DON'T LOOK UP was a controversial satire on the climate problem, and while every political satire is bound to divide audiences– this one made a large mistake. It wasn't just a satire, it was a call to action. It was a combination of the greatest forces in entertainment, telling you, the average moviegoer, that we need to solve this problem. Perhaps if the film had given a portion of not all proceeds to climate action, there would be a legitimate attempt at change. However, because of its lack of self-awareness and enormous star-power, whether or you liked the film, nothing is going to change.
Other films have successfully navigated this fine line of educating vs enlisting (Wag the Dog, 1997 comes to mind) but for a giant industry with enough money to solve world hunger to shake their finger at an audience made up of working class moviegoers is both ignorant and somewhat classist.
I'm probably one of the few people who didn't like the movie))) – mikkejames2 years ago
Book-to-movie films (and—more regularly, now—shows) are especially common in young adult franchises such as The Maze Runner, The Hunger Games, and Divergent. The first three Harry Potter films are some of the most beloved book-to-movie adaptations in history. The latter movies, while successful in other regards, were criticised (especially by book purists) for cutting out, altering, or ignoring large chunks of the source material. I have heard several fans say that they would watch a Harry Potter reboot if it was a high-budget streaming show that adapted each chapter into an episode, with the dialogue and plots and sub-plots remaining exactly the same as the books. Whether this would ever be done remains to be seen,
Movies face an issue in that they are limited in run-time. While there are long movie adaptations out there (The Lord of the Rings is a prime example), more commonly, they are cut to fit at a little over 2 hours. They prioritise entertainment and a streamlined story. Books can vary in length to a great degree—the first Harry Potter book was around 77,000 words while the fifth (the longest) was around 257,000. Yet the fifth movie (2hrs and 18 minutes long) was actually shorter than the first (2 hours and 32 minutes long). The movie arguably benefited from cutting much of the meat of the book, at least from an entertainment perspective, if not from a story and world perspective.
How important is it for the plot to be accurately represented in films, given that they are, indeed, adaptations of the source material and not direct translations? Is it enough for the characters and world to be represented with care and detail? Are fans right in complaining about inaccuracy and missing scenes in book-to-movie adaptations? What are some examples of book-to-movie adaptations done well, and done poorly?
The different approaches to book adaptations and the merits or detriments of shifting the medium of a story would definitely be an interesting topic. Another possible aspect of the topic would be the question of whether a movie or an episodic show is the most effective format, whether this is case specific, and what sort of plots and subplots lend themselves to short or long form cinema. – Quodlibet2 years ago
Movies and books are two extremely different mediums with unique characteristics, potential benefits, and potential barriers. Consider this example: In the book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, there are several significant internal monologues. In my opinion, one of the most substantial ones is Alice's internal monologue while questioning her own identity (inside the rabbit hole); however, I was unable to locate a single movie that featured this internal monologue. In a novel, a character could typically have an internal monologue for a whole chapter, or even more, but in a movie, it would be disastrous. In light of this, I believe the questions to be asked are: Which elements should be removed in order to make room for the new medium? What elements need to be modified to take advantage of the new medium's potential? etc. The issue is not whether there should or shouldn't be disparities between the two - because there will always be disparities between the two; rather, it is how to implement these contrasts without compromising the book's basic concepts and takeaways. – Samer Darwich2 years ago
The benefits of a series format compared with that of a film would definitely be an interesting topic. In my opinion one of the interesting examples to explore would be the adaptation of philip pulman's series 'his dark materials' and how the movie compares to the HBO series. Whils both effectively translate the novels into another format, both fail where the other succeeds. For example the HBO series is more detailed and has better pacing whereas the movie has a tone that is similar to that of the books. Another example is all quiet on the western front which has been adapted into a television sereis and two different movies, the most recent havign been released this year. I'm sure some interesting comparisons can be drawn between the different adaptations that would help furthere develop this topic. – Matilda2 years ago
The debate of making a successful book to movie adaptation is great to engage in. There first needs to be an acknowledgement that there ate two different mediums and depending how abstract or explicit, its down to directors' and writers interpretation the book. – ml223702 years ago
I think that books do more intense and detailed descriptions of the story. But the adaptation of a book to the movie is really good as not all can read books but most people watch movies tho! – dancingnumbers2 years ago
