Recently, Hollywood has been focused on franchises, adaptations, and remakes that are guaranteed to have an audience (Disney live action remakes, Star Wars continuations, Ready Player One, Jumanji, comic book movies, etc.) What movies have come out recently that the film industry took a big chance on, and have they done well or have they flopped?
this is a very interesting topic, considering last year Hollywood made one of their biggest gambles on Darren Aronofsky's Mother! The film, for me, felt like a test production to see if audiences would gravitate to more artistic and experimental projects. It failed, and it is rather rare to see big studios funding new and original projects unless the director has a certain weight (ex. Spielberg). I think this could work, but I think it would be important to discuss the trend, specifically in the 21st century, of big studios supporting riskier projects and when it seems viable to do so. There should be specific films, like Mother!, but the topic should be more weighted towards Hollywood trends and what the general public is more likely to lean towards as far as genres/ideas in films. Specific films don't always work as an indicator, it is better to focus on trend and changes, even sociopolitically, anything that could influence viewership. – Connor6 years ago
Analyse the concepts of gender and sexism in Gracie Hart's supposed journey ugly duckling to beauty pageant swan, weighing the various kinds of positive and negative depictions of women, particularly beauty pageant contestants. How are common tropes of the though guy/girl, the ditsy blonde, etc. presented? Are the viewers expectations challenged? If so, is that the intention of such a film? How does the film hold up?
I think the film did a pretty great job at representing real-life women with Sandra Bullock's character. I think the idea behind the stereotypical females in the pageant was purposeful but they used Sandra to counteract that. But I do see your point about whether or not that challenges us. – hannahshort6 years ago
I don't think it's worth distinguishing between 'positive' and 'negative' portrayals of women unless you define both definitions. What's a 'positive' depiction of a woman? One who is confident in themselves and how they present their gender? Are these definitions defined on the basis of how the characters see themselves, or how WE see them (as either validating or opposing our ideals of how women should be depicted?) You could talk about men and how they might be the ones constructing these positive/negative depictions of women... But, I would much rather say that these depictions are intentionally stereotypical to serve the wider narrative, which in my opinion, is about women competing for self-empowerment. That's what the Miss America pageant is all about, right? Why antagonist Kathy Morningside wants to crap on everyone's parade, and why Gracie struggles to get her boss (and stylist) to see her side of things. Gender certainly plays a role in these situations, and the movie shouldn't be excused for bordering on sexual harassment at some stages. But I personally think the film sends a good message. I think, on a basic level, the film subverts (or experiments) with what we'd typically associate with a 'strong, confident woman'. A strong, confident woman can be a badass like Gracie, or an attention-seeking maniac like Kathy, or fire-baton twirler Cheryl. The film first uses these stereotypical depictions to distinguish between Gracie and the rest of the contestants, but by the end, it tells us that hey, it's okay to have the best of both worlds. One thing to note is that Gracie didn't achieve self-empowerment by becoming a 'beauty pageant swan', nor did she ever lose that confidence entering the pageant as an 'ugly duckling'. She became empowered through her newfound female friends, the only thing she, a strong confident woman, was lacking. That, I think, is the significance behind 'Miss Congeniality'. Besides world peace. Yeah. – Starfire6 years ago
Miss Congeniality, I think, had a lot of female empowering concepts that they used brilliantly. The idea that a woman who was widely regarded as unattractive to the male population and undermined by her superiors ended up relying on herself to save these women who she, herself, first thought were ditsy and a poor representation of the female population but then came to find that they were real women with real opinions. The idea of the Miss America pageant in the film came across more of a battle for Gracie because of the standardised ideas of what beauty means for the female population and how a woman such as herself overcame these. I'd like to see more of how the movie overcame stereotypical depictions of women and pageants, and even villains. The whole movie is a great girl power movie that can be related, in some sense, to the brilliance of Legally Blonde. – CarlyStarr6 years ago
What is so alluring about the love story between the insane and the manipulated. Why must these two characters continue to be televised as madly in love despite the comic books very clearly outlining how Joker manipulated, tortured, and conditioned Harley Quinn into becoming the villain we know and love. Why has Harley's break from the Joker and bisexuality been ignored throughout the development of her character and why the hell havent we seen any development of her relationships with Catwoman and Poison Ivy?
