With the new Batman v Superman film audiences were ready for an amazing showdown between two of DC's greatest characters, to see both there ideologies crash together. But did this film deliver on this? Or was the easy and quick plot mover of kidnapping Superman's mother the only real tangible character motivation for their final fight. Did the film simply gloss over and not explore their personal philosophical differences enough?
I would try and be more specific with what you're asking here. For instance, many may be unfamiliar with Batman and Superman's conflicting ideologies, so go ahead and explain what they are. Is the movie also making a statement about not only the heroes ideologies, but base human ideologies as well? An example could be that Superman could represent a God-figure for those who are heavily theological and driven by faith, whereas Batman could be a God-figure for those who are more secular and less persuaded by the idea of a divine entity. Other than that, this could definitely be an interesting read. – JKKN9 years ago
I myself find it hard to get over the one specific scene in the film. "I have to lead him back through the city."
1. 5 minutes ago it was proven the plane could be remotely controlled, so Batman could just have Alfred distract Doomsday so he can secure the weapon.
2. Unnecessary collateral damage was the whole reason Batman hated Superman to begin with. Also, the whole problem with the film entirely is trying to combine two different story lines (Death of Superman and The Dark Knight) without realizing the way Superman acts in both books is totally different from one another. – ajester9 years ago
Great topic. I would add that it might be helpful to examine these characters in the context of modern-day conversations of war and destruction -- a "do-the-ends-justify-the-means" conundrum that is faced by many countries today. The film could have made some powerful statements about modern warfare, and totally failed by subverting its gaze toward multiple plotlines with no resolution, and character development that hit a brick wall. – Kathleen Lassiter8 years ago
Honestly, I think one could discuss how the film undermines ANY point it tries to make morally or politically. In my mind it is the very definition of sound and fury signifying nothing; truly a tale told by an idiot. – KALOPSIA1188 years ago
How trailers can lead to the demise of gain of a film and how that will lead to how Captain America will do. Will people be sceptical after how Batman VS. Superman did or will they be more excited to see how Cap does. Cap has come out with some pretty telling trailers, will that be what the whole movie based on if you seen BVS. Did the trailers prove to tell too much, or did they tell nothing important?
Some of the trailers tell the climax part of the movies, they make the film itself less exciting when the audience watches it. The trailers, which show the climax, are bad examples of trailers. They are supposed to show parts of the scenes to advertise the films.
– moonyuet9 years ago
A feminist analysis of any material can always go two way: 1) criticize absolutely everything about the material 2) defend the female characters as victims of circumstance. In the case of Disney's Beauty and the Beast, it's very easy to bring up Stockholm Syndrome amongst other anti-feminist issues in the plot. But one can also defend Belle's strong will and generosity, despite her situation. Disney made a very strategic decision by casting Emma Watson in the live-action remake because in film she is known as the strong-willed bookworm Hermione Granger and in the real world she is known a huge feminist activist. It's clear with this decision and their recent films like Maleficent and Cinderella that Disney is attempting to put a feminist spin on the stories we all know, to various degrees of success. What can Disney do to revise Beauty and the Beast? Is the story inherently anti-feminist?
This is a very interesting topic. I do not think this story is inherently anti-feminist just looking at Belle as a character. She is opposed to and openly fights against marriage, she is an avid reader and characterized by her intelligence, and is portrayed as smarter than most males in the film. I agree that it was smart casting Emma Watson due to her role in popular media, as you say, of course her presence in the film won't automatically offer a more feminist reading. It'd be interesting to compare the original cartoon film to the new one and see what changes they make as well as what more they could do to add an even further feminist spin on it. – Kathryn9 years ago
I enjoy thinking of the possibilities of the topic, but I do think the story can be both anti and pro-feminist. I think, if anything, in the society we are in today, Disney has seen value in re-imagining some of thier most famous stories with a stronger female base. I think there are two great possibilites in how Disney can revise: a) not painting Belle as smarter than the men in the film, but make her a strong intellectual companion to her male counterparts; however, this does not mean she should be above the few women in the film either. B) I would love to see more exploration into the relationships between Belle and The Dresser/Mrs. Potts. Those are the only true female interactions seen with Belle, and I think emphasis on women helping women in the story would also help to create a stronger feminist undertone in the upcoming film.
