Consider the role of technology in romantic relationships. For example, how many relationships begin on Tinder and other dating sites. Or how people can meet on social media and get into relationships. How are these things shown in film? Think of old tropes such as a man waiting 3 days to call a woman after a date. How does that impact audiences to watch these tropes today? For example, with this trope, how would contemporary audiences feel watching “He’s Just Not That Into You” (2009)? If it were remade today, what would be done differently?
I think the larger scope would actually be looking at the way in which romance is made, although meeting at a bar and at a workplace are still common, the uptake of romantic and sexual apps highlights the way in which "love" has changed. What I find interesting about the use of many of these match up tools, websites and apps is that they have fulfilled a role once held by friends and family. I think this would be a fun topic to explore and especially to do a little comparison of how love matches are made in film and television today and compare it to those from pre-2000s. – Sarai Mannolini-Winwood3 years ago
Dating 'rules' and romance tropes are different from each other, and it would be worth making the distinction clear in the article.
In books and scripts there is a thing called 'beat sheets' which have major events that are expected to occur in a certain genre. I recommend looking up 'romance beat sheets' for this article.
Youtubers Jenna Moreci and Alexa Donne have some great material on romance tropes vs beat sheets.
I personally don't think technology has changed romance tropes too much. Not everything can happen over messenger/text, though some does. Before this would have just happened over the phone, email or (gasp) letters. – Jordan3 years ago
Maybe consider writing about "meet cutes" and the impact technology has had on them. – derBruderspielt3 years ago
Romcoms are an incredibly popular genre, and some of the relationships – from the perfect meet-cute to the inevitable dramatic finale – are truly dream-worthy. But a lot of romantic comedies also feature clearly unhealthy relationships. Consider The Wedding Planner, where the male lead is engaged for the majority of the film, or How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, where both sides of the couple are trying to trick one another. There are countless other examples.
It would be interesting to explore why this is. Does a relationship need to be unhealthy (or, commonly, founded upon lies) to be "funny"? Why can we set aside critical judgement of blatantly unhealthy behaviours when we're watching these movies?
Add screwball comedies to that and it would improve it greatly. – leitercary3 years ago
The questions you pose here are very interesting. How would we define “unhealthy” in this inquiry? You seem to imply dishonesty or deception as informing that qualifier, which I think is right, but also, what of other problematics like sexist gender roles set as expectations via swoon-worthy rom com get-togethers? Perhaps this is where some of the unhealthy humor of this genre comes into play, where we laugh at the blunders the characters commit as they themselves attempt to fit the expectations of idealized heteronormative relationships— ‘boys will be boys, girls will be girls.’ – duronen3 years ago
This is a great observation, but I think it all depends on the story's climax. Usually stories like these involve some sort of breakdown or revelation in the final act: a moment where he breaks up with his fiancée, she admits that she's catfished him, secrets are revealed, fights are had or silent treatment commences, and perpetrators sufficiently repent and abandon their old ways. In great rom-coms, these unhealthy foundations often serve as a vehicle for character transformation, and such resolutions create that addictive sense of relief just before the final credits that contributes to the enduring appeal of the genre. If you'll allow me to jump on my English-major high horse, I'd say the theme goes back to Shakespearean comedies, in which relationships are fraught with misunderstandings and outright lies until they reach the Act V Breaking Point, when everything is revealed and all the liars and schemers have endured so much drama and strife for their mischief that they renounce it all and promise to behave themselves from that point on (and they live happily ever after, etc). Of course, if these things happened in real life, there would be much bigger issues, but rom-coms are their own breed of modern fantasy that are meant to be taken with a grain of salt, perhaps comparable to popular fairytales with a 'moral' the audience is meant to detect. – Emory Grace3 years ago
This is brilliant, and I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe mention the role that conflict has in any story, and consider how in a romantic comedy, tension between the central protagonists is a requirement to progress the plot, often leading to a relationship which a regular person would consider toxic. – tomgerrans3 years ago
The lack of healthy communication in rom coms makes it very hard to root for the central romance. There is little to no character development in most in this genre (apart from them realising their love for each other) and there is a high chance the romance won't last long after the movie ends. – tarushharris2 years ago
Is there such a thing as a healthy relationship? In any case, abnormalities are preferred in fiction. Normality is usually not worth telling. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Is it worthwhile to adapt YA books into TV or film? What determines if it is done well? Is it wise to change a lot when carrying over to a different medium? Compare popular examples like the Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games, etc.
