What makes two people (usually a man and a woman) compatible in an action movie? How do these moments get interspersed with action? What's the difference between a Bond seduction and a Tron flirtation? Why is The Matrix my favorite romance series? Are there harmful stereotypes, is there empowerment of female characters? Does kink gloss over unhealthy habits? Much to discuss!
Interesting connection here. Good examples too. – Munjeera7 years ago
Good choice for favorite romance series – Linden7 years ago
An interesting perspective. Looking forward to seeing what someone does with it. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Interesting contrast could be Bond-Bourne too, as the recent Bonds are so similar to Bourne but Bond still does the whole romancey thing, where Bourne largely leaves it alone. – Marcus Dean7 years ago
As in raiders of the lost ark, the best girlfriends have a what i call the Suzanne Phleshette rule, they must be cute, but not fragile. – Antonius8657 years ago
Too many questions with very few points of connection. Almost nothing concrete to work with. – T. Palomino2 years ago
How do films and television shows utilize blood and gore in artistic ways to further the plot and to create a visceral reaction without going overboard. Where is the "sweet-spot" of horror and is it the gestalt of the production that makes it palatable?
Looking back to Peter Greenaway's "The Cook the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover," the use of dynamic lighting, opulent costumes, and luxurious set draw the audience in while opening up all of the senses. It is as if you can taste, touch and smell this film. This, juxtaposition with filth and violence that follows creates a more dramatic sensory shift thus intensifying the horror of the film.
Currently, "Penny Dreadful" utilizes some of the same production values to appeal to the senses of the audience before flooding ballrooms with blood.
What are other examples of transcendent use of blood and gore and how are directors achieving high levels or artistry within horror.
examining the horror media in early 20th century and others could be useful. Also, the essays from horror writers like H.P Lovecraft or Stephen King could help – idleric7 years ago
Julia Kristeva's theory of abjection is a difficult one to grasp but is exactly right for this topic. – JudyPeters7 years ago
A mash-up novel (also called mashup or mashed-up novel), is a work of fiction which combines the text from pre-existing literature, often a classic work of fiction, with another genre, such as horror, into a single mashed-up narrative. Though the term itself wasn't coined till about 2009, the first mash-up (of sorts) may have been "Move Under Ground" by Nick Mamatas, a 2004 novel combining the Beat style of Jack Kerouac with the cosmic horror of H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos. The first mash-up proper was Seth Grahame-Smith's hugely successful 2009 novel, "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". Subsequent mash-up novels include "Sense and Sensibility and Seamonsters", "Little Women and Werewolves" and "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" (also by Grahame-Smith), the last of which was adapted into a film of the same name. A more recent phenomenon within the genre is the combination of more than two original works, or genres, as in the case of Robinson Crusoe (The Eerie Adventures of the Lycanthrope), which combines the original novel with elements borrowed from the works of H.P. Lovecraft as well as the popular genre of werewolf fiction, and is accordingly attributed to three authors – Daniel Defoe, H.P. Lovecraft, and Peter Clines. Mash-up novels are, by their very nature, derivative and lacking in creative substance … or am I being hypercritical? Is it all just a cheap marketing gimmick that's doomed to die from lack of originality… or does the mash-up have potential creative legs to keep it running?
You knocked the nail on the head with this one. Often these books will coast along on the popularity of the source material and come off as a gimmick. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
I hope it isn't dying out! Maybe a more judicious choice of original source material could be considered - I think Jane Austen has been done to 'death', pardon the pun. – JudyPeters7 years ago
Difficult question. We will have to analyze specific titles and see how they work and what they achieve. But in general, these kinds of literary projects are just pop culture phenomena, and are not meant to last or become canon. – T. Palomino2 years ago
The Shadowhunters TV show has proved to be good at mixing the plot of the novel with new plots. Discuss the ways in which the show has been dedicated to its origin while also exploring new alleyways and the ways in which fan reactions have gone.
A good way to do this would be to break down some main characters and their traits in order to draw comparisons to the books. – Southy5677 years ago
I agree with Southy567's point. A list of the main characters and their deviations would be a good starting point (major one could be the death of Clary's mother)! Depending on the length, the main events (battles, wedding) that have deviated could also be included. – AbbyMay7 years ago
Which anime series or films have been successful at accurately portraying characters who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or part of any group in the LGBTQ community? Which ones have failed? Give multiple examples and explain why.
