I have been wanting to write an article about the Japanese movie Helter Skelter by referring to the manga that is based upon it. I decided to submit a topic beforehand to see what the Artifice community thinks about it. This movie is unforgettable because it makes the audience realize how ugly it is to go desperately after physical beauty. It is a great lesson about youth, beauty, self-esteem, and ethics. The article is expected to be about the analysis of the main character Ririko, the way the plot evolves, and how other minor but important characters contribute to delivering the message that obsessively seeking outer beauty is a toxic behavior. Since the movie is about models, focusing on the fashion industry as the concerned context would be appropriate. However, this phenomenon of having certain beauty criteria on social media is becoming a lot more common nowadays and it is causing a lot of mental health issues particularly among teenagers and young adults. Connecting the ideas generated in this film to a real contemporary problem would also be interesting to provide interpretation and discussion of the analysis.
Exactly. I would like to write this topic and I didn't know it is for other users only. So what do I do now? – Malak Cherif3 years ago
I think this idea is great and if you write about this you have a lot of material to collect from. – ImaniX2 years ago
Especially with the change of villains after the 2000s, the history of cinema has gained many cult characters. Joker, Ozymandias, Magneto, Thanos, Bane, and more. These villains, whose sole purpose is not to destroy the world, as before, all have different motivations. All of them have different purposes. They are far from being an ordinary villain, thanks to their delicately written characters like the main character of the movie. For this reason, they have many viewers who see them right and love them. The best example might be the Vikings. Although they were bloody raiders, we had a great time watching them. So how right is it to enjoy it, to support the Joker, to love these villains who are essentially trying to harm? Or trying to break the society we live in?
Still. Out. Of. The. Scope. Of. The. Artifice. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Ignore Palomino. I think this topic becomes more and more relevant as we get more and more complex and interesting villains in media. I think it's perfectly fine to enjoy a character that makes you think and has an impact on you, even if they're what we perceive as "bad." – LeoPanasyuk2 years ago
Many Hallmark holiday movies are considered "bad" because they employ unrealistic, overdone, and exaggerated tropes, characters, plot devices, world-building, and sentimentality. This makes the settings in which they are set in seem like they are trying too hard to look believable. This makes the content fall flat and seem poorly executed. Characters are often underdeveloped as their personalities and histories are not explored much which makes it difficult to be invested in their story. These are just some reasons many consider Hallmark holiday movies to be less successful and impactful.
Explore some of the reasons. Discuss television vs streaming, secularism, commercializations of the holidays, budgets, appeal, genre limitations, reputation, etc.
To quote my mother, "I love watching Hallmark movies because I always know how what's going to happen. They're not stressful." While this may be a pro for my mother, and for many people who enjoy Hallmark movies, it's not considered a pro in the film world. A screenplay should always be surprising but inevitable. Hallmark movies follow a formula down to a tee. The plot points are inevitable, but not surprising. – Abby2 years ago
I would also go into the history of film and television production a bit. I think there's a clear parallel between the way Hallmark movies are viewed today and the way TV movies of the week were viewed by many in the 1970s and '80s — in that networks produced literally hundreds of them every year, and most were not taken too seriously by critics. No different really from the way B-movies were relegated to the bottom half of double bills in the 1930s. Hallmark movies are, in a way, the closest thing there is today to the old Hollywood studio system. – John Wilson2 years ago
In Thor: Love and Thunder, Gorr the God Butcher wanted to destroy all the deities in the MCU. His motivation was he had found the god of his civilization quite disappointing, and he assumed all deities were just as selfish and uncaring. The movie hoped the audience would think Gorr was wrong because Thor, the god of Thunder, is not selfish. Unfortunately, we have not met many other "god" characters in the MCU with redeeming qualities. Analyze the MCU characters referred to as gods or god-like beings – not only the Asgardians but also Dormammu from Dr. Strange, Ego from Guardians of the Galaxy, Arishem from Eternals, the Egyptian gods from Moon Knight, and Zeus. How valid was Gorr's anti-god position? Is there a deeper meaning in this repeated theme? Consider the fact that Odin said, "We are not gods," but other characters nonetheless refer to Asgardians as gods. Does a character need to be chosen by a mortal civilization to "count" as a god?
Disney has released a few live action remakes. Some well received, and others highly criticized. Aladdin (2019) and Cinderella (2015) were well received while The Lion King (2019) and Tarzan (2016) were not. The Lion King used highly realistic CGI but this resulted in less expressive characters which was then less impactful than the animated version. What was lost in media translation? Discuss the pros and cons of animation versus live action and discuss why animated movies struggle to be remade well as live action films.
To be accurate, animated movies do not "struggle" to be remade in live action. The Lion King is, for the most part, a technological marvel of getting human voices out of realistic-looking animals. As you pointed out, this realism sacrificed expressiveness in the animals' faces, which is one reason audiences didn't like the results.
