Why do fanboys lose their shit when it comes to the director Michael Bay? Sure, the Transformer movies only get worse with each installment, as the films are filled with overblown explosions and offensively annoying characters. He did also direct Pearl Harbor, which was very historically inaccurate and had very uninteresting lead characters. He is hardly a perfect director, but has the hate for Michael Bay gone too far? His film Pain and Gain was hardly a masterpiece, but it was still an entertaining film, where he makes his character intentionally dislikable as appose to unintentionally dislikable. Yet it seems a lot of people wrote the movie off as crap without even seeing it. Have we, in a way, made Michael Bay into a scapegoat? Have we piled everything people hate in films now-a-days, like over using CGI or the overabundance of sequels, on this one director, who probably isn't really a bad person in real life? Is Michael Bay really one of the worst directors of all time?
Have you seen his films? Have you seen what he can be like in the public sphere? I think there is evidence to suggest that he's what you would call "a boy in a man's body": where his fascination with certain things is both immature and childish. And his reputation both on and off set, as far as I'm aware, is not on good terms. You've basically sealed his fate with your own description, because all of his movies are pop-corn munchers for audiences who don't want a lot of substance. His depiction of women in his films is degrading and far more 1-dimentional than other directors have been known to do. His propensity for explosions errs on the side of ridiculous. And there's just not a lot to respect about the guy. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable defending M. Knight Shayamalan than Michael Bay, because at least Shayamalan is a personable fellow in his interviews, and he seems entirely sincere with what he believes regarding his work. Despite this, I do not think Michael Bay is to blame for movies being the way they are today. I think he is more-so a product of the current big-budget hollywood culture, and he has developed his "style" in a way that reflects the interests of investors and produces who think that what he does will bring in the most box office returns. Besides, we could just as easily argue that Adam Sandler is the crux of Hollywood garbage. Michael Bay just uses more effects. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
The dislike for Michael Bay, insofar as it pertains to his films, is completely justified, because after he created Pearl Harbor, his films have been generally declining in quality, particularly in plot, and writing quality. In this respect, he is quite similar to M. Night Shyamalan. – JDJankowski9 years ago
I somewhat know T.J. Miller, who was in his latest Transformers film, and from what he's said, Michael Bay is very immature. When they were in Florida for press purposes, I believe, he spent many of his nights out getting prostitutes for the cast-- most of whom did not want them. He spent most of his time partying, and there's nothing wrong with that, he has just not grown up. I think one of the Bad Boys movies is actually decent, but that does not excuse everything else he's done. Not a quality director, to say the least. – Kendall9 years ago
While Superman has become an icon around the world, writers are put in a difficult spot when writing the character. How do make Superman relatable when he is impervious to anything, or anyone? What made some of the well known Superman stories so good, and how have they integrated the character into our modern times? Maybe what makes him an interesting character in not what he is weak to, but instead, what he symbolizes as a superhero.
Perhaps both sides are a factor here. What makes Superman relatable to me is what he is weak too. Superman is impervious to anything but magic and kryptonite and the DC universe is rife with magic. In fact, Captain Marvel could probably go toe to toe with Superman and survive and the Batman has proven capable too. Superman gets hard to write when he has no weakness at all because everyone, both the writer and the reader, know he will pull out fine. Of course, even with his weakness, we know that and that's where the symbolism comes in. As a superhero, and as a human, Clark Kent. – SpectreWriter10 years ago
Another point I'd like to add about the difficulty is how people view him. Many people see Superman as an alien like God because of the powers that he has, despite the notion that they're powers to us, but not to him and other kryptonians. Another aspect that people believe he's Superman before Clark Kent just because he's from another planet, making it harder to relate to him when they see him as an alien. While others like myself, see Superman as human despite his origin because of how he was raised on earth. He lived his life among humans, all of his values were taught by his loving adoptive family, and he became Superman as a way that people can have someone to inspire them as he's the symbol of hope. With that, Superman is the disguise for Clark so he can use his powers for the greater good and help those in need no matter the situation. He's Clark Kent before Superman, the problem though is that the different viewpoints affect the writing so Superman's character is not only difficult, but also inconsistent since everyone has a different viewpoint for how Superman should be portrayed. – MajoraChaLa10 years ago
It's nearly impossible to make Superman relatable. I feel like for whatever reason we are bored by his perfection, but also unwilling to see him become more human and flawed. We see idealism in him, just think of songs that have lines like "I'm no Superman" or "Isn't there a Superman to sweep me off my feet". He's become far more of an icon than a character, and people don't like their icons messed with. This backs writers into the corner of balancing the way the world wants him to be and writing him in a way that will actually be interesting. – SomeOtherAmazon9 years ago
I see the point of what you're trying to do here, but I think it might be hard to talk about the character in a vacuum here. There have been good runs on Superman: maybe refocus to think about particular creative approaches to Superman that you think worked or didn't, and try to draw your lessons from that? So, I really liked Steven Seagle's run a few years back, and am enjoying the new books from Pak and Kuder and Gene Yang. Maybe you could isolate particular runs and build an essay from that?