I think the recreation of famous stories in film can be a really beautiful thing and gives more options of accessibility for a wide range of audiences. Although I can agree that film adaptations can be missing the "spark" of the novel, there will always be different versions that exist. A recording of an audiobook with a different voice actor than the original recording will have nuances and tone that transform the story, just as a movie will create a slight variation of the original tale. Within these changed adaptations we can add new, modern factors to elevate relatability and relevance to modern society, such as increasing diversity (which is always a good thing). – tayloremily292 years ago
A lot of this has with the personal connection to the material. I remember hating the Watchmen film when it came out. I was not familiar with the material and I remember not feeling invested in any of the characters - I left the cinema about half way through (the only other time I did that was in Batman and Robin). Friends of mine who I trust and are familiar with the source material loved it and it felt to them like a very accurate representation. There is also the nature of time passing to consider. Perhaps a piece of literature is twenty years old (or more!) and has key elements that need to change to reach a contemporary audience - these might not be the core or 'the message' of the story, but they might be things that seem essential to some readers of the original material. If there were a way to judge the access of the new audience to the original authors intent, that might be something to look at. – ggmills5 months ago
The idea of an apocalypse has existed in history for hundreds of years, but why in recent times has the idea of an apocalypse become to mainstream? Whether it's zombies, nukes, or anything in between, these stories have taken a deep root in our modern culture. Is it because we feel detached from our primal survivalist selves? Take for example the show The Walking Dead. The show is a massive success, second only to Game Of Thrones during its run time. Apart from the amazing writing and impeccable acting performances, there is a certain allure to the idea of a group of at-first strangers growing into a family through trials and tribulations and lots of zombie guts. It is also interesting to see how these stories are received in different cultures around the world. For example I know that in many parts of Asia, there is a massive love for all things zombie. Why do you think this is?
Good topic! I think apocalypse-style media is cathartic. People consume it as a way to reassure themselves that what they see can't really happen for one reason or another, or that if it did, they would survive. Sometimes people consume this media and plan what they would do in certain situations. There's also an element of dark humor, as in, if we laugh at the poor decisions we think characters are making, the apocalypse won't seem so threatening and potentially realistic. – Stephanie M.3 years ago
Something really cool that was taught at the UNiversity I attended was an analysis of 'Ecocriticism and Popular Culture'. It took a deep dive into enviro-apocalypse stories (like Snowpiercer) - why we tell them and why we love reading/watching them. The concept of 'man vs wild' is a binary that has long existed conceptually as a means by which humans understand themselves. However, contemporary ecocritics have been challenging this binary. Especially now in an age where climate change and environmental catastrophe (referred to by scholars as the Anthropocene) continue to escalate. Things to research when exploring Environmental Apocalypse stores in pop culture:
- Anthropocene
- Biopolitics
- Examples of this in film/literature: Snowpiercer, Elysium, Interstellar, MaddAddam Trilogy (by Margaret Atwood) – Amaani3 years ago
Something to consider: for many people and species on this planet apocalypse is already here and we are living in a post-apocalypse scenario. So maybe these representations of "another apocalypse" are how we confront our reality that we don't want to see. – ProfRichards3 years ago
It might also be worthwhile to bring up how many cultures and people who have experienced genocide often say they live in a post-apocalyptic world and how that translates into the art and media they create (i.e Indigenous, Black cultures) – Anna Samson3 years ago
Another thing to consider is how differently post-apocalyptic films and shows are written nowadays compared to the 70s, 80s, and 90s. So many shows have been redone, with some performing well and others being worse than the originals. I think it's important that we compare what captured viewers back then compared to now. – cbrneticwrites2 years ago
What came to mind when I read this was Amazon's adaptation of the 'Fallout' series which attempts to appeal to fans of the franchise while capitalizing upon and making light of our sentiment and horror with real, seemingly apocalyptic events. Recreating a post-apocalyptic landscape with acute attention to nostalgic detail without any meaningful storytelling serves as performative sympathy and distraction from our reality. It seems to be mostly an attempt by major streaming networks to relate to their audiences and garner sympathy without taking accountability or advocating for real change. – Erin1 month ago
There is a very interesting blog entry on the Harry Potter Amino Apps page that compares Lord Voldemort (nee Tom Riddle) from the Harry Potter series to Andrew Nehman, the protagonist of Whiplash. The main thrust of this argument is that both characters come from a long line of mediocrities, and develop an obsession with being the best in their chosen fields in order to counter this, even if it costs them their humanity and personality. They also share at least one other similarity that goes unremarked upon in the blog: namely, that both of their mothers died in childbirth.
