Film Junk » Open Forum Friday

Open Forum Friday: Can Spoilers Actually Make You Enjoy a Movie More?

Sean — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:41:45 +0000

As production continues on The Dark Knight Rises, it's becoming increasingly clear that this could end up being one of the most scrutinized movie shoots ever. The hype of trying to follow up a critical and commercial hit like The Dark Knight, combined with the public nature of many of the locations in Pittsburgh are leading to 24/7 surveillance from fans, paparazzi and bloggers alike. It is becoming impossible to escape the set photos and other bits of information leaking out online, and for people who are overly cautious about spoilers, it's turning into a nightmare. But allow me to ask a radical question here: what if, for some reason, Christopher Nolan were to lay out his entire plan for the movie and give us daily updates on every single thing being shot? Would The Dark Knight Rises be any less successful? Would viewers enjoy it any less? A recent psychological study on spoilers at UC San Diego came to a strange and unexpected conclusion: people actually enjoy stories more when they already know what's going to happen. It seems hard to believe, but their explanation is that plots are mostly irrelevant and "just excuses for great writing." Granted, the study focused only on literature as opposed to film, but one would expect the outcome to be the same regardless. In a way, it kind of makes sense because any movie that relies solely on plot twists will ultimately be empty and unfulfilling anyway. This goes contrary to an article that Chuck Klosterman wrote on Grantland back in May, where he suggests that Hollywood screenwriters are avoiding writing movies with twist endings because they can so easily be ruined nowadays. What do you think? Do spoilers ruin movies or can they add to the enjoyment? Are we getting too sensitive about spoilers nowadays? Do the best movies all succeed regardless of how much you know ahead of time? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Should Harry Potter Get a Best Picture Nomination?

Sean — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:37:31 +0000

It's been quite a while since I've had the time or the inclination to put together an Open Forum Friday post, but this certainly seems like an appropriate topic to stir up some debate. Warner Brothers confirmed this week that they will be mounting a heavy duty campaign to earn Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 a Best Picture nomination at next year's Academy Awards. While some of the previous installments in the series have received nods for things like art design and visual effects, none of them have ever won, nor have they been up for any of the major awards. This year they are hoping things will be different as they are going to try to convince Academy voters to consider a vote for Deathly Hallows: Part 2 to be a vote for the entire franchise. But is this a fair reason to nominate a film? Clearly they are hoping that Deathly Hallows: Part 2 will follow in the footsteps of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which was nominated for 11 Oscars at the 2004 Academy Awards and won every single one of them. The belief is that the Academy waited for the final film to give Peter Jackson's trilogy the recognition it deserved. Even with that being said, however, many feel that The Return of the King is the best in the series, and at the very least, it does contain a complete narrative unlike Deathly Hallows, Part 2. Harry Potter also has the disadvantage of being a family film. On the flip side, however, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is one of the best reviewed films of the year (97% on Rotten Tomatoes). What do you think? Is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 Oscar-worthy? Is it okay to nominate one film as being a representative of an entire series? Will the Harry Potter franchise finally win something in any category or will it be completely snubbed come February? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Should British Films Be Subtitled for U.S. Audiences?

Sean — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:43:00 +0000

Last weekend there was an interesting debate going around the movie blogosphere that concerned Joe Cornish's Attack the Block, a British sci-fi movie about a group of kids from the London ghetto who fight back against an alien invasion. The trailer debuted online earlier this month to some positive buzz and the movie seemed to be very well-received at its SXSW screenings, leading many people to wonder when a U.S. distributor might pick it up. However, according to The Hollywood Reporter, one of the big things holding it back is the so-called "language barrier". It seems that all the British slang could make it difficult for the average American to understand it, leading some to suggest the possibility of subtitles. But wouldn't English subtitles for an English language movie be a little bit ridiculous? The idea seemed to enrage a lot of people, who took it as yet another example of the dumbing down of culture for an American audience. However, I have to admit, there have been times when I have watched a British movie on DVD or Blu-ray with the subtitles turned on (The Red Riding Trilogy being a recent example) and it has helped me out immensely. I really don't see a problem with it, after all, you don't necessarily have to read the words 100% of the time just because they are there. I guess some people might see it as a distraction, and it might scare other viewers away altogether, but would they really have been likely to watch a movie like this anyway? I guess ultimately something like this should be up to the director, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that particularly strong accents essentially qualify as a foreign language to some people. What do you think? Would some British movies benefit from English subtitles or does that somehow degrade the film? Would dubbing be a better alternative? If you can't understand an accent on DVD do you turn on the subtitles or just roll with it? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Should Oscars Be Awarded Based on Single Performances or Entire Careers?

