A common critique of any new movie, book, tv show or anything, a common criqitue of any new story in the written medium, (whether script writing or otherwise) is the lack of originality. Originality is defined as 1) existing from the beginning, 2) created personally by someone or 3) not dependent on other ideas. But is anything at all independent of ideas, or 'original?' One can now start to argue that everything's been done before, from new world with strange creatures, to magical schools, to a climactic battle between good and evil. I pose three question: Does originality exist any longer? Does originality need to be redefined? Or do we need to change the way we criticize storytelling?
The book 'Reality Hunger' by David Shields is exactly about this, him claiming that everything comes from somewhere and is a type of collage. For this, you need to define originality. Everything we have everseen, heard or lived does influence us. There are tales of people thinking that they've written something original and then being told that their original story is almost identical to another from a long time ago; usually they have just forgotten being subjected to that original story. – heath3 years ago
I think storytelling should be defined by the depth of the narrative, not strictly the originality of the idea. – BVIS972 years ago
in the jacobean era (and probably other periods) people would bring 'commonplace books' to the theatre with them and just write down what they liked so they could use it themselves. obviously there are some plagiarism problems there but it might be interesting to examine how our views on originality has changed – lizawood2 years ago
I think it’s also possible for works to poorly received precisely for their originality. An Australian writer Michael Winkler was unable to find a publisher for his novel Grimmish, so self-published. But the book got great critical reviews, has since been picked up by a traditional publisher, and has now been long listed for the Miles Franklin award. It is dfefinitely original, but that’s what put it off in the beginning from being published. Writers and artists will often follow their passion to strange places, and publishers may take ‘risks’ and get their work out there. But often work that’s original is also misunderstood, or doesn’t quite find its readership. – MelHall2 years ago
As far as I can tell, successful art and originality need not be mutually exclusive. You rightly suggest that many that many themes, many topics have already been expressed by brilliant minds. Nearly all great literature could be distilled into variations on a few themes, if one wanted to be so minute. But, just to stimulate some thought, I'll pose you a question: is anything at all NOT original? If art is, as Marcel Proust contended, a reconfiguration of our experiences, and no two people experience life identically (or, at least, no two people have the same frame of reference), then how could a work of art fail to be original, since it is gestated from a particular consciousness which has contents that will never again take shape in a similar way? How could the expression of one's vitality, one's essence, be anything but original when seen in this light? Just a thought. – ethanwatts2 years ago
This is definitely a topic that is so relevant today because creators lack "originality". Especially since a lot has been written over time, we can never be too sure if a so called, "original," idea that we have had is actually original or if it is something we've been inspired by through the subconscious after having read/watched/heard it already. Originality is so hard to come by these days and is something that is so craved in the media. It really is a sink or swim situation, and, as most have said here, originality should be defined by depth and how the story is actually told. One concept could have so many different ideas and meanings behind it, so therefore each concept can have different means of originality. – saskiawodarczak2 years ago
One could wonder if a piece's originality must be [pure originality]. Does anything like that even exist? However, every piece has the potential to be original in at least one or more aspects. If it follows the collage format - think about the collage technique used in painting: Are all of these paintings unoriginal? Such a claim is contested by anyone. But what makes them unique in that case? It is not the elements; it is the structure! How the various, unoriginal, little components are put together to create a fresh picture, new system, or unique narrative. A different structure might also imply that the new collection has a different endpoint and objective. That's one scenario!