– MattDube9 years ago
With the tragic passing of the British actor Alan Rickman, it seems right to look back on his impressive career. His role as Professor Snape in the Harry Potter franchise is one of his most memorable roles and for good reason. There are also roles like Hans Gruber in Die hard, Alexander Dane in Galaxy Quest, The Sherif of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Judge Turpin in Sweeney Todd, and much more.
Whoever takes this on will be brave. The standard will be high to do him justice. When paying tribute it will be difficult not to insert opinion so I am cautioning the writer against that from the start. I recomend testimony from actors he worked with. – Christen Mandracchia9 years ago
This an article that should be written. I agree with Christen Mandracchia though, in that it will be a tough article to write. Rickman played so many roles that touched so many people. I also agree that it will be difficult to remain unbiased, but a tribute to his work would be appropriate. – sophiacatherine9 years ago
Aaron has been able to produce a great article on the legacy that had belonged to Christopher Lee, and I am certain if willing, he can do so again. – N.D. Storlid9 years ago
An incredibly important article to write and one that does carry a burden to do justice for his contribution to the film industry. Particular mention should also be made to his work as a director and his most recently released film 'A Little Chaos' – Jacqueline Wallace9 years ago
Some of the most well known political comedians in North America are John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, and more recently Trevor Noah. These four have a great knack for political humor, but they will also come out of character when a real issue like a tragic shooting incident occurs in the news. So why do people rely on these political comedians when it comes to their daily news as opposed to actual news sources like CNN? Could it be because they are addressing issues that are often overlook or ignored in our country? Is there more sense of honesty because they are comedically addressing issues intend of mindless ranting like other political programs?
Intersting topic, but a crucial factor in this discussion is the fact that most of what these political comedians say is scripted. They are likely very intelligent people in their own right, but on shows like The Daily Show et al. they're simply charismatic frontmen for teams of behind-the-scenes writers. – Ali Van Houten9 years ago
Great topic, especially considering Jon Stewart (be careful of spelling) has made a few references that more young people watched his show than real news. I second Van Houten's suggestions and will also add that you should include a brief section of Barry Crimmins to show the "under-the-radar" comedian trying to make real change. The recent documentary "Call Me Lucky" highlights when he had an honest moment on stage to discuss his molestation. I'd also like to pose a few other questions: Do people watch the show to reconfirm their cynicism or liberal leanings? Do people watch the show as a form of couch-activism? Are they not watching the news, but reading it, especially from BBC news, Think-Progress, and other non-televised or podcasted sources? – Michael J. Berntsen9 years ago
It is true when they say no film is perfect, and time travel movies are no exception. No matter how hard a writer tries, there will always be a plot hole in a time travel movie because the genre itself can get very complicated. This does not mean that the movie is bad, just take the Back to the Future trilogy for example. While there are some inconsistency when regarding the time travel, it almost does not matter because how fun and well written the films are. Then we get a film like Terminator Genisys, a movie that it is bad because not only does it ruin the first two Terminator movies, but the time travel makes absolutely no sense; it makes someones head hurt after a while. So the question is: can bad time travel logic ruin a film?
