Do an in depth investigation of the adaptations of Frankenstein to film. How has the monster been adapted from the novel into modern day? What does the monster say about society or about humanity in general? Or better yet, what inferences can be made in the relationship between Frankenstein and the monster, and the consequences of our desires to be like God/creators? This should make connections between the original Mary Shelley work, the various film adaptations, and possibly the recent Frankenstein film.
Most have worked off the iconography of the 1930s film for the sake of style and historically established recognition (think of all the cartoons that use the monster, and the movie "Van Helsing.") While only a few films, tv movies, and mini-series have represented the monster and the doctor in a more traditional sense, and a more "realistic" sense, with a creature made from stitched skin, mismatched organs, and slightly dead tissue, rather than a green man with a flat top and bolts in his neck. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Since insight into her own psychological connections are the genesis of Mary Shelley's story, it shouldn't be difficult to find contemporary connections to today's world, where so many of us have lost our moral compasses and robots will soon rule. When she was trying so hard to think of a ghost story to offer to the group, including Polidori, Byron, and P. Shelley, in that rainy summer in 1816, it took her many nights before she realized she had the vision already haunting her in her head. – awestcot9 years ago
Just a tip: the most recent adapter of Shelley's work called the original novel "dull as dishwater." – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
Perhaps a look at the movie Young Frankenstein would be a useful contribution. – JDJankowski9 years ago
I love the idea. One thing that always struck me was, in the novel, the monster talked, while the majority of film adaptations he does not talk.
Another point that could be explored, one of the themes of the novel is the contrast between Victor and the creation, in other words it seemed ironic that Victor was monstrous and the monster was human in quality. I don't recall this being illuminated in any of the movies.
I read the novel with the expectations of a good classic horror, richly surprised that it was quite a philosophical novel about what it means to be human. Frankenstein is never portrayed as a 'thinker' film, but always a 'monster movie'. Hope this gives some possible directions. – DrTestani9 years ago
Often up for debate is the length to which artists should take their creative liberties and change source material. Much more often do we see people groan that "they changed too much" from the book rather than cheer over entertaining additions or the omission of bores. However, it seems only a rather small community is devoted to the notion of a true-to-the-pages Frankenstein adaptation, likely due in part to the difficult reading level of the book and the pure hold on popular culture grasped by the 1931 film adaptation. At this point, to omit the hunchbacked Igor in place of the dear friend Henry Clerval, or to morph the dim-witted grunts of the monster into the articulate glibness of the original, or even to insist that the monster itself is not named Frankenstein is simply a path-dependency problem. Modern society is far too used to that which they already know for a truly loyal adaptation to be made and to be profitable. – draketj989 years ago
While most adaptations of Frankenstein have been unfaithful to the text, there are so many works that have been influenced by the novel. Ex Machina (2015) has been one such example and worth analyzing. – Moonrattle9 years ago
A lot of time has been spent looking at the continuity in the Marvel cinematic universe, very few look at the DC cinematic Universe. What I hope for a writer to do is explore, compare and contrast the two cinematic universes. One is owned by Disney and another by its competitor Time Warner, so there will be similarities but there will also be differences. How does the competition between Dsney and Time Warner reflect in the competition between Marvel and DC? With a New Batman appearing in Dawn of Justice, and a Captain Marvel movie due out starring Dwayne Johnson, what can we hope to see in regards to the main continuity climax in the upcoming cinematic film, Justice League? How do reboots effect this continuity in terms of Spiderman and Batman?
