Analyze the reason why directors use cameos. What impact does it have on the audience? Why is it gaining popularity?
From Kareem Abdul Jabbar to Stan Lee to Stephen King, highlight examples that will look at why the crossover from reality to media is so popular. Big Bang Theory regularly played with this trope with great effectiveness. Why do we love it?
Neat topic! In the case of Stan Lee, I like to think of it as a nice little "wink" to the audience. With other cameos, I usually find them to feature celebrities - were they just in the right place at the right time? Did they love the show that much that they just couldn't help but be on it? Did the producers just love that actor so much? It would be interesting to see what answers one could find. – EJSmall12 months ago
I believe some actors are fans of a show and ask to be on. Stan Lee’s cameos were pretty funny. There is one where he plays Hugh Hefner that he did because people sometimes mistake them for each other. I would love to see a list of all time great cameos. SPOILER - There is a awesome one in Hobbes and Shaw. – Munjeera12 months ago
Though there is no direct possible way to verify, I wonder what is the percentage of viewers who do not like cameos or find it distracting. My friend once mentioned that he felt "left out" whenever there was a cameo he did not know about. – kpfong8312 months ago
Good point. Are cameos a distraction? – Munjeera12 months ago
Maybe the need is to distinguish when it is done well and done poorly. Bill Gates on "Big Bang Theory" (well) versus Martina Navratilova on "Hart to Hart" (poorly) provide examples as a starting point. – Joseph Cernik12 months ago
With this article, I want to explore the role of the psychopath protagonist in Film, TV and Literature, attacking it from a screenwriter’s perspective. Most of the content I’ve watched, the protagonist has always been someone with a moral compass, giving the audience someone to root for. However, what do you do when your protagonist has no moral compass? How do you find a way for your audience to root for them? I refer you to Frank Underwood of House Of Cards or Travis Bickle as examples of the Psychopath Protagonist.
I think establishing sympathy between psychopathic protagonists and audiences helps. Sympathy doesn't necessarily mean likability, but understanding between people that can result in pity. It helps if there's something relatable about the protagonist. I've not watched House of Cards but I do know of Nightcrawler, in which the protagonist (albeit more sociopathic) can be relatable due to his struggles to land a job. When he finally finds one, his determination to succeed can invoke sympathy, even as he embraces a morally gray industry... Though in saying that, it might help (from a screenwriter's perspective) to frame psychopathic protagonists, or any immoral character, within the context of the society they live in. – Starfire2 years ago
There is a difference between Travis Bickle and Frank Underwood. The idea of a psychopathic protagonist can be a little diverse. There is a difference between the anti-hero and the villain protagonist, not to mention the other subcategories. For example, Travis Bickle isn't intentionally an evil character, he is more of an anti-hero struggling with a form of PTSD whereas Frank Underwood actually fits into the psychopath mold as he strives for power. How do stories with unlikeable protagonists garner our attention? It varies from story to story, so I think this needs to be a little more specific. Would this cover literature as well? You specify screenwriters in the topic so I think you have to distinguish between them. Even the writing for television and film differ. It would be interesting to compare/contrast the differences between television villain protagonists and film villain protagonists. – Connor2 years ago
I believe that the audience can feel any amount of empathy for really any character in television. As far as psychopaths go, it's possible to be able to empathize for them, but the majority of psychopaths I've encountered in media have been inherently evil, but I've still found a way to root for them in some instances. The character that sticks out to me the most would be Ramsay Bolton from HBO's "Game of Thrones". Although he's a sadistic, twisted, cruel, and monotonous heir to the throne in the North, I empathize with Ramsay due to the relationships he has with his father and his step mother. Ramsay is bastardized his entire life which ultimately leads to his aching desire to fulfill his father's prophecy of becoming the King of the North and Westeros as a whole. All Ramsay wants is to satisfy his father's demands, and when he realizes this won't be possible once his new baby brother is born, he decides to take action and murders his father and his new born brother with a ruthless and literal stab in the back. If this moment hadn't occurred, I think it would've been possible to appreciate Ramsay as a psychotic protagonist, but considering the rest of his torture frenzies and the murders of his family members, the defending arguments supporting Ramsay crumble under their own weight. – ralphpolojames2 years ago
From the unfortunate Stormtrooper who banged his head on a door in ‘Star Wars – A New Hope’ (1977), to the brave souls who survived the ‘Helm’s Deep’, three months of night shoots in ‘Lord of The Rings. The Two Towers’ (2002), the Support Actor or Extra is a vital element of film making, but often overlooked by the cinema going public. These days ‘extras’ are big business, with a myriad of agencies offering almost any size, shape and range of looks that any production may require. Yet it’s not often that these loyal and hard working bodies even receive an end titles credit. The British sitcom ‘Extras’ (2005-2007), attempted the redress the balance, but still focused on the improbable rise to fame of the lead character. Perhaps it’s time that our unsung heroes of film and television were recognised and rewarded for their professional skills and dedication to the art. An Oscar or similar for ‘Best Featured Extra’ perhaps?