This is a bit of a loose topic, but could then be left open to the person who selects it. There are a few interesting approaches that could be looked at here. Obviously there is always the element of debate around adaptations of any book to film, what to keep, what to change etc. and with this the value in such changes and the complexity of allowing the new version to speak for itself. However, when considering YA specifically this is interesting as it has become a financially viable field, and as always where there is money there is usually an agenda. What I find interesting is the wealth of "queer" and non-binary YA that is present in today's marketplace but have much more limited discussions about their application to the big screen. Is YA being used to perpetrate socialised stereotypes in a repressive manner? Another discussion is often scope, most YA are serialised (again that is where the money is), how do you successfully guarantee the transition to film will ensure the full series is made, some are very successful such as HP and HG, but others such as Vampire Academy struggled to make a mark in an over saturated marketplace. Finally, there is also the question of canon - if significant changes are made, characterwise and narrative, how does this impact the canon of an ongoing series and the fan experience, especially when considering much YA has a huge fanfiction following that values their own interpretations - so is that a can not worth opening? Indeed the fascination with YA is an interesting development rather specific to this century. – Sarai Mannolini-Winwood3 years ago
I think it can be worthwhile, but I think screenwriters and directors need to be careful with their adaptations. I personally think multi-episode show adaptations (like Shadow and Bone) work better than individual movies because movies often cut out crucial scenes in order to fit within the 2-hour limit, whereas shows can work with at least 7-8 hours of content. – isabeldwrites3 years ago
In Thor: Ragnarok (2017), Bruce Banner declares he has seven PhD degrees. In episode 7 of What If…? (2021), Jane Foster says she is “an astrophysicist with multiple PhDs.” With such statements, both characters try to assert their worth as scientists in contrast to superheroes with superpowers. However, holding multiple PhDs would be more of an educational disorder rather than a sign of academic achievement. PhD degrees are not medals or trophies that can be accumulated to show high intellect (the logic of “the more you have, the smarter you are” does not apply here). In a way, these films portray main characters whose value resides either in their intellectual capacity or their physical strength –climatically, in Avengers: Endgame (2019), we can see how Dr. Banner is able “to put the brains and brawn together.” Clearly, the MCU does not understand how academia and higher education work because imagining a scientist with seven PhDs is a more ridiculous idea than a super soldier or a man who can fly. What does this tell us about the concept of heroism that the MCU tries to sell? Is intelligence, in the form of a PhD degree, really another gimmick (like a suit of armor or a magic hammer) that can give proof of one’s value in the realm of superhero films? Why, in summation, are PhD holders so badly represented in superhero movies?
A good point. I remember that statement about seven PhDs. How? That would take an incredible amount of time. When I heard that I assumed less-than-credible programs considering the amount of effort that goes into a PhD--particularly the dissertation. I was thinking of the seventeen courses for my MA and PhD, then two foreign languages (I used Statistics for one), followed by written and oral comprehensive exams, then a dissertation just under 500 pages, followed by an oral defense of it. Sure, superheroes can do it all. – Joseph Cernik3 years ago
Interesting topic. We may have to be a little bit prudent when writing this issue... I mean not to go to another extreme denying every positive indication about the person who has many Ph.D.s. For instance, this may inform us a lot of things about him: About the knowledge that that person can deal with - About the potential that he has; every Ph.D. takes a lot of effort and time - About his state of mind; he may be someone who adores learning new things and not to learn things only passively but rather with an active contribution because a Ph.D. is not just about learning what is already there but contributing somehow in revealing new things in the domain - about his ability to change and adapt and that his status was never for him the end of the story - let's consider that we are more and more in an age that needs multidisciplinary talents, in terms of problem-solving, creativity, etc... – Samer Darwich3 years ago
Disney recently bought the rights to Star Wars. Discuss how that impacts the series? Does it limit them in any way? Does it have a positive or negative effect? For instance, it has given fans new favourite characters like Grogu from “The Mandalorian”, but also “The Rise of Skywalker” and the romance between Rey and Kylo which received mixed reviews. Explore Disney’s role and impact on the success and popularity of the beloved Star Wars world and characters. Discuss upcoming projects such as the Ashoka series, Obi-Wan series, Andor, Lando, and more.
One major discussion point should be the amount of content being put out during the Disney Era. From 2015 to 2019, 5 Star Wars films were released compared to 3 films in 6 years for the two previous trilogies. Multiple streaming/televisions shows have been production/filming at the same time since the pause in making films. The level of film and streaming content has expanded beyond anything previously seen. – Sean Gadus3 years ago
My thought for the early Disney/Lucasfilm era, is that the companies tried to treat the Star Wars brand like Marvel/MCU by putting out movies annually and it did not turn out great critically, and made the films feel like much less of "an event" compared to the previous two trilogies. – Sean Gadus3 years ago
The animated content during the Disney era has been excellent (Star Wars Rebels, The Final Season of The Clone Wars, and The Bad Batch). – Sean Gadus3 years ago
For the person who writes this I think it would be worth looking at actors or writers who used to work for Disney, who have left, and what their views are. – Jordan3 years ago
The film "Interstellar" raises the idea of murphy's law. But should we consider this as merely an idea that shows up in the film – like lots of ideas we may raise in films – or is there more? Can the daughter's name be considered as a sign that that law has a deeper role in the film? Many questions can be addressed about the law and how it is related to the film and more. 1. What is the initial form of Murphy's law? How has it changed historically? How does the movie "Interstellar" show this change? 2. Discuss the meaning of the law. Does the movie use and apply this law somehow? Then how? 3. Moreover, can it be related to more than the film's content, more precisely, the style of science fiction that Nolan makes? How such a law is used behind the scenes by Nolan to present his other stories (the Dark Night, Inception, etc.)? How did Nolan draw a line between what "we can imagine" and what "is possible by itself" or "scientifically possible"? 4. Considering what preceded, to which level the science fiction in Nolan's work can be considered "fiction"?