So, to discuss originality, we should slightly alter our understanding. There might not be such a thing as 100% originality. It's conceivable that there isn't such a thing as ultimate originality, yet there is originality in response to one or more aspects alone. Originality is not absolute; rather, it is relative. – Samer Darwich2 years ago
What's additionally interesting about this topic is an evaluation of whether originality in entertainment is really so different today than it's ever been. I see a note above that repeats a currently popular idea, that right now entertainment is particularly unoriginal. But when I think of movies from 90 years ago, there were countless remakes. Just look at how many Robin Hood and Little Women movies were made! Plus, when we think of really original storytelling from back in the day right now, how much of it struck audiences at the time as original as well? Star Wars or The Matrix might come to many fans minds as original, but there's strong arguments that neither is. All three questions are good, and in particular with the last one, just how useful is criteria of originality? – ronannar2 years ago
I believe that all new ideas sprout from an inspiration taken from the real world in some way or another. In that sense, I understand how you believe that nothing is "original" by the definition you provided. Therefore, when critiquing another story that definition should not be applied. – Aathi2 years ago
While arguably every piece of media is a derivative of some earlier piece of media, there is still plenty of originality out there to be had. Look at recent films such as Nope, which very explicitly shows its influences from films like Jaws and Close Encounters, or Everything Everywhere All At Once, a fresh take on the multiverse craze. Nope is highly original in its message and structure. Everything Everywhere is highly original in its world-building and story. I think that there is a big difference between these films and the constant sequels and prequels being spat out by Marvel or the remakes of old films. Sequels and remakes may offer some fresh perspectives--and the ones that do are often the best of these categories, but they do come from the same nucleus of an idea. Nope borrows heavily from Spielberg and others but creates a brand new way of displaying those influences and in some ways critiques them. But perhaps the criteria for originality is also based on how audiences feel. Personally, I am sick and tired of the constant trailers for new Marvel films and I do feel that the movie arena has been saturated. Does that just make the original films more novel or does it mean that originality is shrinking? Keep in mind much of this phenomenon is based on money and the fears of producers and studios that people no longer care for going to the movie theater or watching films in general. The sequels and cinematic universes pump out the most films because they work--they are a known quantity. Especially after the pandemic, it takes a brave studio or producer to splash out on originality. – zrynhold2 years ago
This is not the first time I read this point that originality must be take down because everything has been already done in the past. Students love it ;-)
My favorite answer is :
Your struggle is, in my opinion, you can't find where to put the hiatus between common recycling of ideas and true originality (an ideal to tend to). It think this is a dead end because the nature of originality is its own unpredictiveness. It is the result of combination of known objects, it is an emergent property from the interaction of well-known topics or situations which give birth to novelty. Sometime, a change in perspective by itself provide a original, new creative object. And remember, we live in a world of a tremendous complexity and it would be really pretentious for humanity to tell that they already created and thought about everything that is possible.
Good luck with this topic, it is a gold mine. – Alexbrn2 years ago
There's a lot of time travel in fiction and many times, it makes no sense. Sometimes, the nonsensity is a strength, other times a weakness. Examples of media that use this trope (not necessarily have to be used) are Steins;Gate, Harry Potter and the PoA and of course, Avengers: Engame and Back to the Future. This topic should explore when time travel is done right, what constitutes it being done right in the writer's opinion, and of course, delve into the types of time travel (multiverse, paradox and time loop), and whether it's a good idea for fiction to use it.
Perhaps a good idea would be to examine how differently this trope is used in different medias, whether TV or film.
Lovely topic, but perhaps too broad. Maybe just focus on one or two examples of time travel, or contrast a successful and unsuccessful example? – Stephanie M.3 years ago
The film 'The Butterfly Effect' is a great experience, essentially saying that you can't change the past to end up with the happy ending that you want. It says some other things, but just watch the film. I also like the way the film '12 Monkeys' does it. If someone wrote this article, they they have to decide what is 'correct'. I suppose I lean towards what does current theoretical physics allow/say is correct? – heath3 years ago
Assuming that the "nonsensity" is perceived from a physics perspective, it is understandable, and it is also the reason spectators have so many problems understanding time travel in fiction. It hasn't even been understood in real life through science. Would it be a more useful approach to see time travel in fiction through the lens of philosophy rather than physics? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Many times in television, TV shows air way past their expiry date. That is to say, it got old, it got ridiculous, and it's still airing. Other times, genuinely good shows have been cancelled despite a good following. Sometimes, a show is cancelled after several seasons, perhaps due to lack of ideas and not wanting to 'milk the cow' so to speak. Other times, a show is done to death regardless. This article should explore why. Explore what makes both happen. WHat are the network's incentives to keep a show running? Do ideas have anything to do with it, is it what they believe audiences want? An agenda? All three? When, ideally, should be the time to cancel a show or keep it going.
