Film

Latest Articles

Film
5
Film
3
Film
6
Film
11
Film
6
Film
8
Film
7
Film
1
Film
8
Film
6

Latest Topics

1

Remakes and Reboots

In the last few years Hollywood has both recreated and rebooted a number of classic films, ranging from superhero stories (like Spider-man), beloved franchises (like Star Trek), to cult classics (like Red Dawn), and modern masterpieces (like The Magnificent Seven). Choose what you feel are a few of the best and worst examples of this trend, and make an argument for or against Hollywood's "rehash" habit.

  • I remember my film teacher pointing to Ocean's Eleven as one of the very few (I cannot think of another) example where the remake was better than the original. – TKing 8 years ago
    0
  • I immediately think of Sabrina (1954), the original with Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart, and the remake with Harrison Ford and Julia Ormond (1995). It was atrocious. I guess I would say the best reboot would be the Dark Knight Series, if that is considered as such. I mean, one moment we have Michael Keaton, then the incomparable Christian Bale. – danielle577 8 years ago
    1
  • A very good remake that comes to mind is "Total Recall." The Colin Farrell movie from 2012 was much more true to Phillip K. Dick's original story. I am well aware that this may be a controversial opinion. – Tarben 8 years ago
    0
  • Sabrina was terrible because Harrison Ford does not play a good romantic lead. I think miscasting was the problem. – Munjeera 8 years ago
    0
  • Munjeera, I don't HF can act. – Tigey 8 years ago
    0
  • Munjeera, I mean I don't think he can act well. Or, he acts like I type. – Tigey 8 years ago
    0
2

Remaking High Culture: Popularizing Art

From "Romeo Juliet" to "Oh Brother Where Art Though", reworking classic stories like Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" to Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey" with popular appeal is either a fun and creative on-taking or crass money grab, depending upon who you ask.

Examine similar instances in film where classic plays and literature have been given a new breath and identity through popular appeal, modernized sets, and creative directing. Are there instances where this process has succeeded in maintaining the artistic integrity of the original work while making something visionary? Are there instances where this process was a disaster? Does this act successfully cater to a new generation, or is it pandering/talking down to an audience that would prefer authenticity?

  • The plus sign was lost in publishing, and I'm embarrassed that I neglected to proofread the "Though" to a "Thou", but other than that, good luck to whoever might take this piece! – Piper CJ 8 years ago
    0
  • This is a great spin on a topic that has been broached but never approached in as "heads on " a manner as this. This is great. I look forward to seeing the examples used. There have been times when I've watched a television show of film and someone mentions it being based on a shakespearean play, and as a literature professor, I am embarrassed and then amused by the fact that I hadn't realized it. Now, my question is, how to handle when one sees a connection that hasn't been explicitly stated by the creators? Kurt Sutter, of Sons of Anarchy has mentioned the Hamlet theme numerous times, so that is easier, but as for Breaking Bad, what about Macbeth? Just throwing some ideas out there...Great topic, Piper CJ...might have to pick this one up myself!!! – danielle577 8 years ago
    0
  • Almost everything nowadays is reused. The trick is to reuse it in a new way – Riccio 8 years ago
    0
  • I think remakes are helpful because they keep classics relevant to a new audience in the next generation, especially if they are done well with contemporary actors who are skilled at their jobs. – Munjeera 8 years ago
    0
  • Clueless is far and away my favourite example of this topic. With every update given to these sort of classic stories, it's interesting to see how the general point of the story applies to different settings, and how the characters can still be recognizable in alternate times and places. Also, if whoever writes this mentions Carmen: A Hip Hopera, they will be my favourite person. – chrischan 8 years ago
    0
  • I think it depends on the approach of the remake. Some tongue and cheek adaptations can be really subversive and critical in their seemingly low-brow, kitsch or more pop-culture approach. Shakespeare is of course one of the most parodied authors, I'm thinking 'She's The Man'. – Treva 8 years ago
    0
7

The Best Sequels of All Time

While it is common for the second film in a series to ruin the franchise, many of them MAKE the franchise; such is the case with Kill Bill and The Dark Knight Trilogy. Perhaps these films' sequels were so monumental because they were planned out to take place over three films or two films, rather than the corporate industry suits just wanting to force, say, another Iron Man onto the screen to make more money. These turn into hollow films.

