This year marks the fortieth anniversary of "Jaws", which during the summer of 1975 kept North American audiences off the beaches and inside movie theatres. For good or ill, that film almost single-handedly revolutionized the way in which mainstream American films are produced and marketed. The anniversary provides an opportunity to explore in depth the artistic merits of the blockbuster film, as well as the ways in which "Jaws" changed the movie business.
You could use Jaws as an example of what exactly makes a good blockbuster. Is it good characters? Suspenseful action scenes? Good special effects? Could it be all of these things? It would be essentially looking at the art of the blockbuster. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Most films that are released and gain popularity quickly remain popular with the general public for a long time, but others are initially criticized and later become classics. Are most of the classic films members of the former or of the latter? Why do some movies become classics over time and others carry their initial popularity throughout time? Essentially, how powerful is the influence of a film having an excellent release to the public?
Understanding this has been the film industry's philosopher's stone. From what it seems, films that are initially successful opening weekend are so because they either have a very popular or very well advertised pre-existing intellectual property. Outside of that, having big talent attached or being backed by a strong enough concept are reasons enough for a film to make its money back opening weekend. Usually what gives a film lasting appeal is its story or influence on future generations. If I had to guess, a cult classic is born when the work is more relevant to future generations or when incredibly famous people admit to being influenced by it. Or in rare cases, --yet will become much more common as more people create for online-- a work gets overshadowed and becomes outright forgotten. – Travis Cohen9 years ago
Analyze and take note of the physical features provided to Disney princesses. How have these princesses been influenced by the looks of other cultures, and how do they look today compared to their traditional appearance?
This is not necessarily Disney specific but I believe related. In the 1995 live action Pocahontas, the actress chosen to play her was Sandrine Holt. She is also chosen to play the a daughter of a First Nations chief in another movie, Black Robe. However, she is not First Nations at all and is of Chinese and French descent. While writing a paper about the latter movie I discovered this. Since the other actors portraying First Nations in that film were genuinely of First Nations descent, I found it suspect that she was not. I wondered if it had to do with an image thing. Did she better fit the look of the "Native Princess" to the tastes of the filmmakers? It's interesting to think how this plays in the realm of kid oriented animation versus live action films for adults. – EAlbright9 years ago
This article should also consider the many ways Disney's controls the looks and presentation of their "Princess line" it's very important to them fiscally. Consider the controversy with the "Princess debut" of Princess Meridai. Whose princessification cause a minor storm of controversy as much of what made her appealling was altered to suit her sameness with the more traditional disney princess. Consider also how all the Disney princesses have undergone this 'transformation' though some to a lesser extent. --- It can also be useful to consider how much Disney values their traditional delicate feminine Princesses and contrast that to their treatment of Black Widow the only female Avenger who lacks greatly in merchandising in spite of near steady constant pressure from fans. – wolfkin9 years ago
Disucssing the different periods of Disney in terms of Disney princesses could be a good way to look at the physical features. Starting with Snow White, the first Disney princess, and expanding to Sleeping Beauty and Ariel to the more recent princesses of Merida and Elsa and Anna, it's clear that the physical features hasn't changed as much as they could have. There are still the same skinny, mostly fair skinned young aged princesses. However, finding the differences that have come since the introduction of Snow White would be helpful. Also, why do these princesses have to look this certain way and why hasn't there been more progress on changing their features to something that more children can relate to? – ferrerodesrocher9 years ago
I would use a different word than Colonization because what you are asking for differs from the title. Maybe how the Princesses appropriate? difference cultural aspects. I think there is a topic here to discuss. I mean why are the princess so different looking now that their original representations? Sexier etc. Or how the princess take on the aspects of their supposed geographical location would be interesting. I mean theses are choices so looking why they are made is worth exploring. If you want to talk about princesses being colonized by a superior group and thus their physical appurtenance reflecting that then you are limiting it to Pocahontas (who is not considered a princess) and Jasmine. – Celeste Reeb9 years ago
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is one of the most charismatic and ubiquitous performers working today. Will his reign ever be extinguished? What should he look into next?
