or films I didn't catch or deem worthy to spend more money on at the theater. However, I enjoy the moviegoing experience. I like being submerged in the darkness with surround sound and a bucket of popcorn as large as me. Other moviegoers don't bother me because I tune so deeply into the movie. I believe what we lose from not going to the movies is the magic of cinema, the complete suspension of reality, the experience that's created by massive screens and surround sound. Also, unless the industry changes to catch up to the Netflix platforms, if we continue down a road of less moviegoing we'll lose the quality of movies because the lack of profits won't support it. What we gain is more power over our dollar and the ability to pause and play as much as we like. – CharmieJay9 years ago
There are definitely a lot of films whose plot takes place in the future, but because of the fact that the films are created in present time, we don't often see a future that has become truly equal for males and females. One could use an example of Star Trek Into Darkness, or Jurassic World–most of the "powerful" roles still belong to men, and, even if a woman does save the day, she still doesn't get as much credit as she deserves, or, she needs some kind of male assistance. I figure, with the way things are now, shouldn't the future be a much better place in terms of equality? Is it so terrible to portray the future with female soldiers, guards, heroes–women who have their own destiny, their own purpose, and are surrounded by other women? Everything from camera angle, to clothes sometimes dismisses the authenticity of the futuristic female lead who's trying to do what she needs to do. Also, does there always have to be a love interest, or a man helping out? Sure, there are films like V For Vendetta that feature a strong female lead, but, if we really get down to it, Natalie Portman's character was still taught by a man.
If anything, the writer might want to look into the past or present, as well. Maybe explore characters like Captain Phasma and/or Wonder Woman and their strengths. The writer might also want to discuss gender-bending roles and how they may contribute to the topic (think Ghostbusters). The writer might want to include that video games, like Halo, are already making totally equal men and women.
So, either way, do these films accurately gauge future feminism? Or, because these films are still made now, the same societal biases come through? Feel free to analyze and explore!
Mad Max: Fury Road is a great example of female-dominant characters in a science fiction setting, and there was a lot of public outcry from the "Men's Rights Activists" about it, saying the titular character wasn't important enough to the story. – Tarben9 years ago
There has always been an issue with female representation in film. Females are rarely the lead in films and if they are they usually have a male counter-part. The representation is important. The first barrier was getting more women in the show and then giving them lines. Now we have to move on from them being love-obsessed puppies hoping from boyfriend to boyfriend. Progress is slow. I don't think there are many movies that show equality at all. I think the next best step is to have more feminist and women WRITE and DIRECT movies. Men can portray women, but not as justly as another woman. They have not had the same experiences. – emaliej9 years ago
On the note of how these women are typically written, especially in sci-fi, is dominantly masculine. There is nothing wring with masculine women; however, these women are rarely written as feminine at all. This might have a lot to so with how men feel they can portray women. These are women of the future, so perhaps part of the article could reflect on how they could be portrayed as a different kind of women if women wrote them. What do these women look like now being written largely by men, and how they could look if more women were part of creating these women. – C N Williamson9 years ago
