Lewis Carroll's nonsense novel has seen endless variation in adaption across all forms of media, but how many of these are actually successful? Look at both the more faithful adaptions (Disney, the 1999 TV Movie), and the "darker" or somehow radically different ones (American McGee's Alice, The Looking Glass Wars). Compare some of the adaptions which are similar in tone, like Tim Burton's recent film and American McGee, or the Disney film and the TV Movie, with an eye for determining, which one does what it's trying to do better (e.g., a faithful translation from book to film, a darker take), while examining what makes adaptation of this novel so difficult.
One of my favorite adaptations is actually the 1999 TV movie. That's likely an incredibly nostalgia-based opinion since I watched it a lot during my early childhood. Nevertheless, it's one of my favorites because it still retains the intelligence of the book. I wasn't a huge fan of the Tim Burton version (although I still haven't seen the sequel yet) since it was more of a fantasy action-adventure story involving good versus evil. For me, it lacked a bit of Lewis Carroll's signature wit whereas the 1999 version did a good job of showing just how ridiculous and nonsensical the adult world can be through the eyes of a child. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
You could also reference the difficulties of crafting a screenplay, which follows many story rules, compared to the wandering nature of Alice in Wonderland. Think of The Wizard of Oz--it has a similar path, but the character journey and story structure are quite traditional. ALICE takes more liberties. – Nate Océan8 years ago
You read my mind... Been thinking about a way to make Alice reverberate to contemporary minds, as I, like you, first experienced it as young child. It's a tale that always prods and pokes at the right strings in the pivotal moment. Meaning, I walked away from Alice as soon as first grade was over, only to find that Wizard of Oz was faithfully waiting in the wings of second grade. Third grade weighed in with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, just as I figured I'd seen it all. (High school brought the MTV variety, with Tom Petty's Alice.) Can it get any meaner? Peter and the Wolf? Write this one as a classic, in and of itself, shouldn't be hard to do, with such a fan base. – lofreire7 years ago
In the last few years, we're seeing a rise of strong female characters in lead roles – especially in Action Films (the most prominent being Rey, in Star Wars). These strong characters are everywhere in literature, but tend to be overshadowed by the sequel or the reboot – and if they are picked up, tend to be altered in some way to make the film more marketable: for example, making that female character more masculine (atypically stoic, cold natured, oblivious, and otherwise displaying a shallow level of emotional value – "beefing up" the character, whilst almost ignoring the duality of a strong female character, and their ability to rise to the occasion with a strength of mind and heart; Rose Dawson from Titanic, or countless literary figures from the age of Jane Austen). Are we stepping in the right direction, or is this another false Hollywood campaign?
By the way it's 'Rey'. I think an interesting point is how shallow her 'strong female character' really is. She doesn't have much of an arc ('I have to stay at home because some people might come back but we haven't established that they mean anything to me other than a brief memory' to 'I'm gonna find me a Skywalker!') and she's magically good at everything she does/touches, including Jedi mind tricks which she's apparently never seen before. – jackanapes7 years ago
I agree to a certain extent. It is true that lately the presence of female characters has risen significantly in books and films, and also that such characters tend to be portrayed in masculine terms (see Ripley in Alien). At the same time, figures such as Katniss in the Hunger Games or Furiosa in Mad Max Fury Road, in my opinion, are redefining femininity onscreen, as they eliminate the idea that a film with a male character is more successful, and also offer a more complex and layered portrayal of women. In light of this, it would be interesting to explore such ideas in an article! – CostanzaCasati7 years ago
I personally think that it is great that female actors are taking on such diverse roles in the film industry. – claraaa7 years ago
I agree that we are seeing an increase in female lead characters, which is a positive for the film industry and women in general. But at the moment, I'm not sure if it's a huge problem that many of these characters are made more marketable, as we need to take small steps in the right direction. – Courtney7 years ago
There is an increase in female lead characters recently. After seeing shows like Jessica Jones I can't help but hold onto the hope that maybe Hollywood is redeeming itself. Jessica was a complicated and flawed character whose strength wasn't just physical but mental too. The creators did a good job of portraying that and using other female character like Trish Walker and Hogarth really cemented the fact that women can be complex characters.
on the other hand, Hollywood seems to be great at taking a strong, female lead and sticking her into the 'romantic subplot device' peg hole. Black Widow is the ultimate example of this (Avengers 2). – norcelona7 years ago
The idea of "masculating" a female character to make her strong or tough is a really interesting one. People seem to forget that women can be and are often powerful and forceful people, without falling into a masculine role.
Some examples of female characters that are both feminine and awesome are Mikasa in the anime Attack on Titan (her deep and emotional love for the protagonist drive her every move and allow her to be stronger than anyone else in the show barring one or two characters), and Buffy from BTVS (Buffy never gives up her femininity for her strength, she has boyfriends and wears makeup and cries and loves, but only grows stronger as she does so.)
