In the wake of Halloween (2018)'s trailer (which looked pretty cool), I can't help but wonder why we're rebooting and remaking so many stories. I'm reminded of when Andrew Garfield was cast as the "new" Spiderman. And then, Tom Holland. The uproar. The hate. It (2017). The Star Trek reboots. Top Gun's getting a sequel. Older sitcoms are getting reunions. We're revisiting these old universes, these old characters, these old stories. Some of it is nostalgic for the older generations. Some of it is outrageous and insulting. I'm left wondering what will be remade from my youth, fearing who will be the next Iron Man (and crying about it). What's with the demand for these reunions. Who's deciding to remake these movies? Are we so scared of the new, we revert back to the old, or are we out of new? Is that well all dried up?
This is a great topic and one that's being discussed a lot lately. I'd recommend checking out Lindsey Ellis's video essay on the 30 year cycle. I think it's also worth mentioning that a lot of the most revered achievements in cinematic history are based on books (The Lord of the Rings trilogy, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Nosferatu), folk stories (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and most everything else in Disney's repertoire), plays (The Jazz Singer, Casablanca, the vast majority of mid-century movie musicals such as West Side Story-- which, in turn, is based on Romeo and Juliet-- which is based on Ovid's Pyramus and Thisbe, incidentally), and historical events (The Titanic via the sinking of the titular ship, Texas Chainsaw Massacre via the Ed Gein case, Amadeus via the life of Mozart). Adaptation seems to be a fact of art one way or another, but there is something different of films directly adapting and spinning off other important films, as the marketing and viewership is fueled specifically by nostalgia and fandom more than anything else.
On an unrelated note, you may want a snappier title for this; what you have currently is a bit of a mouthful, and the phrasing is a little awkward. Maybe limit it to 5-7 words? – TheCropsey7 years ago
Very interesting topic, but I would like to put the comic book movies in a different category. Since they are based on characters that pretty much do not age in the original medium (generally speaking, yes, there is Kingdom Come, Batman Beyond etc), they have to be rebooted, i.e. recast, in order to keep on going. You cannot have Superman, who is supposed to not age, being played by the same actor for 20 years.
Also, please distinguish between reboot and sequel. The line can be blurry sometimes, but there are distinctions. Battlestar Galactica 2003 was a reboot/re-imagining of the original series, not a sequel. Scream 4 was a sequel, not necessarily a reboot etc. – tanaod7 years ago
This is definitely an interesting topic. A lot of things that were cool at one point, tend to disappear, and then come back to attract an audience that's nostalgic for that property. Movies are getting more expensive, so past properties with an established audience pose a lesser risk than creating a new idea from the ground up. – cbo10947 years ago
Currently, well over half of the world's population lives in a city. That number is expected to do nothing but rise in the future. A greater concentration of people means less room for each individual, and places greater importance on shared public spaces. In much of North America, there has been little concern for beauty within our cities – perhaps because we historically imagined we had such a surplus of land that everyone could have their own space that could be made beautiful to their standards. As our personal spaces shrink, how can we be sure that public art and other placemaking techniques are given importance in city budgets? What argument can we make in support of public art and the benefit it confers to residents of a city?
Part of this discussion could be about the interpretation of urban art. For example how does legal aerosol art fit into the concept of public art? Consider also international or national art trends, such as the painted cows that appeared in different cities around the world. – SaraiMW7 years ago
Over the last several months, there has been an astronomical rise in allegations of misconduct (sexual or otherwise) within the mainstream entertainment profession. Recently, Morgan Freeman himself was accused- a man that many view in an extremely favorable light. What are the implications this rise in allegations (founded or not) will have on the entertainment industry? Will they fade away, or spark significant changes? I believe this is a relevant topic that may be of interest.
This is an excellent topic, but a common one as of late on the Artifice. I would encourage that perhaps solely focusing on Morgran Freeman would help to make this argument a little more unqiue. Otherwise please check out our other topics and published articles that are similar to this one to see how you could either diversify the issue or bring in another angle that has yet to be explored. – Pamela Maria7 years ago
As a child and all the way up through high school, I found that geeky subjects were usually a great way to get one's self alienated from the group at large. As I get older, of course the internet has changed much of the way that people can socialize with each other, and so while there are now larger communities for geeky topics, I also find that some of these communities appear hostile to newcomers or even defaulting into the, 'You're only a true fan of X if…'
When I was younger, I thought geeky subjects were a great unifier, but today I'm not so sure. Do you think anything has changed in the past forty years, and if so, do you think geeky topics unify or divide people?