Sometimes, filler is dreaded. It's a time when an Anime fills in a gap with unneeded material, usually to give it's source material time to give them more material, and fans start letting out a groan of frustration. But it's not always bad. Sometimes, it's good. This article would explore when filler is actually good, and by good, we define it as something that, in a way, adds something to the fictional world or plot of the show.
I have been actually thinking about doing an article like this! Once it gets approved, I would love to write this! – Kevin Mohammed9 years ago
Nice idea! Yeah, I feel the same. I honestly don't mind filler if I feel it adds to the story in some dimension. It's only annoying if it seems like there is no point in having it. It reminds me of the trend of splitting the finales of book-to-film adaptions into parts or extending small books into long, saga-like movies. I didn't mind it in the case of the Harry Potter films, but there are other cases where it felt like just an obvious cash grab. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
I find that a filler episode is helpful when the show gives us something to contemplate, it helps explore the evidence through the characters' perspective and maybe offer a little extra insight. I've been watching an anime called Endride which has a filler episode, based on how the show presents its evidence on the issues of the show, I think its rather useful in that sense, but that's just my opinion. – RadosianStar8 years ago
Fantastic idea! You can also take into consideration what lines up with the manga (if one is available) and if said filler is actually filler since it's in the manga. – OldxSoul8 years ago
I think filler can be fun in more action oriented, or serious type anime. The filler episodes are when more silly or daily slice type of behavior can be seen from our heros/heroines. Example: protagonist usually in battle or tough situations casually goes to an all you can eat buffet. – bluishcatbag8 years ago
Filler is definitely important, and I think you can make the structural argument that filler can at times sign post the end of a dramatic arc or plot development and signal the beginning of a new one. Kind of like a space between two important arcs or as a signal of a turning point? What immediately comes to mind is the school festival in the first season of Code Geass - it serves as a break between "things going comparatively alright" and "things falling apart" and also signals the cause of the transition – phaasch8 years ago
Naruto: Shippuden comes to mind. Sure, probably 90% wasn't needed, but there were episodes that provided the backstories for various characters (including Kakashi and Itachi) that were important to the main narrative. Also, Season 5 is worth watching just to see Deidara and Tobi capture Three-Tails (if you feel like you have the time, that is). – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
Is it correct when people say that a musical must have a basis on stage? What, by definition is a musical? Should Disney movies count as musicals? Must musicals be live-action or can they be animated? Does Mary Poppins count? What strictly, is a musical?
I think for this it's important that the writer take all different examples of animation, live action, stage, film, different genres, etc. etc. etc. and compare and contrast them. Also, it'd be a good idea to look at musicals across the world, as well as, check out a good old-fashioned dictionary entry. – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
Musicals make for great topics. Especially when you look at context. During times of economic recession, war and great instability, musicals flourish as a genre. I love musicals as a genre and am so happy that it has been revived. I think Disney should definitely count as musicals, since they have contributed so many songs. – Munjeera9 years ago
It could be useful to compare the musical to the operetta (See Works of Gilbert & Sullivan). – JDJankowski9 years ago
It might also be interesting to show a possible connection between musicals and music videos. – green169 years ago
What would be interesting is a comparison with musicals and movies with signing and see how they differ. If they really are different in any way. – VeeTee89 years ago
Musicals for the stage and musicals that are animated or made as a live action movie do tend to differ in a few ways- these are often referred to as movie musicals, as acting for the screen is very different from acting on stage. Subtle differences do validate subgenres within musicals, and it would be worth looking into. Try looking into musicals that originally aired as a movie then moved to the stage (I believe Newsies was one of them, and there's many more) or vice versa. – HeartofAvalon9 years ago
Will there come a point where systems and consoles are obsolete and the franchises migrate to online instead. We’ve seen it happen with Legend of Zelda and Elder Scrolls. Might this happen with Pokemon? Kingdom Hearts? Will this repel some fans or bring in new ones?
Anime is mostly known for filler, but sometimes, even books or movies, TV shows or anything else, can have filler too. This article would examine such instances and how they were received.