Can you be more specific about each? What plot holes are you referring to in BTTF? What plot holes are you referring to in Terminator Genisys? The answers will be good starting points for your topic's discussion. – conorsmall9 years ago
I think that bad time travel logic can contribute to a film being bad, but not necessarily ruin it on its own. As you said, there are examples of questionable time travel logic in movies that are generally considered great. You mentioned Back to the Future, but my mind instantly goes to Looper. Rian Johnson's 2012 sci-fi film plays with so many convoluted and dizzying aspects of time travel, and with how dense the film is some of the obvious plot holes get lost in the fold. Including, but certainly not limited to, the fact that Old Joe (Bruce Willis) came from a future where Young Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt) kills his future self and rides off into a drug-enduced retirement. However, the second that Old Joe stops Young Joe from killing him, he creates an alternate timeline where both exist. When Young Joe shoots himself, Old Joe should not die, because he comes from a different timeline altogether. Does this plot hole ruin the movie? No, because it is masterfully directed to the point where Johnson was able to make a movie where it looked like Bruce Willis is trying to act for the first time in the last decade. Bad time travel logic can further hurt a movie that is already doomed by poor story, underwhelming direction and bad acting. It in and of itself cannot ruin a movie, though. – KJarboe9 years ago
I love this kind of discussion and would have approved if the button was there. All I can say is that if you can find any plot holes in Primar I would be surprised. – Lazarinth9 years ago
Mushi-shi is a very atmospheric anime with great story telling and fascinating philosophy behind it. Mushi-shi is more calming then most phycological anime, as the show does not want to scare watchers, but to bring them on a spiritual journey. There are many great episodes following our protagonist Ginko. Some examples are Raindrops and Rainbows, One-Night Bridge, Cotton Changeling, Shrine in the Sea and many more.
Obviously specific episodes will need to be mentioned. However, you mentioned that Mushi-shi is "more calming then most physiological anime". It would be a good idea to compare these specific episodes to other animes in order to reflect Mushi-shi's uniqueness. – Ryan Errington9 years ago
What makes a comedy great? Some would say that a good comedy is based on how many times you or a crowd of people burst out laughing. That is not necessarily the case, as films like Birdman and The Graduate are loved by many, but both are not really laugh out lout funny. They have comedic elements, but the reason people love these films is for their drama, more than the comedy. What should constitute for a comedy, and how broad can the genre be?
Interesting topic, yet very wide! You can think of comedy in terms of dark comedy, romantic comedy, children comedy, burlesque, silent comedy, family comedy, action comedy, social comedy, satires, pastiches, parodies.... To consider all these different aspects would be great (but very long so maybe choose to focus on one or two and try to narrow down the topic). – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
Sayign what makes it great is too broad. I would try to lower it to what makes a comedy critically successful (Birdman and The Graduate) or what makes a comedy succeed (like in the box office, so films like Anchorman), or what makes a comedy a staple of the genre (Monty Python and The Holy Grail). – Erin Derwin9 years ago
As Erin and Rachel said above, that's a monstrously wide topic. Consider homing in on one facet of, say, dramatic comedies, as you put it. That, or you'll write until you're dead and not run out of material. – Wordsmith1239 years ago
I have always considered the ones that make you laugh are the best comedies. However, in literature and film, this is not the case. In fact, if you want to stick to the ancient definition, anything with a happy ending can be considered a comedy. With that in mind, I would have to say this topic is far too broad. Something more specific can make for more focused and clear articles. – winbribach9 years ago
In order to class a show/movie as a comedy (at least in my head) it has to my me laugh of some level. I don't have to be on the floor holding my rips but, I should't be leaning back groaning every time the something that is meat to be amusing happens.
– icysquirrel9 years ago
There are a ton of anime fans that state subtitles are the only true way to watch anime. True, it is more immersive to listen to a show in its original dialect. Because of this, any anime fans that actually likes watching dubbed animes as looked at like they have two heads. Why is there such a divide between fans of dubs and subs? While there're are certainly plenty of bad dubs, there are plenty of good ones like Cowboy Bebop, Fullmetal Alchemist, Trigun and more.
Make sure that whoever writes this talks about how many prefer dubs as they can focus on watching the show itself without having to focus on reading the text constantly just to understand what the characters are saying. Also that not everyone will think the original Japanese voice actor's performances fits the character they are playing. It comes down to preference, but unfortunately, some fans who prefer subs for the reason as stated, can be a bit elitist towards those who don't share their preference. – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
I'm fairly certain we had a topic like this submitted a while back, not quite sure what happened to it.