I think this is a great topic, although, it would probably have to be almost exclusively focused on the "failure" end of the spectrum. Aside from a few major exceptions (Yuri on Ice, the Kaze to Ki no Uta OVA), a lot of anime either hasn't done a great job in portraying LGBTQ characters or, notably, have just avoided the topic altogether. Manga is certainly more inclusive in that respect. – tjtheemperor7 years ago
It's a great idea but the problem is that LGBT doesn't usually get much visibility IRL in Japan let alone any explicit recognition in anime and manga. Yaoi and yuri aside, I feel that in order for inclusion of any LGBT characters into mainstream anime/ manga, they usually have to be a) not-explicitly stated as LGBT or b) be ridiculously misrepresented. – Hann7 years ago
I plan to submit my paper to this topic! – nbenn0576 years ago
Most people who grew up in the late 1980s through the 1990s fondly remember Nickelodeon. The shows produced in this era were part of the network's Golden Age, and fans' appreciation has led Nick to bring some of them back. Two popular Nick shows, Hey Arnold and Legend of the Hidden Temple, are coming back in the near future. However, Hey Arnold is coming back as a live-action film. Legends will take the form of a TV movie whose adventurous plot is somewhat loosely based on the original game show. Will these format changes wreck what fans loved about these shows, or will they bring fresh perspectives to the table? Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these format changes.
I didn't even know these were happening! Remakes/reboots are such a big thing nowadays, so I like how this topic is very focused on a specific aspect of the nostalgia-movement. The emphasis on the formats would also create an easy way for the writer to stay analytical rather than it devolving into an opinion-based rant or hype train. – DrNinjaBaljeet7 years ago
With recent repacking and re-releases of old titles, what are the most egregious examples of bringing out the same versions of games for that yankee dollar?
Final Fantasy X. I own that game four times over. First PS2 disc got scratched, so I bought another (nothing to do with corporate greed, but it explains the four); I bought the remaster on PS3 then a couple of years later got it again for ps4. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Children's and young adult (YA) literature has exploded in recent decades, giving young people more reading options than ever. Additionally, young protagonists have more power than ever. Harry Potter is a wizard. Tris and Katniss from The Hunger Games are almost unstoppable heroines of dystopian societies. The Descendants protagonists are the magical offspring of Disney villains.
While these protagonists and their books are wonderful, they bring to mind a question: do today's protagonists always need powers, magical and supernatural connections, or the high stakes of dystopia? Put more succinctly, do they always have to be "the chosen ones?" What does fiction for young people gain by putting protagonists in that position? Does it lose anything by not focusing on more common kid/teen issues? Or, do we actually have a good balance between powerful and ordinary protagonists in our current literature? Discuss using the above examples and any others that fit the topic.
This is definitely an interesting concept. As a writer, I find it's less and less common for regular protagonists to make an appearance, especially in teen fiction. I'm in the midst of writing a book with an ordinary protagonist, and the biggest comments I've gotten back on the beginning of the book is that the protagonist is normal, and that he shouldn't be. We've gotten into a tradition of extraordinary protagonists, and I think it's important to bring back the ordinary kid protagonist. – LilyaRider7 years ago
I'm also a writer, and one of the things I constantly have to remind myself of is, it's ultimately my story. Some critiques are valid and some are not. Calling a character "too normal" is not, IMHO, a valid critique. Now, if "normal" means "boring," as in undeveloped and flat, then that needs to be fixed. But personally, I miss normal protagonists. I miss the average kid or teen who stumbles into adventure, maybe didn't even want it, and struggles with what to do. I miss characters who can't do everything well, who make mistakes, who do something that doesn't involve saving the world. I wonder, in fact, if all these larger-than-life characters are making real kids feel like they aren't good enough. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Patrick Ness wrote a book called 'The Rest of us Just Live Here', which is from the perspective of the 'ordinary kids' in a school full of heroes. It was quirky and thought provoking. Heroic child protagonists do seem to be the current trend, though.
– JudyPeters7 years ago
I'm gonna have to investigate that book... :) – Stephanie M.7 years ago
The most common film related outbursts occur in the viewing of horror and suspenseful movies and more often than not begin with the words "Just use…" or "Why does no one have..?". This is the question I pose to you now; Why is it nobody in these movies seems to have access to modern methods of communication and utility? And how long can these films continue to entertain with such an obvious character deficiency?