These elements are already in the originial animation (as well as Belle being treated as a prize by Gaston and other less-than-feminist elements), so therefore, I cannot say B&B is entirely anti-feminist; the animation just comes from a different era. Disney has a platform to show specific sides of feminism not always shown. The ability of a woman to be on the same level as the men in a patriarcal society, not so much being above them, and being able to relate and co-exist with other women on every level of her life in a way which is beneficial. – C N Williamson9 years ago
I enjoy thinking of the possibilities of the topic, but I do think the story can be both anti and pro-feminist. I think, if anything, in the society we are in today, Disney has seen value in re-imagining some of thier most famous stories with a stronger female base. I think there are two great possibilites in how Disney can revise: a) not painting Belle as smarter than the men in the film, but make her a strong intellectual companion to her male counterparts; however, this does not mean she should be above the few women in the film either. B) I would love to see more exploration into the relationships between Belle and The Dresser/Mrs. Potts. Those are the only true female interactions seen with Belle, and I think emphasis on women helping women in the story would also help to create a stronger feminist undertone in the upcoming film. These elements are already in the originial animation (as well as Belle being treated as a prize by Gaston and other less-than-feminist elements), so therefore, I cannot say B&B is entirely anti-feminist; the animation just comes from a different era. Disney has a platform to show specific sides of feminism not always shown. The ability of a woman to be on the same level as the men in a patriarcal society, not so much being above them, and being able to relate and co-exist with other women on every level of her life in a way which is beneficial. - C N Williamson – C N Williamson9 years ago
I may write this one, partially because I am so sick of people saying Belle has Stockholm Syndrome. Yes, I understand where that argument comes from, but even as an adult I never thought that was what B&B is about. Does Belle have her flaws? Sure. But as a feminist character, IMHO she's leagues ahead of her peers. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Where has the Miles Morales film seem to be lost at? Mostly wanted to focus on how the movie would go if it were made and why they have not made one yet. The audience seems to appeal to the Miles storyline and the film seems to be something that fans are constantly yearning for. But, why won't they seem to make one? Why do they seem to keep remaking the same spider-man that we know and love already? What does not appeal about Miles that they don't see in a film? Deadpool has created an epidemic, do you think they will consider it now that Deadpool who people were indifferent about?
Movies such as The Grudge, The Forest, and The Other Side of the Door take place in countries such as Japan and India. However, rather than the protagonists being people of color, the lead roles tend to go to white American or English actresses such as Sarah Michelle Gellar, Natalie Dormer, and Sarah Wayne Callies. Indeed, white people do exist in these countries, but there is a dearth of leads of color in horror, even when a white person would likely be the setting’s racial minority.
Analyze the potential racial implications. What are the possible reasons for casting predominantly white actors (for example, the often-cited “star power”), and does this suggest anything about the horror genre and its treatment of race? Are there any films that do not adhere to this trend? Going beyond white characters abroad as the premise, the article could possibly unpack horror movies such as Night of the Living Dead (black male protagonist killed by mistaken gunfire) and Candyman (black male antagonist killed by mob for an interracial relationship with a white woman).
