With the recent announcement of Robert Pattinson in yet another Batman movie, the question should be asked: how many Batman movies do we need? How many times can you re-tell the same story in different ways and it still be interesting to experience? Are movie studios latching onto fandom/nostalgia to the point of having a negative effect on the original character?
I definitely would highlight how new movies especially remakes in the Marvel Universe have a purpose. Do these new movies change the interpretation of character's story and personality? Or is because the movies are all the same it has a negative effect not only on how people enjoy the character but on the movie company (in this case DC Comics) itself? – reschilke5 years ago
I feel like there have been an excessive amount of Batman movies, but they are there to appeal to the younger people who have not watched the older Batmans. To those who have been around since the first few, it will seem like too much. To those who haven't been around long enough to be interested in the most recent one, it will be very exciting to watch a new Batman film.
I do feel like studios are latching onto fandom/nostalgia but I don't think it has a negative effect on the original character. It gives people different ways of thinking about the character. You can watch all the movies; take what you like and leave what you don't. – Maiacara5 years ago
I think you are hitting on a very important topic, namely that there appears to be a trend (at least in the western world) for safe, reliable narratives that do little to shift us outside of our comfort zone. As much as the cinema going public may ask why don't studios make new and different movies, the reality is that most such movies fail at the box office. Producing a new Batman movie, a Joker movie, more Marvel movies etc... guarantees studios revenue and ultimately those studios are answerable to board directors and share holders. If we, as the cinema going public continue to pay money for these movies, studios are going to continue producing them and we sadly will soon be bereft of original ideas and exciting stories. – davidwhite5 years ago
Yep! It sure does seem like Batman movies are getting done and perhaps overdone! – autenarocks5 years ago
I think it is interesting to see how new adaptations will change key points of stories, like the retelling of Sleeping Beauty in Maleficent, but I do think another batman movie is likely to exhaust the story itself. – KeahMurdoCH5 years ago
There are only so many sequels to a number of movies, and "Batman" is a very good example of that. More creative ideas need to be expressed, and different movies produced, rather than the constant re-makes, re-boots and sequels to films. – WSSfan5 years ago
These are wrong questions. "To Need" is an irrelevant and inappropriate verb to talk about movies or any artistic production. Do we "need" a new Batman movie? What does that mean? On the other hand, assuming that a new Batman movie is going to re-tell the same origin story is unjustifiable. If an idea is profitable, the film industry is going to exploit it as much as they can. – T. Palomino1 year ago
Capitalizing on the origin story of a very famous villain was an interesting direction to take by Sony. The Venom movie has critically ‘survived’ its release, but where will the story eventually go? So much of Venom’s origin is built around his interactions with Spiderman, causing some people to criticise the appear of ‘web-like’ powers from the character despite no canonical appearance of Spiderman. Should other films focus solely on villains? Or can a villain’s story only be told when alongside their famous superhero.
It's a great question: where does Sony plan to go with this? it may be a good idea to examine the thought processes leading up to the Venom movie, and possibly touch on the other films Sony has announced for their shared universe: does a standalone Kraven film without Spiderman make more sense than a Venom one, and can these films survive without Spiderman? On that note, I'm not sure that referencing the Sam Raimi films would be a good idea, as they are two completely separate continuities. – LaPlant05 years ago
Maybe this is a cynical take on it, but its not clear that they had much of a plan for the franchise after this initial film. I wonder if instead it was meant to be a final effort to pool together Spider-Man fans after the decline of the Amazing Spider-Man movies. The film itself felt directionless in many ways, like they didn't know what to do with what they already had let alone continue it on further. Still, I would be interested to see if they could pull together a fully-formed continuation and have it stand out among the other comic-based movies out. – MSQuigg5 years ago
Analyse the movie in the light of recent negative hero releases like ‘Joker’, ‘Brightburn’ and even ‘Glass’. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
The success of the MCU has been one of the hallmarks of cinema for the past decade. Arguably what has contributed to this is a significant amount of planning, and team of people dedicated to the topic, as well as a large amount of source material. Given that the X-Men universe has the third reason locked in, what’s to stop 20th Century capitalizing on the blueprint laid down by the founders of the MCU and giving them something to compete against? Arguably all it could take is a team passionate about making this a reality.
