Film

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.

Latest Topics

7

The Meaning of the Labyrinth in Pan's Labyrinth (2006) and The Labyrinth (1986)

Deconstruct and draw parallels between the representation of the labyrinth in Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth (2006) and Jim Henson's The Labyrinth (1986). What is the labyrinth an allegory for? What does the journey imply for the time periods that the films are set in? What do the creatures represent that the main character encounters?

  • Perhaps examining the original labyrinth of Daedalus would be helpful. – JDJankowski 9 years ago
    22
  • Labyrinths in history are a symbol of confusion. Situations in our lives can leave us feeling lost in a proverbial maze. The trick to the symbol is there is a way out of any labyrinth, albeit a hard one to discover. – ACMoore 9 years ago
    15
  • I'm sure a twenty-paged paper could cover this well. I'll just say, they are ancient references. They are strangely earthy symbols of mythology. They are symbols of whatever you want (in these two, deceit is a big theme). But don't be frustrated by the endless dead-ends. Just be like the labyrinth-jumpers of The Cat Returns and run over the walls instead. – IndiLeigh 9 years ago
    8
  • The central ambiguity in Pan's Labyrinth is whether the protagonist's experiences are real or are fantasies caused by her mind's attempt to process trauma. – JLaurenceCohen 9 years ago
    6
  • I agree with IndiLeigh--a twenty page paper on this would be glorious. In my perception, the labyrinth acts as setting for a type of escapism for the protagonists in both films. They are allowed to stray from their realities - the harsh one of Ofelia's and the perceived harsh one of Sarah's - into a world where they yield power and control that they otherwise don't feel they have. Ofelia must navigate a violent and oppressive world to find acceptance and wonder and safety, and Sarah must navigate herself to gain a mature understanding of real vs. fantasy and why each are important to her world. – kyn19 9 years ago
    7
1

The Star Wars Cinematic Universe: Will it Prove Better Than the MCU?

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (or MCU) has proven over the past 7 years to be a strong, viable, profitable, and well-beloved series of films, which plan to continue forward with at least two films every year with no end in sight. But now, Star Wars is looking to break out into its own Cinematic Universe, and spawn an ongoing series of both episodic and stand-alone films. So what could this mean?

With the Marvel films, each film is gathering plot points, characters, and events from decades of material that all must be accounted for in order to make sure that certain elements that have been established for decades are stay consistent. With Star Wars, the new execs at Lucas Film and Disney have decided to throw out the majority of its expanded universe in order to allow the most creative freedom and a clean slate going forward, hopefully with the result that the newly expanding universe will be more coherent and consistent between all previous and future installments. On the Marvel side the mandate requires that each screenplay include Easter-eggs or plot details from future Marvel properties within the story, so that a large interconnected web can be constructed between every film. This has resulted in many artistic and creative arguments. On the Star Wars side, Lucas Film and producer Kathleen Kennedy seem less interested in mandating any particular rules for the writers and directors, in favor of letting everyone work freely as they please, in order to get the best possible stories and films out of them.

For Marvel, “The Avengers” was an enormous step forward not just for legitimizing a more cartoonish comic-book universe on film, but it was the first ensemble super-hero movie that was actually helmed by a talented director who could handle the task, and it proved a huge success. But with the release of pre-order tickets for “The Force Awakens,” Star Wars seems more than capable of breaking every record at an unbelievable margin not only because of the brand, but because the right people are running the show, and making this film an event no one should miss. So what does that mean for the Star Wars films that come afterwards? Is it possible that the Star Wars Cinematic Universe could surpass the MCU in terms of filmmaking quality, world-building, and drawing power; or is all of this just hopeful speculation, and it could just as easily run into all of the same problems that Marvel has, and an eventual over-saturation of its own brand?

