Thursday Movie Picks: Period Dramas

This week, the theme for Wanderer's Thursday Movie Picks is Period Dramas. If you're not familiar with this activity, it's pretty straight forward. Each week, Wanderer over at Wandering Through the Shelves has a theme that gets posted on Thursdays (hence the name). Based on that theme, participants are expected to choose three movies and include roughly a paragraph on why they chose them. Pretty straight forward in theory, although sometimes is can prove more challenging than you expect.

Of course, "period drama" is a fairly broad term that could encompass a number of different films making this list slightly trickier to assemble. The obvious definition of a "period drama" would be a dramatic narrative set against the backdrop of a specific period of history, but this could encompass a wide range of sub-genres set across different eras. Probably the most obvious one would be the "costume drama"- elaborate melodramas (often romances) that make a huge spectacle of their selected era, (often somewhere in the late 18th or early 19th century, or sometimes adopting a Victorian/Edwardian setting). Typically the big thing you expect to see put on display is the fashion trends of the period (or at least those of the upper class- you don't normally see costume dramas about the poor). Depending on who you ask these are either examples of fine art or overly pretentious. Or somewhere in the middle.

Another sub-genre would be the "sword and sandal" films- big-budget historical or religious epics, many of them set in Ancient Rome. This type loves to make a spectacle of its setting (expect to see lots of Roman architecture), and may incorporate lots of special effects. We could also point to any number of war films that dramatize historical conflicts, such as the innumerable range of dramas about World War II or the Vietnam War. Certainly any drama set in the Victorian period would qualify.

Literature is also a common source material for period dramas. The romances of Jane Austen, for example, seem to be a popular choice.

So for the purposes of this theme, I had to come up with a selection of period dramas. Since it was a broad topic it was hard to narrow it down to just three. I did eventually manage to come up with three after filtering it down from a lot more, and produced the following selection. Plus an unexpected bonus.

Let's get started!

Barry Lyndon (1975)

Technically, several of Stanley Kubrick's films could be classified as "period dramas." Certainly Paths of Glory and Spartacus, and even Full Metal Jacket, but Barry Lyndon has a way of standing out. In the 1970's Kubrick took on the ambitious project of trying to make a biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte. A lot of what he did accomplish was quite impressive. The amount of research Kubrick had managed to do was alone impressive. He was going to go above and beyond. He had everything figured out. It was an ambitious project for sure, but if anyone could pull it off it was Stanley Kubrick. Then just as he was about to start filming, another Napoleonic film came out bombed. As a result, the investors panicked and pulled Kubrick's funding.

But while they may have deprived us of seeing what might have been the greatest biopic of all time, Kubrick did manage to take his extensive work on Napoleon and put into his next project- his underrated 1975 period piece Barry Lyndon. Based on a popular romance novel, Barry Lyndon follows an 18th century rogue who gambles his way into the aristocracy and gains just about everything he could possibly want, only to eventually see it all come crashing down (that's not a spoiler by the way, you're literally told from the beginning how it's all going to end). As far as costume dramas go, it's pretty well made.

Perhaps the most famous story about this film is one of Kubrick's more unusual decisions. For the indoor scenes, Kubrick was very adamant about using actual candlelight. It took a specialized camera normally used by NASA to make that possible, but it was worth it.

The Elephant Man (1980)

David Lynch's second feature film was a Victorian drama inspired by the real-life Joseph Merrick (referred to here as "John" due to a peculiar choice in the source material), the titular "Elephant Man"- a man who gained a great deal of attention from the medical world due to his unusual medical condition that puzzled doctors of the time, and which to this day experts still try to diagnose without success. They even got an actual cast of Merrick's head to use for the makeup job on John Hurt.

The Elephant Man brings to the forefront two aspects of Victorian society. It provides a thorough look into the British medical scene, offering a glimpse into the life of a doctor at the time, but perhaps more obviously it brings up the less glamorous subject of "freakshows". This is a once-common practice where circuses would gather "freaks"- people with weird physical quirks whose bodies would be put on display to be met with fascination and discomfort by their audience. The Elephant Man has a very cynical view of freak show exhibitions, and their tendency to exploit the misfortunes of others for profit.