It might be important to isolate some of the more well loved characters and explain why they are so compelling that they deserve their own film, considering that the team dynamic of X-Men is likely more important than merely separate characters: it's only by working together that the X-Men are able to overcome insurmountable odds. It may also be a good idea to discuss the Deadpool and upcoming X-Force film series. Another thing to consider is exactly what in the X-Men film universe is currently considered canonical, considering the inherent conflict between X-Men Origins: Wolverine's depiction of Deadpool and the more faithful representation of the Deadpool films. Not only that, but Days of Future Past and the ending of Deadpool 2 apparently completely rewrote the timeline. – LaPlant05 years ago
Analyse why novel sci-fi and fantasy ideas that have been released to the cinemas recently have not had the strong effect that the same kinds of films had during the 2000-2010s. One immediate example that comes to mind would be Jupiter Ascending, which performed abysmally at the box office and was critically demolished. John Carter is another example that seemed promising, yet was not given a sequel despite being based off a series of comics.
i see a lot of potential with this topic, especially if one were to take a more comparative route by analyzing more recent sci-fi/fantasy films alongside earlier works like Bladerunner or The Fifth Element. – ees5 years ago
Like your title points out, there's a lack of novelty. I'd argue that super hero films fall under the genre of science fiction/fantasy but that doesn't make them novel. If we are to consider superhero films in the same realm as other science fiction/fantasy films, I think that one solution might be the abandonment of using tired formulas. When superhero films mix genres, such as The Dark Knight as crime thriller or Deadpool as black comedy, the novelty becomes apparent. The MCU is definitely more likened to fantasy than something like The Dark Knight, which possess elements of science fiction rather than fantasy. If you mean specifically more traditional science fiction/fantasy, we did recently get Annihilation and Arrival, both great and I'd say novel films. – kram35825 years ago
A fanfiction is defined as a fiction written by a fan of, and featuring particular characters of, a particular TV series, film etc. When a novel series graduates to the big screen or a popular franchise gets rebooted, the series is arguably getting a re-work by someone who is presumably a fan of the original work. A contemporary example could include David Benioff and D. B. Weiss adapting "A Song of Ice and Fire" as a TV series, eventually pursuing beyond the source material. Another might be Christopher Nolan’s re-envisioning of the classic Batman character through the Dark Knight trilogy. Taking into account the degree of deviation from the original work, could these series’ be considered fanfiction? At what point can a professionally produced piece of film be considered a simple interpretation of fiction by a fan?
An interesting thought process. Now that I think about it, adaptations and reboots can definitely be considered as a form of fanfiction. After all, who amongst us hasn't pictured a book or a movie or any form of art in our own way in our heads? When book to movie adaptations play out differently from what we imagined, we react with shock and sometimes anger. Reboots and adaptations can be the personal perception of a piece of art, which may differ from the original content. This makes me wonder if fan made films should be taken more seriously. Yes, they may not have the resources to produce a film of the same quality as a professional film, but essentially the creators of fan-made films and professional films come from the same place-a love for a piece of work and a desire to see it played out the way they want it to. – SheWhoMustNotBeNamed6 years ago
Visiting foreign countries can truly change peoples lives. Whether its rural folk seeing thriving metropolises or hot climate citizens witnessing snow for the first time, being in a new environment can take your breath away. The use of graphics in gaming has skyrocketed. From the revolution of Pong 40 years ago, blades of grass and drops of rain have become routine for triple AAA titles. If we can imagine the difference in graphics rendering in 40 years, will a $100-$200 VR headset rival the thousands we spend on flights and accomodation overseas? If we could graphically render a building twice as tall as the Eiffel Tower, why go see the Eiffel Tower? Could virtual reality be a substitute, or threat, to global tourism?
