Marvel, and to a lesser extent DC, have taken the film (and slowly the television industry) by storm. What do superhero movies do for us, and why do we like them so much? Flashback to the early 2000s and we see the germination of the modern superhero film; flashback further and the way in which the superhero film was culturally received varied wildly from how it is today.
Are superhero movies, now, a mock resurgence of patriotism in the face of an ever dwindling sense of privacy? Perhaps we create these larger than life characters in order to find some of ourselves in them; we look to Captain America and Iron Man and see the individual as supreme. The ever powerful individual has the means of affecting global change himself and needs to truly fear no one. Are Americans totally ensnared by this fantastical creation — and most importantly, if they are, is this a good thing? Is it okay for this to go unspoken and unrealized or is our affair with the superhero a rationalization of deeper fears we'd rather not confront?
Why did silent films exit the market? Why were they popular to begin with? The Artist (2011) was an attempt to revive the genre, but it did not change the movie industry. Is it a matter of moving pictures ceasing to be novel, and therefore a movie without sound is just not enough to capture our interest?
I think silent films were popular, because that was all they had at the time. It's a matter of better technology. I'm sure even back then had they had the option of non silent films, the non silent ones would have been more popular. It's the equivalent of having kids that are used to 3D online video games having to play older video games. Although maybe some still enjoy them, they'd still have a preference for the newer stuff. That said, the movie Wall-E still did pretty good. It's not completely silent. It still uses sound, music, and some minor words to set a tone and tell a story. That said, maybe it's still possible to make "silenter" movies, but I think the story would have to be well thought out and it would need to be visually stimulating. Basically, a lot of thought and time would need to be put into its development, and for most people it'd just be easier to make a none silent film where the story can be told in words. – Tatijana9 years ago
I'm not sure I agree with your claim that The Artist was an attempt to revive the genre of silent movies-If I remember correctly, sound was used in a key moment (at the end, I think?). I saw it more as a design and movie-making choice. I do think that an interesting topic could be the use of sound/dialogue in certain movies--Cast Away, for instance, has a significant chunk of time without dialogue. When is the lack of sound effective in film? – cray03099 years ago
It feels like you really should have done your research before bringing up this topic. Because this shouldn't be the place where you get your historical facts checked. If anything is to be clear about how the movie industry developed, and really any technological breakthrough, it is that when something new and exciting comes along that changes the industry enough, it will become the default. When motion pictures came around, people thought it would be a fad, a passing fancy. But that was only because they thought you would sit in a theater, watch some stuff you could see any day out on the street, and then leave. But then people started telling stories with it. Then they started editing the footage so that it cut between camera angles, and it cut back and forth between two simultaneous strings of events and action. So it started to take off. Films became longer and longer, they became bigger and bigger. And then eventually, a few people came up with how to record soundtracks on record, and sync it with the moving pictures. The Jazz Singer wasn't the first to do this, but it popularized the idea in the minds of the producers and the public. Suddenly, every film began incorporating sound as best as it could, despite the loud camera equipment. Only a few directors, especially Charlie Chaplin, seemed stuck in their ways, and refused to go to sound for several more features. But by the mid-30s, everything was sound, because it just seemed so natural to tell a story where people could actually talk, and you could hear everything that they said. Thankfully, that didn't mean the ability to tell a story without words had gone away. Plenty of directors did masterful work with nerry a word a dialogue for most of their pictures' run-time. And quite a few films still do that today. "The Artist" was an experiment, a unique vision to want to tell the story about the transition into sound pictures through the use of a nearly silent one. But to be honest, it was a tough sit for me, because I like to have sound in some respect. Sound effects are an integral part of storytelling now. They are so subtle sometimes and so powerful, that to have no sound and just music feels like a missed opportunity. So maybe if the film had more sound effects (despite their thematic use at certain points), it might have been easier to watch. But just about any director today could tell a story without dialogue, that's what most of their job is all about. So I really think you're asking the wrong questions here. Silent films didn't use to be popular. That's all their was. But they fell out of favor because sound became such a natural inclusion. Trying to bring them back as they were, though, is a tough sell, as I've said. Because all their is is music: no talking, and no sound effects. Which can make a movie feel very claustrophobic and empty at times: in my opinion. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Film has generally been a medium for innovation - whether it be for better or worse. The silent films were popular in the 1920s, because that was the greatest point of innovation in that time. The industry was mostly or entirely composed of 'talkies' by the 1930s. I would question your assertion, regarding "The Artist", because that was an attempt to be - pardon the pun - artsy. This film, further, was very much an anomaly, in the respect that it was a silent film. This would be better suited by far as a review of the movie "The Artist"; and as such, I believe a rejection of topic may be warranted. – JDJankowski9 years ago
@JDJankowski We don't publish reviews on this platform. – Misagh9 years ago
I actually did an article that incorprated some of this topic: films were orignally silent because they developed naturally from Melodrama, which was the most popular form of theatre in the era just before/during the dawn of cinema. There are still many elements of both melodrama and silent cinema is the blockbuster, but as Jonathan said it has evolved. https://the-artifice.com/are-blockbusters-melodramatic/ – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
I think so. Many people have to be over-stimulated and entertained to watch a movie now, and silent films are not the most stimulating to people who cannot understand the mastery and artistry behind them. The Artists was terrific, we need more like it. – luminousgloom9 years ago
I really think it depends on the audience and the overall thematic content of the film. I think many animated films can forfeit dialogue and still retain a stimulated and engaged audience. Recall, the first half hour or so of Wall-E. – Moonrattle9 years ago
With the upcoming reboot of the Ghostbusters franchise with an all female main cast, what does this mean in terms of a more feministically diverse story-telling ability. Is this just a way to pacify those that are fighting for more women to have leading roles in a genre that is dominated by men, or can this be a springboard for the next gender flip on classic characters told in a way that conveys that these stories are wanted by audiences across the board?