  • Sorry Cmandra, I'm not sure if this entirely fixes the issues you had with it. It's honestly a bit hard of a topic to explain in a short few paragraphs. If this still doesn't sound quite right to you, please let me know. – Jonathan Leiter 9 years ago
    1
  • I think it is important to note that Marvel is working with a preconceived time-table that outlines the story line and plot as well as what movies will be coming out at what time. They are planning their extensive universe well in advance. However, the Star Wars Universe, although cleaning the slate by disregarding what was considered canon but came after the movies, does not-as far as I know-have any plans laid out for future projects. – courtlynn 9 years ago
    2
  • I tried to allude to that in my opening sentence. And that's precisely part of the issue. Is Star Wars destined to be a much stronger series due to the current lack of a very specific time schedule, and no apparent "Big-event" films which must be properly foreshadowed in earlier installments? Or are Star Wars and Marvel pretty much in the same boat? – Jonathan Leiter 9 years ago
    0
  • The other day I came across old Star Wars canon novelizations and graphic novelizations and was surprised to remember and discover how vast the worlds really were. I grew up reading things like The Jedi Apprentice (about Obi Wan Kenobi and Qui Gonn Jin's relationship) and sequels to the films. Some were authorized by George Lucas himself. This is all to say that there is immense potential in the Star Wars universe. The movies almost die to have context and ensembles that the format doesn't allow, and maybe fans want more than the animated Clone Wars and Rebels series. So I think that if the effort is genuine--i.e. if they get the right, enthusiastic, cooperative creators on board--they could really launch the Star Wars ship. I think of this not really in context of Marvel; they seem so different now. I don't think anyone will stop that woken giant! – IndiLeigh 9 years ago
    0
1

What could happen with romantic entanglements in Star Wars 8/9?

There is a lot of chatter online (social media and news sites) about relationships and orientations in Star Wars The Force Awakens, and the later upcoming films. For example there is talk of chemistry between Finn and Poe, the more obvious heterosexual pairing of Finn and Rey, or even a poly relationship between the three. Is there a possibility for a gay/poly relationship, or are these options merely being dangled over hopeful fans? It is not the first time this has been done, if only considering the indulgent hints at Sherlock/Watson in BBC Sherlock.

An article can look at opinions online about possible pairings, and exploring other examples of dangling certain non-canon couples over the fans without committing to the relationship could provide interesting context. As can looking at the trend for fanfiction with non-canon couples. Also good to think what effects certain relationship choices could have over viewers, plot and social progression.

  • I think there's probably room for a gay relationship in Star Wars -- Poe for example, is an awesome and likeable character whose primary attributes are bravery, wit and awesome piloting. He displays absolutely no sexual or romantic leanings anywhere within Force Awaken's run time. Making him gay would be easy, contradict nothing pre-existing about the character and change nothing we like about him. He's a perfect candidate really, because up until now his sexuality has been left completely blank. I do hate that people keep pairing him with Finn, though. Not that Finn's sexuality is set in stone, or anything, but c'mon guys, can't two men still have a friendship without sexual overtones? I know that in some ways romantic relationships are inherently more interesting, but just because we should be moving toward a higher visibility of LGBTQ relationships, doesn't mean good old fashion friendship isn't a useful narrative device. – CrunchyEnglish 9 years ago
    0
  • Agreed that I find it counter-intuitive that the chemistry between Finn and Poe is automatically seen as potential for a homosexual coupling. Can't men just be buddies on screen any more? Also, the writer of this should be careful not to fall into the trap of so many bloggers that the show 'dangles options over hopeful fans'. The whole issue people raise of 'bait' and the writer's intent to create it often creates mind-numbing discussion that treats sexuality as something far more black-and-white than we should be treating it in the modern world. Spring 2015's anime 'Hibike! Euphonium' was a prime example of this. At the very least, the other side of the coin should be also considered - how some fans can be desperate for and do anything they can to encourage non-canonical or non-conventional couplings. i.e. when it's the viewer's input more than the show's design that causes these couplings to become 'options'. Finn/Poe ought to be approached from this angle, IMO. – JekoJeko 9 years ago
    0
2

Will Star Trek: Beyond fall short?

Due to J.J. Abrams's recent involvement in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, he was unable to direct the third new Star Trek, leaving it to Justin Lin (Fast and Furious) to direct. Will the signature mark that Abrams's left on the series lose its aura that was present in Star Trek and Star Trek: Into Darkness? Abrams's is producing Star Trek: Beyond, however, so perhaps his creativity will find its way into the new one as well.

  • You could also discuss if the series has become too action oriented. Sure, it is a Hollywood blockbuster, and action gets audiences into seats; that is to be expected. However, the Star Trek series was more about philosophy and ideas, and the new Rebooted Star Trek film series keeps moving further and further away from that theme. This is apparent in the fact they got Justin Lin, an action director, to direct Star Trek: Beyond. – Aaron Hatch 9 years ago
    4
  • I also think that the new series is a natural progression within the series' larger path toward focusing on military strategy, although with the new film they may be pulling back from that a little. – IanB58 9 years ago
    0
  • I agree with Aaron, I love star trek because it was more based on philosophy and ideas, it was great to see the characters (the crew) think through/live through ethical dilemmas. – writingstudent 8 years ago
    0
2

Which is Better for Hollywood: Franchises Built Around Nostalgia, or Franchises Built Around Creative Stories?