Hasn't this been happening since the mid-2000s? – T. Palomino4 months ago
*POTENTIAL SPOILERS* In the wake of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, one of the main negative points that critiques emphasize is the lack of narrative fulfillment. Many plot-arcs and burning questions were either left unanswered or unexplained, priming Disney to release other forms of media, comic books or novel series’, to fill the gaps in the film. There is precedent for this technique in the gaming community, with Gears of War 3 introducing characters who were fan-favourites from comic book series’ and Destiny including plot-relevant lore to be explored outside of the game and on the game’s website. Will this present a negative impact on the way stories are told on different mediums? Are the release of expanded works intended to deepen our appreciation for a universe, or exploitation tactics by greedy content creators? Does exploring different characters and story-lines add depth to a franchise, or allow it to short-cut the narrative process?
First off interesting topic. Need to change the title - these are not literature universes, perhaps pop-culture or cinematic? Depending on how you want to narrow this very large question down. In relation to the question I think you would have to take into account merchandising and one avenue might be to look at the original merchandising deals from SW that made Lucas so rich, added to this is Disney's main money makers are not their movies but all the related sales iconography, which to me is the single reason we have new SW movies, because it definitely wasn't because anyone had written a decent script (gripe, gripe). I think this is a conversation worth having. – SaraiMW6 years ago
Modern console’s use of the internet in gaming has allowed some games to only be allowed to be played online. One example, is the incredibly popular For Honor, a hack and slash phenomenom. As popular as this game is, what is to stop Ubisoft from shutting off the servers if a sequel is announced, to force gamers to purchase the sequel? Many classic games suffer from eventual server closing, EA’s underrated Lord of the Rings: Conquest is an example. Are gaming developers giving themselves too much power over consumers by forcing games to be mandatorily online?
This is definitely worth exploring. I, for one, do not play multiplayer games (at all), so I never have to worry about the always-online nonsense. I can simply pop in my disc of Uncharted 4 and go for it without a care in the world. It certainly seems like a bully move for a company to require a constant internet connection to play their game, even the single-player campaign (as is the case with "For Honor"). It also runs the risk of alienating fans who don't want, or even can't have, a constant online connection to their console. There's also the chance of servers going down and internet connections timing out. I guess you just can't play your SP campaign in the meantime while you wait for the Ubisoft servers or Comcast to get their stuff together, which is highly frustrating. – Christina Legler6 years ago
Some say that being able to speak another language allows you to process your native language better and increases memory. Others say that the existence of translators already, and the rise of artificial translators are making this knowledge redundant. Some that learning another language is a trivial hobby unless you intend to live in the country of the language they speak. Is it worth the time and brainpower? Should some languages be prioritized over others? What is the worth of a second language?
Absolutely not. In my experience, there is nothing more valuable than learning another language. According to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, the language influences your thoughts and cognitive processes. I know learning a second and third language has made me very aware of how the hypothesis can be true – pennypun6 years ago
The politics of language learning is all about lingua franca. It may be worth looking at how economics affect language learning, specifically ESL. – Munjeera6 years ago
Interesting thought, but I'm honestly not sure that in our global society, you're going to find a lot of people who eloquently argue that learning a second language is a waste of time. *However*, some ways of learning definitely work better than others, and I can see discussing and comparing those. – Stephanie M.6 years ago
There is a saying, which I paraphrase here: "To understand a man you must walk a mile in his shoes". Much the same can be said about learning another language for it acts as a gateway into another culture as well helping to develop one's own cognitive capacity. For me, the sheer delight of being able to watch a film in its native language and catch those nuances of speech so often excised by clumsy subtitles or mangled by a poor quality dub, is beyond comparison. – Amyus6 years ago
It would also be worth considering the body of research around the cognitive effects of bilingualism, especially in how it may influence ageing. – BarryMW6 years ago