I was considering suggesting a topic like this myself, but I didn't quite know how to word it. While I am anxious to see how the new (all-Female) Ghostbusters will turn out, along with the recent announcement of a female-centric Ocean's Eleven, I'm concerned if this is going to help or hurt female actors. Because on the one hand, taking one thing that is well-beloved--like Ghostbusters--and changing it as they have has brought on a lot of negative speculation and sexist backlash, which I think would not be quite the same had a female-centric film of some other nature been announced. However, this sort of thing could be the launching point for female-centric films, or films with more female leads in the future. But what will need to happen is this Ghostbusters film needs to present a dynamic between the female cast that is really magnetic, engaging, and lovable, just as the chemistry between the original cast had been, and yet not make it a carbon copy: otherwise, it will feel like a knock-off, and it won't allow the actresses to be set apart as their own characters. So I am both very hopeful, and concerned whether this film will get the results it hopes for. But I am all for films or shows with female leads, because nearly every single one is amazing. "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind," "Kiki's Delivery Service," "When Marnie Was There," "Kill Bill Vol. 1," "Coraline," "The Sound of Music," "Anne of Green Gables," The Legend of Korra," just to name my favorites. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Also don't forget the female Expendabelles hanging on the rumor mill. – wolfkin9 years ago
Think deeply about how movies such as Inception, Interstellar, or Memento get people to think over and over again about the outcome of the movie, and if they have the same exact thoughts as the movie director had. Movies like this use the depth of the mind to extract a thought-process that evokes a sense of confusion and disbelief. Do movie director's do this on purpose, or is just the viewer thinking too deeply about the outcome or plot?
I believe movie director's do this on purpose because that is the point of movies, to take you to a reality you have never been. To make you think like you have never thought before. That is why we go to the movies. – haleycorkery9 years ago
I agree with the previous comment. I feel it adds a sense of uniqueness to the movie, making it into an evolving event that adapts and changes to each viewer. To go to the same movie with someone and both of you leave with totally different interpretations is incredible to achieve, and almost presents the movie like a gift for you to covet or hate based on your perspective. It also lays ground for great debate with people who saw an ending differently. – KyelandJ9 years ago
I agree that it is the director's intent. I think people like Christopher Nolan purposefully leave things ambiguous to create a conversation about the film. On the other hand, though, look at David Lynch. He uses film as another medium for artistic expression. Something like Mulholland Dr. cannot be explained, yet people desperately try to make sense of it, but if you were to ask Lynch, he would probably say that it's like an abstract painting which is open to various interpretations, all of which are equally correct. – Jon Rios9 years ago
It is definitely the director's intent to confuse viewers and cause disbelief. This leads to people rewatching the movie, discussing it with others and most importantly, thinking about something they never have before. Film makers that create such mind benders aim for something more than just an ordinary popcorn flick. They aim to make something truly memorable, a work of art. Something that affects you, that speaks to your very soul (or just your mind). – JosephSmith499 years ago
It would most certainly be the director, as the general plot twists that you are thinking of (such as that used in Gone Girl) are the type that keep the audience captive to the movie, and add to the style, and plot of the same. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Analyze and discuss the more adult themes and issues in the recent Disney movie "Inside Out." This includes subjects such as depression, anxiety, self esteem, personality identification, memories (long/short term and the concept of the subconscious), and differentiating emotions within the self, especially the imbalanced ratio of generally happy to general sad emotions.