I think cultural detachment is one reason why people prefer subs over dubs. When I watch a dub, I can get embarrassed for the voice actors for having to say such cheesy or awkward lines that don't transition overseas very well. And yet, from my experience of having lived in Japan for a little bit, I know that Japanese people feel the same way about originals, that anime can be awkward to watch at time. Since most sub watchers don't typically know the norms and structure of casual, everyday Japanese, watching sub can do away with some of the awkwardness. There's also the more obvious reason for watching subs: availability. Subs always are released before dubs, and there will always be more subs to watch than dubs at a given moment. I think more than elitism, availability is the reason most people watch subs. – Austin9 years ago
I usually just watch it without subtitles. Sometimes I watch dub because I find it interesting how the American voice actors adapt and such. – Akecha9 years ago
Honestly I don't think the argument between hardcore fans should be a versus of Dub vs Sub. I only watch dub because I can't handle reading lines off the screen fast enough, as embarrassing as it is, and find that if I can manage it I'm too absorbed in reading to watch what's going on. It's a language barrier. The real "hardcore fans" shouldn't be concerned with a few dialogue changes so much as actual plot changes. Manga vs Anime adaptation, now there is a battle! So much filler... – Slaidey9 years ago
I agree with Ryan. Dub-loving fans don't seem as elitist as the sub-loving fans. The fans who prefer subs are generally more elitist towards those who don't. This needs special emphasis in the article. And of course I'm one of those elitist sub-lovers... – Abhimanyu Shekhar9 years ago
Depends on how much attention you want to give the anime. You're probably going to focus more on an anime with subs because you actually have to pay attention enough read them to pick up what's going on. With dubs your eyes can wander a bit or even focus on other things while you're watching it because you can understand the dialogue. This theory of attention doubles for people who are so eager to watch an anime that they don't want wait long enough to what for the dub and there will be more focused on it as it comes out. On the other hand, there are also dyslexics out there or people who can't mentally focus on ready and visuals at the same time. – Lazarinth9 years ago
Dubbing is actually ruined anime quality as original speech lose to foreign speaker who try to imitate sound and speech in anime. Subtitled is less destructive as it only add few texts below screen and never obscure viewer who want to enjoy watch anime, while, original sound and speech is still intact. – manifest9 years ago
I mostly watch anime in the english subs. But some anime sound better with the english dubs, in my opinion. For example, I prefer Death Note in the English dubs. This is probably cause I watched it first, but I prefer the dub more than the sub. It's the same with Attack on Titan and Mirai Nikki (I prefer the Japanese name tho xD) – mekakushimegane9 years ago
I mostly watch anime with the subtitle in it because not all anime have the dubs. But I would still go for the subtitle, I'm kinda used to it. Also, I have watched anime where some of the characters don't match with their dubs which is a no-no. – bez9 years ago
In my experience, it's a bit of a toss up. Some of the "Legendary" anime (i.e. Cowboy Bebop, Ghost in Shell: Stand Alone Complex) have some phenomenal voice work and part of why it was so popular. Then there's anime like Great Teacher Onizuka where the English voice actors basically went ENTIRELY off the rails and made the work a lot more fun for us Westerners. Lastly, we have anime like Baccano! and Romeo X Juliet, which, arguably, have put a lot of work into their dubwork and should be listened to in English. On the other hand, there's works like Higurashi No Naku Koro Ni who just don't have that great a dub track, and there's a lot of shows that don't even make it stateside. It's kind of a very subjective topic. – Helmet9 years ago
I like the idea of addressing this topic because it is a relevant conversation that takes place between anime lovers. In my personal experience, I don't have a preferred choice over subbed v. dubbed. I've watched both and enjoyed both. When watching a dubbed anime, as people mentioned above, it is easier for non-Japanese speakers to concentrate on the action displayed on the screen as opposed to reading the subtitles. When watching a subbed anime, I personally like to listen to the language because I like the way it sounds. However, the debate over what is more "authentic" or whether one way is better than the other seems confusing if the anime altogether is interesting to watch, what does it matter what language it is in? When writing about this topic, it would be important to gauge both sides of the argument and their opinions. – ShelbyLee9 years ago
I generally watched subbed anime, though there are a few that are better dubbed. I feel like it's more genuine and like I can better feel how it's meant to come across when the cadence is right and we're not fitting the wrong amounts of words into places, but that's just my opinion. – nsiegel9 years ago
There's already an article written about this topic on the website. – Jordan9 years ago
A lot of people talk about how much they dislike CGI in films, and how they want more practical effects. They want more particle sets. They want more make up effects. They want to really feel like the character and setting are real, and not made on a computer. While CGI is over used in films: does that mean that they should not be in films at all. When is it appropriate to CGI, and when is it not? Also take in to mind that making CGI is a lot of work, and takes weeks or months to get right. With that said: is making images for film on a computer screen not considered hard work, or is just fans of practical effects not giving credit, where credit is due?