Sean — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:15:44 +0000

When it comes to Oscar predictions, one of the things that is becoming more of a factor every year is the so-called "body of work" -- in other words, the overall career of a particular nominee. We've seen a lot of great actors win awards not necessarily for their finest performance, but simply because it is their turn to get recognized. From Denzel Washington in Training Day to Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart to Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, there have been many situations where the Oscar may not have gone to the most deserving candidate, but we all applaud them anyway. The general feeling is that once someone has paid their dues, they should be honoured with an Oscar. But is this really a fair way of running the show, or does it ruin the integrity of the awards and rob other worthy candidates of their own shot at an Academy Award? Clearly the quality of nominees vary from year to year, and sometimes there are amazing achievements that come away empty-handed when they would have won Oscars in a different year. It's unfortunate, but it's reality. When the Academy attempts to balance out this situation by handing out awards based on a body of work, it might lead one to ask, do two wrongs really make a right? After all, there are also honourary awards for this kind of thing. Younger nominees may have less chance of winning an Oscar because it is assumed that they will eventually have another opportunity to win in the future. But what if they don't? I suppose it makes for a nice headline and good television when an older actor or director finally gets an award after a long career, but somehow it just feels tainted. What do you think? Are Oscars based on "body of work" acceptable? Do you think younger Oscar nominees often get overlooked or is there truly an even playing field? Who are some of the most talented actors and directors who still have not received an Oscar? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Are Fat Suits Offensive?

Sean — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:27:58 +0000

With the latest installment in the acclaimed Big Momma's House series hitting theatres today, it seems like as good a time as any to tackle a hot button issue that I don't think we've ever covered before on Open Forum Friday: fat suits. Granted, it's been a while since we've seen a fat suit comedy in theatres (when was Tyler Perry's last Madea movie?), but they never seem to go away. While most of them are typically seen as the absolute lowest of low brow comedies, they still seem to make money, and are tolerated as dumb but harmless entertainment. But are they really harmless, or is it socially irresponsible to be making movies that poke fun at character that are overweight? I realize that the point of the fat suits is that the actual actors themselves are not fat, and that makes people feel more comfortable laughing at them. But in a way, that almost makes it worse. At the very least, some of these roles could be going to larger actors instead of dressing up a thin person who is making fun of something they've never had to deal with. I do think there have been some great comedians over the years who have made their weight a part of their act, and when they are the ones poking fun at themselves, it feels a bit more acceptable. What do you think? Are fat suits demeaning and offensive? Should Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy find a new schtick or can fat jokes funny in the right context? Why are these kinds of comedies still successful? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Has 3-D Proven Itself to Be More Than Just a Fad?

Sean — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 23:03:04 +0000

It's been a little over a year now since James Cameron's Avatar descended on multiplexes and basically altered the direction of the entire movie industry. Up until that point, new 3-D technology was something that a lot of people had been toying with, but it hadn't been proven to be the future of cinema. After Avatar made over a bajillion dollars, however, everyone was convinced. Now that we've had another full year of 3-D releases, the question remains: were we all duped by one good movie or is 3-D still slowly but surely coming into its own? It seems to me that outside of Avatar, we still haven't had another killer 3-D experience to back it up. Tron: Legacy was a bit of a let down, and Piranha 3D was fun, but hardly a cinematic revolution. We've got Roger Ebert continuing to rally against the format with the argument that our brains simply weren't made to process these kinds of images, and although sometimes he sounds like an old guy who just doesn't "get" this newfangled technology, there's definitely a point where you start thinking that maybe all the issues with 3-D simply aren't worth the effort. It would appear that the real test will come in December when both Hugo Cabret and The Adventures of Tintin hit theatres. If Scorsese and Spielberg can't do something mindblowing with 3-D, then we might as well just throw in the towel. What do you think? Are you still excited about the possibilities that 3-D holds? What post-Avatar movies (if any) have impressed you? Is the technology here to stay or is it still too early to judge? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Did Ricky Gervais Go Too Far at the Golden Globes?