The question is, does Voldemort have any other traits that make him similar to other obsessed creatives (real or fictional) besides just Nehman? What, if any, artistic talents does he possess, and what are some of the lengths he goes to master them? In terms of his characterization, just how essential a role does creativity play in making him who he is? Is there actually anything to the idea that Tom Riddle/Voldemort's backstory and arc are that of an obsessed artist or creative personality, or does he just happen to have some traits in common with one obsessively artistic character purely by chance?
Matrix: Resurrections released in 2021 and returned viewers to the world that was built on in the previous trilogy. The first movie, The Matrix (1999) has been confirmed by the Wachowskis to be a trans allegory on some level, and the meaning of the first trilogy is still debated. The topic taker should examine if the themes of the most recent film add something to the trilogy's discourse. Along with that, the topic taker should examine if any allegories are made within Matrix: Resurrections. Specifically, the topic taker should aim to answer the following question after their theme and allegory analysis:
Does Matrix: Resurrections provide any meaning to where society finds itself with technology and the rise of AI?
The topic taker is free to go into the history of the Matrix as a whole, including how it was produced to see if there are any similarities to how Resurrections was produced and if the new film took this history and the discourse surrounding the original trilogy into consideration. The topic taker can, of course, include any research on this topic that they wish. For example, if following the trans allegory of the original Matrix helps establish something that Resurrections is conveying, please include that in your analysis!
Link to an interview excerpt by Lilly about The Matrix's trans allegory: (link)
Saltburn (2023) was one of the biggest viral films on Tiktok for it's numerous shocking scenes, excellent cinematography and catchy soundtrack. But one element of criticism it received was that many couldn't follow the theme of the film. While it drew elements from "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and many other film classics it's message seemed muttled to many critics. The writer can target the films core thesis, which is that the rich, should rightly fear their economic lessers because they're scoundrels. The writer can draw from historical rage against the rich along with the contemporary resentment of the wealthy and widespread calls of "Eat The Rich" along with the general antipathy of classes as economic disparity grows more every day.
James Gray continues to prove himself as one of the unseen heroes of modern cinema with each and every film he releases. His dedication to form, his deep sympathy for each of his characters, and his ability to muster the most sensitive performances out of his actors are just a few reasons why he's one of the best American directors we have. He also tackles similar themes throughout most if not all of his films such as family, loyalty, regret, love, and time. There is one rumination, however, that James Gray explores better than most other filmmakers have ever dared to try: the contents of the American Dream. What it is, where it's coming from, where it's going. In this article, the writer could examine many of James Gray's films, specifically his New York stories which include "Little Odessa", "The Yards", "We Own The Night", "Two Lovers", "The Immigrant", and "Armageddon Time" as a means to uncover how James Gray explores the idea of the American Dream, how New York City plays such a key part in that story and idea, and what it means to all of the different types of people that golden idea has affected (including himself).
Paul Verhoeven's sci-fi action film "Starship Troopers" has long been celebrated for its satirical take on militarism and fascism. However, some critics have proposed an intriguing reinterpretation of the film in the context of the post-9/11 era.
The writer could examine how the film's themes of propaganda, military intervention, and the dehumanization of the enemy resonate with the post-9/11 political climate in the Western world.
Analyze specific scenes and narrative elements that parallel events and attitudes surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent "War on Terror." Consider the implications of viewing "Starship Troopers" through this new lens, including its commentary on nationalism, surveillance, and the erosion of civil liberties in the wake of a national tragedy.
I don't know, 9/11 is kind of a taboo theme, at least in my opinion. Why would you mix something good with terorism. – Predrag4 months ago
Because this is an analysis website where we look into things that might be considered taboo. – Sunni Rashad4 months ago