I love the tangible special effects of Stan Winston and Tom Savini, I often find CGI to be insipid in comparison, especially when violence is concerned - you can't beat a bit of corn syrup! I think time has shown that smart, sparing use of CGI ages the most gracefully. Winston's work in Predator and particularly Terminator 2 are examples of this, neither film looks that dated. With so many films like Avatar and Transformers having CGI as their chief selling point, I think it takes narrative and character development to make strong visual effects most memorable. – Hawkensian10 years ago
Might also be worth talking about CGI replacing people - like how Philip Seymour Hoffman's scenes in Mockingjay were supposed to be finished off with CGI, and that Final Fantasy: Spirits Within film which was fairly ground-breaking. – Hannah Spencer10 years ago
When looking for news on the new Fantastic Four movie, I heard that Fox studios has an embargo for critics, meaning a movie critic cannot talk about the movie at all until the film is released. Essentially, this is a sign that Fox is worried about critics disliking the film, therefore causing bad press for Fantastic Four. Why is this? If a film studio does not like one of their own films, why make it in the first place? Why are January and February filled with crappy movies? I feel its more complicated than just simply saying "all films now-a-days sucks." Maybe a movie sounded good on paper, but turned out bad in execution. I just find it strange that movie studios would take a risk financially with releasing bad films they have no faith in.
Apparently Fox had the movie made because they had a limited time with the rights to the Fantastic Four franchise. One can discuss the relationship between the subject of a film and the studio and how that can impact the film itself. – missmichelle9 years ago
With and an R rating, a director can get away with practically anything. Intense blood and sexual nudity can be seen in many film that are R rated. So In that case: Why does the NC-17 rating still exist? Some will say it is for movies that go to far with their sex and violence, but that is not really true. The reason the NC-17 raring exists is because basically, the film studio does not want the audience to see the film. This can be seen when films with a gay/lesbian sex scene will get an NC-17, but a movie with a man and women having descriptive sex still only gets an R rating. The film This Movie is Not Yet Rated demonstrates this problem.
This is really interesting. One could easily put this in the context of the current media monopoly in which six corporations own 90% of the media output in the US, with similar or worse rates in other nations. The control of what is deemed publicly acceptable and what is consumed is in the hands of a few. – Austin10 years ago
This topic brings up a very good point on how the NC-17 rating is more frequently used towards homosexual content than heterosexual content (Brokeback Mountain being one example). An potential article here could reflect upon the conservatism of the ratings board against certain people and beliefs, not necessarily whether a film has an age-appropriate rating. – dsoumilas9 years ago
Everyone loves Black Widow in the cinematic universe, not just because she is sexy and bad ass, but also because her character in more normal when compared to the other members to the Avengers. So could she handle a whole movie, sourly dedicated to her. On one hand, It would be interesting to see where the Marvel Cinematic Universe would take a spy/superhero film. On the other hand, it is not interlay necessary considering we already know so much about her already.
I think it might be a stretch for her to have her own movie, but I could see her playing an integral role in say a Hulk film. This would kind of make sense seeing as a romance was "teased" in Age of Ultron between Widow and Banner. Widow would definitely not be the conventional love interest and to an extent she could even be the main character of the film. The film could even continue with Disney/fairy tale links and use themes from Beauty and the Beast. – Jamie10 years ago
Another topic to explore for a movie featuring Black Widow would be financial support for a female lead in a superhero film. Who would produce and back this project? This article could look at females who are in the minority when it comes to lead roles, directors and writers in mainstream media; especially in action hero themes. I though would support Black Widow in her own movie as a fan. – Venus Echos10 years ago
In the MCU, we actually know very little about Natasha, except what she tells us in movies where she is undercover or otherwise covering for herself (the exception is the fragmented scenes we see in Age of Ultron, and the events Loki mentions in the first Avengers film). By the end of Captain America 2, however, Natasha willfully disseminates every part of her history she's ever had to keep secret in order to save the world. For a character whose trade is secrets, that is a huge emotional development, and ripe for a continuation in her own movie. In any case, it seems nonsensical to me that she would be denied a film on account of familiarity, when Spider-Man will have no less than three separate origin movies by the end of the decade. Black Widow has had solo runs of comics for decades now, including the excellent spy thriller Name of the Rose by Marjorie Liu, and can surely take on a movie of her own. – bouzingo10 years ago