  • Maybe add some specifity, such as, what is it exactly that makes these sequels so integral to 'make' or 'break' a series? Is there a common theme that you're looking for between all successful/popular series? If not, it would definitely be easier to choose one series (eg. The Dark Knight trilogy) and pick apart each film to understand why the whole series is better than each movie alone. – Suman 8 years ago
    2
  • prolly ought to throw empire strikes back in there, too. – Richard Marcil 8 years ago
    1
  • I think of Harry Potter, though some might be shaking their heads, as each future installment was just as good, if not better. As for the Godfather...maybe we shouldn't say trilogy, as the 3rd installment was so horrific and a horrible note to end such a powerful cinematic experience. With that being said, The Godfather II, was phenomenal and better than the 1st. Interestingly,yet on a separate note, the book, The Godfather, is horrible and reads much like a soap opera. I took a course called film and literature, where books were compared to the films, and this was the only book that was far inferior to the film. – danielle577 8 years ago
    0
  • "Amen" to the Godfather sequel. (Tongue firmly planted in cheek): "There was a third Godfather movie?" I've never seen the third one, but went to happy hour with a friend who explained a particularly horrible scene from the third one. According to him, Pacino is a yeller and Garcia is a whisperer (or vice-versa, it's been a while). I had to ask why that was bad, so he acted out both parts while humors poured from my eyes. Someday I'll watch it for another laugh. The second one, though, I watch for the romance of the gorgeous scenes in Italy, his beautiful Italian wife, and the explanation of Vito's motivation. "Citizen" who? – Tigey 8 years ago
    0
  • It may be worth distinguishing that some sequels aren't appreciated because they're shoved down our throats in that (lucrative) format i.e. The hobbit into three. Whereas the ones that can legitimately claim to further a bigger narrative, and are sanctioned through genuine demand tend to cause less upset. I think it's a terribly insular trend however, who needs another Ice Age?? It would be interesting to cover some of the studio politics in how these films subsidise a decline in movie going, so they attempt to reel you back with stories/characters you know well rather than risk new/interesting films that won't take as much as a superhero film. It would be good to include a European example of a trilogy like the Three Colours films, where they are unified by theme not character or narrative. The European tradition of a trilogy tends to work much more allusively, and I would argue offer a lot more than the Hollywood style which tends to just give our favourites more screen time. – JamieMadden 8 years ago
    0
  • Please include Terminator 2 as one of the best sequels of all time. BTW using the phrase "of all time" just reminds me of Kanye. – Munjeera 8 years ago
    0
  • Just a general note that this topic seems too subjective and broad. Also specify if these are film sequels or book sequels in the title. – rowenachandler 8 years ago
    0
7

How Does "Spoiler Culture" Impact Our Ability To Interact with Media

Explore the rise of "spoiler culture" – especially in relation to TV shows and movies – looking at its current prevalence in society, possible origins, and perhaps some famous/infamous instances of "spoilers" as a preface to how "spoiler culture" impacts an audience's interaction with the work and fellow audience members.

i.e. inability to any longer freely engage in the discussion of a work, whether that inability to discuss effects the way people process that work, isolating one's self from others to avoid spoilers (to the point even of limiting one's social media)

Might be interesting as well to see if "spoiler culture" persists within well known material. For instance, are people less concerned with spoilers when consuming media of a historical nature like WW2 movies?