Did no one catch the obvious problem with this topic before they approved it? How is Anime "mostly" known for filler? A prominent trait of Anime is filler. But Anime is "mostly known" for filler," it's mostly known for crazy hair, loud screaming, school girl sailor outfits, and magic. I get the intention of the description, I just find the opening line misleading and poorly phrased. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
With Anime, filler episodes are more or less obvious because there's likely source material (manga or light novel) that it's being based on. For, say, Western, live-action TV shows, what would be a "filler" then? I think it would be important to first define what a filler episode is! As for the second part, I'd imagine most audiences don't like fillers. But in the case of a show like Gintama that's both innovative and meta, fillers can actually be a highlight! – txl9 years ago
I think better wording for this would be that most Anime is notorious for having fillers, most of which is uninteresting and bleak, rather than it is known for fillers. Then again, as mentioned previously, some do fillers right. So open up the discussion to which Anime had good filler arcs and why that was, and what needs to be done in order to make fillers more interesting and engaging. – andreacr9 years ago
Sometimes, an Anime ends before it's supposed to, or it ends in a poor way, a way devoid of any meaning. Surely it's not just a decision on the part of the directors to discontinue it without giving a coherent ending. Anime like Pandora Hearts, Blood Lad, and Darker than Black gives that sort of vibe. Why does this happen, what options can a viewer explore if they want to satiate their hunger for more?
Some animes end because the viewer rating expectation is not fulfilled. Pandora Hearts is still ongoing as a manga, so technically it didn't end. It just wasn't funded in that medium. – Jill9 years ago
Yes, and that's sort of what I'm talking about. I know the manga is ongoing, but what caused viewer rating to go down? Why not give the first season an open-close ending and leave whether or not to continue on how things look later? – SpectreWriter9 years ago
This wouldn't have anything to do with how Gangsta ended? Because... that ended on a cliffhanger from what I heard. – DustinKop9 years ago
Often money or lack of money is the primary reason anime's end prematurely. Furthermore, the ratings for the anime could be too low to justify continuing. I think that the manga versions can sometimes be more successful than the anime, and vice versa. – Jiraiyan9 years ago
I agree with the previous comments. As with any series, even Western, live-action shows, anime end because of poor ratings. It's all about the bottom line! – txl9 years ago
Since The Curse of the Black Pearl, Pirates of the Caribbean has been a major franchise for Disney. However, ever since the end of the original trilogy, it's sort of lost its original flair. Should it continue? What should Disney do to revive interest when the fifth one does come out? Why make more?
Maybe detail a few of the major flaws from On Stranger Tides, and how the series has gotten worse from it's premier to it's latest flop. – luminousgloom9 years ago
I was surprised at how... flat and lifeless, and even copycat-ish "On Stranger Tides" both looked and felt in comparison to the Gore Verbinsky trilogy. Nothing about the production looked or acted authentic, and it seemed as if everyone was simply going through the motions in an attempt to recapture the same magic. Almost like the film could have better served as a TV special rather than a theatrical production. However, I think the two key flaws here are the director and the writer(s), as is quite often the case. A more imaginative writer and a more stylistic director would greatly improve the chances of Pirates of the Caribbean regaining its former footing again. I absolutely adore the first three films, almost all equally, because when it comes to movie magic, and great movie-going experiences, I just can't think of anything more perfect and indicative of the concept than Pirates. Pirate stories in general are pretty damn awesome. So I'd love to see them do more if they can make it work. Though, it might actually be nice if they moved away entirely from Jack Sparrow, and created a new lead character who's also a Pirate of some unique background, and gave him a new crew of misfits. That might allow the franchise to revive itself. I love Jack, I really do. But Johnny isn't going to be young and fit for much longer, and I really don't want another Indiana Jones 4, where we keep the same actor around just because they were the coolest part of a franchise. Yes, you will never be able to truly replace them, but you can at least try, or create a brand new character who can be played by someone with a bit more youthful energy. And for Pete's sake, can we please go back to the grimy, greasy green color grading? "On Stranger Tides" felt like the whole movie was lit with flourescents, and it was just too darn pale. Like... that's not what a "Pirate" movie should look like. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Agreed, completely. Changes in directors made the Pirates movies feel more like a removed special, something far removed from canon into something else, something foreign to the Pirates magic. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
I hated the opening scene too. It was too slow, too bizarre, confusing, and shoehorning Jacks dad in again was unnecessary. The opening to Pirates 2 was much more quirky and entertaining. I also never fully understood why Barbosa looked so bad by Pirates 4. Was it all like... a side-effect of his ressurection, where he's hyper-aging and decaying right before our eyes? I don't get it. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
What about its original flair is missing? Maybe clarify on that. I can see how they are sort of going a different direction with the series now, but I did notice that Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley will be back, which is actually really confusing. Try adding your thoughts on how they remove and bring back characters. – kendalld9 years ago
From the first film, Pirates of the Caribbean has basically focused on the inherent code of piracy. But there's a moral dilemma here. Does it defend piracy? Does it deplore it? What message does it send to kids who watch the movie? In the end, are the British Royal Navy really the bad guys?