Natasha's rogues gallery is a touch on the light side. That's not to say she couldn't borrow them from somebody else obviously, just that it probably doesn't help her odds of getting a film. – Winter9 years ago
"Everyone loves Black Widow... because her character [is] more normal when compared to the other members of the Avengers." I think that's part of the reason she's only in movies like the Avengers and Captain America: the Winter Soldier. We love her because we love saying she's more badass than the other heroes. We love her because of her interactions with the other members and how she's a good friend to Cap and her awesome friendship with Hawkeye. We love her because she helps others. If Marvel were to create a movie focusing solely on Black Widow, let's say after the events of Winter Soldier when she has to create all new covers, it would be about Natasha picking herself back up after the emotional turmoil of revealing herself to the world. Yes, it would be interesting, but it couldn't lead a whole movie. If Marvel were to do a prequel or "What Happened in Budapest" deal, then we could see Natasha and Clint in a spy thriller that would be epic and awesome, but it would be before they are the way they are and the characters would be different. I don't think Marvel wants to risk it because fans love Natasha the way she is. Part of what makes her so interesting is also her mystery. We don't actually know that much about her past and that's fine with me. It resonates with the fact that she's a spy and such a cool character. I would definitely watch a Black Widow movie, but not all fans would. Kevin Feige himself stated that he thought Widow was better suited to helping the Avengers than going solo. It's not that the character couldn't carry her own film, it's more that the reasons many fans love her wouldn't be in those films. – VelvetRose9 years ago
The term "Woman in Refrigerators" was coined by comic book author, Gail Simone. It is a trope in comics that a female character is killed or brutally injured by a villain, giving a reason for the hero to hate the villain even more. The trope can be insulting to women because of how it uses female violence as a cheep way to get emotion from a reader. What should writers do to avoid this trope? Can this be hard for writers to want to tell a compelling story, without having to kill a female characters? Does this mean you can't kill any female characters, even though male and female deaths happen all the time in comics? Is there a difference between killing a female character for story reasons, and killing a female character for a cheap gut punch.
This is an interesting observation. I agree that the trope is demeaning to women and I believe that an added reason for its popular use is simply that almost all superheroes are male. The death of a loved one provides for a dramatic and compelling plot twist, however, in these stories, the victim is bound to always be female unless the superhero is depicted as homosexual, which, is not common.
As for your last question, there is definitely a difference and I believe it depends on the story and how it is written. A perceptive reader will be intelligent enough to distinguish between if the death is integral to the story or if it is meant simply as a cheap thrill. – ArynSkyn9 years ago
One question that I think should always be asked after the death of a character, be it female or otherwise, is did they die for reasons related to their own story or somebody elses? In short, was their death a fitting conclusion to their story arc, or a speed bump in one belonging to a different character. If the former, all well and good. If the latter, the question that then needs to be asked is, was this an organic part of that character's story which, looking back, we can see it building up to, or was it pulled out of thin air for no other reason than cheap emotion. If the first one, okay so long as you don't do it too often. If the latter, definite fridge stuffing. – Winter9 years ago
I think there needs to be a fair balance. Simone came up with the list because it was happening entirely too much. A majority of female characters were being brutalized, raped, or killed for the advancement of other character's plots - not their own. While the trope can be used and sometimes might be necessary, it should not be any means be the norm. Writers should push themselves to find more creative ways to help their characters advance, and pay attention to the fans pf these female characters. – SomeOtherAmazon9 years ago
In inspiration from gay marriage being legalized in the United States, it would interesting to examine how animation entertainment treats the LBGTQ community, in more recent years? In particular, how has the LBGTQ community been represented in children's animation? After all, The children are our future, and we should be sending a positive message of how to treat everyone like you want to be treated. What do we have do to have more gay or transgender characters in our children's shows and films, and how do we go about it?