  • As a viewer of many popular television shows I, too, have fallen victim to spoilers. Though frustrating, it is difficult to advocate against this practice due to the rise in social media. People use these media platforms to express their excitement,disgust, or anticipation for the next episode. Personally, I wish there could be a 48 hour limit before a person posts a spoiler, but this is something that will never come to fruition. As for media of a historical nature, most people do expect the majority of society to have a working knowledge of historical events, especially such a well-known event in history as WWII. I think this is an interesting conversational piece, and I would be quite interested to hear the feedback of others. – danielle577 8 years ago
    0
  • Another possible factor to consider is how promotion, especially in hyper-popular fandoms, contributes to spoilers. For example, take the recent press tour for Captain America: Civil War and the countless interviews, "sneak peaks", small tidbits the actors revealed before the official release of the film as well as the countless amount of film clips released. In a way, it was almost impossible to have the movie "not spoiled" unless you avoided any media at all costs. In this regard, perhaps it would be interesting to look at how media plays with "spoilers". What is the difference between "teasing" and "spoiling" and can media take teasers too far? – Mela 8 years ago
    0
  • Spoilers often revolve around character deaths - think Avengers, Force Awakens, Game of Thrones - but how is preemptively knowing about a death in works like those different than say deaths within a historical drama? In both a ww2 movie and Game of Thrones the audience is expecting casualties but no one will be upset if a death is "spoiled" in the former. – tlbdb 8 years ago
    0
  • I think spoilers happened less in the past because there was less media to consume. There were fewer TV channels, and I don't know about how many movies were being released, but because there was less choice, everybody was watching the same things and you had to watch it when it was on TV. There was no way not to be caught up. – chrischan 8 years ago
    1
  • The writers of Doctor Who incorporated a bit of the "spoiler culture" into the show: the character River Song often uses the phrase "Spoilers". – JennyCardinal 8 years ago
    0
  • It's fun to watch people do the "spoiler dance" in conversations when a new episode is discussed, or when a new person enters a conversation. – Tigey 8 years ago
    0
1

Watching A Film Alone vs With Company

With film being more accessible on personal devices such as laptops, tablets and phones, movies are just as likely to be viewed in solitude as with family or friends. How great would the impact of those around you be on the experience of watching a film?

  • One always has to take into consideration how others act and because of this, it's sometimes nice to watch television alone. I know some people who like to talk and ask (sometimes unnecessary) questions during a movie/show which is distracting and frustrating. Watching a show/movie with family is not always easy either because no one wants to watch the same thing and an argument potentially follows. – JennyCardinal 8 years ago
    0
  • Film genres should also be considered. Comedies are typically enjoyed best with friends, while psychological thrillers may be best digested with solitude – Dominique Kollie 8 years ago
    0
  • I'm inclined to argue that a plot driven work is proportionally more rewarding to watch with company, as you have the formal mechanisms of plot to engage with socially, discuss, whatever. More "character driven," perhaps dialogue heavy films, you're expected to turn your social faculties over to the characters. Here, company in watching it might not detract from the experience, but you're only immersed insofar as you're leaving your company behind. – TKing 8 years ago
    0
  • I enjoy watching a thriller or intellectually heavy film with others where you're bouncing off theories amongst one another. When it comes to melodramas--such as emotional period pieces--I tend to become emotional, and therefore prefer to watch this particular genre of film alone. – danielle577 8 years ago
    0
  • How can we make this topic less about psychology and human preferences, and more about film and TV shows as art expressions? – T. Palomino 2 years ago
    0
1

The Psychological Edge of the Familiar in Successful Media - The Uphill Battle of Novelty

A look at films in recent years that weren't sequels or remakes that received fairly good ratings, but made little money at the box office. An example that comes to mind is American Ultra (2015), which received better ratings than many of the other films that opened the same weekend (all of which were remakes or sequels), yet was a box office flop. The film's screenwriter, Max Landis complained that "American Ultra lost to a sequel, a sequel reboot, a biopic, a sequel and a reboot."