Swashbuckling and looting on the high seas have always captivated readers. Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island told tales of seafaring outlaws that filled their days by having endless adventures. Their missions included visiting islands seeking riches, battling vicious savages and fighting the oppressive British Navy. The lifestyle of piracy was not entirely anarchistic because loyalty was carefully measured using laws; these supported by an honorable self-governed system. The pirate code of conduct was a way to punished captured enemies as well as providing a necessary social contract between the captain and his crew, an accord that if broken, resulted a stroll off the plank regardless of their rank. More importantly, why was this society revered or even respected by audiences? Is it the little guy taking on the big bad government? These were killers, rapists, etc. It seems odd that we vilify modern day Ethiopian pirates with machine guns yet Europeans are romanticized? Is only white piracy glorious? – Jason0527149 years ago
I believe in one sense the film also shows people's perception of what piracy was during the colonial era. For those who approach to write this particular topic, it would be essential to understand what were some of the circumstances that gave rise to piracy in this time period, and why people misunderstood pirates. – aferozan9 years ago
I don't think the film, in any way, actually condones the act of piracy. Because at no point do we ever see the "hero" pirates, actually steal anything of value (in large quantities anyway) from any innocent bystanders, towns, villages, or rich people. Barbosa's crew ransacks Port Royal because he's desparate to get back all of the gold pieces that belonged to the chest of Cortez, which had cursed them all. But after that point, not a single pirate is seen actually doing what Mr. Gibbs referred to as "a spec of honest piratin'. We DO, however, see them go on adventures, duke it out with a few ships through cannon fire, find ancient treasures and maps to yet more treasures, and involve themselves with curses and magic. All of which are perfectly acceptable things within a fictional story and universe. Yes, they are pirates. Yes, pirating is entirely and morally wrong. Yes, the British Navy and Lord Beckett are actually in the right (for the most part) but are portrayed as the antagonists, simply because we are meant to side with the pirates because our protagonists are with them, and we do not wish to see them die at the hands of this manipulative, egocentric, and pompous businessman. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Also, I completely disagree with Jason052714's suggestion that only white piracy is glorious, or can be glorified in media. Clearly there were numerous ethnicities involved in the Pirates films, and who were part of many different crews. I took to liking each and every pirate in those films because of how entertaining they were. Their race never changed my perception of them. In fact, the films never once gave the impression that race mattered at all when it came to Pirate comradery or the Pirate laws. Everybody on each crew seemed pretty swell with each other. So in this way, I don't think race is the reason we don't glorify modern piracy: it's the fact that older piracy has been heavily romanticized by 19th century literature, and 20th century media. The pirate is an explorer: an anti-heroic figure with no rules and no life obligations. They simply go where the wind takes them. And much like Jason and the Argonauts or Sinbad the Sailor, Pirates have been known to encounter legendary mythical beasts and hazards which made their search for "burried treasure" all the more magnificent to read or learn about. Modern pirates have no such romanticising of their exploits, except perhaps among themselves, and maybe certain people who appreciate what they do for whatever reason. But this would have likely been the same back when Pirates really existed. You would have had a majority of people completely against their actions and existence, but a select few who thought they were a magnificent bunch: mostly likely because the pirates themselves were spinning tales about their travels just like any sailor worth his salt might have done once they reached port after each trip. In modern time, and modern society, however, we have much less room for appreciating people like them, ironically or romantically, and no reason to even romanticize the waters of our world, because we know so much more about them now. Ultimately, there is simply too big of a difference between the image of Captain Hook, Black Beard, or Jack Sparrow, and some angry guy on a rusty metal barge holding an automatic weapon in 2016. The time periods aren't the same, the circumstances and worldly awareness of society isn't the same, the costumes and vessels aren't as imaginative or majestic, and their choices of weapon don't leave the same visual or fanciful impression. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I don't think the films so much defend piracy as much as it romanticizes it. It creates this opposition between Barbosa's crew and Sparrow's, and adds in the British Royal Navy as additional pressure for the protagonists, but if they weren't defending themselves from these two groups of people, they certainly would not be volunteering at homeless shelters and reading to the blind. Because the films romanticize Sparrow's group, it keeps the film from actually having to deal with the moral dilemma, especially since Barbosa's group is dehumanized when they are exposed as being living-dead.