Oh my gosh thank you for this topic!!! I am a HUGE Harley Quinn fan and I absolutely hate the romanticized version of the love story between Joker and Harley. I have always found this relationship breaks my heart more than makes it full. And I hate when girls say they want a relationship like Joker and Harley when they've only seen the romanticized version of this story.. – ChaosMistress58176 years ago
One thing you could focus on is why it took so long for the DC comics to finally make Harley Quinn break away from Joker,and maybe try to identify why the relationship was tolerated throughout the years – tmtonji6 years ago
I'd compare different depictions of this twisted romances. Ironically, the 1992 animated series (wherein she debuted) seems to provide both the tamest and most mature take on their relationship, not reveling in torture porn while having a narrative awareness this is a deeply dysfunctional and abusive relationship, while Suicide Squad ups the ante on the abuse and simultaneously romanticizes their relationship in an objectively unhealthy way. How is it that the cartoon recognizes this is pure abuse and manipulation, while Suicide Squad tries to imply "he really does care"? How is it the film intended for adults is more naive and less realistic than the kids cartoon? Not just these two, of course, but, considering their public profile, I'd consider them first. – Allie Dawson6 years ago
My answer: it's about the Joker. The Joker is a nihilist. He is convinced that nothing matters, that it's all a joke. His goal is to get other people to see the world the same way he does. Harley Quinn is the closest he's ever come (if you don't count the Batman Beyond movie). But because he's, you know, insane, he doesn't love her, and he doesn't want her to love him because that doesn't jive with nihilism. It's a tragic love story, and that's why so many adaptations explore it. – noahspud6 years ago
O.J. Simpson in the Naked Gun movies, Joe Son in Austin Powers, Jeffrey Jones in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Hollywood films are rife with actors who have found their way on the wrong side of the law. Some are for petty reasons or misdomeanors, though some have been convicted (or at least tried) for truly heinous acts. Though does knowing this take away from the enjoyment of the films themselves? Can an audience enjoy and empathise with a character without seeing the criminal (if not evil) actor beneath? Where do we draw the line in our supposed 'suspension of disbelief'? Are there some films or actors that people just simply cannot bring themselves to look at? Do we boycott or condemn the film, and is that fair towards the other innocent individuals that worked on it?
These are all very interesting questions to ponder, since I have thought about them myself. Maybe choose a specific film and actor to talk about, and try to answer those questions. – Gabby6 years ago
It might be interesting to take a look at this topic from a political/historical perspective, as well as 'homages' to them (i.e. Leni Riefenstahl (propaganda filmmaker during Third Reich) and George Lucas (almost exactly copying one of Riefenstahls frames in Star Wars)). – Charly6 years ago
Depends on the crime, people's individual values/morals, but it's a shame as you say that other innocent actors can feel repercussions, – per2216 years ago
One question you can ask is do we boycott everything about said actor or only stuff that comes out after they became problematic. He’s not an actor but let’s say Kanye West, a lot of people who I know decided to no longer support him because of all his controversy but they still listen to his old music. While as others have decided to completely “unstan” him and anything associated to him from past to present. I think the question of time could be something interesting to target. – tmtonji6 years ago
Both Ozu and Mizoguchi were excellent film directors in Japanese cinema history. In their films, they pictured various kinds of people and their lives. Through the cinema, we could see the living situation of people in that period. I would like to see an analysis of how the two directors pictured the personalities, lives, and/or struggles of modern girls. Are there any similar traits of their films? What are the differences considering the cinematographic techniques and styles they used? The examples can be narrowed down to two films.
Joe Russo, co-director of Avengers: Infinity War, recently stated that other major film studios should avoid trying to establish cinematic universes like the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Although Russo said that audiences crave new methods of storytelling, he stated that some things simply cannot be "sustained through a cinematic universe." Do you agree with Russo?