I think there could definitely be something worth unpacking here, especially as we get a little further down your numerical list. I'll admit that I'm getting slightly hung up on point #1, since it seems pretty indisputable that Murphy's Law is invoked directly by the film, as opposed to being a subtle way of reading into the significance of a certain character's proper name. In an early scene, Murph asks Cooper, "Why did you and mom name me after something that's bad?" to which he replies, "Murphy's Law doesn't mean that something bad will happen. It means that whatever can happen, will happen. And that sounded just fine to us." It's not exactly subtext … it's just text. There's definitely something to be said about how Coop's response reframes the law from its more popular "anything that can go wrong will go wrong" connotation. While this revision speaks directly to the thematic optimism of the film at large, it might also be worth asking if the film is really about Murphy's Law if the law needs to be twisted to accommodate the thesis that Nolan ultimately wanted to propagate. Even if Coop's remark is a valid interpretation of the law (and I'm certainly not well-read enough in the history of Murphy's Law to know one way or another), it feels just as valid to say that Interstellar is a film about "probability," rather than about "the high probability of undesirable outcomes" that most people (including young Murph) would associate with that particular phrase. Aside from all of that, I'm not really sure how we make the leap from point #3 to #4, or even what #4 is even trying to say. It seems to me that we're losing the thread of the film's themes, and replacing that discussion with a misunderstanding of how genres work and/or the narratological meaning of the word "fiction." (I'm not going to reject the topic on those grounds, nor demand edits; I just really wish that everyone on earth would read Dorrit Cohn's The Distinction of Fiction, so I can stop being pedantic about this kind of thing and move on with my life.) – ProtoCanon3 years ago
To be more precise about what I mean concerning the fourth point.
Sometimes, the imagination plays the role of inventing possibilities concerning: What things exist? What they are? And what relations between them exist? etc...
Sometimes, we may rely on science, for instance, which would provide us with such possibilities. Now, when does the role of imagination come in this second case? After choosing one scientific possibility concerned with the aforementioned questions, we can imagine "how this possibility may be expressed actually". In other words, imagination will play the role of actualizing such scientific possibilities, not in the world, but in the piece of art (Novel, Film, Game...), and that is different from inventing them in the first place. And as there is a difference between these two processes, we may talk then about different types or levels of "fiction". Or in another way of expression, we may talk about levels of "rationalizing the fiction". – Samer Darwich3 years ago
A film analysis of the 2011 movie Contagion and how it accurately represented the hit of the Corona virus. This can be done by intricately comparing and contrasting the plot to reality. For example, how the outbreak of the virus started in China and the theory of it originating from the bat. Other similarities can be mentioned like the way it spread in the world, mass hysteria, the war on vaccines, and fake news about a so-called medicine that can cure the virus. One can refer back to website articles and videos discussing this topic. An interpretation of why and how this film anticipated such a worldwide disaster can be intriguing to evoke at the end of the article.
I like this! Would also be interesting to talk about what it got wrong. What was included for dramatic effect that didn't happen in real life? What happens when media portrays services like government and public health in highly dramatized scenarios? – SBee3 years ago
Indeed, similarities and differences should both be approached. It can be a good source to know how expectations of a disaster differ from reality. – Malak Cherif3 years ago
Following the dual release of the long-anticipated Marvel Studios film Black Widow both in theaters and on Disney premiere access, star Scarlett Johansson has announced that she plans to take legal action against the company for their dishonesty in the film's release. With talks of Emma Stone and Emily Blunt to potentially follow suit, the legal battle raises questions about how the largest entertainment in the world could shirk their star's wages, as well as if she even has a case. It is worth noting that Johansson is one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood. If she was not as well known in Hollywood, how might this battle play out? If she were a man, how would the potential reactions from the company and the media coverage of this event change?
The Lawsuit is now settled so it is a good time to discuss this topic if reformed. – Sean Gadus3 years ago
Also interesting to explore is the statistics of new income that these streaming platforms (especially Disney+) get now due to Covid and the restrictions. Is this merely a case of a decrease in income or is it a fair wage issue? – scampbell3 years ago
Great topic. This is a recurring issue across all media platforms, and the middle men in productions seem to get little greedy all too often. Now, with more streaming platforms & independent productions on the rise, does this signify some type of evolution we're witnessing? – digshin3 years ago