As for the message it sends to kids, the films were rated pg-13, or at least the first one was. The fact that it is a sort of period piece displaces it from modern times to the point that the kids in the audience of the series might not recognize any content in the film that could be applied to current-day life.
The only thing, that occurs to me at the moment, that might affect kids watching these films is gender roles. Although the main male characters do not seem as violent as the enemy, Will is often driven by this need to keep Elizabeth safe, which is stereotypical for male roles. But Elizabeth does not play the role of the typical damsel in distress, and throughout the film, and the entire series, she finds clever, sometimes cunning ways to save herself. I'm not sure how that ties into the theme of piracy, but it does sort of perpetuate the stereotypes of males as the protectors, or seeking revenge, or being violent and courageous by nature, when, obviously, men vary a little more beyond that. – Jenn9 years ago
The Legend of Zelda has always been about Link. Link is generally a young boy/man setting out to save Hyrule from the forces of evil, most of the time that being Ganondorf. However, the identity of Link is sometimes called into question. Is Link a young boy or a man? Ocarina of Time used both, but the Toon games like Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks use a young boy. Originally, it is well known Link is a boy. What changed for the creators to make him a man in Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess? And what changed to make them change him back again? What does this do for the franchise? Does it help or ruin it?
It might be helpful to refer to the timeline given by the game creators in the Hyrule Historia: which also brings up the question, are they all the same character at different times, or different characters united by striking similarities? – Luthien9 years ago
They're different. Wind Waker practically confirms this. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
This could be really interesting if the article takes a slightly different direction and discusses the perception of Link's masculinity and how that changes based on his age. In some of the games where he is depicted as younger, his relationship to the female characters in the game is different than when he is older. When he is depicted as a young man, there seems to be somewhat of a bachelor's complex going on: most of the female characters are in love with him, or make comments about how he is "cute" and whatnot (examples: TP, OOT). This is a conscious decision made by the creators of the game. How does it play into perceptions of heroic men? How does Link's performance of masculinity change based on his age? How does his relationship to women change? Ocarina of Time would be a particularly good study because it shows his growth from a child to a young man. – Emilie Medland-Marchen9 years ago
For anyone writing this, research into the timelines is really important as well. It's sort of been made official by Nintendo in Hyrule Historia, but before that was released there were many theories about the different Links and their relationships to one another floating around online (check Zelda Universe). You'd have to decide whether to use the official Nintendo timeline (which is not accepted by some game theorists) or explore the other in-depth theories.
– Emilie Medland-Marchen9 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
Is 2D animation going down? What are some traditionally animated shows and films that are recent? Did Disney start CGI because of Dreamworks' success of Shrek? If 2D is going down, is it a bad thing? Why or why not?
This is a very interesting topic. As we are noticing a lot of 3D and CGI because of Dreamworks, Pixar and other companies producing a lot of films and shows. However, we should probably ask: Could 2D animation have evolved into 3D and CGI? Or did 2D animation "moved" from films and shows to games and other forms of entertainment? I think a lot of this stems from the audience's interests (for example: what's popular) versus the production companies, artists, and creators's interests (for example: making money). – Quill9 years ago
I think the most recent 2D animated movie I can think of is Song of the Sea which came out last year. It might also be interesting to discuss the animation Pixar used for Paper Man and will use for Moana. I can't remember what its called specifically but it looks like a combination of 2D and CGI at least in my opinion. – Cagney9 years ago
Independent or Anti-feminist? Many criticize Anime for not having enough independent female characters and when a potential comes along, it is almost always reduced to a more dependent girl. Shonen especially is guilty of this but since Shonen is aimed specifically towards boys of a preteen or adolescent age, is this a fair judgment to make? What about non-Shonen titles? What sort of girls do we get there? And does it mean anything when we know Shonen dominates Japan’s Anime industry? Look at a few major Anime titles, split evenly between Shonen and not-Shonen (for lack of better term) and look at the role of girls. What do they all have in common? What makes them different?