If the successes of films like Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens have proven anything, it's that nostalgia is very appealing to movie fans.

The Force Awakens is actually the exact opposite of the prequels — where the prequels had a creative story (with a goal) and largely poor acting, Force Awakens has a largely derivative story (with no ending in sight beyond Episode IX) and good acting. The upcoming Ninja Turtles sequel is receiving anticipation from fans who have accepted the lack of story in the new bunch of films and just want to see Rocksteady and Bebop on the screen. Guardians of the Galaxy also relies heavily on nostalgia, albeit that of society rather than cinematic. Regardless of shortcomings, audiences continue to see these movies and these movies continue to get made.

So what will ultimately be more financially successful in the long term for the already extremely perilous and risky film industry: appealing ever more to certain fanbases' nostalgia (until that fanbase ages out and a new fanbase comes in), or appealing to everyone's imagination through more originality and creativity?

  • This is a very interesting topic! I would be interested to see the article this would inspire. I would like to say in your first paragraph you mention both Jurassic World and Star Wars. Then in your second paragraph you discuss Star Wars, and TMNT; as a reader I was expecting a comment on Jurassic World instead. TMNT was kind of a surprise, although an interesting point to make and I think it's valuable to the post. But another mention of Jurassic World would strengthen the topic. Also, your title is a bit long, perhaps shortening it to something like: "Nostalgic Franchises vs. Creative Story Plots; Debating Blockbuster Success". – Megan Finsel 9 years ago
    2
  • Thank you so much, and great points! Yeah I was just kind of riffing across the spectrum. – IanB58 9 years ago
    0
  • And why can't we have both kinds of stories? Why must all things in Hollywood be dealt with in absolutes?! :) – IanB58 9 years ago
    0
  • I don't know if these series are successful because of nostalgia, necessarily. It's not as if Star Wars just went away in between 2005's Revenge of the Sith and 2015's The Force Awakens. It's been around, just not in movie format. There have been comics, books, and TV shows that have carried the Star Wars name during that time. Similarly TMNT has been rebooted a couple different times, once in 2003 and again in 2012. As such, a huge number of people have been exposed to Star Wars and TMNT at various points in time, so it's not really fair to say that these filmmakers are appealing to "niche" markets. They're fairly mainstream properties with millions of followers. – ericg 9 years ago
    0
  • Great points! But is the key thing in these movies appealing to the audience through new story, or calling to the memory of previous works? Visceral connections over intellectual ones, possibly even very much an extension of explosions and effects. – IanB58 9 years ago
    0
3

The Mask and the Machine in 'The Force Awakens'

"Take off that mask," Solo said to Ren, venturing further onto the bridge. "You don't need it."*

But what would Star Wars be without them? An analysis of The Force Awakens centred around this symbol offers the viewer many windows into aspects of character and theme, particularly when contrasted to A New Hope, which Episode Seven so blatantly sets itself in juxtaposition to. What roles do masks in Star Wars create, and how are these challenged and manipulated by characters? How does Finn's acting before he takes off his helmet – effectively mime – create his character? How is Ren's mask, aesthetically and symbolically, different from Vader's, and what is significant about Vader's memorial being his mask (which he discarded at the end of Episode 6)? Comparing the use and implications of masks in the film and franchise to the historical purposes of masks that are also echoed in the movies – for instance, the samurai helmets of the Sith – could yield further insights, though there are many other options for enquiry.

The second focus of the article would be on machines, another key symbolic feature of the Star Wars series. The Force Awakens introduced us to new droids, from scrap to practically sentient. Comparing major characters like BB-8 to the junk droids we see on Jakku (and maybe comparing that comparison to a comparison of R2-D2/C-3PO against the junk droids on Tatooine) is just one path into the topic. Investigating the nature of the technology used by the 'goodies' and 'baddies' of the movie also promises a lot of depth of discussion – why does the Dark Side always go for massive industrial weapons, contrasting to how the Light Side is saved by small, humble droids and the small pieces of data they carry – and why should those tiny things be threats against these massive feats of power?

A strong conclusion would find an insightful way to bring these two together; this can, and perhaps should, govern the entire focus of the article. The writer could use research into the traditions and developments of the theatre to discuss masks and machines (while the former's link to theatre is obvious, one could consider how the latter were used in, say, Victorian melodrama, which Star Wars could be seen to parallel).