The DC Universe, unfortunately, is very poorly conceived. Only recently, with the initial release of "Man of Steel" was it even intended to start making all of the movies take place in one consistent universe, rather than have each film be a unique and stand-alone interpretation. So at the moment, there ISN'T a cinematic universe, it's just barely started. All of the four original Superman films, all of the four original Batman films, the Daredevil Movie, Elektra, Green Lantern, and the Nolan Batman Trilogy, have absolutely nothing to do with each other outside of being based on comics from the same company. But there was never any intention to make all of these films related to each other, have consistent character or casting, or to allude to any plot details or information between different films. Only NOW is this sort of singular universe beginning to take shape, and it's honestly not off to a good start. So I don't consider this topic something that can be explored quite yet. Maybe in another 5 years, when more DC properties get their own films, and we get the first Justice League film. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I definitely agree with Jonathan above. Marvel has grown exponentially over the past couple years and they show no sign of stopping. People will always still keep watching their movies, even if it becomes ridiculous. Like he said before, the Marvel movies are all connected. DC started this off with the "Man of Steel" movie. Now, we are also going to see the new Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). These next couple years are key for DC. They have to produce great movies that draw in the fans or I don't think they will ever compete with Marvel. – diehlsam9 years ago
Then perhaps a good way to adapt this article suggestion is to examine what DA must do, and what differences Man of Steel has with the first Marvel movie, and what to expect from the DA continuity based on that. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Robin has become a very popular character in the comic book medium, but for some reason, directors and script writers stay away from him. We have a older man literally named Robin in the final Batman movie but he never became the young sidekick we know and love. Why do directors stay away from him? Would the DC cinematic Universe be well advised to add him as Batman's sidekick? Is he best left in the comics? Why or why not?
I feel as though one of the reasons being how delicately the right choice must be made. Even if they went with the first Robin, Dick Grayson, some people may argue in wanting a different of the various Robin incarnations. No matter what they may get pummeled with complaints. But I do agree that it is strange that they haven't included Robin in any of the recent Batman live-action films. – Kevin Mohammed9 years ago
Perhaps movie studios are wary about film quality/box office totals. – JDJankowski9 years ago
This is an interesting idea for an article. As I'm pondering this, I realize that I can't really recall any sidekick characters appearing in any superhero movie as of late--perhaps there's a reason for that? Perhaps including a sidekick character would shift some of the focus from the lead superhero, causing him/her to be less developed. – ericg9 years ago
I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the campy image most people conjurer when thinking of Robin. Clearly, the latest Batman films have tried to play up the darker aspects of the character, and including any sort of sidekick may distract from Batman's "lone-wolf hero" image. – dtrott9 years ago
When looking at protagonists or leading characters throughout film history, particularly modern history, are there ever primary characters who wear glasses while being a hero, or while being at the height of their strength? Examples that I'm thinking of specifically are the main character from "Kickass"- he only seems to be wearing his glasses when he's in his "nerdy" stage. Superman only wears glasses to be a nerdy disguise. Perhaps the one outlier I've seen is in the movie "Falling Down", which stars Michael Douglas as a disgruntled citizen who's had enough, and he has his glasses the entire movie- but it plays to his characters attitude and personality. Will a main character wearing glasses just prove to cause too many subconscious feelings for viewers? Will the glare be too much? What is the issue?
I think the audiences associate glasses with brainy activity, and find it unsuitable for actions(there's a practical danger too). But there are few examples where the protagonists wear glasses, such as Half Life's Gordon Freeman(because he's a scientist), and the protagonists of Persona 4 when they are fighting the Shadows(their glasses work as filter to see the world). In order to change this, the creators can go with Gordon Freeman approach(glasses as a tool to describe the character), or Persona approach where the glasses works as a special item. – idleric9 years ago