Sean — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:01:14 +0000

At the beginning of this week, Ricky Gervais' hosting job at the Golden Globes was a hot topic of debate; many people felt that the British comedian had taken a few too many inappropriate jabs at the various celebrities in attendance, while others thought he was the only interesting thing about the entire show. Either way, I didn't really expect that people would still be talking about it by the end of the week. But they are. Clearly this has been a massive boost of publicity for him, and the ratings for the Golden Globes were also up 5%, so it should have been a win/win, right? Not necessarily. Hollywood Foreign Press Association president Philip Berk said that Gervais "definitely crossed the line" and that "some of the things were totally unacceptable." The general belief seems to be that Gervais will not be invited back a third time, and some people even implied that (get this) he would never be eligible for a Golden Globe himself. Somehow I doubt that. The HFPA later released another statement that seemed to approve of the show, and many actors piped up on Twitter afterward in support of his humour. What do you think? Did Ricky Gervais make this year's Golden Globes memorable, or did he turn them into a second-rate roast? Were his jokes all in good fun or did they get too mean-spirited? Should he be invited back to host again next year? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Do You Want to See a Tron: Legacy Sequel?

Sean — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:22:04 +0000

Before Christmas there was a lot of speculation about whether or not Tron: Legacy would actually end up turning a profit due to its massive budget and potentially obscure source material, but we're now halfway through January and the movie is pretty close to breaking even domestically, in addition to crossing $300 million worldwide. It's the 14th biggest movie of 2010 and it could potentially make its way up to #10. So now that the movie has proven itself to be financially viable, discussions have inevitably turned to the possibility of a sequel. Disney is reportedly mulling this over right now, and according to Ain't It Cool News, we might get an announcement any day now. However, if we put all the financials aside, I think the more important question is, does anyone actually want to see a third Tron movie? I liked Tron: Legacy, but I have a hard time imagining what I might get out of another sequel and where they might go with the story. There has been talk that Cillian Murphy's brief appearance as Edward Dillinger was setting him up as a potential villain for the next movie, which certainly seems like the only explanation for giving him such a minor role. Disney already has a Tron animated series coming in 2012 called Tron: Uprising to help build up the younger fanbase and potentially expand the universe. Unfortunately, the movie didn't introduce many characters that seem like they would be worth revisiting, and now that we've seen the updated visuals, I feel like a third movie would be kind of redundant. What do you think? Are you interested in another Tron movie? Could a sequel actually improve on Tron: Legacy's flaws? Does Tron have the potential to be a massive franchise for Disney or should they just call it a day and move on? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Should All Upcoming DC Comic Book Movies Exist in a Single Universe?

Sean — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:00:31 +0000

Over the past few years, Warner Brothers and DC Comics have been missing out on some big opportunities with their various comic book movie franchises. Aside from Christopher Nolan's Batman series, they've had a lot of trouble getting any other marquee superheroes up on the big screen, while at the same time Marvel is continuing to rake in crazy amounts of cash on their second and even third-string characters. It's clear that the WB needs to adapt and learn from what Marvel has done, and one of the keys to Marvel's success thus far has been integrating all of their movies into a single continuity. But is this something that can and should be done for DC Universe? As we all know, there is a new Superman movie in development with Zack Snyder directing, and in a recent interview with producer Charles Roven, he revealed that there are currently no plans for any sort of crossover between the Superman and Batman franchises: "That may be in somebody's mind but right now the Batman lives in his world and the Superman lives in his world. Those stories are those stories and we haven't thought beyond each individual picture." Clearly there is a possibility for it in the future, but they don't seem to be placing much importance on it, and they certainly don't seem to be setting things up for an eventual Justice League team-up. I think for the most part this is preferable, as people seem to be getting tired of all the cross-pollination in the Marvel films. It only seems like an advantage when you're trying to promote standalone movies for lesser-known characters. However, on the other hand, I know comic book fans get a kick out of having multiple characters overlap and storylines intertwine. What do you think? Should Warner Brothers be thinking about a single consistent universe for their comic book movie franchises? Would you like to see Superman and Batman together on screen together, or are they better off on their own? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: What Are Your Christmas Viewing Traditions?

