Much of the holiday season is saturated with a canon of Christmas movies. However, the recent release of "Krampus" has reminded movie goers that there are some darker holiday legends. Analyze these lesser known stories and whether or not you think they should be considered for holiday prime time.
What I like about this concept is that we can start expanding the lens through which we look at holidays. Many of the modern Christian religions have pagan and polytheistic roots, and gives writers and audiences new territory to explore in regards to other cultural mythologies, as long as the proper respect is paid to the originators and the context of the story. – artemis8229 years ago
I love this idea, and agree with the above comment - there are a lot of darker roots that would be fun to explore. Great concept! – Hannah Spencer9 years ago
I think they should be explored. At the very least some of them have some moral lessons. And others remind us of what's important in life. – Tatijana9 years ago
Wow, I love this concept! I am totally up for exploring the roots of holidays! As someone who identifies as pagan, I would love to see the original roots of the holidays explored more. I don't know if "holidays" specifically refers to the winter season or holidays in general, but the director of "Krampus," Michael Dougherty, has done the original, "darker holiday legends" theme with both "Krampus" and "Trick 'r Treat" (Samhain). In regards to "Krampus," It is also an interesting question how we determine what is a true "holiday movie." Krampus is a Christmas movie, but it likely won't air on Lifetime any time soon. – emilydeibler9 years ago
Krampus has come up in recent years in different genres of tv as well. American Dad has an episode revolving around Krampus. Although not Krampus, in The Office (US) Dwight brings up the Christmas legend of Belsnickel. What's inspired the reintroduction of Christmas-time dark tales? Are we just bored of Santa Claus? – Slaidey9 years ago
Since The Curse of the Black Pearl, Pirates of the Caribbean has been a major franchise for Disney. However, ever since the end of the original trilogy, it's sort of lost its original flair. Should it continue? What should Disney do to revive interest when the fifth one does come out? Why make more?
Maybe detail a few of the major flaws from On Stranger Tides, and how the series has gotten worse from it's premier to it's latest flop. – luminousgloom9 years ago
I was surprised at how... flat and lifeless, and even copycat-ish "On Stranger Tides" both looked and felt in comparison to the Gore Verbinsky trilogy. Nothing about the production looked or acted authentic, and it seemed as if everyone was simply going through the motions in an attempt to recapture the same magic. Almost like the film could have better served as a TV special rather than a theatrical production. However, I think the two key flaws here are the director and the writer(s), as is quite often the case. A more imaginative writer and a more stylistic director would greatly improve the chances of Pirates of the Caribbean regaining its former footing again. I absolutely adore the first three films, almost all equally, because when it comes to movie magic, and great movie-going experiences, I just can't think of anything more perfect and indicative of the concept than Pirates. Pirate stories in general are pretty damn awesome. So I'd love to see them do more if they can make it work. Though, it might actually be nice if they moved away entirely from Jack Sparrow, and created a new lead character who's also a Pirate of some unique background, and gave him a new crew of misfits. That might allow the franchise to revive itself. I love Jack, I really do. But Johnny isn't going to be young and fit for much longer, and I really don't want another Indiana Jones 4, where we keep the same actor around just because they were the coolest part of a franchise. Yes, you will never be able to truly replace them, but you can at least try, or create a brand new character who can be played by someone with a bit more youthful energy. And for Pete's sake, can we please go back to the grimy, greasy green color grading? "On Stranger Tides" felt like the whole movie was lit with flourescents, and it was just too darn pale. Like... that's not what a "Pirate" movie should look like. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Agreed, completely. Changes in directors made the Pirates movies feel more like a removed special, something far removed from canon into something else, something foreign to the Pirates magic. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
I hated the opening scene too. It was too slow, too bizarre, confusing, and shoehorning Jacks dad in again was unnecessary. The opening to Pirates 2 was much more quirky and entertaining. I also never fully understood why Barbosa looked so bad by Pirates 4. Was it all like... a side-effect of his ressurection, where he's hyper-aging and decaying right before our eyes? I don't get it. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
What about its original flair is missing? Maybe clarify on that. I can see how they are sort of going a different direction with the series now, but I did notice that Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley will be back, which is actually really confusing. Try adding your thoughts on how they remove and bring back characters. – kendalld9 years ago
From the first film, Pirates of the Caribbean has basically focused on the inherent code of piracy. But there's a moral dilemma here. Does it defend piracy? Does it deplore it? What message does it send to kids who watch the movie? In the end, are the British Royal Navy really the bad guys?