I would find examples of films to back this up. – BMartin437 years ago
Seconded - there are horror films which revolve entirely around modern technology. The convenient writer's trick of destroying people's phones or rendering them lost or useless cropped up most often when mobile phones were relatively new, and it was a broader issue which included comics and fiction outside of film. This could be an interesting article if you could attach a bigger issue to it, like the borderline unrealistic weakness, lack of common sense or hysteria which mysteriously overtakes individuals or groups of individuals in life-threatening scenarios. – smoldoggo7 years ago
Funny Games is the first example that came to mind. There's a lot to unpack with that film that may make it a complicated example, however. – daniellegreen6247 years ago
I don't if there any films that fit this category, but it would be interesting to look at examples where everyone has modern technology but it is rendered unusable by, say, magnetic pulses, and the characters have to react quickly without the devices they have come to rely on. – JudyPeters7 years ago
I think the "oh dear I can't use my phone or car to escape because it mysteriously doesn't work" is certainly another facet of the cliché mentioned by the OP. I agree with the point about the lack of common sense in life threatening scenarios being a key issue. Could it be that such clichés are not merely lazy writing but inherent in the genre and to a point, expected by audiences?
– Dion7 years ago
Analyze what themes and challenges a feminist writer might endure when creating fiction or nonfiction. How do they skillfully educate the masses while still creating a story to win over even the most misogynistic in society?
Great topic. I wonder if writing with a male nom de plume/pseudonym is still helpful. – Munjeera7 years ago
"Educate the masses" implies that feminism is always 'correct'. Perhaps in its core tenants, but the term has been somewhat co-opted today... I don't know if it's logically coherent to assume one's ideology is of ultimate educational authority? Like, perhaps from another's point of view the so-called masses need no education, and to them this is the ultimate truth. Point being: ideologies can never logically be 'true,' because morally-based (unscientific) truth is essentially subjective. – m-cubed7 years ago
m-cubed, you're misunderstanding the topic proposal if you think it is about saying one side is right. It is about educating people on a subject that they may not have otherwise been subjected to because of previous idealogical belief. Your words:"from another's point of view the so-called masses need no education, and to them this is the ultimate truth." Translation: Some people believe the acquisition of new knowledge or points of view is unimportant so therefore it should be. I simply disagree and I'd assume many people who write for this online magazine would too. Your comment makes the point as to why it needs to be written about. We can debate the philosophical meaning of truth all day and night, but the bottom line is feminism exists and is an important topic. It remains contemporaneous and relevant to many, many social movements today. Unsurprisingly, it has found its way into the literature we read. – JulieCMillay7 years ago
One of the major challenges is to present a plausible, or at least imaginable, alternative to patriarchy. I think Ursula Le Guin is a great example of a feminist writer who does just this in a way that is engaging and not preachy. – SFG7 years ago
I think it depends on how they identify: female, WOC, LGBTQIA+ and disabled feminist writers are often met with abuse/threats and ignorance... however, when a male (typically cisgender and white) feminist writer conveys similar messages, he isn't met with abuse (at least not to the extent she does), and is hailed as a champion of women's rights/the greater good. Watching that unfold can be daunting and prevent a feminist writer from wanting to publish their work. – stephameye7 years ago
I think the problem m-cubed has articulated about "educate the masses" relates to the idea of truth. For many years, the canon of literature was dominated by White, male Eurocentric men. Having said that, there were women who were accepted under a male pseudonym which reinforces patriarchy. Patriarchy and novels that support androcentric protagonists were always valued and seen as the only voice. With online writing though, we really have no idea who the writer is unless revealed. I think one way barriers have been reduced is by online access which is one reason I love theArtifice so much. – Munjeera7 years ago
"How do they skillfully educate the masses while still creating a story to win over even the most misogynistic in society?"
Include believable and well-rounded female characters in your fiction - whether as a protagonist or as an antagonist write them as real people, reveal their humanity and show that women in fiction can be just as cool, or cruel, as the male characters. Show the misogynists that we all have an inate humanity, we all have strengths and we all have weaknesses. Show them that men and women work better together as a team, that society can be farer and more equal - and that society will be all the better for it. – Peter Guy Blacklock7 years ago
'Educating the masses' is a rather unfortunate choice of term, perhaps. No-one wants to read didactic literature in this day and age. – JudyPeters7 years ago
Ah, a highly interesting and timely topic! I can think of a few challenges right off the top of my head. It'll be fascinating to see what a writer comes up with. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is complex and fascinating, and like many fans, I love the crossovers among the films. However, with the addition of several TV series (Daredevil, Agents of S.H.E.I.L.D., etc.), it seems nearly impossible to keep up with the intricacies of the world. With more TV content on the horizon for Marvel, I wonder if the platform is too much. It's confusing for new watchers to fully understand the overall plot without having seen previous Marvel films. I think the argument can go both ways. On one hand, the multimedia platform is exciting and facilitates depth. On the other hand, is there a point when it will all be too much?