There are an unfortunately large number of Hollywood examples that fall into either the "woman is good character because she is big tough man on the inside" or "woman is a pretty lady who the protagonist gets with when he defeats the baddies" category.
I adore seeing both strong and feminine characters on the big screen, we really don't need to pick one or the other, woman can and should be both. – Sabrina Thompson-Cook7 years ago
It's a common subject for films to cover their respective countries' events, especially if they take place on a global scale. Films like Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful are made in different countries, yet portray the topic of being in a concentration camp in WW2 differently. It would be interesting to analyze how films portray different parts of the world in other countries. It could help a viewer gain perspective on how filmmakers choose to depict these events.
This is a good idea. it would also be intriguing to build on this notion to try understand how certain catastrophes have affected a countries film industry. for example post 9/11 Hollywood has incorporated the falling sky scraper trope into many of its disaster films.
– Iliasbakalla7 years ago
An interesting choice of subject matter and one that has a great potential for exploring alternate points of view - essential in these days of Hollywood biased 'Americanised' view of world events (no offence intended towards the American people). Regarding WW2, I would recommend viewing such films as 'Eien No O' (The Eternal Zero) [2013], an excellent Japanese film about the treatment of pilots in the Japanese Air Force towards the end of WW2; also the critically acclaimed 'Das Boot' [1981] (The Boat), a superb and harrowing film about the crew of a German U-Boat' to name just a couple. I would suggest including accounts from the ordinary men and women involved in such conflicts and wars; those who had to carry out the sometimes ludicrous orders of their so called 'superiors. It would also be interesting to include how propaganda was employed by all sides and the effect that had on its intended audience. – Amyus7 years ago
With the success of Rogue One and the several other stand alone films that Disney has planned to release with the famous brand, explain how this decision changes the way that we look at Star Wars' film legacy. Does it change? If so how? What does this mean for die hard fans of the series?
I think an important element of this discussion would be defining what makes a Star Wars film as opposed to other space stories. – C8lin8 years ago
It's also important to note that Star Wars has so much lore. Be that through the novels, comics etc. the franchise itself already has a huge knowledge base and anthology-like feel. This knowledge just isn't something the general public makes themselves aware of – Nicole Sojkowski8 years ago
i feel about start wars about the future i was promised as a boy, that Googie i belive its called futurism that has become this shit now. I would have liked to have seen where George was going to, he as a lover of Rome, as was his mentor Francis, I would have liked to have seen what the fall of that empire meant to his arc, now cut off and supplanted by a company that gave us Goofy for seventy years, satisfied and pasteurized by a bunch if overly bright paint users who have no interests or adherence to Roman anything. they wouldnt be caught dead comparing Darth Vader to Satan in the Inferno, as I would have liked to know where this story was relay meant to go, as am certian he had as we all do, Virgillian foreshadowing and laying ground works and I feel badly that whatever thsi was supposed to be,whatever futility had to be laid out and was whatever the reverse if an an ehco is,w as left with this tv land horse manure, as we fight the same wars over and over and over... – Antonius8657 years ago
Pirates of the Carribean 2 and 3 were shot back-to-back and released soon one after the other. This is something which James Cameron is also attempting with his Avatar sequels. On the other hand, there was a gap of 59 years between the two installments of Disney's Fantasia. Analyse the various effect the timing between episodes has on aspects like the box office prospects of the films taking into consideration factors like brand recall and set production costs.
I think the effect speaks to the creative principle behind the theme. In Pirates, you have the right actor, the necessary chemistry, and a setting that lends itself to dynamic rehashing of plot. Some which of pertain to other cinematic marvels, Tron, for instance; the same which could be said. But, why drown the audience in Tron revivals when the original accomplished what films are expected to accomplish: take the imagination to new and unrealistic frontiers, time and again, without the need for props and people. When the Tron sequel eventually emerged, it was nearly messianic in its prophetic second coming, to the delight of its loyal cult following. This is going to be a worthwhile literary examination, part of which I have only scratched the surface of--looking forward to it. – lofreire7 years ago
I say if you're going to do installments, space them out reasonably. A gap of 59 years is too long, because by then the original product has already aged too much. People are more inclined to hate the new installment on sight because it's not the old one. Or, they go the other way and give the new installment so much praise, the old one is forgotten. In a series like Pirates, you have to watch spacing of releases so people can keep up. The more episodic your series, the harder it may be for "newcomers" to catch up and keep up. Well-spaced releases, say 2-4 years apart, keep the series audience-friendly. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Assess the continuing relevancy of revolutionary filmmaker George Méliès, taking note to mention not only his pioneering use of special effects, but also the practicality and methodology of his cinematic practice. While technologies and cinematic styles will always be changing, it is always important to look back and remember why we choose to make films, and what makes them so amazing and enjoyable to behold.