Aaron — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 01:30:10 +0000

With Christmas just a day away, most people will be spending time with their families and loved ones, too busy for movie websites. But, still, I thought I’d ask everyone about their favorite Christmas traditions when it comes to movie watching. Does your family gather around to watch holiday classics like It’s a Wonderful Life or Miracle on 34th Street? Perhaps you prefer more offbeat material like Bad Santa, Black Christmas, or Gremlins? There’s usually a fair amount of Christmas specials playing at my house, including A Charlie Brown Christmas and some of the Rankin/Bass films. If you don't have any standards you return to again and again, then maybe you'll explore some unfamiliar territory this year. After all, there's plenty of lesser-known Christmas films out there just waiting to be discovered. This list could get you started. Whatever the case may be, let us know what gets you in the Christmas spirit. As always, happy holidays from all of us at Film Junk!

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Where are the Best Black Friday Deals?

Sean — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:37:29 +0000

Well there really isn't much in the way of movie news this week, since everyone is either recovering from Thanksgiving or out there braving the Black Friday crowds, but I thought maybe this would be a good chance for people to share any movie-related deals they may have come across in stores or online. As always, Amazon seems to have some decent sales going on into the weekend (check out their Lightning Deals calendar for details), but I haven't been following many of the other retail offerings. Does anyone out there have any worthwhile recommendations? I realize that it's probably already too late to get some of the limited door crasher deals, but surely there are still some good buys to be found. Feel free to regale us with your shopping horror stories or gloat about any of the sweet bargains you managed to score. Do you participate in Black Friday regularly? What is on your shopping list this year? Are all the best deals online or is there still a good reason to fight through the angry mobs of consumer zombies? Give us your hot tips here on Open Forum Friday!

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Do You Prefer Your Comic Book Movies Serious or Funny?

Sean — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 23:39:32 +0000

With the release of new trailers this week for both Green Lantern and The Green Hornet, the door has been re-opened on a long-standing debate over whether or not comic book movies can or should have a sense of humour. For many years, comic book fans had to put up with campy interpretations of their favourite heroes, and it was only in the late '80s and early '90s with Tim Burton's Batman that we started to see the more dark and serious takes on some of these characters. This led to a couple of decades of overly melodramatic superhero adaptations, and a fanboy culture that would not permit anything even remotely resembling a joke in their high brow masterpieces. A couple of years ago, however, Jon Favreau was able to inject a lot of humour in Iron Man, and the result was a massive box office hit. Is it time we put the funny back in the funnybooks? I think the obvious stance here is that it really depends on the movie and the character, and clearly there are adult graphic novel adaptations that were never meant to be goofy or fun. But when it comes to the traditional superhero flicks, even franchises that would have seemed appropriate for a more comedic take (ie. Fantastic Four) still ended up getting slammed for indulging in it. On the other hand, as great as Christopher Nolan's Batman movies have been, their humourlessness can also be pretty oppressive at times. Personally, I think just about any major blockbuster (particularly a summer blockbuster) can be improved with some well-placed comic relief. Steven Spielberg is a master of this, and I am always open to it, as long as it is well written. What do you think? Do most comic book movies work best when they take themselves seriously, or are comics an inherently funny medium? Which superhero movies have successfully found a balance between the two? Are Green Lantern and The Green Hornet simply trying too hard to make us laugh? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!