Today's "nerds" are not nearly as mistreated as depicted in movies like "Revenge of the Nerds", right?...wrong. "Geeky" topics to me just means niche interests, that is to a small group. As video games, comic books, and other pasttimes become more popular and mainstream, those who based their identities around such endeavors found themselves possibly less persecuted than they felt in previous decades. There are still plenty of other groups disenfranchised based on personal taste - Muslim Americans in intolerant regions, for instance. When writing this, bear in mind the psychology of prejudice, victimization (along with self-victimization and tribalism), as well as how certain interests fall in and out of popular culture. People try to define themselves in many ways, one of which is a feeling of belonging and shared suffering with others like them. Then it was nerds, now they're just not picked on in the same way for the same things, and need a new way to identify themselves. Hope this helps! – LoganG7 years ago
Geeky subjects are still potentially great unifiers, I think. I find it amazing how conversations with complete strangers can really kick into gear if we share some geeky interest that gets us started talking. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
Fun and relevant topic...and please don't get me going on the fandom wars... – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I've always thought that geeky topics are quite interesting and exciting. I agree on the fact that in the last decades the community got bigger. Since media has become so omnipresent in our lives nowadays, attitudes towards geeks has changed and it has become more positive. – MC077 years ago
With this article, I want to explore the role of the psychopath protagonist in Film, TV and Literature, attacking it from a screenwriter's perspective. Most of the content I've watched, the protagonist has always been someone with a moral compass, giving the audience someone to root for. However, what do you do when your protagonist has no moral compass? How do you find a way for your audience to root for them? I refer you to Frank Underwood of House Of Cards or Travis Bickle as examples of the Psychopath Protagonist.
I think establishing sympathy between psychopathic protagonists and audiences helps. Sympathy doesn't necessarily mean likability, but understanding between people that can result in pity. It helps if there's something relatable about the protagonist. I've not watched House of Cards but I do know of Nightcrawler, in which the protagonist (albeit more sociopathic) can be relatable due to his struggles to land a job. When he finally finds one, his determination to succeed can invoke sympathy, even as he embraces a morally gray industry... Though in saying that, it might help (from a screenwriter's perspective) to frame psychopathic protagonists, or any immoral character, within the context of the society they live in. – Starfire7 years ago
There is a difference between Travis Bickle and Frank Underwood. The idea of a psychopathic protagonist can be a little diverse. There is a difference between the anti-hero and the villain protagonist, not to mention the other subcategories. For example, Travis Bickle isn't intentionally an evil character, he is more of an anti-hero struggling with a form of PTSD whereas Frank Underwood actually fits into the psychopath mold as he strives for power. How do stories with unlikeable protagonists garner our attention? It varies from story to story, so I think this needs to be a little more specific. Would this cover literature as well? You specify screenwriters in the topic so I think you have to distinguish between them. Even the writing for television and film differ. It would be interesting to compare/contrast the differences between television villain protagonists and film villain protagonists. – Connor7 years ago
I believe that the audience can feel any amount of empathy for really any character in television. As far as psychopaths go, it's possible to be able to empathize for them, but the majority of psychopaths I've encountered in media have been inherently evil, but I've still found a way to root for them in some instances. The character that sticks out to me the most would be Ramsay Bolton from HBO's "Game of Thrones". Although he's a sadistic, twisted, cruel, and monotonous heir to the throne in the North, I empathize with Ramsay due to the relationships he has with his father and his step mother. Ramsay is bastardized his entire life which ultimately leads to his aching desire to fulfill his father's prophecy of becoming the King of the North and Westeros as a whole. All Ramsay wants is to satisfy his father's demands, and when he realizes this won't be possible once his new baby brother is born, he decides to take action and murders his father and his new born brother with a ruthless and literal stab in the back. If this moment hadn't occurred, I think it would've been possible to appreciate Ramsay as a psychotic protagonist, but considering the rest of his torture frenzies and the murders of his family members, the defending arguments supporting Ramsay crumble under their own weight. – ralphpolojames7 years ago
Movies like American Beauty or The Grand Budapest use bright or dull bland colors to set tone and provide atmosphere. Can the same be said for exposition? Example, Sin-city is a mainly black and white movie where they use colors only to draw attention to details. So, again, I pose the question, Can colors be a main source for exposition in film?