I can't wait to see what you do with this topic. :) – Stephanie M.3 years ago
I'm tempted, Stephanie, but I fear that as an insider my views would be biased. I've had a few minor roles where lines were cut so I didn't get the eagerly anticipated credit, but I continue to slog on regardless. So, I put this topic forward to see if an interested yet unconnected party might like to delve into the fascinating world of the Extra. Ahh, we are such stuff as dreams are made on....and 10 points to anyone who can complete the quote! :) – Amyus3 years ago
From Jean Reno’s portrayal of Léon (Léon. AKA: The Professional. 1994) to Shin Hyeon-jun’s portrayal of Hyun-jun (Kiss Me, Kill Me. 2009), the Hitman who rediscovers his humanity through self-sacrifice and atonement is a familiar theme. Are these characters merely bad men turned good or do they represent a convenient scapegoat for the ills of Society in general? Perhaps more importantly, do we learn anything from them as anti-heroes or damaged role models?
Definitely worth considering whether we are escaping moral dilemmas by having the troubled men die instead of having to deal with them afterward. – IndiLeigh3 years ago
A very interesting topic. I feel like this is a trope that we as a society have taken for granted. An in-depth look at the moral implications of this kind of narrative would be a fascinating read. – SophieCherry3 years ago
The sub-genre of movies known as "found-footage film" carries that unique sense of realism (brought about by shaky handheld cameras and lack of background music) rarely found in other films. With movies such as "The Blair Witch Project," "Chronicle," "The Gallows," and many others falling under this category, what makes some of these movies "better" than others? What sort of techniques have (or have not yet) been used to make these films feel valid/believable by an audience?
well, you have to look at the broader context. Consider the fact that The Blair Witch Project basically invented the found-footage subgenre and was an early example of viral marketing. That is probably why it feels so realistic-- no one had really done it before, at least not on the same level, and since then it's been extremely difficult to replicate, and I'd argue the only one that's done it successfully is Cloverfield, because it basically invented viral marketing as we know it today with the websites and social media pages for the characters. Seeing it replicated endlessly makes it less and less convincing. – sadiebritt284 years ago
Given the popularity for thrillers like Gone Girl to be turned into movies, did The Girl On The Train meet expectations? Did it live up the the standard set by the book? What makes a movie adaptations successful. Analyze how and why this female-driven thriller genre is gaining popularity.
Great topic! I read the book and saw the film and found a lot could easily be analyzed between the two! You could even ask about the differences in rhetoric in the movie and the book, did if give two different views or was one more convincing than the other! – brittanieclark4 years ago
Films and the production is constantly changing. With new technologies, it is often deemed as a good progression throughout time, but what are the cons? I wonder if film has perhaps lost its level of value in the growing world of technology.
Interesting topic. An interesting point to bring up would be the making of Young Frankenstein. Mel Brooks had to bring back people who had worked on films from the 30s and 40s because no one at the time knew how to film in black and white. And this was in the 70s. Could tackle film vs digital, the sound design aspect, the effects of relying on CGI... – CoolishMarrow904 years ago
Hmmm...what comes to mind is actually Disney's recent film, Zootopia. Totally hilarious, classic Disney fare. But also a pretty clear race allegory, as many reviewers have noticed. Gets to the heart of racialized discourse: are people of certain races (or in Zootopia's case, bunnies) inherently passive, while others (see wolves in the film) are aggressive and still others (see foxes) sneaky and conniving? Of course not, but these are the assumptions we inherit and perpetuate, even on the subtlest levels. Ruminating on these topics in animated form is, I think, rather ingenious. – alissac4 years ago
There are a ton of different ways this could go. Some specification is probably needed: films from a certain era? Country or region? About certain race(s)? Different genres? There are a lot of different factors that will affect the role race plays in a movie. – chrischan4 years ago
Qu'Allah bénisse la France (2014) a French film, shot in black & white that takes a look at the racism, France's well-known unemployment issue as well as heavy drug use and how these factors affect the youngsters in a devastating manner. The film is based on a true story. – oksly4 years ago
With the recent wave of Bollywood actors being integrated in Hollywood productions within the last few years, I’m wondering if this poses any risks or if this is a sign of progress in what people say is an overtly white-male establishment. With big actors like Amitabh Bachchan making an appearing in Baz Luhrmann’s remake of The Great Gatsby and Priyanka Chopra making headlines with not only landing a leading role in the American TV show Quantico but also winning the People’s Choice Award for said role as well as appearing in the upcoming movie Bay Watch and Deepika Padukone who is said to appear alongside Vin Diesel in xXx: The Return of Xander Cage. Does this intertwining of two different movie industries pose any sort of threat? or is this the beginning of inclusivity of POCs within the mostly white film industry?