I don't know much about horror. I scare easy. But this sounds like a good topic that I would be interested to learn about because I think sometimes filmmakers don't fully appreciate that diverse casts add so much more depth. I always like to refer to the original Star Trek when this topic comes up. At the height of the Cold War, just after the McCarthyism, Gene Roddenberry had Chekov on the bridge of the Enterprise. Back then, a radical role and casting decision. Yet here we are in 2016 with the end of communism. I think if you look at the really good horrors or any classic movies they transcend time to reach audiences of all generations. Maybe a good place to start would be the vampire legend. It did start in Transylvania, Romania. – Munjeera9 years ago
Great points, Munjeera. If anyone who writes this looks at horror in general (not just film), they could look at anti-Eastern European and anti-Romani sentiments in vampire literature, which also connects with pseudo-science being used to try to legitimize racism. The reason Stoker emphasizes Dracula's distinctly Eastern European features is to connect them to degeneracy because back then it was thought that the shape of the skull/facial features determined intelligence and morality. This was in turn used to "explain" why other races were "inferior." – Emily Deibler9 years ago
Yes, that was the school of thought, phrenology among other names, back then. It probably was influenced by intra-ethnic hierarchy among Europeans. Maybe whoever writes this article could look at Blade with Wesley Snipes. – Munjeera9 years ago
You're right, and i just remembered that physiognomy is the name of the study of facial expressions that normally led to scientific racism toward people of color and xenophobia toward white people seen as "lesser" (Eastern Europeans; the Irish). The writer could possibly discuss horror as a genre that deals with fear of the unknown, and this may be connected to how people thought of as "Others" are treated in films. For a specific horror subgenre, there's also slasher film tropes such as the black character dying first or the typically virginal white woman being the sole survivor. – Emily Deibler9 years ago
Ridley Scott has reanimated the deceased Alien series with the announcement that he is starting production on the prequels to the 1979 classic. But he is completely ditching the original concept of Prometheus (2012). Instead, he has opted to tell the story of yet another ship with yet another crew encountering yet another Xenomorph called Alien: Covenant. At the end of Prometheus, Rapace (Shaw) and Fassbender (David) depart LV-223 aboard a hijacked ship with the promise of real mystery and possibility in a future installment. However, the presence of a giant face hugger and subsequent baby alien bursting from the chest of the Engineer arguably doomed any hope that Scott would once again inspire the dark sci fi noir.
The majority of Batman vs. Superman was their inner struggle of "am I doing the right thing?" whereas the villain was highly motivated and did not need validation. Even when the villains efforts are thwarted, he still tends to hold strong to what he is set out to do, whereas setback with Superhero's cause them to waiver. Why is this? Discuss
Perhaps the writer can delve into some simple psychology for the comparisons. For example, sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. – Venus Echos9 years ago
I think it just depends. At the same time the hero is meant to stand for something. They are to be seen as a way that they are still human and have struggles. They know that what they are doing may seem right, protecting people, but is it really the right thing. It is that idea of knowing what is really right and what is really wrong that defines heroes. The villains however look for self interest, so they naturally do not get set back by their disbelief. – josefcdavis9 years ago
I think many villains struggle with their inner conflict that is self-centered--what makes them so evil is their absolute inability to have empathy for others. – Jason0527149 years ago
A fully developed villain should have some sort of inner struggle. The struggle should also create pathos for the villain on the part of the audience. Another type of villain is one who is ensnared by one of the seven deadly sins: greed, lying etc. Villains also serve as a foil for the superhero. Some great villains are humans who show how inhuman they are towards people. Some villains do struggle with morality do they not? – Munjeera9 years ago
I think both superheroes and villains have had struggles with morality, and took different paths with regard to it. They have questioned it, and as a result of this questioning, they have made their choice of becoming who they were meant to be - either villains or superheroes: the former having abandoned the idea of morality, the latter always employing it as one of their values, and becoming their emblem. – Susanna Princivalle9 years ago
With the release of the latest biographical film (biopic), "I Saw the Light"–about the core years of the career of Country Music legend, Hank Williams–it is beginning to look like the events depicted in biopics of this nature follow a pretty predictable pattern, no matter how real or how embellished the events actually are. And these events are not just subject to musicians, they are also true of actors, directors, business men, and many others.
The protagonist is most often a famous man. They end up courting, dating, and/or marrying multiple women during their life. In the middle of each marriage they are sleeping around. Half the time one of the wives is also sleeping around. There's domestic violence, drinking problems, drugs, and abuse. Mistreatment of children and/or custody battles with one or more of the wives. Spiraling depression. Some terribly awkward event that ruins the protagonist's PR. Heated arguments over artistic differences with record producers, executives, business partners, and so on. And many many moments of sobering honesty when the main character finally lets down his guard, and speaks truthfully about himself and his issues.
