It would seem the majority of casual film-goers have no time, or interest, in films from overseas. Has this always been the case, or is such neglect for foreign cinema a new development? With the rapidly growing popularity of reality TV shows, along with social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, is the attention required to sit through a subtitled film merely regarded as a waste of time and effort by the average citizen? Any thoughts?
This has always been a problem, though things have actually improved in terms of acknowledging foreign films. Critically at least. The general public doesn't have much interest. This may be due to a very centralized view of the world in general. – Joseph Manduke IV9 years ago
You could also argue that with the rise of technology, the access to foreign films is made easier. The critics and festivals make a point to discover, distribute and showcase foreign films as part of a more 'globalized' world. And when they get critically acclaimed in prestigious festivals like Cannes or at the Academy Awards, the general public follows since it has been 'recognized' by big (mainstream?) institutions. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
I love world cinema and music. Recently I watched "Winter Under Fire" about Ukranian politics. Hoping to see "A Tale of Love and Darkness" because Natalie Portman is a great international actress. That is why I think marketing to the West is a major problem in getting to see movies in languages other than English. Netflix and Youtube do a great job of making movies accessible and Netflix will recommend one foreign film if you watch a few which leads to some pleasant surprises. As Rachel said, tech helps. But for most people I think if international productions houses were able to advertise easily in the West that would make a difference, international awards shows help and also awards in Hollywood could help, if inclined to do so. I think you are right though because even for a world cinema fan like me, it does involve some effort. But since I am addicted, I do it. That is one thing to watch out for is that once you get into it, it's too engrossing. I loved the Japanese comedy "Shall We Dance" in 1996 and am still going strong. Munjeera
– Munjeera9 years ago
This is a hard topic to write about so the article will probably have to be personal yet rely on statistics, investigations and numbers as well. The conditions of how we watch a film are extremely important as they influence our reception, understanding and appreciation of the film. Watching a classic like The Usual Suspects on a small screen is never as satisfying as watching it on a big screen. Yet classics are very rarely projected again on big screens. In Paris, a cinema has just opened, specializing in projecting Hollywood and French classics on a big screen once again for the public. How much are screen size and ratio important in our experience of the film? How can you read a film through the cinema experience and through the home experience? How aware are the distributors on this subject and how does it influence their decision? In contrast, can we appreciate a film more at home, in the comfort of our personal space? How does our experience change if we watch it on TV? On a laptop?
I think it changes in that when we goto a theater, we are going out of our way for that experience. The theater is exclusively a place for films to be watched, the home is not so. Our attention is easily diverted and in all likelihood not as audio/visually potent as the theater system. The common moviegoer will always deny caring about film vs digital, big screen vs little, high quality sound vs low, or anything else in regard to the film's aesthetic. The thing is that those things make an effect whether or not you realize they are or not. You know something about to come crashing through this door, but why did you know? Because Tarantino Dollied in on the door. This scene feels warm and romantic, but why? Because of the delicate lighting. These things will always make a difference, even to those people who deny their importance. – AaronHunt9 years ago
I've always found a horror to be more frightening in a cinema, a comedy to be more hilarious, and an action sequence to move me closer to the edge of my seat. There's something to be said for group-think, shared emotions in space, and the ability of a theater-goer to feed on the thoughts and emotional reactions of others. Also, my living room can never get as delectably dark as a movie theater. That's important in my book. – Derek Jackson9 years ago
I think the question of medium specificity is often overlooked. This question looks like a great jumping point for a discussion about the sensual or material qualities of cinema. Thank you for sharing.
– InAugust9 years ago
There were lots of extremely good choices for the next Spider Man character. It was highly projected at one time that Asa Butterfield would land the role, but by June, Butterfield was out. There were several other choices as well, and Marvel and Sony both spent an entire year searching. Holland has characteristics that overqualify him, such as his ability to dance and do his own stunts, especially flips. But what were to happen if someone else was chosen? How would they rank against Tom, and each other? If Tom wasn't a good choice, who should they have chosen? Spider Man, according to Marvel.com, is "the most successful franchise in the history of Sony Pictures, with the five films having taken in more than $4 billion worldwide," after all. Did they pass off the role to the right person?
It would be a little odd and wrong to judge actors against Holland without the film actually being released yet. Perhaps instead of comparing to Holland you could inclue him in the discussion into what would make him a good Spider-Man as well as the "what ifs".
Other than holland and Butterfield I didn't really know which actors were up for consideration so maybe as well as discussing the actors you could talk about the different people who have taken on the persona of Spider-Man: obviously Peter Parker and Myles Morales but maybe also an older Parker or a new character altogether. – Jamie White9 years ago
It's a marvel film, I don't think it really matters. They could used a chimpanzee, call him Banana Parker and fans will still love it – Lazarinth9 years ago
I know from experience that Netflix is very popular among college students as a form of amusement and stress-relieving. I think this might be an interesting topic to talk about how it might be affecting their education and/or social experiences at college. Is this a problem? or does it have the capability to eventually become a problem?