Swashbuckling and looting on the high seas have always captivated readers. Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island told tales of seafaring outlaws that filled their days by having endless adventures. Their missions included visiting islands seeking riches, battling vicious savages and fighting the oppressive British Navy. The lifestyle of piracy was not entirely anarchistic because loyalty was carefully measured using laws; these supported by an honorable self-governed system. The pirate code of conduct was a way to punished captured enemies as well as providing a necessary social contract between the captain and his crew, an accord that if broken, resulted a stroll off the plank regardless of their rank. More importantly, why was this society revered or even respected by audiences? Is it the little guy taking on the big bad government? These were killers, rapists, etc. It seems odd that we vilify modern day Ethiopian pirates with machine guns yet Europeans are romanticized? Is only white piracy glorious? – Jason0527149 years ago
I believe in one sense the film also shows people's perception of what piracy was during the colonial era. For those who approach to write this particular topic, it would be essential to understand what were some of the circumstances that gave rise to piracy in this time period, and why people misunderstood pirates. – aferozan9 years ago
I don't think the film, in any way, actually condones the act of piracy. Because at no point do we ever see the "hero" pirates, actually steal anything of value (in large quantities anyway) from any innocent bystanders, towns, villages, or rich people. Barbosa's crew ransacks Port Royal because he's desparate to get back all of the gold pieces that belonged to the chest of Cortez, which had cursed them all. But after that point, not a single pirate is seen actually doing what Mr. Gibbs referred to as "a spec of honest piratin'. We DO, however, see them go on adventures, duke it out with a few ships through cannon fire, find ancient treasures and maps to yet more treasures, and involve themselves with curses and magic. All of which are perfectly acceptable things within a fictional story and universe. Yes, they are pirates. Yes, pirating is entirely and morally wrong. Yes, the British Navy and Lord Beckett are actually in the right (for the most part) but are portrayed as the antagonists, simply because we are meant to side with the pirates because our protagonists are with them, and we do not wish to see them die at the hands of this manipulative, egocentric, and pompous businessman. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Also, I completely disagree with Jason052714's suggestion that only white piracy is glorious, or can be glorified in media. Clearly there were numerous ethnicities involved in the Pirates films, and who were part of many different crews. I took to liking each and every pirate in those films because of how entertaining they were. Their race never changed my perception of them. In fact, the films never once gave the impression that race mattered at all when it came to Pirate comradery or the Pirate laws. Everybody on each crew seemed pretty swell with each other. So in this way, I don't think race is the reason we don't glorify modern piracy: it's the fact that older piracy has been heavily romanticized by 19th century literature, and 20th century media. The pirate is an explorer: an anti-heroic figure with no rules and no life obligations. They simply go where the wind takes them. And much like Jason and the Argonauts or Sinbad the Sailor, Pirates have been known to encounter legendary mythical beasts and hazards which made their search for "burried treasure" all the more magnificent to read or learn about. Modern pirates have no such romanticising of their exploits, except perhaps among themselves, and maybe certain people who appreciate what they do for whatever reason. But this would have likely been the same back when Pirates really existed. You would have had a majority of people completely against their actions and existence, but a select few who thought they were a magnificent bunch: mostly likely because the pirates themselves were spinning tales about their travels just like any sailor worth his salt might have done once they reached port after each trip. In modern time, and modern society, however, we have much less room for appreciating people like them, ironically or romantically, and no reason to even romanticize the waters of our world, because we know so much more about them now. Ultimately, there is simply too big of a difference between the image of Captain Hook, Black Beard, or Jack Sparrow, and some angry guy on a rusty metal barge holding an automatic weapon in 2016. The time periods aren't the same, the circumstances and worldly awareness of society isn't the same, the costumes and vessels aren't as imaginative or majestic, and their choices of weapon don't leave the same visual or fanciful impression. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I don't think the films so much defend piracy as much as it romanticizes it. It creates this opposition between Barbosa's crew and Sparrow's, and adds in the British Royal Navy as additional pressure for the protagonists, but if they weren't defending themselves from these two groups of people, they certainly would not be volunteering at homeless shelters and reading to the blind. Because the films romanticize Sparrow's group, it keeps the film from actually having to deal with the moral dilemma, especially since Barbosa's group is dehumanized when they are exposed as being living-dead.
As for the message it sends to kids, the films were rated pg-13, or at least the first one was. The fact that it is a sort of period piece displaces it from modern times to the point that the kids in the audience of the series might not recognize any content in the film that could be applied to current-day life.