I think the easiest genres to compare are shounen and shoujo. Shoujo is manga geared towards female readership. It's important to look at the difference in genres between shounen and shoujo, because shoujo focuses more on romance, whereas shounen focuses on action. In shoujo, romance moves the plot, so it's hard to create a female character that is completely independent that doesn't need a man, because then it wouldn't match the genre. In shounen, since action moves the plot, there is little or no need for romance, and is usually used a subplot. I suppose independent female characters (like Erza from Fairy Tail) usually get love plots to give them a more feminine side to demonstrate that females don't always have to act masculine to become cool and awesome. I hope this note helps! – YsabelGo9 years ago
Because Anime is from a different country, they may have more different views on how to write female characters than America does. Just look at how there is so much more fan service there is in Anime, when compared fan service in American shows. With that said, Japan has also made a lot of progression in there animes. Sailor Moon had a lesbian couple, and that show is for little kids. For America, we just recently had the first lesbian couple in the finale of The Legend of Korra. Comparing the two countries, and how they write female characters would be an interesting way to go with this topic. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Damien Wayne is the first and only Robin to have superpowers like flight and invincibility. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? He has since lost these powers but for the time he had them, did it hurt his demeanor as an assassin, did it hurt his accessibility and how kids relate to him? Comparison to other superpowered kids might be prudent.
On one hand, giving Damien superpowers remove the Batman's family's biggest characteristic that they are the superheroes without superpower(that was the whole point of the Batman when he was first created. The creator wanted someone like Super-Man, but with gadgets instead of super powers). But at the same time, this gives interesting twist to the character. What happens when a superhero without superpower suddenly gains that privilege? Will it corrupt him? Will it drive him to the extreme measure? In the end it all boils down to whether the writer can handle this or not. – idleric9 years ago
I think that it is important to note that him having superpowers was a temporary side effect from his contact with the Chaos Shard. Damian lost the superpowers after Batman tricked him into exhausting the powers in a staged event by the Justice League in Batman and Robin #40. By the end of the issues, Damian's powers were completely gone. – jnicklo9 years ago
Yes and I acknowledged him losing them but I'm asking how he affected the Robin image with them, before audiences knew he would lose them. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Which Robin, from Dick Grayson to Damien Wayne, contributed more, appeared more, had more impact both in the story and to audiences? Which Robin is more well liked? Which one is more skilled, makes a better hero in his own right?
This looks like it could be an interesting article. Curious as to how you intend to rate popularity though--are you going to look at actual polling numbers from somewhere? – Winter9 years ago
It would be interesting to incorporate how the characters in the stories actually feel regarding this. For example: There is something Batman says from Batman: Hush, I can't find the exact quote. But basically, Batman says that Dick Grayson was destined for greater things and to be his own man, and that's probably why he outgrew Robin (and became badass Nightwing). He said that Jason was too tormented and conflicted and that's probably why he didn't work out as Robin. But he says Tim Drake has been great as Robin. He's a brilliant mind and a self-taught detective (he managed to deduce who Batman and the original Robin really are). He seems to have stuck to the role much more - and to greater success - than any other (even in later incarnations where he's "Red Robin"). – BradShankar9 years ago
That's a good point, so then one could argue Tim Drake is a etter Robin, at least to Batman, but what of Damien Wayne? And if we look at the Batman multiverse where the canon and continuity can be shaky depending what comic direction we go, what's the more widely held opinion? – SpectreWriter9 years ago
This is an interesting topic, but ultimately probably a moot point? The answer would quite simply be that there is no right answer. Dick Grayson was Robin the longest, but his tenure was before the Final Crises, so he's limited by his time period. Jason Todd quite frankly got the shaft, as DC's killing of him in Death in the Family really wasn't justified. But he was and still is an interesting character nonetheless (when written well that is). Tim Drake is more modern, and held the role for a decent number of years, not to mention did a good job in the role. But even he didn't hold the title as long as Dick did. Damian Wayne of course hasn't been Robin for that long either, so it's impossible to tell how he will develop and where his tenure will go. An interesting topic, but I'm not really sure what it can accomplish when the answer is going to be completely subjective? – MIKAILARUSHING9 years ago
Heroes like Superman (especially prime) and the Hulk are just invincible. They cannot be beaten because they gradually get endlessly stronger. Does this hurt their genre? Does it ruin the thrill of watching them fight because everyone knows that no matter what, that hero will win? If it's possible to beat any of these heroes, who could do it and why hasn't it been done yet?