This is a very interesting point that you have brought up. With solo films for Black Panther, The Wasp and many other superheroes coming up too, it has become next to impossible to keep track of all the stories. One can also contrast the current times where a superhero film is released every 6 months and series like Luke Cage, Jessica Jones on Netflix ensure that we have stuff to watch all year round with say, a decade earlier when people used to have to wait for a couple of years to get a Batman or Spiderman movie. – Vishnu Unnithan8 years ago
Is it possible that the constantly growing scale of the MCU won't necessarily kill it but force it to become more and more niche? A casual viewer may reach the point of superhero fatigue or throw up their hands and say "I can't keep up with this anymore", but the more hardcore comic book fans who've kept abreast of decades of comic book history as well as all the multi-verses, galaxies, and timelines would theoretically still support these stories coming to life in all forms (as long as they maintained their level of quality). – LC Morisset8 years ago
You can never have too much Marvel. Just like you can't have too much ice cream. – Munjeera8 years ago
Both are good arguments but to me that whether it is too much or not, people are and will still watch these Marvel shows and movies. It's interesting that maybe on some level these points to bridge the gap between the amount of consumption of watching these shows and imagining ourselves in the world of the superheroes. – daisy7 years ago
The market has definitely been flooded. They don't seem to hold the same weight they once did. It would be interesting to see if its because we are spoiled for choice, or is it a case of Disney choosing quantity over quality? Either way, I hope we stick to one Star Wars a year, Disney; any more would be overkill. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
I think we can see the stretch sometimes with Agents of Shield fumbling to connect but not spoil the Marvel movies that happen during its seasons, and Netflix's shows trying to ignore The Avengers (and, soon, Spider-man) in New York. – IndiLeigh7 years ago
I can relate to this a lot. I am a total superhero/comic nut, but with school and work and everything else going on, it has become tough to be on top of all the new intricacies of the MCU. I like the way Marvel is taking it though. The films and series are standalone enough to be enjoyed by anyone, but there are plenty of connections and easter eggs between everything to keep the nuts like us happily scrambling. – superdilettante7 years ago
I have often wondered whether a trained actor would be able to beat a polygraph test. Is the art about deception or perception? Sure we all put up a front in our lives whether its work or relationships, do actors have a leg up in this respect?
I'd like to think actors as more in-tune with human emotion rather than "liars" per-say. And i wonder if the question you raise could be applied to lawyers too, when they defend someone they know to be guilty in their heart. It's hard to say really, but i think at the end of the day and actor isn't any more susceptible to compulsive lying that anyone else really. Heaps of people - whether they are actors and lawyers or not, have the ability and tendency to lie. At least with actors, there ability to pretend is put to good use in the form of cinema. – NoorGillani7 years ago
Actors are people paid to act in front of an audience. I think the topic should ask how actors are able to lie so easily. – BMartin437 years ago
beekay, I would actually suggest expanding this idea and talk about how movies themselves are false. Jean-Luc Godard once said that movies are just, "24 lies per second" (in reference to the frames through the projector), which I would say is correct; nothing that happens in a movie is natural because it is all staged, and even if the director tries to be realistic about it and have the actors improvise, there is still a production going on; there's still lighting equipment and editing involved. With that said, I would also address the fact that most people know that what's happening in a movie is fake, so there really isn't any reason to feel like one has been lied to or cheated. – August Merz7 years ago
This is an interesting topic to consider and as a actor I wonder whether I could, in character, pass a polygraph test. As to whether the art is about deception or perception, well both aspects come into play. We may well deceive an audience into believing what they are seeing and we certainly do play with an audience's perception, but equally so an audience knows it's being deceived and has willingly suspended disbelief for the duration of the play, film or performance. Yes, I suppose we are more in tune with human emotion, but only so far as we study those aspects of a character in order to create a believable performance, although it has come in quite useful for me when dealing with pompous authority figures in my daily life, knowing how to tune my 'performance' to manipulate his/her perceptions and get what I need from them. How are we able to lie so easily? The short answer is because that's what we've been trained to do. It's a skill like any other and to become proficient it takes a lot of practice. – Amyus7 years ago
Not that I'm a big fan by any stretch of the imagination. I heard on a broadcast documentary for the actor Sean Connery, that he snagged his first movie role by telling a mouthful of lies about his acting experience at a rehearsal. Makes you wonder. – lofreire7 years ago
lofreire. LOL good comment. You should hear some of the porkies Michael Gambon tells about his early life. The troubling thing is that he sounds so genuine! – Amyus7 years ago
There is a underlying current to this topic that just dawned on me. Write about the best deception in a film or by an actor against the worst deception in a film or by an actor. Would that be too far off the mark or more worthwhile? – lofreire7 years ago
