Explore the role that Canada has in American Media, pulling from film, television, comics, and any other medium that you choose. How is the Nation viewed internationally? If you so choose, how is the nation viewed by other international media outlets (BBC, anime, etc.)? Some examples to pull from include John Oliver, South Park, xkcd, and That 70s Show.
Great topic. It might help to have a section devoted Canadian-made TV shows, such as SCTV and Chilly Beach, that respond to (and ultimately ridicule) these stereotypical depictions by over-blowing them even further than the American shows for comic effect. – ProtoCanon9 years ago
Due South would also be relevant to Proto's point. – Munjeera9 years ago
What does it mean to consume media rather than to simply view it? Are remakes and sequels that are made 10 years after the original a newly emerging form of art, or are they simply a cheap means to make money? Is there such a thing as artistic integrity?
Hmm, this is a neat idea given how relevant it is nowadays. For me, I see this a lot with the many video game remasters over the past few years. Movies do this a lot as well, and I think it would be interesting to discuss how some movies that were iconic during their time (ex. 80's, 90's) lose their originality and novelty in a modern era. You can also discuss how nostalgia plays a role in defining what made an original movie superior to a remake. As far as money goes, you can also play the nostalgia card here to explore how producers try to cash in on people's memories of the past by bringing back the classics (via reboots, remakes, sequels, etc.). – Filippo9 years ago
How much of this sped-up aspect of entertainment is a Future Shock-esque reflection of technology, advances of which now making themselves almost instantly obsolete? Will what we consume consume us? – Tigey9 years ago
There is such a thing as artistic integrity; it's rare in hollywood. Maybe mention something which could hold the title of having artistic integrity with something that doesn't, like Jurassic World for example. – luminousgloom9 years ago
Not sure what films you have in mind but the 10 year gap shows how much they are clutching at straws. In a world where it's increasingly hard for the studios to make money so the films become safer; utilising familiar characters/place/story. The industry more than ever demands us to consume. Rather than take a critical view we are bombarded with advertising and hints how to keep enjoying the franchise and giving them money (i.e branded merch) even after you've left the cinema. A good comparison may be how The Hobbit was sqeezed for all it's worth into 3 films. In European cinema the trilogy is rare and completely different. It tends to be centred on the directors personal experiences/childhood (Bill Douglas trilogy, Apu trilogy etc) or may be even more tenuously linked through theme like the Three Colours trilogy, not relying on recognisable characters for garaunteeing custom. It is much more interesting deployed as an artistic device, not consumerist strategy. – JamieMadden9 years ago
Interesting...and you make numerous valid points. One thing that baffled me was that Danny Boyle was working on Trainspotting 2, 20 years after it's original release? Yet, once I looked into it, this was his plan from the very first movie--so, an interesting, planned act of creative ingenuity. In his case, this decision was made many years ago and some madness behind that divine brain decided to wait for 20 years to follow-up that insane, disturbing, yet strangely addictive film (pun unintended!). – danielle5779 years ago
Speaking of films made only for making money, product placement is disturbing. – Tigey8 years ago
Are personal and/or national prosperity bad for the various forms of art? Do hard times make for better art than good times? In the film Big Fish, Tim Burton's portrayal of the town of Spectre suggests that painlessness numbs creativity. Is this true or not? Am I alone in hating the synth-pop soundtracks and big hair of so many '80's movies?