The invincibility does hurt the genre, because it makes stories too predictable. It severely limits the routes stories can take. For example, the only real way to put Superman into danger, is to a) give him a Kryptonite, b) take his power away. Both were done too much in the past, and people pretty much know what is going to happen with each story. There is no thrill to it. However, these super heroes' positions in pop culture are too solid, and it makes it difficult to shake the status quo. The character who can defeat the invincible character must be invincible too, but stronger as well. But what is the limit of such invincibility? There is only so much you can do before the display of strength becomes utterly ridiculous. For example, Akira Toriyama said in interview the greatest display of strength he could express in Dragon Ball was destroying a planet. But what if a new character has be stronger than that? How is anyone going to depict that and make the audience "understand" that? Invincibility in a hero may sound ideal, but in a long run it will be a trouble for creators. – idleric10 years ago
Hence why I dislike the Hulk. This of all topics needs expanding on. – SpectreWriter10 years ago
I definitely think this hurts the genre. However, the right artist could make this invincibility a flaw. They fight and always win, and perhaps they become tired of their schtick as their audience has, and try to change, but cannot due to their invincibility... – Kathleen Lassiter9 years ago
Superman cannot just be hurt by Kryptonite. So long as a character is within his weight class, they can hurt him. If you want to argue that's still too invulnerable, fine, but the fact that Mongul, Darkseid, Zod, Brainiac, etc can all injure him hurts the argument that there's no dramatic tension. – Winter9 years ago
The Hulk's invincibility works to the storytelling potential of the character, in my opinion. Joss Whedon explored this brilliantly in Marvel's "The Avengers." The idea that a man knows he is, for all intents and purpose, really a murdering monster, but can't do anything about it is really compelling.
He'd want nothing more than for someone else to be able to put him down and end his - and other people's - misery. But the Hulk can't be stopped.
He also can't even kill himself, either, as he said. He's also very unpredictable. The comics have explored that because of his power, he's at once both a great asset but also a loose cannon. Many stories have shown that after the Hulk helped the Avengers defeat a threat, they had to turn their efforts towards stopping him when he went rampant. Knowing that there's this very powerful being out there - which people like Loki have actually exploited - also doesn't help Banner's conscience. He's a very tormented person. – BradShankar9 years ago
I think the "invincibility" of characters like the Hulk and Superman, does hurt the genre. While both feature "weaknesses", the Hulk's human form, and Superman's susceptibility to kryptonite/magic. However, they often overcome these shortcomings. Superman has been "defeated" several times, he sometimes implies that this is due to him showing physical restraint. The Hulk simply gets stronger and stronger. Unfortunately, I think this makes him an uninteresting character. – Jiraiyan9 years ago
Requires having completed the series. A lot of people claim Kishimoto does not really have the guts to kill characters off. While this is more or less true, and while there have been some moments where most other writers would’ve killed their characters where Kishimoto failed, the concept of death is a very real presence. Examine how through the characters of Kushina, Minato, Obito’s afterlife sequence, Kakashi with his father, and of course Hiruzen, Jiraiya, Itachi, Asuma, and Neji.
Freud, Erikson, and Naruto’s Stages of Development: People like Freud and Erikson had their social stages or psychosexual stages of development. This idea would seek to determine and tell where Naruto stands vs. where he’s supposed to stand. How has this effected his growth from the loud-mouthed 12 year-old to the mature adult he had later become. For whoever does this article: Make sure you have at least a basic knowledge of the stages of development in Erikson as well as Freud and have completed the manga series.