Can Netflix lead to procrastination when in college? Sure, but so will a million other things like playing video games, hanging with friends, and watch sports. Netflix is hardly a bad thing because college students need a break from all the studying and writing they have to do. But like anything that is fun, it can soon become addicting. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Perhaps Netflix isn't necessarily bad for success in college, but maybe there's a factor that separates these two: health. Too much of a good thing sometimes is bad for our bodies. Does Netflix binging have any effect or relationship to physical, mental, social, etc. health? And how does THAT affect one's college experience? It's really interesting how popular of an outlet this is for students to spend free time nowadays. – James Smith9 years ago
Procrastination occurs in all college students. I'm supposed to be writing an English paper right now. – AlyssaMariano9 years ago
I find that having Netflix on while I do my work actually reduces the likelihood of me procrastinating because I won't feel like all I'm doing is work. It tricks the mind. However, there is an additional likelihood that it detracts from the typical idea of social experiences. More often than not people are talking about Netflix and chill rather than hooking up at a party, and if you are bored with friends you can turn on a show or movie and distract yourself. – Catherine Conte9 years ago
I think Netflix becomes a problem when you let it become one. If one knows how to successfully manage their time between studying and Netflix, there really shouldn't be a problem. I think it really just depends on the kind of student you are. – iamclystanieves9 years ago
I'll admit that I have the urge to visit Netflix every now and then, especially when I should be reading for classes. However, since I'm an English major aspiring to become a film critic, I often find that some Netflix viewing enriches my life as a student. I'm pretty selective about what I watch, and the films/TV shows I watch offer new perspectives on certain topics I study in my English classes. Everyone always says that a little bit of reading goes a long way, but I think a lot of people underestimate how film can be just as beneficial as reading, if not more so. – Ben Bouffard9 years ago
Growing up in a house of women, I've watched a lot of romantic comedies at time. Call it an acquired taste or Stockholm Syndrome, I've grown quite an affection for them. For a genre so heavily associated with the female demographic, its surprising (or depressingly unsurprising) to see that most of the creative forces behind these films are guys. Admittedly most of these movies tend to formulaic and pandering often attributed to simple creative laziness or not showing the genre's main demographic much respect. This is all standard extrapolation, yet it seems that the films in the romance genre that do get some form of critical acclaim are mostly ones from the male perspective. 500 Days, Eternal Sunshine, even Casablanca are all stories about the romantic struggles of men. Why is this?
Joseph Gordon Levitt's "Don Jon" I would also classify as a romantic comedy from the male perspective. – Cagney9 years ago
I think you nailed it on the head when you said mentioned 'creative laziness'. It is very unfortunate and true that a majority of chick flicks are lackadaisically made and it appears that the main focus of these movies are to pull in money. The films are created with elements that the 'typical female' would appeal to: a physically fit male lead with an established life and a lovable girl-next-door female lead that the female audience can relate to. They blunder through an entertaining ordeal of first dates where something said or done is always lost in translation. This leads to a fight that is only reconciled when the man or woman, usually humiliating themselves in public, does something outrageous to win their significant other back. Then of course, the other is flattered and moved by the oh so lovable other that put themselves through 'all that just to win me back?' It is a stale script that has been overused. – JordanHalkoski9 years ago
Have you done a comparison to romantic comedies that are directed by women vs ones that are directed by men? That could help with your theory. – bcoundif9 years ago
This would be a good topic if the person started with the first chick flick "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and look into how the genre developed in the 80s and 90s. Chick flick queens such as Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts started off and in the 90s Cameron Diaz started off with more male-friendly rom coms like "There's Something About Mary." These are pretty formulaic but maybe the writer could look at the really successful rom coms and how they drove the genre. – Munjeera9 years ago
As a popular reviewing website, Rotten Tomatoes gives an easy to understand percentage ratio to allow people to see what the masses of online critics think of films new and old. With films being rated as soon as they are released, are you one to check the film's rank before deciding on whether a film is worth watching at the cinema or do you not consider reviewer opinions at all before going to the movies?