I think to some extend suffering does breed art. I recommend mentioning how most great works of art are indeed about some kind of struggle or sorrow that is either overcome or not. Your last sentence seems completely irrelevant. – luminousgloom9 years ago
The 80's was a decade of huge economic growth and really bad music and movies. As great an artist as Bob Dylan was artistically MIA in the 80's. Using the word struggle is interesting. Hitler was an artist (a failed postcard painter) and his Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was shaped by Germany's post-treaty of Versailles depression. Hard times may not be good or bad, artistically or otherwise, just fertile. – Tigey9 years ago
Art is an expression and often can illuminate problems in a new light and create discussion on them. Without much uncertainty/injustice it is true that art tends to become a hobby and more introspective, if you're current world isn't trembling enough to pay attention to. Take the censorship of eastern european cinema in the latter half of the 20th century. Some brilliant directors (an endless list from Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic etc.) risked their life subverting the censors because they considered it imperative to make a film for the public which exposed/criticized the regime. To varying degrees they used elaborate allegory's or had to leave more literal criticisms out for the audience to deduce (ie. a character disappearing by means of secret police). And the effect of their hard work to even get these films made (most were scrapped or banned) is rewarded in their universal quality and the censorship provoked richer films. – JamieMadden9 years ago
I love Horror Films. The suspense that horror films create makes me jump off my seat every time and I love it. This weekend, I just recently watched The Conjuring 2, and I noticed a crucial theme: the destruction of "family." While the suspense in a horror films is created through unusual monsters, demons or serial killers, what made me jump was how the film metaphorically represented the struggles of living up to a specific type of family structure. Throughout the film, I started to see the differences between the Warren Family and the Hodgson family. Before they meet each other to discuss the supernatural occurrences, the way the montage sequence emphasizes on the difference between the families reinforces that the white picket fence family is in itself the better structure. Ultimately, the Warren family is a represented as the angelic figure that needs to save the Hodgson's from their own "demonic" failures ( ex: darker lighting used in scenes where the Hodgson family is shot) . But the question is, why is it that the single mother who is trying to hold her family together need to be saved constantly in films?
Interesting topic. I noticed that the Warrens helped to create friendly mood for the family suffering from possession in both movies, so it could be said that the Warrens "heal" the family both spiritually and mentally. – idleric9 years ago
Look at how the genre has evolved over the years. Talk about some of the icons in the horror movie franchise and how they have evolved along with the genre. Also you might look at the directors of the horror genre and how they have helped the evolution of the horror genre.
This is a solid topic, one which can be thoroughly examined. Given that the genre initially leaned more towards psychological horror and since morphed (sadly) into physical horror (like the splatter-fest movies of Eli Roth), there is a lot that can be observed. It could also be interesting to note how filmmakers are starting to lean a bit more towards psychological horror again with films like "The Babadook" and "It Follows". – August Merz9 years ago
Early directors and critics panned The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but later reactions were more positive. Was this revisionism anomalous, or a general change in perspective affecting the horror genre? What were the specific critiques of the first horror film(s) and how did they help shape ensuing horror films? – Tigey9 years ago
Everyone has heard the cliche review of just about any movie based off of a novel: "The book was so much better.." At what point can a film be judged in its own right, and at what point do the inspirations, sometimes inherently limiting what the audience deems as acceptable, deserve consideration? Many films often are portrayed in a negative light because of variations from the original inspiration, often noticed by the biased viewer, but does that actually make the standalone film poor in its own nature?