Glasses are often used to depict an archetype and makes it easier for the viewer to determine what type of character they are dealing with. Of course this doesn't always have to be the case. There are always those surprise genius type characters that are always fun to deal with as well. Some motions often are used with glasses to help in determining what the wearer is thinking. Such actions as propping up the glasses or having a gleam in the lenses of the glasses often depict the wearer's mindset that a person would not be able to do otherwise without eyewear. Of course if you want to expand it to sunglasses and goggles, they also have their own for of role typing too. – Kevin Mohammed9 years ago
I assume we're talking perpetual and consistent glasses wearing, right? Not like Doctor Who or Twilight Sparkle who wear glasses just when they need to read? As ~idleric said, Gordon Freeman from "Half-Life" wears glasses, although we don't see his face other than on the box-art. Pepper Ann from the Toon Disney series back in the 90s wore glasses, and had an awesome unconventionally deep raspy voice. Jimmy Kudo, under the fake persona of Conan Edagawa, in the anime, "Detective Conan" wears glasses (fake ones though). Apparently a few protagonists from harem animes wear glasses, but this is more to make them out to be like the a typical nerdy dude who is extremely fortunate to be around a bunch of women who find him appealing. Most famously Harry Potter wears glasses, and he is arguably one of the most popular protagonists of all time. And, if we're not just talking youthful protagonists, Wayne Szalinski from the "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" series wears them as well. So for the most part, glasses do intend to usually denote a sense of nerdieness, geekiness, or scholastic interest. But these types of character CAN be the lead in a piece of media. However, I have yet to personally see a specifically non-nerdy character as the protagonist of a piece of media, who still wears glasses simply because their eye-sight is bad. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
As someone who has worn glasses for virtually my entire life, I find this a very interesting topic. And one that I've never thought about. Expanding on Jonathan's point about Harry Potter, I don't think Harry was necessarily supposed to be a "nerdy" character. He wasn't exceptionally smart, (constantly having to rely on Hermione for help on homework) and I think his glasses were simply a physical characteristic that didn't necessarily speak to his personality. He would definitely be worth exploring for this article. – Jon Rios9 years ago
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, or is it? Think about it for a second, Star Wars may seem like a regular good vs evil space battle, but deep down, could it actually be referring to the fight between Axis and the Allies. Lets start with the names for the troops of the Galactic Empire, or Empire for short, the troops are called stormtroopers, which were actually the names of some of Hitler's troops, then theres the fact that Darth Vader's name is similar to Vater a german name for father and then thee is the dictator-ship of Emperor Palpatine. Now you may be thinking what about Darth? Doesn't he technically rule with Palpatine? NO! Vader would be more equivalent to the idea of the Nazi super soldiers or in this galaxy, the Sith apprentice himself. Now think of the First Order, the smaller fraction of what's left of the Empire, they could represent the modern Nazis or Neo Nazis. Now let's head to the Rebellion. The Rebellion was already fighting the Empire, so they could be represented as the Allies pre-Skywalker, and then Luke Skywalker joins in after the death of his uncle and aunt, the attack of Pearl-Harbor December 7, 1941, and this ultimately makes Skywalker a represenation of the U.S. Hope this helps if anyone had an idea about it!
Actually, Star Wars talked about the Vietnam War. I wrote an article about it and Lucas himself said he drew inspiration from that war. The Ewoks were the Vietcong and the Empire was America. – Jemarc Axinto9 years ago
Thanks for that bit of knowledge. – BrainiacGamer39 years ago
Yeah, it's not a bad theory, but I think you will have to come up with a new topic as this one has no information backing it. – Jemarc Axinto9 years ago
Star Wars is a mishmash of a lot of things. It has influences of WWII but it also has influences from WWI films (the x-wing/Tie fighter dogfights). As well as the warring states / samurai period of Japan. It's hard to make a case for it being about any single event. – Eric9 years ago
Well, it's more about fact. George Lucas explicitly said that he made the films (specifically Return of the Jedi) about the Vietnam War. Perhaps it would be best to make an article about how Star Wars draws inspiration from a multitude of wars without necessarily being "about" a specific war. Or, even better, it could talk about how Star Wars represents the many things that go into war. I.e. war itself, politics, etc. – Jemarc Axinto9 years ago
What causes us to not get enough? Netflix release Orange is the New Black all at once! That is correct – the entire season in one fell swoop. 'The Netflix Binge' has become a cultural phenom for us. So what causes us to binge? Are we addicted to our characters? Does it fall under immediate gratification? Suggestions?