You could expand on this by looking at a number of movie reviewing sites, like IMDB, Letterboxd, etc., and talk about the differences and similarities between them, how to use them, etc. – Marcie Waters9 years ago
I agree with Marcie, this article should look at other sites and maybe even each of them in relation to what the fan base of the people who use them are. For example, I don't trust Rotten Tomato because it gives bad reviews to movies I think are good because it's a different fan base using the site and rating them, one which doesn't appreciate or understand certain genres. Which sites support which kind of movies the most? – Slaidey9 years ago
I agree with the topic that the website is an easy way of determining wether a movie is good or bad. However, this can spoil the views before watching the film, especially if you have just paid to see it in theatres. Also, I recommend using other movie rating sites to see more opinions on the film. – naomidelottin219 years ago
Rotten tomatoes is very up and down for me, sometimes they get it right, other times it is little more than internet sensationalism. A movie could be nearly perfect but because the internet hates the director it will get a bad review. It is very much a little looking glass for the internet. – lostatsea3039 years ago
This is a topic I've always wanted to write about. The way in which different sites work and when if ever one should let said opinions affect them before viewing the film themselves. What a rating means, how it's scaled, who is posting the ratings, and how many does it take to accurately judge a film? – danielhageman8 years ago
Analyse the methods/extent of effectiveness of the use of the 'bat-voice' by the likes of Michael Keaton, Kevin Conroy, Christian Bale etc. and how it plays into the different dimensions and tones of their respective series.
Maybe include not only how the different voice techniques play into the stories but also how the voice helps define Batman within that story. – TheLegendofPie9 years ago
Maybe focus on how certain Bat-voices are treated in pop culture at large. – FantasticMrMac9 years ago
What do you mean by "bat-voice"? – T. Palomino2 years ago
What do you mean by "effectiveness"? – T. Palomino2 years ago
What do you mean by "dimensions and tones"? – T. Palomino2 years ago
What about animated characters? Do they still get to be analyzed? – T. Palomino2 years ago
When films are claimed to be "based on a true story," it is difficult to discern which parts are based on fact and which are fictional without knowing or researching the true history. But are the majority of viewers concerned with this distinction, or are most simply happy to watch an entertaining movie? Does finding out the actual story 'ruin' the movie, make it more interesting, or have no effect whatsoever?
I think the only downfall of movies like this are when people believe all of its details as the "gospel truth." If they take every facet literally, and refer to embellished or completely fictional events in the film as proof of their rightness in an argument over actual historical facts, then that is a problem. But beyond that, I don't think anybody really cares, nor do they need to. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
All in all, these are movies, and movies are made to entertain. Most "Based on a True Story", do have to add content to keep the film interesting. I can't remember one movie in this genre, that didn't have added material. It's inevitable, mostly because no ones life, is actually that dramatic. Yes, there are dramatics, but not enough to cover a 2 or so hour movie. – ADenkyirah9 years ago
I think the disclaimer "based on a true story" should be enough to advise audiences that not every detail is true to life. Discrepancies sometimes lead to dissatisfaction with the end result when the person portrayed in a less than positive light though. One example is in Blindside, where the main character was depicted as somewhat slow speaking and inarticulate. It was insulting. In this instance, it ruined the movie for me. – Munjeera9 years ago
I think people take that disclaimer seriously. They won't search later about the true event which actually happened and if someone asks about the topic, they would talk about the movie. Sometimes it ruins the movie, when you actually find out what happened. – exavenger9 years ago
I think it depends on the movie and how far they stray from actual events. If it's a well-done film that doesn't stray too far, then I think viewers won't mind the disclaimer. They are able to get a general idea, and if they really care, they will look up the facts. They understand that the director couldn't depict the actual events 100% accurately, for either practical or entertainment purposes. If a film is poorly done and also strays too far from the facts, then the "based on a true story" line loses its importance. – fmcfarland9 years ago
I think the emotions connected with knowing the true story are in some ways comparable to those that are relevant when translating a fictional story from a book to a movie. If you read and enjoy a book, then see a movie version that goes in a pretty radically different direction, or changes or ignores details that you view as important, you will probably be pretty disappointed with the movie, whereas if you had not read the book first, it may have stood alone as a good movie. Movies based on true stories often manipulate the story to create a message that really was not there before, so it is important to remember that the movie was framed to accomplish a purpose, whereas the true story was just life. – skylanier9 years ago
Based on emotional intelligence impact, I think people are more inclined to watch a ''true story'' movie, thus believing it will be more interesting to an extent. Of course, the level of questioning if the movie is based on the true turn of events depends on how far the sci-fi approach runs. Well done movies can illustrate a true story in a worth watching manner and sometimes invoke a further interest to search for that very story. – Lostinfiction9 years ago
The casual moviegoer is likely not interested in these details, but movie junkies, and those that know the story well would be interested. The value to most seems to be in the entertainment value, and overall quality of the movie - because if the movie is poorly made, that is off-putting to casual moviegoer, and movie junkie alike. Further, there does seem to be some overlap in cult favourites, and as such, you may find that you touch upon this area of cinema. – JDJankowski9 years ago