I like this topic immediately. Future notes can definitely include examples (Harry Potter, LOTR as successful adaptation stories vs Eragon, Great Gatsby). I've also found this CBS link to help extrapolate samples: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/book-movie-adaptations-gone-girl-hunger-games-harry-potter-twilight-great-gatsby/ The article might take shape like: defining the separate entities of literature and cinema, validating ways in which the two overlap, and then defending the creative liberties and separations of various forms of entertainment as distinctly different and independently operating. – Piper CJ9 years ago
A good case study could be the 2012 adaptation of Anna Karenina, which utterly fails as an effective adaptation of the novel, but triumphs as a work of cinematic art in its own right. – ProtoCanon9 years ago
I love this topic as well. I think it's important to bring up that oftentimes, the differences between forms of media are ignored by the consumers. Something that is interesting to read might not be interesting to view; different forms of media have different modes of representation. – ainjelwings9 years ago
Ender's Game is another great example of the movie being a success in its own medium, but suffering because fans prefer the book. So much depth has to be cut because of the limited scope of a feature film, and the novel has a lot of internal monologue and exploration, but I feel the movie is still worth watching. – Tarben9 years ago
Its getting common- I guess all Harry Potter movies-though they were wonderful, but for book readers was a complete no no. I would say LOTR was way better and even the dragon Eragon- was also a complete no no – hitesharora9 years ago
There is a lot of critique of LOTR among the most die-hard fans of the books. One of the topics that could be touched upon in the article is, with an epic like LOTR, would a TV series be a more suitable medium? – Helga1019 years ago
Discuss what was going on behind the signs in older Disney movies, and analyze both the time period some of the movies were released in, and how the happenings of those times affected certain characters in the film. For example, discuss the portrayal of the 'Indians' in Peter Pan, or Aladdin, and his white American-sounding self in an Arabic community. Then, consider how Disney is changing its views on culture and race, and including new characters of different races and culture such as Tiana in The Princess and the Frog
I think it's less a matter of what was going on "behind the sighs" (did you mean "scenes"?) than it has to do with the ignorance of the times. I don't think anything in particular was happening in 1953 to influence the derogatory manner in which Peter Pan depicts native people; they simply didn't know better. They didn't understand what so-called "Indians" really were and knew nothing of their culture, which led to such horrible depictions. With regards to Aladdin (and the same is true of Pocahontas and Mulan), that's simply a matter of whitewashing, caused by white North American producers, screenwriters, and animators having trouble relating to a character who does not fit into their own cultural mould - and consequently believing that their audience (presumably comprised of other white North Americans) feels the same way. The Princess and the Frog was Disney's way of acknowledging the mistakes of their past and trying to make amends. Whether that was a genuine attempt at reparations or a mere token gesture remains to be seen. It has been nearly seven years since it came out, and we've yet to see another Disney film with the same representation of POC since. – ProtoCanon9 years ago
Not that those crows in Dumbo were built on racial stereotypes... – Tigey9 years ago
I think racial stereotypes also came from what Disney believed *kids* thought Indians were, or black people were, or whatever. If you were a kid growing up in the '40s and '50s, you might believe the crows in Dumbo talked the way real black people did, for instance. That, of course, brings up a whole other issue of what we've taught kids throughout the generations and how we can do better. If The Princess and the Frog is Disney's way of atoning for mistakes, it's a good start, even a great one. Personally though, I think they have more work to do, not only in representing people of color but representing all people groups. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Why do some great fantasy/sci-fi series, great children's or young adult novels, get launched into the film world only to fall flat and disappoint fans? There was one film made of A Series of Unfortunate Events (with Jim Carrey and Meryl Streep). One film of The Golden Compass (with Daniel Craig). One film of the City of Bones, and then a reboot into a TV series. All of these films arguably had great elements, some well-known actors, and were adapting a charming, exciting story, something that should be great on film. What went wrong? Did the movies just not sell enough at the box office? Did the filmmakers not see it as worth their time and money to make a follow-up sequel? Fans will always be disappointed when this happens – even if the movie did not live up to the book in some ways, they still want to see their beloved stories onscreen. There are still so many fantasy novel series out there that readers would love to see made into movies, but that never happen. Tamora Pierce is a major one – medieval fantasy has become a massive hit with Game of Thrones, so why wouldn't her books make great films? What about Scott Westerfeld's Uglies or Malorie Blackman's Noughts and Crosses series: wouldn't these make timely adaptations to follow on from the success of the Hunger Games and Divergent? Perhaps certain writers need more support from their fans if they really want some film studio to get behind it. Arguably, young readers have had more power to catapult a book series and subsequent movie adaptations to success in recent years, so this is a relevant issue.