The only thing, that occurs to me at the moment, that might affect kids watching these films is gender roles. Although the main male characters do not seem as violent as the enemy, Will is often driven by this need to keep Elizabeth safe, which is stereotypical for male roles. But Elizabeth does not play the role of the typical damsel in distress, and throughout the film, and the entire series, she finds clever, sometimes cunning ways to save herself. I'm not sure how that ties into the theme of piracy, but it does sort of perpetuate the stereotypes of males as the protectors, or seeking revenge, or being violent and courageous by nature, when, obviously, men vary a little more beyond that. – Jenn9 years ago
Why do fanboys lose their shit when it comes to the director Michael Bay? Sure, the Transformer movies only get worse with each installment, as the films are filled with overblown explosions and offensively annoying characters. He did also direct Pearl Harbor, which was very historically inaccurate and had very uninteresting lead characters. He is hardly a perfect director, but has the hate for Michael Bay gone too far? His film Pain and Gain was hardly a masterpiece, but it was still an entertaining film, where he makes his character intentionally dislikable as appose to unintentionally dislikable. Yet it seems a lot of people wrote the movie off as crap without even seeing it. Have we, in a way, made Michael Bay into a scapegoat? Have we piled everything people hate in films now-a-days, like over using CGI or the overabundance of sequels, on this one director, who probably isn't really a bad person in real life? Is Michael Bay really one of the worst directors of all time?
Have you seen his films? Have you seen what he can be like in the public sphere? I think there is evidence to suggest that he's what you would call "a boy in a man's body": where his fascination with certain things is both immature and childish. And his reputation both on and off set, as far as I'm aware, is not on good terms. You've basically sealed his fate with your own description, because all of his movies are pop-corn munchers for audiences who don't want a lot of substance. His depiction of women in his films is degrading and far more 1-dimentional than other directors have been known to do. His propensity for explosions errs on the side of ridiculous. And there's just not a lot to respect about the guy. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable defending M. Knight Shayamalan than Michael Bay, because at least Shayamalan is a personable fellow in his interviews, and he seems entirely sincere with what he believes regarding his work. Despite this, I do not think Michael Bay is to blame for movies being the way they are today. I think he is more-so a product of the current big-budget hollywood culture, and he has developed his "style" in a way that reflects the interests of investors and produces who think that what he does will bring in the most box office returns. Besides, we could just as easily argue that Adam Sandler is the crux of Hollywood garbage. Michael Bay just uses more effects. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
The dislike for Michael Bay, insofar as it pertains to his films, is completely justified, because after he created Pearl Harbor, his films have been generally declining in quality, particularly in plot, and writing quality. In this respect, he is quite similar to M. Night Shyamalan. – JDJankowski9 years ago
I somewhat know T.J. Miller, who was in his latest Transformers film, and from what he's said, Michael Bay is very immature. When they were in Florida for press purposes, I believe, he spent many of his nights out getting prostitutes for the cast-- most of whom did not want them. He spent most of his time partying, and there's nothing wrong with that, he has just not grown up. I think one of the Bad Boys movies is actually decent, but that does not excuse everything else he's done. Not a quality director, to say the least. – Kendall9 years ago
How has the recent rise in awareness of our planet's environmental crisis changed the way we tell stories? Such a wide, sweeping issue with such potentially devastating consequences can press itself into the general consciousness and affect creators all around the globe, allowing for an urgent and massive impact on what stories we choose to tell and how we choose to tell them. While there has been a recent surge in both apocalyptic and dystopian films, the question remains as to whether these are tied to the environmental crisis, sourced outside said crisis, or resting somewhere in between.
It would help to use a few examples like Mad Max: Fury Road, which was a very pro-environmentalist film. – luminousgloom9 years ago
What do our representations of AI say about gender and sexuality? Recent films, like Her and Ex Machina, portray specifically female AI. Her presents Samantha as a questing mind with emotional needs similar to those of humans. Samantha has true consciousness in her ability to love Theo. Yet, because she is non-corporeal, she is not quite human. She is "post-lingual" as she says and not limited by space and time as humans are. She is a non-human person. Ex Machina's Ava seems to pass the Turing Test when she proves herself capable of manipulation, deceit, and long-term planning. Unlike Theo, who desires a meaningful relationship with Samantha, Nathan uses Ava's predecessors as sex-objects. Why do these films focus on female AI interacting with men?