I think you could also look at this psychoanalytically in terms of repression and the 'return of the repressed'. We see that Joy controls a couple of memories that are initially believed to be entirely happy, but then we see that there is more to these memories and that there is some other emotion connected to them. That hockey team memory is the one that really comes to mind. The sadness that Riley felt in losing the game/feeling responsible for the loss is not there at all, all we see is her team suppoesdly celebrating with her. But later on we find out the whole truth to the memory and that there is some repressed sadness there. – Jamie White9 years ago
Analyze the increasing use of CGI and visual effects in films and the extent at which they are taking over from real practical footage. In some movies, the only "real" things you see on screen are the actors, and nowadays they are often warped by visual effects. The popularity of large-scale fantasy-action movies means that practical effects are fast becoming a thing of the past, and this has caused many people to question whether in the future, all of film will be made on a computer once visual effects become to foundation of film production.
A great topic choice! Reminds me of how Sir Ian McKellan really struggled with filming for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey because of the sheer amount of green screen instead of communicating with real actors in real environments. Here's an article for reference: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/20/the-hobbit-gandalf-ian-mckellen-almost-quit-acting – Camille Brouard9 years ago
Not if the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild, camera manufacturers, and indie filmmakers have anything to say about it. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I guess it's always a matter of how far into the future. But I don't see it happening for a long while. This seems to specifically focus on fantasy/action etc, but there are a lot of movies out there just about "life" with more common real settings. – Tatijana9 years ago
I think some of it depends on the economics and some of it depends on the type of film being made. Mad Max: Fury Road, for example, prided itself on using very little CGI, although it wasn't /entirely/ free. – Winterling9 years ago
There are plenty of people out there, thousands in fact, who just like to shoot stuff with a camera. And plenty of other people who would like to act in front of that camera. Those people may have a liking for certain pieces of animation, whatever they may be. But they wouldn't give up what they like to do in order to make films entirely in animated form, even if they still got to hold a motion-capture camera stick, and act on motion capture stages. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I definitely don't think so...or I hope that's not how it is! In my experience, people actually tend to be bothered by the use of too much CGI. I don't know if that knowledge reaches the ears of the directors and produces of movies, but there may be enough complaints for movie-makers to stay traditional and forgo the use of CGI. – Dominic Sceski9 years ago
I have thought about this as well. I don't know if you've seen The Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies, but there was a clear shift. In LOTR, you could tell so many extras were equipped and filmed, which, although expensive, made the films so much more real. In The Hobbit, on the other hand, you did not need a magnifying glass to tell that most of the characters had something digitally manipulated about them. – Medievalist139 years ago
Wow, what a fascinating thought. Its worth considering, though, that in every new era of animation the old animations look cheesy...I was personally also very disappointed that the Hobbit films moved away from old-fashioned prosthetics. It took away from the very raw feel of the LOTR series. – sophiacatherine9 years ago
I would also take a look at The Mummy (1990s) interview with the director. You might find some of his points helpful. – BethanyS9 years ago
This transition will definitely have more to do with the epic and large-sized films with a fantasy or sci-fi angle than it will your Oscar-bait annual dramas. I think anybody could agree that one day we may see a Terminator or an Alien film where most of the screen is filled with CGI. But at the same time, no one is going to take the time or front the money to digitally animate the majority of something like "Suffragette" or "Whiplash." Films like that live and breath off of real sets, real actors, real lighting, and a cheap and inexpensive bottom line. So there's no economical reason to do them in motion capture, and no story driven need. The characters are regular humans. I do think there will be a gradual growing interest in de-aging certain actors, or bringing dead actors back to life with the approval of their estate. But even that would become a major contended issue within the actor's guild if it was allowed to become such a big trend that more recent actors have less ability to be cast if the producers are always going for 25 year-old Marlon Brando, 32 year old Dustin Hoffman, and body doubles or voice-impersonators able to recapture their performance. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think that the future of film (blockbusters) is full of CGI. With the latest blockbuster hit Jurassic World, the most and only notable thing about it was the CGI, and people bought into it and loved it. Hollow of story, characters, and soul, CGI appears to be enough to satisfy people now. – luminousgloom9 years ago
What role does the various symbolism play in the animated film, The Triplets of Belleville, and how does it contribute to the themes presented? The Oscar nominated film is mostly silent, relying on the images within the story to have an impact on the viewer. What impact, if any, do the reoccurring symbols have? For example: trains, wine, the statue of liberty, etc.
Analyse the accuracy of physics and chemistry in modern films and correct them.
You should specify which types of movies like documentaries or dramas, because if a film features superheroes or magic the physics and chemistry will of course not be accurate. – jmcewen9 years ago
Do you have specific examples in mind? This might be a tough one since so many story lines depend on stretching the reality behind science and technology. Or is your intention to pick apart current films and state why they are incorrect and improbable? If this the case, you can probably use any zombie related movie as the chances of creating a virus that causes super strength is improbable. Most diseases seem to weaken and kill instead. You may want to research theories on rabies, however, as this virus tends to give zombie like characteristics prior to killing it. – Tatijana9 years ago