I think that this would be a very interesting topic to tackle. From what I can tell, there is very little - if any - representation of the LBGTQ community in children's animation. In other words, there is little or no early exposure to the LBGTQ community for children. I would argue that instead of needing to represent that community to teach children to "treat others how they want to be treated", the kids just need exposure to the existence of the community; I, for one, don't think I even really knew what "gay" meant until I was ten or eleven, and I hadn't even heard of any other forms of sexuality. If anything, I'd think that, with the legalization of gay marriage in more and more countries, children need to see enough of the LBGTQ community in media to make it normal. If it's treated as an everyday occurrence (which it really is), I'd think that would promote kindness and acceptance even more than blatantly promoting it. I like how narrow this topic is. You could really have taken this in so many directions; there are so few books and movies in general that seem to represent the LBGTQ community. If you were to write about this topic, I think the major issue would not be the analysis of LBGTQ characters in children's animation (since so few seem to exist), but rather how to get around the public resistance. In that sense, this could be a very difficult topic to cover, because it's more than just an issue of children's animation; it's an entire societal issue. Could you look at a few specific tactics that could help overcome this issue? I'd be interested to see if there was a way that you could approach this topic in spite of the challenges; it's a very important one. – laurakej9 years ago
When an author hates the film adaptation of their book, it is mostly because the film missed what made the book so special. While it only makes sense for an author to want to defend his/her own book, does that make the film adaptation automatically bad? While Stephen King may be open on how he disliked The Shining, a lot of film fans would say that the movie is a masterpiece, regardless of King's disapproval. Should hate a film based on what the author says, or should just judge the film on our own?
This is a very good question. Whoever takes this up, I would suggest writing about the controversy between not only Stephen King but Percy Jackson, whose author reportedly does not like the movies (need a source, however can't verify this.) The author, E.B. White did not like the animated musical version of the film Charlotte's Web simply because of the songs (my source is Wikipedia though so you might want Wikipedia's source). There are plenty of times where the film is good on its own and plenty where the author goes against it and splits the fan down the middle. And in the case of Harry Potter, the author supports the films and the fans are still split down the middle. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
I think this topic could be elaborated on throughout numerous decades and different genres all the way back to the film adaptions of both Mary Poppins and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. While the modern film Saving Mr. Banks will tell you Travers eventually came to like the films made by Disney, in reality she detested what they had done to her characters. – cdenomme969 years ago
I think a major distinction to be made is those films which have the authors on as creative directors or, they themselves wrote or co-wrote the script, i.e. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Gone Girl. I think this is a very interesting topic which goes into areas of who owns a story, should a story only be told once and left alone for the rest of time and so on. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
Alan Moore notoriously hates all the adaptations of his comics that have been made into movies, but he hates most of the creative people he's worked with, too. And maybe movies in general, hard to say. But certainly the factors include how difficult some authors are to work with. – Monique9 years ago
A film adaptation is really nothing more than a reinterpretation of the original text. Take Inherent Vice for instance, based on the novel by Thomas Pynchon (2009) and later adapted by Paul Thomas Anderson (2014). Never having read any of Pynchon's novels, but having seen all of PTA's films, what from I can gather is that Pynchon loves life like Value loves the Spy. "He is a puzzle, wrapped in an enigma, shrouded in riddles, lovingly sprinkled with intrigue, express mailed to Mystery, Alaska, and LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU! but it is too late. You're dead. For he is the Spy - globetrotting rogue, lady killer (metaphorically) and mankiller (for real)." I say 'gather' rather than 'get' because it's my least favorite (by default since I still love it) of Anderson's films because it has the biggest disregard for its audience. As an adaptation, it works, or at least that's what the critics and book-readers tell me; but as a film... not so much. The camera work and the editing tend to service Anderson and Pynchon more than they do me, which is bad since I haven't read a single word of the original text. This means that despite how great the film is, and it really is a damn-fine film if I do say so myself, it can't stand on it's own two feet. If you have to have someone say, "You should read the book to understand the movie"... you failed as a movie. At the end of the day, if I had to choose between Inherent Vice and The Big Lebowski to watch with my friends... "The dude abides." – Reggie "Rusty" Farrakhan9 years ago
Whenever a remake, adaptation, or a sequel comes out, fans can't help but compare it to the original because of how good the original was. On one hand, any film should always be judged in its own way, even if it is based on another property. On the other hand, does the film itself just beg to be companied to the original, simply because it was based on other property. Does comparing it to the original help us understand the flaw of the remake/adaptation/prequel, or does it blind as a viewer to enjoy anything new in a franchise.
It would help to broaden this a bit so we don't just talk about reboots but adaptations as well. The HP movies for example beg to be compared to the books, the Spider man reboots begs to be compared to the original trilogy which in turn begs to be compared to the comics. The good question is whether comparison is right. If anybody takes this up, I'd gladly read it. – SpectreWriter10 years ago
Mad Max: Fury Road had a big message of human objectifying, and appraising false gods in desperate times. So what does the fraise "Who Killed The World" actually mean. Does this fraise sum up the character Immortan Joe, or is there bigger subtext to be analyzed?