Ooh this sounds really interesting! I'd also look into if there's any blurring besides just the actors, for example directors or producers. – thewyverary4 years ago
Can East meet West? This is a future question. Yes it is a Zen kind of concept meaning that the answer to this question will come in the future. – Munjeera4 years ago
I think each industry should remain independent from each other. Mixing both industries would harm whatever it is that makes them unique. However, actors, directors, crews, etc. should be able to work wherever they want to without discrimination. – Andrestrada4 years ago
On the surface it appears that Avatar (the one with the blue people, not the Last Airbender) is a critique on imperialist violence, one long overdue in our culture. But the movie falls short not just once but several times, changing from a thoughtful social commentary to just another feel-good, white-savior blockbuster. I’m not here to critique the writing, though god knows it needs it.
I’m here to talk about how Jake, the wounded soldier, still endorses violence as the only option to take down the Colonel. "I was hoping you’d say that?" And then the film’s narrative dances around having Jake kill the Bad Guy, because oh my god can’t have your hero kill someone on screen. Though apparently Jake’s killed lots of people before.
On the surface, the final battle is won (with Eywa’s help) to preserve the balance of the land. This is undermined by the blatant glorying in death the film takes – the battle is framed as heart-stopping, glorious, something to revel in when you are winning and to dread when you are not.
In the end, the day is won with more violence, endorsed by a deity. There is no even stopping to think on the harm done after the battle – the casualties are swept under the film’s rug, because they died for a good cause right? Oh, and some of the ‘good’ humans get to stay. Even though there’ll be no funding for their equipment to be maintained and it’s likely they’ll NEVER get back to Earth. Oh well, they can live on a planet with floating rocks and air that’s poisonous to them, right?
I have NO idea what the hype for Avatar was. (Not Airbender as he's awesome.) My personal opinion is that not much what put into the plot and script. I think the director/producer whatever you call those people had this new "medium" they wanted to work with. They had an idea of what they wanted the movie to look like and they wanted it to showcase their new shiny tech tools, but they didn't actually have a story or plot. So they just sorta slapped things onto some paper and filled in the blanks later. I also feel like it went something like this: "Hey, guys do you remember that movie Ferngully? No? Good hopefully no one else will either, because I intend on using the exact same plot." In fact, maybe after this I'll write an article on how Avatar is basically Ferngully 3. I say 3, because I think there actually was a Ferngully 2...
– Tatijana5 years ago
I mean, I think it could still be a critique on imperialist violence/conquest, without actually saying that violence is bad in all situations... Clearly the materialistic, war for the sake of money kind of violence is disgusting, but perhaps war to defend your people and your homeland isn't? Avatar wasn't the most nuanced movie ever, but I think it still has a more nuanced approach to violence than you give it credit for. – thekellyfornian5 years ago
Despite what it looks like, Tatijana, Director James Cameron had early drafts of this script floating around for decades. So he probably wrote the original idea around when things like "Ferngully," "Pocahontas," and "Dances With Wolves" were released back in the mid-90s. But he had to wait for technology to catch up to his immense vision for how the film would look. So while the film is still clearly derivative of all three of those films, and others, it was not something slapped together. It took decades before the motion capture and CGI technology was good enough for what James wanted. It took years to perfect the set-up for everything so that the 3D would function properly. It took years to render every single thing in the film because of how dense and rich the visuals were, especially the plants. And despite how rough and awkward it is, it took decades before the script was where James Cameron wanted it. So it actually took more effort to make than it appears. And I think the reason why we still haven't seen anything on Avatar 2 yet is because Cameron wants to impress everyone again with another big leap in visuals and technology. And I don't blame him. – Jonathan Leiter5 years ago
@thekellyfornian, I think it was definitely /meant/ as a critique on imperialism, it just doesn't follow through on the deepest narrative levels. My counter example is Mad Max: Fury Road, which is certainly a very violent movie, but the framing of the narrative treats that violence differently. Avatar treats violence as something good, something to be excited about and glory in. Fury Road treats it as harmful, even/especially to the heroes of the story inflicting it. – Winterling5 years ago