Now of course, these are just facts of life. The reason these things are in a large portion of bio-pics (eg. The Aviator, Chaplin, J. Edgar, and the new Steve Jobs film) is because every person in these films was at times greedy, lustful, selfish, short-sighted, insensitive, and likely cared too much about their fame and fortune to put anything else ahead of it. And yet, there are still other biopics about famous individuals who either did not lead lives as ugly as these, or at least had lives that were filled with more positive noteworthy events, which their biographies tend to highlight more than the darker anecdotes. Films like "Gandhi," "The King's Speech," "Lawrence of Arabia," "Ed Wood," "Ali:" where their stories are not so much defined by their tragedies, but by their triumphs, both behind-the-scenes and in front.
So my question is this: is a biopic worth being made about certain famous individuals, even if their lives are basically as sad and tragic as someone else's who already has a film about them?
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this concept so perhaps a comprehensive study of a) the most popular biopics and b) the most acclaimed biopics over the past decade or two might be necessary to really make this work. It would be interesting to see if the biopic is a reflection of trends in Hollywood, be it creatively or production wise. – jwiderski9 years ago
I brought up this topic because every time I watch a Bio-pic, I sometimes get something interesting and original, with facts I never knew before, but usually I get the same old story of adultery, drinking, depression, failure, and regret, despite the good things a particular individual may have done in their life. And my point was, is there a reason to make a film about one person or another, if there really isn't anything unique or special to say about them, other than what has already been said or shown about another person with a similar life? Because the more I watch bio-pics, the more I see many tending to follow a predictable pattern: I'm often not surprised or engaged when I watch them, because I can just feel the the next beat in the story coming from a mile away. If you don't think you've noticed this pattern, then that's perfectly fine. But I think it's visible enough for someone to give it a deeper look. It's really less about the film aspect, and more about "Does this person's story NEED or deserve to be told? Is it unique and important enough to warrant an entire film?" – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
"is there a reason to make a film about one person or another, if there really isn't anything unique or special to say about them, other than what has already been said or shown about another person with a similar life?" - the rationale behind making films is always, will it make money? Never forget that the film industry in a business. – louisestupar9 years ago
I'm in the business, so I am well aware that money is the deciding factor. But even with that said, what is it about certain individuals that would make people want to go see a film about them, especially if you have no idea who they are or who they were? Because some of the people who get films aren't that interesting in the end, even if they did something miraculous. And like I've explained above, their stories are basically the same as many other real life people. You could basically take any number of bio-pics and plot out the beat-by-beat similarities between them, and how they're almost all the same film, with only the details being what differentiates them. Other fiction and non-fiction movies can have similar beat-by-beat plots as well, but I just feel that biopics are far more obvious in this regard. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Some biopics inspire more than others. For instance, I saw Concussion and am a huge Will Smith fan, HUGE! But as a biopic, Concussion did not answer the question of why the doctor was so invested in pursuing truth, his religious beliefs, his integrity as a doctor or his idealism of being an American citizen. Dr. Bennet Omalu did not suffer from the perils of success that you have pointed out. In fact, he maintains the movie is not about him but the issue of concussions, humble man that he is. But I felt dissatisfied with the conclusion even though I loved the movie. I felt the movie should have celebrated the success of Dr. Omalu and could have shown the effects of his research more than it did. But, I couldn't help but smile as I read your responses to biopics. My understanding of your criticism is that perhaps you feel biopics should be inspirational and raise our awareness of the power of the common human being to show how we can triumph over insurmountable obstacles to find a way not just to survive but thrive, yes? Otherwise what is the point of telling this person's story? The qualities of the person, their courage and their character, should be worthy of a story. Perhaps this new trend in biopics is a result of a shift in moviegoers who want to see the flawed and real character, rather than an idealized version of a hero. Rather than being uplifted nowadays, maybe audiences want to be able to say, "Hey, here is a guy/girl just like me and they did something great." I also think this trend toward depicting the negative side is growing, perhaps sadly. I just saw 10 Cloverfield (spoiler alert). The premise of the movie was that instead of a heroic stereotype of a person who survives in a post-apocalyptic world, a pedophile, had the resources to survive the alien invasion. I think this trend will find a small market but hopefully biopics will be made that do inspire us to lift ourselves out of the mundane to do something worthwhile. We do need inspiration. – Munjeera9 years ago