The article could consider just one of these symbols, but a controlled comparison should be more exciting.

edit: now considering writing this myself, unless anyone else gets a burning desire to (in which case I can offer

  • One of the most amazing things about the original Star Wars film, "A New Hope," was that the production and costume design was so iconic in its approach. Rather than decking out the villains in colorful, over-the-top "villain-like" apparel--as may be seen in dozens of sci-fi and fantasy anime series and other 1960s/1970s sci-fi--the villains here are more military, but also much more simple and straight-forward. Darth Vader is a dark figure, tall and imposing, but his mask denotes a sense of inner Death. His former self died long ago, and so he wears the death of his former self as an outward shell. The storm-trooper might also be metaphors for skeletons of sorts, but much less human-like, and far more like flimsy shells that are easily shot through: whereas Darth Vader's shell is hard to penetrate and disrupt. Kylo Ren is not nearly as iconic right off the bat as a dark skeletal man with a Samurai styled head-piece, but he forges his own identity none-the-less, by trying to impersonate the look of Vader, and yet not verbatim. – Jonathan Leiter 9 years ago
    1
  • It's supposed to say 'offer my thoughts' at the end; the text box let me put in in but it cut it off once it got published... – JekoJeko 9 years ago
    0
2
Published

Comic Book Movie War: DC VS Marvel

With the continuous success of Marvel movies popularizing the live-action comic book adaptation since the 2002 "Spider-Man" starring Tobey Maguire, and the re-vitalization of DC's Batman franchise in the 2005 reboot by Christopher Nolan, superheroes has become a feature of mainstream Hollywood blockbuster. 2016 marks the beginning of phase 3 of the Marvel cinematic universe with "Captain Amercia: Civil War" and DC's first attempt upon expansion with "Dawn of Justice", the age-long rivalry between the two comic book juggernaut take each other head on for the first time on the silver-screen. Who will win box office in 2016 and which will be more well-received by the critics?

  • If I recall, Toby McGuire was a movie character played by Tom Cruise. You may want to change that detail accordingly. – JDJankowski 9 years ago
    0
  • JDJankowski - Tobey Maguire was the actor who played Peter Parker in the 2002 "Spider-Man" movie (source here -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/); Tom Cruise was not involved. Tofuboy - this is a really intriguing topic! Grammatically, the post needs a little revision to make your main points clearer. Please reconsider your wording and sentence structures (i.e. the first sentence is a run-on etc.) Otherwise, great ideas! – Megan Finsel 9 years ago
    1
  • Batman vs Superman has received a LOT of hype, everyone is looking forward to it! Will it rival the Avengers movies? The thing is that it seems as though DC has a fan barrier I have yet to penetrate and I'm sure a lot of casual superhero movie watchers feel the same. It's all about Batman... That's all I know, that's all I've really watched and honestly it feels like that's mostly what they put out. With good cause considering I never watched Man of Steel and AM invested in Batman, but unlike Marvel it feels like they don't try to cover the spectrum of heroes at there disposal. Marvel is even reaching out to previously unknown/unpopular heroes in their Netlfix series like Daredevil who is unlikely to contribute to the movie franchise... and what does DC do in response? Gotham. Is this focus on Batman helping DC with a dependable fanbase or is it hindering them from getting new people invested in their world overall? – Slaidey 9 years ago
    2
1

Star Wars Vs. Star Trek

A historical analysis of the Star Wars/Star Trek "rivalry." Is/Was it really as big as some people make it out to be? Can one be a fan of both franchises? It seems like a silly thing to say today that you have to choose one or the other, but I'd be interested to read about the histories of both franchises and how the so-called "rivalry" came about.

  • I think I heard someone say recently that the "nerd rivalry" we see satirized in sitcoms between Trekkers and Jedis is a fabrication. It doesn't really happen. Fans are far more cordial towards each other at conventions, unless we're talking about Sports. Sports really do have bitter rivalries, and it's pretty visible. I personally am an average fan of both franchises. I've rather enjoyed the original Star Trek series. I used to watch a lot of Next Generation. And I've seen every one of the films save for "Star Trek: Nemesis." But I supposed I would say I'm a slightly bigger fan of Star Wars, which I'm even more excited for now, since we're supposed to get a brand new film in the franchise every single year till who knows when. There's so much potential for both franchises, though, that if Paramount can figure out what to do after "Star Trek: Beyond," they might be able to directly compete each year with Star Wars, if they want to. – Jonathan Leiter 9 years ago
    1