Perhaps the "struggle" is in making the new things interesting enough for audiences to consider them as good or better than the old, familiar 2D animated movies. – noahspud2 years ago
I would argue that the remakes would be more well received if they did not have well-loved predecessors. Maybe nostalgia factor sets a higher bar for Disney to try and recreate the magic audiences felt from watching the films as children, which results in bad reception if they can't live up to that standard. – isobelarcher2 years ago
Most of these live action remakes are extremely high-budget and well made, which begs the question of why they aren't as well received. I believe this is because audiences are not as interested in the idea of watching basically the same movie over again. They already found something to love-something that brings them nostolgia within the animated films. While the movies do tend to be well made, there's no doubt that there's a semblance of boredom within its primary audience. – brookecandelario2 years ago
From my interpretation of Disney’s live action remakes, one of the key problems is that many of them are not fully utilising the live action medium to create films that are different from their animated counterparts. Of the live action remakes that I have watched, I think Cruella was one of the better movies because the costuming was a significant part of the story, and thus, justified why the film had to be made in live action rather than with animation. Many of the other live action films do not seem to utilise the elements of live action filmmaking that differ from animation, and in my view, are consequently not adding anything new to the stories. – UtopiaRocket2 years ago
The '90s is fairly famous for several family-oriented, nostalgic sports films. From Angels in the Outfield to the Mighty Ducks trilogy, from the Air Bud franchise to Like Mike, Miracle, and Space Jam, during the decade, these films seemed to be everywhere. At the time, they were lauded as feel-good films the whole family could enjoy, particularly dads and uncles who might be moved to tears by memories of their former glories on the field or court. In the ensuing decades, these films are still respected, but also maligned as corny or overly inspirational depending on who you ask.
Analyze the impact of the nostalgic sports film. Why did '90s audiences seem to need so many of them, and why did they all seem to have such an inspirational format? Did they cater to a specific audience with a specific set of beliefs or aspirations? Were they meant to? Are they seen as overly nostalgic now simply because audiences have changed, or do we get our "heart" and "inspiration" in different ways? If the latter, where do we get it? Can the family-oriented, nostalgic sports film make a comeback? If so, what should it look like?
I think back to times I have watched movies such as The Green Inferno or Terrifier and have thought to myself “what makes these so appealing to people?” I understand how gore is important to horror, examples such as Hereditary using it very tastefully (if tasteful can be used for gore) but I never quite get gore-fest movies? The iceberg is large, quite literally there being “iceberg” charts of gory and horrific movies but where does that line get drawn? Where is the distinction between horror, and a movie for that sake of depravity.
What exactly do you mean in your question? It's quite vague. – Sunni Ago2 years ago
Add a little clarification to exactly what you want the writer to argue. I'm not sure about the use of icebergs in your question. – Montayj792 years ago
I get what you're saying. I am someone who is filled with morbid curiosity even though i regret it sometimes. First of all, gory and disturbing films are great for marketing. Like recently, 'Terrifier 2' has been all over social medias as "a film that is making audiences puke and pass out in theatres." Now doesn't that make you curious? Draws you into researching or even watching the film, garnering more attention... It makes people think "there's no way a movie can make me puke or pass out, I'm gonna watch it to see if it's true or not". Everyone has some sort of curiosity within them that draws them to understand what a certain media is going to show. Another way to look at it is the fact that people dont get to see gross, gnarly and gory things in their boring, daily lives. I know i dont at least... This i feel is the reason why films like these are made, to provide audiences with an experience they will never attain in real life. The line can be drawn at snuff films, which are real videos of people you know... Then there's shock value... That's a whole different subject... TyperTheCurator – Ethan Clark2 years ago
I want to hear more about this "iceberg." May I suggest building an article around it, maybe discussing things like MPAA ratings and criteria, the level and types of gore people can handle, and how it impacts the psyche? – Stephanie M.2 years ago
Movies and TV shows often feature able-bodied actors/actresses playing disabled characters. Some audience members with disabilities are not content to see characters who are like them; some of them believe these characters must be played by people who actually have the disability they are portraying. Discuss the validity of this argument and the validity of the counterargument: representation doesn't matter any less if it's just acting. Examples for the discussion include Ben Affleck in The Accountant and Daredevil, Charlie Cox in Daredevil, Patrick Stewart in X-Men, Bryan Cranston in The Upside, Freddie Highmore in The Good Doctor, Danny Pudi in Community, and Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.
Scholars who have been developing important advancements in the field of Disability Studies over the last 30 years have established through their work that it is not necessary to use euphemisms to refer to disabled people because it creates confusion about the important distinction between “disability” and “impairment.” – T. Palomino2 years ago
Hey, thanks for this! I'm disabled myself (cerebral palsy/Asperger's), and I can see both sides of this argument. For instance, if you want to show a severe case of CP, where the person experiences quadriplegia and the inability to speak, for instance, it might be difficult to find an actor who fits that profile. But at the same time, that leads back to the question of why the acting arena has been so "closed" to people with disabilities over the centuries, so that actors with disabilities can't make spaces for themselves. I personally have experience in theater, where I believe I was denied roles not necessarily because of ableism, but just because the concepts of inclusion and modification were not part of consciousness yet. So when I see actors and actresses like Ali Stoker (Stroker? Her last name escapes me), getting roles on Broadway, I feel like we're progressing. But then I see, for instance, able-bodied actors still being cast for roles like Crutchie in Newsies, and I'm like, just, why? When there are a ton of ambulatory actors out there who still use or have experiences with mobility aids? And, as noted with Rain Man, why are we giving Oscars to able-bodied actors for portraying disabled people, especially in a way that continues to feed inspiration porn? So all that to say...yeah, please write this. – Stephanie M.2 years ago
This is something I've pondered often. Some actors are able to play a good role and pull it off but those with the actual disabilities and have the knack for acting should be considered first for those roles. Granted, sometimes--and often--Hollywood doesn't try to be politically correct in its casting. This stems from various reasons, including household name. – Montayj792 years ago
This is a difficult one. If acting can be difficult and tiring for people without any disability imagine how strenuous it'll be for a person with a disability - the shooting and re-shooting, the long scripts, the long nights, the travel and moving from one location to another, etc. It would really be difficult – Laurika Nxumalo2 years ago
I don't think so. Coming from a guy who has Autsim, I don't think an actor has to be disabled to play a disabled role. All that matters is can the person act? – JohnMcKinney2 years ago