Good topic. I think Martin Scorsese's Hugo helped the recent revival of interest in this pioneering movie-maker. – Ben Hufbauer7 years ago
The story or Méliès shows how magicians responded to the emergence of film which eroded their income stream as people visited the theatres less. – Peter Prevos7 years ago
He has directed some of the most popular movies known to the American public/around the world in the last decade; so what is it about his directing style that keeps raking in audiences by the millions?
Nolan's pretty strong on auteur theory, good choice! – m-cubed7 years ago
I think a key feature of his films is that he tends to focus on the psychology of the human mind; what are its extents and limitations, why and how it thinks certain ways. And to audiences, I think that many find it unique and refreshing that he is creating major Hollywood films that deal with something so cerebral ( which is not as common amongst the majority of big budget Hollywood pictures)
That could be an angle to take – Yanni7 years ago
JulieCMiliay, Hello again. As you pointed out, Christopher Nolan is without a doubt one of the most financially successful directors working today, and in my opinion, he deserves the praise. While this is a bit of a cheap way to make suggestions, I think it's best to simply write some pros and cons about him in order to be fair in critiquing his work while also appreciating it. First the negative: 1. He isn't all that original. While many say that his movies are different and break off from most movies, the bulk of his work isn't actually original material. He's made 10 movies thus far (I'm counting Dunkirk though it hasn't been released), and only 4 of them are original (Following, Inception, Interstellar, and Dunkirk). The others are as follows: Memento is an adaptation of his brother's short story Memento Mori; Insomnia is a remake of an Icelandic movie of the same name; The Dark Knight trilogy is, obviously, an adaptation of the Batman comics; and The Prestige is an adaptation of a novel of the same name by Christopher Priest. While he is definitely an exciting director, his material usually comes from someone else.
2. Sometimes he isn't much of a craftsman, especially when it comes to editing. I'd recommend watching some videos on Nolan's editing and see for yourself how it can get a bit confusing to tell what's going on, especially during action scenes. And that's about all I can think of, really. Now the positive: 1. He's a classy director. His movies don't rely on swearing, graphic depictions of sex or violence, or controversial subjects in order to get an audience.
2. He's a spectacular director. His movies are often grand in scope and, more importantly, they rarely involve CGI. The majority of the effects in his movies are practical and as such make the scenery all the more vivid.
3. His movies are, as Yanni said, interested in making the audience think. More often than not (at least in my case), I find myself thinking about his movies long after I've seen them because of the ideas presented and because of how they were presented. I hope these observations help. Thanks for your time,
August – August Merz7 years ago
It would be good to see 'Dunkirk' also included in this analysis. – Vishnu Unnithan7 years ago
They once asked Plautus how he so perfectly knew the culture and as an immigrant to Rome from southern Italay, read Jewish and Italian, how he has so many hits to a roman audience. Make Sure that the theatergoer is the same person at the epilogue as he is at the ovation, especially when writing for the upper crust, and He said 'Know thy audience'. a Latin line reechoed in Groucho at that machers funeral, give the people what they want. – Antonius8657 years ago
Look at the remakes of today and compare them with the originals and see if the changes that have been made for a contemporary audience improve the property or not.
The remake adds a greater dimension of perception (or misperception) that is not entirely there in the original, perhaps due to the state of the art or the creative force behind it. The issue then becomes the over-reliance on technology (or the performer) to carry the story, leaving thin the inspiration and vitality of imagination, I believe. If you write this article and I rewrite it a year later, what (and who) determines which is better, or worse? I am eager to find out. – lofreire7 years ago
My first thought on reading the heading and pitch was the broad strokes approach to condemning/questioning the legitimacy of remakes. Same as with any work which derives from another, superiority is subjective. I'd also stress the importance of audience - in the case of series like Star Trek, the audience is extremely important because the bulk of the original audience is still around and there are huge expectations. In the case of public domain, so Frankenstein or Dracula for instance, anybody can make a TV show or a movie or a derivative novel without buying rights, and the market is already saturated with retellings of high and low quality so expectation is not as much an issue. Finally, pop culture and social awareness change and morph over time, so content which was totally acceptable in the fifties or sixties would have to change to become palatable to a modern audience, and that isn't a bad thing - it's just a necessary alteration, like tying up a loose end or addressing a minor inconsistency. – Cat7 years ago
Also,examine the need for these remakes. Doesn't the minor alteration of the story render these remakes as a form of fanfiction themselves? – Vishnu Unnithan7 years ago