This phenomenon seems self-perpetuating. These failed new ideas will cause studios to hesitate before investing in further new ideas, which seem risky. It may be more economically encouraging to go with a sequel or remake that is bound to make money, and we therefore find ourselves inundated by constant remakes and reboots (just look at Pokémon Go, which seems to be successful not because it is particularly good, but because its content is familiar).

A few psychological theories could be invoked here in order to explain this phenomenon. One is the mere-exposure effect, a phenomenon wherein people tend to prefer things that they are familiar with (this is how subliminal messaging is thought to work). Therefore it could be possible that people are disproportionately likely to go out and see a film with a familiar name (such as the new Independence Day), even if it has worse ratings than something novel and unknown. Further, people tend to be risk-averse, and may want to avoid the risk of seeing something unknown and not liking it.

  • you are 100 % right. Nowadays people are taking the easy route by making more adaptations or reboots because its economically less risky. Audience will still want to watch a reboot or adaptations just out of curiosity. On the other hand, when there is a new idea for a movie out, people are less likely to watch it because of the fear of not knowing what to expect. – Tkesh 8 years ago
    1
  • It would be interesting to see how movie budgets have changed over time, say in the last 30 years or so, as an examination of the viability of indie films versus major studio films in theaters. Was the difference in budgets between an indie film and major studio movie larger or smaller than it is now, and what were the respective profits? – chrischan 8 years ago
    0
2

What Are The Right Musical Instruments For Soundtracks

What type of musical instruments make for a perfect soundtrack? How does a specific musical instrument evoke specific emotions needed for a scene?

  • Cool. Maybe consider how the genre of the film can influence instrument selection? – chocmalt 9 years ago
    1
  • Discussing the importance of genre and examining famous composers could be an interesting way to attack this. For example the difference between scoring horror and adventure blockbusters. The difference between Howard Shore's approach to Silence of the Lambs and the Lord of the Rings Series. Or the similar devices used by John Williams and Hans Zimmer to create memorable and iconic soundtracks. Horns and Violins seem to be imperative to their styles. – skairnagh 9 years ago
    0
  • There's sort of a psychological aspect to this. Could certain instruments reinforce particular emotions or feelings in listeners? There are several big composers who came from rock bands who almost completely abandon that sound when they start to compose film music. (Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman are two that come to mind.) Recently, there has been a huge shift to integrate electronic sounds into scores. An example that immediately comes to mind is the Facebook soundtrack, but one of the first early successful examples of this would be the sound track for Witness (starring Harrison Ford). You could explore the balance between familiar and new music and what kinds of films or TV shows these soundtracks are paired with. – dannyjs 9 years ago
    0
  • Great topic. I can see someone breaking this down by movie genre. – Tigey 8 years ago
    0
  • I wonder if there are necessary, fundamental differences in instrumentation. Couldn't any instrument theoretically be used in any film, provided it was done right? I'd genuinely be interested to hear someone's theory there. Promising stuff. – TKing 8 years ago
    1
  • TKing, generally, I think you're right, but I can't imagine hearing a Jew's harp in, say, The King's Speech. – Tigey 8 years ago
    0
  • That would depend on the movie. And no musician think of "right" instruments to evoke emotions. – T. Palomino 2 years ago
    0
2

The filmic sisterhood of Jurassic World and Kong: Skull Island

Just from the new Kong: Skull Island, much can be asserted about the aesthetic and narrative relationship between Kong and Jurassic World. Both films are enormous block-buster snowball movies filled with star-studded casts thrown in disaster scenarios of utter peril and outrageous visual effects. A parallel/examination of the two movies and what they say about the state of hollywood would be highly relevant.

  • While I expanded on the concept, I don't, however, feel that I need to "guide" the person who might take the topic. I shouldn't have to hold another writer's hand, and I don't think they'd want me to. – luminousgloom 8 years ago
    0
  • Why just those two movies? Based on the similarities listed, you could substitute either out for Gareth Edwards' Godzilla. What in particular about the Kong: Skull Island trailer makes you think first and foremost of Jurassic World? – chrischan 8 years ago
    0