(on NoorGillani) Heaven only knows, actors pay the price for it--Heath Ledger. – lofreire7 years ago
Perhaps an interesting experiment would be to see how an actor out of character vs. the same actor in character would fare in the polygraph test. – L Squared7 years ago
I am curious to this. It would be cool to try it. – ivyskiss7 years ago
Doesn't Hypocrite start out as... – Antonius8657 years ago
Discuss the use of myth in The Legend of Korra. What historical religions, legends, myths did the creators draw inspiration from? How does this shape their animation and style? The mythology of The Legend of Korra (and its predecessor, The Last Airbender) has always fascinated me and I'd love to see it analyzed in depth.
Check out Buddhism. There are tons of similarities between how the Avatar is chosen/found again and how the next Buddha is chosen/found again. It's quite interesting, but almost kind of lame when you realize how much the creators stole from Chinese culture! – Dominic Sceski7 years ago
Famously coined by Patrick Star (and, by extension, teleplay authors Jay Lender, Sam Henderson, and Merriwether Williams) in S03E05a of Spongebob SquarePants, the term "wumbo" has since become a fixture of the pop culture lexicon and fuel for countless internet memes. It is implicitly defined through its usage as being an adjective (as the opposite of "mini"), but subsequent explanation in the episode assigns it the qualities of a verb ("I wumbo. You wumbo. He/she/me wumbo."), and culminating in the academic discipline of "wumbology" (the study of wumbo, which is supposedly introduced in first grade curricula) thus indicating a noun form in order for it to be studied. Though obviously conceived as a simple joke — aimed at highlighting Patrick's well-documented stupidity — there is a lot to unpack with regards to this seemingly nonsensical neologism.
Conduct a linguistic analysis of "wumbo" and its variant forms, using only the self-contained snippets of dialogue within the episode as a guide. Does it defy our preconceived understandings of linguistic morphology, or can a series of grammatical rules be devised to account for its inherently contradictory nature? If society were committed to accepting the term's validity, what would be the parameters of usage under which it would enter our active vocabulary?
[Note: For the best quality article, it is highly recommended that this topic be taken up by someone with a background in, or at least a sufficiently deep knowledge of, linguistics.]
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL FOR YOUR PERUSAL: The original clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lMu8V5Xa90); Urban Dictionary entries for Wumbo (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wumbo) and Wumbology (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wumbology); Uncyclopedia page for Wumbo (http://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/Wumbo); an entire fandom-powered Wiki devoted to Wumbology (http://wumbology.wikia.com/wiki/Wumbology_Wiki); Know Your Meme page on Wumbo (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wumbo); Debate.org thread to determine whether or not “Wumbology is a valid science” (http://www.debate.org/debates/Wumbology-is-valid-science/1/); Quora question thread in which user asks “Where can I study Wumbology?” (https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-study-Wumbology); fan-made website for the University of Wumbology (http://theuniversityofwumbology.weebly.com/). – ProtoCanon7 years ago
While these noncanonical testaments to fans’ devotion to a gag make for fun reading (especially when you have a deadline for a thesis chapter rapidly approaching), I encourage the prospective author to take them with a grain of salt and refrain from deviating from the diegetically provided grammatical criteria as outlined by Patrick. For example, many of these extratextual statements define wumbology as “the study of ALL THINGS wumbo,” which is grammatically contrary to Patrick’s “the study of wumbo.” It may seem negligible, but the addition of “all things” negates the necessity of a noun form, since it instead retains an adjectival connotation as a means of describing certain “things” without the implication of wumbo as an observable autonomous entity which may be studied (i.e. a noun). For this analysis to assert any authority, it must resign itself to the rules established by the term’s progenitor. Furthermore, the Uncyclopedia page makes up a lot of material without any basis in the episode for the sake of humour. This should not be trusted as an authoritative source of information, since it allows its satire on the form of web-based encyclopedic resources take precedence over its utility as one such resource. This leads me to my final point: avoid compromising the integrity of this inquiry for the sake of satire. Obviously the question itself is absurd -- since wumbo is a silly word by its very design, coined by a fictional anthropomorphic starfish in a children’s cartoon -- but that absurdity does not necessitate a default invalidation of the central premise. For those interested in linguistics, this may prove to be a genuine case study for testing the fallibility and limitations of the rules which govern human communication. And, even for those who simply see this as a joke, there are few things funnier than treating something fundamentally frivolous with the most earnest sincerity and analytical vigour. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
Discuss the connection between events in Designated Survivor and the current political reality existing in the United States. Note how the writers of the show reference current events, and the ways in which they may be 'poking fun' at current events while dealing with them in a serious manner on the show. If possible, also compare things said and done by President Kirkman to those of President Trump.