Interesting to compare these two films together since they present such distinctly different takes on the 'fem-bot' trope, with 'Her' being an exploration of how genuine feelings can be derived from such a seemingly 'mechanical' relationship to the A.I., whereas 'Ex Machina' focuses conversely on how such feelings can be 'manufactured' into this. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
I think it's a great idea to compare the treatment of AI in these two films. Both are fantastic, in different ways. For research on the topic, I would say it would be wise to keep a few things in mind. As to why are they female?, where both written and directed by men? Probably, because most are in the industry. Perhaps its easier for a male writer to come from that perspective. Maybe there is a correlation between the way women are viewed in media that makes them easier to be seen as a robot? I think there are a few different ways you can take this, and it's going to require a lot of research. Good luck! – kaliveach9 years ago
I think, especially when exploring what it means to be sentient or have agency, discussing how robots that are coded female (assigning genders to robots is intriguing in itself) are treated would be fascinating. To go off what kaliveach said, could making the main female presence robotic dehumanize women, especially if the robot's programming is dependent on a male character's plans and instructions? There are a lot of approaches to this topic in terms of gender and sexuality. – emilydeibler9 years ago
To answer kaliveach's question, yes, both films were written/directed by men (Spike Jonze in the case of Her and Alex Garland in the case of Ex Machina). Ex Machina explicitly focuses on the problems of male geniuses creating "female" robots, whereas Her focuses more on the (in)compatibility between human and AI. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
Blade Runner should definitely get a mention, at least. Deckard has a similar sexual attraction to the replicant Rachael in the film as well as that love/rape scene in between the two. The replicants do seem to have some sort of sense of morality in the film and they are capable of emotion (anger, fear, love(?)).
Also, there's the Voight-Kampf test which is fairly similar to the Turing test but deals with provoking emotion. – Jamie White9 years ago
A topic of great potential: the vastly differing portrayals of AI in both films present a wealth of possible approaches. Looking forward to reading this! – Matchbox9 years ago
With so many video game franchises scheduled to be turned into major motion picture films over the next couple years, explore the brief history of the video game film adaptation. Take a closer look as to why these types of adaptations haven't been very successful, answer some of the tough questions like: can a video game to movie adaptation actually work properly? Do the two mediums have enough in common that lend themselves to adaptation? Can upcoming films like Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, The Last of Us etc. change the trend moving forward? What are the differences of these two mediums?
I think it almost goes without saying that Tomb Raider should be looked at with this article and how the films potentially hurt the games coming after that until the reboot in 2013. Wreck it Ralph though would be a good example of how to do the adaptation well, using familiar game characters, but not as the primary protagonists/antagonists. The writer could look at toys, board games, card games that have received movies off the back of their success; I'm thinking of Bionicle, The Lego Movie and even Battleships.
It may also be worth looking the other way as well. Film/TV to video games like South Park: The Stick of Truth. – Jamie9 years ago
I know many people in the gaming community who liked Tomb Raider. Angelina was a perfect actress to play the first version of ladies cost. The action could have been better but it wad much better then let's say the Super Mario brothers movie. I think with games having more narration to them adaptation will be easier to do. Perhaps the issue is that Hollywood feels that they do not need to pour as much work into the films because they already have a fan base. This may be true of books but games are different and not every liberty can be taken with then add Hollywood has done... "Battleship" – fchery9 years ago
The biggest challenge is the films give narrative control to the film makers. Games give some or all of it to the audience. If you're watching a film in the theaters, you can't control the cinemotography (space/position) and you can't control the editing (time/pacing). In games, though that's often not the case, usually you have some say over how long the game will be played, how it will be played, whether you want to finish it. Moreover, since designers for many reasons can't anticipate all your actions, they often leave a lot of the character work to you. Did you like FFVII in spite of or because of the blocky figures, which forced you to project all sorts of qualities onto Cloud, Aerith, etc? Remember what happened to Nintendo when it tried to give Samus a lengthier back story in Other M? A game like The Last of Us, might work on film, because the game monopolizes most of the story and character development. Indeed, that might be why adaptations of more recent games will do better than earlier ones because in many cases the player has less discretion over how to interpret the story. That is to say, since so many games try to be "cinematic", adapting them should be easier than prior efforts. – rj2n9 years ago
I completely agree with rj2n. For example, also, how will they create Portal? They are going to make it into a film. The fun of the game was figuring things out as the player and using your own skills and thought process to finish the game. Is an audience just going to sit there and watch? – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
On August 30 2015, Wes Craven passed away. He was known for slasher films, in particular, A Nightmare on Elm Street. This article will go in-depth about Wes Craven's contribution to the horror genre, and be an informative article about this film director.
Minor note but "Nightmare of Elm street" should've been "A Nightmare on Elm Street," as far as the title of that film goes. In any case though, another film that needs to been mentioned in an article about Wes Craven is The Last House on the Left (1972) because that was his first film and it was followed by so much controversy over both its advertising (i.e. the tagline "it is only a movie, only a movie...") and its then controversial subject matter of graphic rape and revenge.
– dsoumilas9 years ago