It would be good to look at his films in terms of box office performance – Ryan Errington9 years ago
I think a history of how he came to prominence would also be helpful! – Cagney9 years ago
It's worth noting that he was the highest grossing box office star of 2013, whether it is because of him or despite of him might be worth discussing. – Michael Clancy9 years ago
It could be interesting to look at several wrestler's transition to film and their varying degrees of success. The list could include: Johnson, Jeep Swanson (Bane in Batman & Robin), Tyler Mane (Sabretooth in X-Men, Mike Myers in Halloween (remake)) and even Harold Sakata, who played Oddjob in Goldfinger. How have the actors fared in terms of their performances, box office success, have they had memorable roles?
I just feel an entire article about The Rock wouldn't be substantial enough; I could be wrong though. – Jamie White9 years ago
Throughout the years Disney has had villains that could easily be in the morally grey but instead of making these villains complex Disney opts to make them straight up evil. Villains such as Scar, Hades, Charles Muntz and Hans all have potential to be morally grey such as Scar clearly being disrespected by all including Mufasa, Hades having a moral code but being hated due to his position, Charles Muntz cheated by society and driven mad by isolation and Hans wanting respect and recognition after his mistreatment by his brothers. One could go into further depth with these characters, showing how they could have been morally grey and complex along with other Disney Villains who share similar fates.
This is a really interesting topic! I would even ask the question what is at stake in the story if villains were treated with sympathy? Would it have detracted from the film's message (good vs.evil) if the character is humanized rather than an "evil" archetype. It would be cool to explore the implications behind these characters, what they represent and how they're treated in the story. – ember9 years ago
I also think that you could look at the source material they are drawn from and see how the author handles them. I really like the idea that you have here – DClarke9 years ago
I love what you're going for here. I think the argument for straight-up villains is, "These are little kids; they're not ready for morally gray characters." But number one, that's cheating kids out of a great introduction to reality and two, kids can handle a lot more than we think. We just have to be smart in how we present stuff like morally gray villains. If you really wanted to, you could make the argument that every Disney villain is gray in some form. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
A lot of people talk about how much they dislike CGI in films, and how they want more practical effects. They want more particle sets. They want more make up effects. They want to really feel like the character and setting are real, and not made on a computer. While CGI is over used in films: does that mean that they should not be in films at all. When is it appropriate to CGI, and when is it not? Also take in to mind that making CGI is a lot of work, and takes weeks or months to get right. With that said: is making images for film on a computer screen not considered hard work, or is just fans of practical effects not giving credit, where credit is due?
I love the tangible special effects of Stan Winston and Tom Savini, I often find CGI to be insipid in comparison, especially when violence is concerned - you can't beat a bit of corn syrup! I think time has shown that smart, sparing use of CGI ages the most gracefully. Winston's work in Predator and particularly Terminator 2 are examples of this, neither film looks that dated. With so many films like Avatar and Transformers having CGI as their chief selling point, I think it takes narrative and character development to make strong visual effects most memorable. – Hawkensian9 years ago
Might also be worth talking about CGI replacing people - like how Philip Seymour Hoffman's scenes in Mockingjay were supposed to be finished off with CGI, and that Final Fantasy: Spirits Within film which was fairly ground-breaking. – Hannah Spencer9 years ago
Filming is underway and fans are getting more and more excited. What can we expect from the 5th film in terms of entertainment, story-line, performance and characters? Can the franchise still generate excitement after a 5th film or is Hollywood trying to pull strings that have worked in the past but are now overused?
You could talk about how Johnny Depp other films have all not worked out for him, so now he is just resorting to a role that everyone is already familiar with. And Yes, I do feel Hollywood is just doing this for more money. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
When looking for news on the new Fantastic Four movie, I heard that Fox studios has an embargo for critics, meaning a movie critic cannot talk about the movie at all until the film is released. Essentially, this is a sign that Fox is worried about critics disliking the film, therefore causing bad press for Fantastic Four. Why is this? If a film studio does not like one of their own films, why make it in the first place? Why are January and February filled with crappy movies? I feel its more complicated than just simply saying "all films now-a-days sucks." Maybe a movie sounded good on paper, but turned out bad in execution. I just find it strange that movie studios would take a risk financially with releasing bad films they have no faith in.
Apparently Fox had the movie made because they had a limited time with the rights to the Fantastic Four franchise. One can discuss the relationship between the subject of a film and the studio and how that can impact the film itself. – missmichelle9 years ago