Good topic, I also wondered the same when I saw the quote and immediately thought of the government and politics. – melaniek10 years ago
I believe it means that everyone is complicit in the destruction of the old world. I say believe since the film doesn't delve too deeply into that line and makes it more esoteric than it should of been. I suppose it's one of those lines like, "Who watches the Watchmen?" – Reggie "Rusty" Farrakhan9 years ago
It's not just about Joe. It's about everybody like him, who tries to impose their views about women, masculinity, etc, on the world, and in doing so, triggered the nuclear war in the backstory. – Winter9 years ago
It would probably help to watch every Mad Max film to be able to write this topic, seeing as Fury Road is the fourth movie in the series. There's most likely a lot of insight into the universe when you know everything else about the world and its lore. – Wolfstar969 years ago
Kirby is one of the cutest characters in all of gaming, but he is also one of the most funnest characters because of his wide range of powers. The interesting thing is that he is pink, the color automatically associated with girls. Yet, boys and girls love this character equally, and young boys usually stay away form anything pink, because it is too girly. How does Kirby not fall into this stereotype?
Picks connection in Japan is different than the American system of gender identification. They pick cold soley based I how did it fit into a color scheme. This is why in anime darker skinned characters tend to have light unsaturated colors for hair. One reason is that blue and punk used to be more associated with eye color than sex this switch happened in the 1940s. Before then many labels for pink and blue as baby and toddler fashions were in vogue in fact for a tone those colors were reversed. Pink also tend to be a great color on dark skins but is not used because of the modern idea. So of a designer made pink clothes to compliment dark features and used darker skinned models, they could be accused of trying to effeminate then. – fchery10 years ago
Former Professional Wrestler Bret Hart was famous for wearing Pink and Black. It is interesting to note that he was one of the biggest stars in Pro Wrestling and his Hitman persona was the children's hero during his WWF-run. I think the important thing is to make sure the character's actions are not bound to the color stereotype. While Kirby is in pink, he gets to perform cool actions throughout the game, so the boys can feel the appeal even if they think the color pink is unappealing. Similarly, Bret Hart fought big goons and emerged victorious, and no one could make any negative comment about him wearing pink. So I believe the appeal of character's action can reduce the resistance to some of his/her traits, and Kirby is the good example of this. – idleric10 years ago
Well Know director Spike Lee said that Django Unchained does a disservice to his ancestors, as black slavery should not be portrayed as a bloody western. That is a fair and reasonable point, but it makes people wonder if Django Unchained really is offensive. Is the films topic of slavey treated as a serious matter, or did Quentin Tanrantio do a disservice to the subject matter?
I believe that the topic of slavery was portrayed in a realistic way that does in fact, raise awareness into the treatment of slaves. I was especially appreciative of how the gender and race roles in that time period became evident. – brightcloud10 years ago
Tarantino's films are known for being overtly violent, but not always because he wants to be realistic. There's something he's trying to do there that's worth exploring. You can also see that he portrays a main white character as extremely helpful and nonjudgmental towards black people at his own expense, while another main black character enables the mistreatment for his own gain. We have to understand that serious topics can be displayed in a strange style. You could do an analysis of what exactly is being caricatured here. Is this movie trying to downplay violence towards others (plenty of white people were brutally killed as well as black people), or is there something else he's getting at? – dannyjs10 years ago
Everyone loved The Simpsons in the good old days, but now everyone see's the show doing nothing more than beating a dead horse. The show now-a-days may not be awful, but it has been on the air for far to long. Recently, Harry Shearer, the voice of Mr. Burns, Ned Flanders and more, has recently left the show. Could this be a sign that the show needs to just drop dead, so we can remember how good it was?
Someone really should attempt to explain this. Perhaps focus on how the glory days have helped keep the show on air so long due to mere legacy? – Joseph Manduke IV10 years ago
I read a comment on an article on Harry Shearer's departure which was going on about how The Simpsons is like an old friend. You may not watch it anymore or as much as you once did, but it's nice to catch up every once in a while and to see how your old buddy is getting on. It's seen as a comforting thing to have something on tv for so long. – Jamie10 years ago