The selection of a color pallete is just as essential to film exposition as the storytelling, cinematography and editing as it helps to establish the 'flavour' of a scene in visual shorthand. I see you mentioned 'Sin City' in particular. In this instance, since the film was based on Miller's graphic novel, it made sense to stay with black and white to help create the same mood and atmosphere found within the graphic novel. I'd also suggest taking a look at the recent British science fiction thriller 'Anon' (written, directed and co-produced by Andrew Niccol), which uses a near washed-out pallete to establish the blandness of a population's existence within a city that is under constant surveillance by the authorities. Good idea for a topic suggestion though and you have my vote. – Amyus7 years ago
Another good example to consider is the usage of red and yellow in The Village. M. Night Shyamalan uses both to peak efficiency in the film, to the point where the sight of the color red alone sparks a response with the viewer. – ValleyChristion7 years ago
Great work, this is an excellent topic. Check out Cinefix's video on the uses of color in film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tILIeNjbH1E&t=461s, it's incredibly informative. A color palette creates atmosphere, environment, and mood easily, and it's interesting to explore how different colors can have differing effects, and take on differing themes. – Matchbox7 years ago
I was struck by the brilliant use of colour (I am spelling this word as the Canadian I am!) in "The Handmaid's Tale." The glaring red of the handmaids' dresses against the generally dark interiors (such as Waterford's study) which evokes various things: their 'fallenness' (think, Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter); the bloodiness of menstruation and childbirth. The red dresses are in contrast (yet in direct complement) to that odd shade of green worn consistently by every wife. Both colours contrast with the lifeless khaki worn by every Aunt. The use of colour in "The Handmaid's Tale" reminds me of Julie Taymor's use of colour in her "Titus". In the Special Features section of the DVD, Taymor talks to students at Columbia University about this topic. – Jos7 years ago
The exploration of colour in film is something that has fascinated me ever since I was little. Film is just another form of visual media, so I think that there is grounds for more study on this topic within the discussion of aesthetics in film. Colour is but another aspect of mise en scene. It would be even more interesting to track the progress of colour in film, starting with hand colouring of film cells in the early 1900s all the way to technicolor and beyond. – Samantha7 years ago
Netta Barzilai from Israel's Eurovision entry was voted #1 for her Asian inspired performance and song 'Toy'. Many commentators have argued that the performance is cultural appropriation – using Japanese Motifs such as maneki-neko cats in her set and Asian style costume elements. The performance has also been accused of using traditional drum elements from Palestinian culture which in the current political climate can be seen as extremely disrespectful. Others see the performance as a celebration of cultural diversity and the inclusion of Asian culture into a European competition. Why is this performance so dividing throughout commentators? What are the main arguments for and and against the inclusion of Asian culture in this performance?
An excellent point to make! i understand how it might be considered a celebration of diversity in culture, but ultimately the maneki-nekos don't serve a purpose and the song isn't really about cultural diversity. It seems to be more about bullying, sexism, and equality. It does certainly feel like the nekos were used without any thought or purpose other than someone thinking "oh they look cool, lts add them in." This isn't inherently mean-spirited, but it's certainly questionable... – Dimitri7 years ago
Donald Glover has been a topic of conversation- some praise, some critiquing- for his recent release of the song "This is America," and the music video that followed. Analyze and/or critique Childish Gambino's newly-released "This is America." What is being implied, implicitly or explicitly, through the imagery of the music video as well as his lyrics? It would be prudent to pay special attention to the subtle nods to various events throughout the music video, and perhaps bring in critical race theorists such as Charles Mills (author of "The Racial Contract"), James Baldwin, Angela Davis, or Audre Lorde.