I think that no other studio simply has the resources to create such an in-depth and comprehensively filled out universe quite like the MCU. I think more takes on this interesting idea would be fascinating, but the reality is that I don't know who could really keep up with Disney's high standard that's been established. It might be best for other film-makers and studios to explore new ways to tell stories, like Russo suggested. – Dimitri6 years ago
The MCU has managed to prevail even when it has released some less triumphant movies (by MCU standard) in its line of released. I think more than several factors go into a successful cinematic universe. I recognize a sense of difficulty now to become immersive in another cinematic universe, when the MCU has been relatively successful in capturing my attention for the past ten years. I personally find it difficult not to compare a new cinematic universe to the MCU because I've become accustomed to the MCU as a sort of figurehead for a successful, engaging cinematic universe. Then again it could all be boiled down to fan expectations and taste. I think I would like to see film studios try to establish a cinematic universe, but with Disney's influence with the MCU I believe it'd be rather difficult to set a new cinematic universe apart as a new, original method of storytelling without the obvious comparison. – pinkofthemoon6 years ago
Every studio has the freedom to express their own cinematic style and I wholeheartedly accept that, but there are many characteristics that the Marvel franchise possesses that it wouldn't hurt other studios to strive to as well. While I deeply love DC comics, the DC Cinematic Universe is, to me, beginning to lag as of late. The casting in some of their recent features is less than stellar; some actors are failing to embody the characters we've come to know and love. And the plot of many recent films, "Wonder Woman" being the exception, seems to be rushed and severely lacking. While Marvel films run long, it is because their plot is well thought out and perfectly paced to ensure that their are no holes or pointless scenes. Every bit of humor or drama that they add has point to it and adds to the big picture; they don't add a five minute long joke just for laughs or to fill time, which ends up taking away from the main plot line. Their films are also thoroughly planned and expertly cast. – EmskitheNerd6 years ago
I think that one of the main reasons that no other studio can do what the MCU can do it because the majority of their content is based on comic books that have been sucessful for decades and already have a huge fanbase even before the movie is made. – NikkySalvatore6 years ago
I am still waiting for the next installment of the Avatar Universe. I think that there is huge potential, and last I heard there are supposed to be at least 4 movies total once it is completed. One of the more interesting universes out there is the Alien universe. It includes crossover movies like Alien Vs. Predator, and well as the unofficial prequel Prometheus. However, this universe isn't very cohesive, and could use some tying of loose ends. – TPA976 years ago
Probably something interesting to note is how DC's cinematic universe pales in comparison to MCU's, but its television-based Arrowverse does quite well. Perhaps the difference in time constraints, air times, even the medium of television itself play a role? In an attention economy, you'd struggle to hype up movies in a cinematic universe, what with trailers, interviews, other promos your only main ammo. TV shows, though. They can leave a trail of breadcrumbs towards a bigger banquet. – Starfire6 years ago
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is an internet short film in three acts created by Joss Whedon and starring Neil Patrick Harris as the titular Dr. Horrible, Nathan Fillion as Captain Hammer, and Felicia Day as Penny. This was project was created in 2008 amidst the writer's strike, the Great Recession, and Election Season. What political themes exist and how might they have changed in the decade since the release of the work?
Ever wondered how creators come up with fictional languages? It would be interesting to look into some of the processes behind creating fictional languages and their popularity amongst fans. Some examples to think of: Elvish (Lord of the Rings/ Hobbit), Klingon (Star Trek), Valerian (A Song of Ice and Fire Series/Game of Thrones) and Na'vi (Avatar).
This is a very interesting concept. I know that Tolkien spent a lot of time in the development of his based both on the plethora of modern and ancient languages he knew as well as cryptographic codes he developed at college. – SaraiMW6 years ago
there is an interesting YouTube series produced by Wired about this very topic. Valyrian was pretty much gibberish until the show came along. Klingon was gibberish in the original series but then turned into a real language with TNG. – LFH6 years ago
Very cool topic! I have seen books in the film and television sections at Indigo that teach you how to speak fictional languages like Klingon, but it would be interesting to find out how these languages were actually created – Scalera186 years ago
David J. Peterson, a linguist who has recently written a book called "The Art of Language Invention," is the creator of the Dothraki and Valyrian languages as it is spoken in the TV version of Game of Thrones. He invents languages for a living. – Jos6 years ago