There are two possible answers to your initial question that you seem to ignore here, as many before you have. The first being that perhaps the film adaptations that have never gotten a sequel were simply badly produced or badly executed films and didn't succeed in captivating audiences the same way the book versions did. Or the second possibility, being that the books themselves simply cannot be adapted into films, because their structure simply will not allow it. A film has to be a certain way in order for the story to flow and make logical sense. Also, narrative description must be rendered into visuals in order for the existence of a narrator, in most cases, to be rendered unnecessary: as the old adage "show-don't-tell" is extremely important to keep at the forefront of any film project. Books like "Inkheart," "Ender's Game," "The Spiderwick Chronicles," "The Giver," and "The Golden Compass" make for captivating reading material, but they're often so dense in their descriptive language, strange and otherworldly in their tone and atmosphere, and sometimes very heavy-handed in their subtext and messages, that trying to adapt them into film results in much of these elements either feeling very off-putting and creepy because of how serious and gritty they are, or certain story elements and character interactions becoming laughable if not presented in the best possible way compared to how the book version does it. It's a difficult tight-rope to walk when you want a book adaptation to do justice for the fans, but you also want it to entice new audience members enough to warrant a sequel or two. The Chronicles of Narnia got two sequels, but the subject matter was such that even Disney gave up on it after two films and chucked the license over to 20th Century so they could try their hand at "Voyage of the Dawn Treader." But did that lead to films for the rest of the books? No. And that was likely in part due to the other books not revisiting the same characters from the previous stories, which is an issue that a couple of book series have: that being that later installments follow completely new characters from the last book, even if the world is the same. And doing that sort of thing in film is much more difficult, because you market films on the characters, not on the world or the writer's style. I could go on, but I'm rambling on as it is. Just a few possible avenues to go down when looking deeper into this subject. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I know that The Giver was in production for what? 20 years before it was made into a film? A lot of it is about money, interest, timing. – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
A big factor here is that most novels - especially a series, such as The Golden Compass rely on progressive/continued reading for it to be interesting. Meaning, one film is not provocative to those who have not read the book, because it doesn't end in a logical manner the way other films do; they don't wrap up neatly at the end. Therefore, audiences would be forced to go see subsequent films for it to ultimately make sense and end in a satisfying way. Ending the first film on a cliffhanger or with unresolved questions does not hold their interest. Additionally, many series are just too long and detail-oriented for them to transfer successfully to film. Peter Jackson had to stretch the LOTR trilogy over three movies - about nine hours total - to get the full story in there, and there were still Tolkien zealots who were upset about missing elements left out, such as Tom Bombadil (with those films, I believe they were just so darn exciting that even viewers who hadn't read the books were interested in subsequent films anyway). In the case of Harry Potter, Rowling's first three books ended in a satisfactory fashion; they appeared to be stories in and of themselves, and didn't necessarily indicate there was more to come (we didn't hear "Voldemort is back" in any definitive sort of way for a while. Initially, we assume he is defeated entirely). Therefore, audiences who had not read the books saw them and enjoyed them as a complete entity in and of themselves. By the time the story progressed to the point where they knew there was a continuing story that was not complete, audiences were already hooked on the characters and unique fantasy universe, and wanted more. – Katheryn9 years ago
I think it has also got to be mentioned that the intent behind a film is very important - those films that flopped (Golden Compass - which should have been the Northern Lights! - and a Series of Unfortunate Events in particular) were clearly more money driven and dulled down, and did not appreciate and respect the original sources. – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
Another question might be: does the film industry respect fantasy/sci-fi as a genre on its own, or is it simply adapting these books because they were popular?
I hate to bring up the Sign Seeker film, but that in my opinion was the pinnacle of young adult fantasy butchery...(I am a huge Susan Cooper fan, so I may be biased)
However, I would love to see this topic written! – sophiacatherine9 years ago
I think a lack of promotion or too much promotion adds to the question you pose. The City of Bones film was so over promoted to the point that I would change the channel anytime a related commercial would air, and I'm sure many other TV viewers would as well. Sometimes shoving something down someone's throat has the opposite effect promoters hope - it just makes people annoyed rather than intrigued. A lack of promotion also plays into this as not seeing enough of a film before its release will have less people showing up because they either never heard the film was coming out, or they simply forgot. – llsebben9 years ago