Seems interesting. The problem with shows like Designated Survivor and House of Cards is that it can seem more subdued than the reality of the Trump presidency. Strange times. – Jeff MacLeod7 years ago
Would be interesting to pick out a real politician from Trump's administration in a similar role to Sutherland's character and propose what that would look like in real-world. – Marcus Dean7 years ago
Explain why you think (or may be not) that Tv shows or Sitcoms portraying a well sculpted world, with friends for support and effortless enjoyment can posses a serious threat to how people view reality and their life outcomes?
Another approach could be exploring the dependence people have on such television shows as a form of escapism. By illustrating an alternate sitcom reality to our own, creators are effectively entrapping people in a make belief society with different rules that follow the laws or comedy rather than reality. – ninaphillips277 years ago
i don't think those shows necessarily demonstrate consistent support, rather they should how friends often take the mick out of each other to keep them grounded. the characters in big bang theory are often mocked and ostracised my most members of society and find solace within their own little community. A common trope of sitcoms given its a common sensation in the human experience – Iliasbakalla7 years ago
I agree with Iliasbakalla and Munjeera. These series often extrapolate characters' quirks to the extreme for comic effect. It would be interesting to discuss why this results in a broadly enjoyable experience, e.g. perhaps we identify with characters' flaws etc. The cultural setting of the show and the assumed cultural setting of the viewer would be another interesting aspect to explore, e.g. What is the cultural setting that producers are assuming when they write and produce the show? Do viewers from other cultures have more or less difficulty enjoying these shows? Why/why not? – bethlauren7 years ago
Its definitely an interesting theory... do we change our own behaviours based on what we see as successful in a tv show? Do we try to become more sarcastic because me might find Chandler so incredibly funny and relatable? And then, is this notion of "what we should be living like" having a negative impact on our lives or a positive? – miaraszewski7 years ago
Could it be helping people in some way? As a child, watching shows like that helped me to develop communication skills and made me strive towards finding friends that would support me the same way. I really think the fabrication of such strong friendships is a good thing, it may seem unrealistic but it's also quite endearing. – pixiehabits7 years ago
I have to say that Friends in particular had me wondering what they did for a living. Constantly swanning around the coffee shop, and living it up in their expensive inner city apartments. Not exactly a deeply moral tale, but it's difficult to hypothesise about its effect. Also, why can't I have my own canned laughter!? – Dion7 years ago
Not if you're white suburban and lame. – Antonius8657 years ago
Hollywood is almost obsessed with remaking films despite previous success. Remakes of film though often flop in cinema's begging the question; Why does Hollywoods keep making remakes? What's the point? So many remakes face criticism before being released. Diehard fans make judgements of the film before it is even released, while the film itself has a bar often set so high that 'failure' is inevitable.
Perhaps companies are simply relying on the success of the previous films in a pursuit of profit. From changing casts to all female (Oceans 11, Ghost Busters) to changing the tone of the film (The Mummy), is Hollywood simply trying to find ways to justify remaking a movie that doesn't need to be remade?