The term "binge" has become more and more relevant as viewers gained more access to the liberty of watching what they wanted when they wanted. 'Television Marathons' were often special events that occurred on television encouraging a person to glue themselves to the tele if they wished to watch the entire event. A binge is basically a self-regulated marathon where it is done on a keepers own time and comfort. – Kevin Mohammed9 years ago
There are no more cliffhangers in television shows when it's all released at once. Anyone who's been hooked on a weekly show (Lost? Breaking Bad? Etc) can attest to that feeling of a cliffhanger when an episode ends and just leaves you itching for the following weeks episode to see what happened. Well, Netflix and Amazon are destroying that model by releasing an entire season on the same day. We no longer need to wait for the next week- we can now binge the entire season over a weekend! I believe the only difference between binging and not binging is when the show is available to us- if it's all available, we will binge. If not, we won't! – thewritefilm9 years ago
"Binging" is definitely more convenient. It's easier to wait for an entire season of a show to be on Netflix so we can watch it repeatedly on a day that we are not busy. That's more appealing than watching one episode every Monday night at 8pm. I usually forget about TV shows I'm watching unless I'm binging them on Netflix. – carleydauria9 years ago
For me, I find that I'm too busy to watch shows when they air in real time, especially since I feel like I HAVE to sit down when a given episode airs. Of course, I can record it and watch later, but lately that runs the risk of having it spoiled, and more often than not, I just let my recorded episodes build up until I'm five or six episodes behind anyway. I like to stream shows because I can set the time for myself to watch as much as I want, when I want. It's also easier for me to follow a story line if I binge watch, because half the time I don't even remember much of what happened the week before when I watch in real time. – Christina Legler9 years ago
Different people will have different amounts of free-time in their schedule, depending on if they are going to school, whether they have a full-time or part-time job, and whether they have no job and may be stay-at-home parents. Whatever the case may be, this will allow them either to binge or not to binge. And honestly, I would think most people WOULD want to binge on their favorite show, because the only reason we didn't see the concept of binging very much back in the day is because that's just how things were. You'd get a new episode each week, every two weeks, or every month, and you'd have to wait patiently for the next one. The only time you could binge otherwise was if you bought a series on DVD and watched an entire season on the couch. The only difference now is that we can do it with fresh, brand-new series rather than old one that now have a DVD release. So in answer to your question of why do we binge, I think it's pretty obvious. When we find a show that we like and that draws us in, we want to see more and more of it. That's the whole purpose of a tv series: to tell a story across multiple seasons of episodes. The reason we want to see more and "can't get enough" is built right into the structure of the writing, and the prime directive of the medium. Excellent characters plus captivating storytelling equals deeply rooted interest and desire to see how these characters make it through their trials and past all of their obstacles. Or if it's just a sitcom or comedy series, we want to see more because we like spending time with these wacky funny people. Simple as that. Not a whole lot to it. Just a little psychology, a little clever producing, and a form of media that lives off of audience viewership. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I love how Netflix releases the episode all at once. I am so impatient and hate watching every week. TV shows can last months, and that's not even counting the holiday/mid-winter finales. I would much rather watch all episodes on my time and wait a year for new ones. – diehlsam9 years ago
The Marvel Cinematic Universe had a great year! With phase one and two being over, (phase two ended with Ant-Man) and phase three coming up sooner rather than later with Civil War, I really want to focus on a "What's to come" sort of aspect of the phases when it comes to phase three.
Phase one was just the beginning and it started the phase's out pretty decently. You can focus on the aspect of talking about how well those films did for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 2008-2012 was a time where the MCU was just starting out with the graphic choices and getting into the deeper realms of how they were going to depict these Avengers characters on the screen.
Then you can talk about phase two with the same topic as well, and talking about how they've progressed as films and characters from phase one. Which, I feel is an important aspect, from the changes of directors to different choices made by those directors and even to Marvel being partnered with Disney as well, which happened in 2009.
Then you can even focus on what's to come. Civil War is supposed to be the film of all films, it supposed to start phase three off really well. And from what the trailer shows and what we all know about it, it really is supposed to be great.
You can also talk about how phase two ended with Ant-Man, do you as a comic reader/MCU film watcher feel it was right to end with Ant-Man, was that a good ending spot for the phase to end with? And upcoming films such as; Doctor Strange, Guardians 2, Thor: Ragnarok, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Avengers: Infinity War, Inhumans, Captain Marvel, Black Panther and Another Spider-Man. What creative choices can be made with these now that we've had two completed phases and kind of a reaction to those; but also, what can be done to keep the attention of watchers of the MCU and etc.,
I'd like to see a topic on how and why celebrities and professional producers who have many more funding avenues available to them than amateurs still resort to using crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter to fund high profile projects
I would imagine some famous people would prefer Crowdfunding because 1. it's easy to get money when you're already well known and 2. their creative vision won't be censored or shaped by whatever big film company would have funded them. This article should also look into the Veronica Mars case study though. The time skip movie after the show ended was offered up by the actors on kickstarter for fans to fund to help them make; however, the project got so popular the movie idea was bought out by a film company to produce when it had previously been rejected. How did the backers feel? Did they get ripped of in any way? – Slaidey9 years ago