Being the art form that it is, film is just as prone to a version better expressed, so to speak. One director (or author) believes his rendition was final and releases it. Another director feels his release was not perfect, and remakes it as a sequel. Others simply cannot move on unless they've added their $0.02 to the squabble. No matter what the reason, 'priming the pump' never ends and must be tolerated. As long as there are disagreements, there will be remakes and sequels. – lofreire7 years ago
One thing I'd be interested in seeing someone explore is the Disney side of this topic, how they are doing live action remakes of so many of the classics. It is to appeal to the children of the children who first experienced these movies? Simply to make more revenue? Or is it to maintain copyright to prevent it from entering the public domain? This all is true for other franchises as well. – BreannaWaldrop7 years ago
I'm not sure if it's just because of the age of myself and my friends (mid 20s), but I feel like nostalgia is very much the "flavour of the month". Sequels that were 10+ years in the making, such as Scream 4 and American Pie:the reunion, kicked off an era of sequels and reboots. I don't think Hollywood has run out of ideas like I have heard some people suggest, I just think that there is so much money in remakes. by growing old, Disney is no longer appealing to the audience who helped to make it so successful. Sure they still make films that kids love but by remaking all our old favourites (Jungle Book, Lion King, Beauty and the Beast to name a few) they can also re-appeal to the older generation. – jackson26017 years ago
You can rightfully think that franchises are an easy way to grab money nowadays. Instead of searching for new 'forms' to present a story, big studios are betting on established worlds where they can add another thing or two; yet, a lot of us -the audience- fail to find a harm in that. When I went to watch the newest Star Wars, I was conscious that it wasn't going to be a breakthrough, but there was a bigger pull motivating me to follow the story. So I've been wondering: Why are we so compelled to get involved in these multi-film universes?
Probably because we like the idea of a moving world, constantly changing like our own. It gives a sort of balance and symmetry. That's my take at least. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Part of it is character and story - we get invested in these characters and want to see them face new challenges and adventures. And though the universe may stay the same, we are exposed to different facets of it, which is part of the fun! Learning tiny new details through the different films of the Harry Potter universe, for example, makes things fresh and exciting (such as new magical creatures being introduced such as the hippogriff, which ostensibly were part of that universe all along, but we don't learn about them until the 3rd movie; or the textbook that growls and tries to hurt Harry in one of the films - we've seen textbooks by this point, but never one that was alive; the Knight Bus, and so on). With the latest Star Wars, the universe is the same, but we are introduced to an entirely new set of characters, new droids, new villains, and we get to see what has happened to our favorite characters many years later (which is part of the allure of Facebook, actually - finding out where your high school crush has been all these years, etc.). – Katheryn9 years ago
The Cinematic Universe puts me to mind of something that Turpster of the Yogscast once said in an interview - that there is currently a lot of interest in a non-linear form of storytelling (which is kind of how the most popular series in the Yogscast worked, specifically the Yogscast Complete Pack, Tekkit and Moonquest). I think outside of films you can see that in other kinds of YouTube series like Lovely Little Losers which uses multiple forms of media to convey story, or even TV shows like Doctor Who (connected to Torchwood, Big Finish, Novels etc). – Joshua Sammy9 years ago
In the midst of latex suits and end-of-world-scenarios, Groot is an anomaly. Why would 'Guardians of the Galaxy' writers give Groot a character arc which parallels stages of human development, including infancy? Arguably, his presence allows the compassion to be revealed in other characters and also, completes the idea of a family structure in Guardians. Are there other characters who play this role in other branches of the Marvel/DC universes?
Just going to leave this right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGAQuxSuTi4 – ProtoCanon7 years ago
He is a classic gentle giant. His death in the first guardians really caught many viewers by surprise. – ivyskiss7 years ago
Since many original cast members are not returning for season 7 of Once Upon a Time, discuss the ways in which the new season could (or could not) be an exciting revival of the fairytales we once knew. Is the OUAT we know over, or do you think the rejuvenation of characters and tales will be enough to keep the fanbase and viewers satisfied?
Love the topic, and the show. I was a little leery of Season 7, but I'm excited for it now. As Henry says in one clip, there are literally thousands of fairytale versions, plus other stories that could be explored. (Season 5, with its trip to the Underworld, proved the show could do mythology, so why not other story types/genres)? I do think the series needs to wrap up eventually, but am rooting for about 8 seasons. In TV show world, that seems to be a good place to stop. Any more than that and you tend to get stale. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I am a HUGE Once Upon a Time fan. I am nervous, for this new season, but I am giving it a chance because I don't believe Colin O'Donaghue or Robert Carlyle would have said yes to this season if they didn't have SOME faith in the new direction. – ivyskiss7 years ago