Now some would argue that freak show acts actually helped a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to make a living (contrast this with a film like The Greatest Showman, which emphasizes how a lot of people with deformities were generally marginalized at the time and how circuses were basically the only career paths available to them). While this angle isn't discussed much in The Elephant Man (if at all), it does show the problematic society that marginalizes people with conditions over which they have no control, and certainly questions the ethics of using a human's deformities for entertainment. In fact, one of the big questions of the film is whether Treves is actually making things better for Merrick or if he's just created a whole new circus.

The Draughtsman's Contract (1982)

As one of my professors once remarked, this probably should have been called The Draughtsman's Contracts because it's a major theme and there are at least two important contracts he takes (three if you count the "contract" at the very end). Peter Greenway's period drama revolves around an 18th-century sketch artist who is hired to produce drawings of a British estate, while also entering deals that involve sexual affairs with two upper class women. Oh, and there's a murder which may or may not have its solution in said drawings (it's a bit confusing). There's also a naked man who often pretends to be a statue and keeps appearing in various parts of the estate for reasons never made entirely clear. This film can certainly be described as "weird" but it does a pretty impressive job with the period detail.

Bonus: History of the World, Part I (1981)

I thought that while we're on the subject of "period dramas" it would be fun to also include an underrated film that parodies the genre. Mel Brooks' take on the period drama is an anthology that ruthlessly mocks various types of period dramas, both historical and religious.

The two main sections include a mock "sword and sandal" epic that follows the adventures of a "stand-up philosopher" in Ancient Rome, and a mock costume drama about the French Revolution. The film also has a segment depicting the "Dawn of Man" which includes a parody of 2001: A Space Odyssey and a chronicling of early human discoveries such as the spear, fire, the first marriage (and first homosexual marriage), music, and art (which also caused the birth of the critic). And of course we can't forget the bizarrely cheerful song-and-dance number about the Spanish Inquisition.

Mel Brooks himself plays several different people over the course of the film (even having a dual-role in the French Revolution segment), but quite a few other big names also make appearances. Several of Brooks' regulars manage to find their way in- Madeline Kahn, Harvey Korman, Dom DeLuoise, Ron Carey, Chloris Leechman, and Sid Caesar all show up. Other surprising appearances include John Hurt, Bea Aurthur, and dramatic narration by Orson Welles. 

Why We Need a Break From Batman

Batman is a character who has become so iconic that his very image is recognizable at a glance. The character has been portrayed by far too many actors to count across every form of media imaginable- comics, television, feature films, video games. You name it, Batman's appeared at some point. And that's to say nothing of the innumerable parodies and homages that have been made by fans. Batman is an extremely popular character that has resonated across generations, but that's part of the problem.

Like fellow comic book hero Superman, the character of Batman, and his sidekick Robin originated in the 30's. Also like Superman, a lot of the lore that has come to be associated with the character was not yet established. Batman was a caped hero who fought crime alongside a sidekick with some homoerotic undertones. Pretty straight forward really. Batman's first filmed appearance was actually a 1943 serial simply titled Batman that established some aspects of the franchise, such as the presence of a butler named Alfred, and the presence of a "Bat-Cave" that serves as a base of operations. It was also influenced by World War II-era racism against the Japanese, with its white heroes working to outwit a Japanese antagonist and occasionally spouting some unfortunate racial slurs.

A lot of what we've come to associate with Batman comes from the famous 1960's TV series, also called Batman. This series was designed to be campy and ridiculous. Batman, famously played by Adam West, was often getting into weird situations, often ending up in situations that led to over-the-top cliffhangers parodying those of older serials. Although it drew many of its characters from the 1940's comics, the show helped to solidify their roles as key figures in Batman lore. Several antagonists from the comic are established as Batman's main enemies- most famously the Joker (who by now has more or less become the "primary" nemesis of Batman), but also Two-Face and the Riddler, as well as an early version of Catwoman. We also see Commissioner Gordon established as Batman's friend on the police force.

Then we get to Tim Burton's 1989 Batman with Michael Keaton in the title role. Tim Burton made an unusual decision for the time by deciding he was going to break from the campiness of the show and present a much more serious interpretation of the character. Since then, Batman has gone through several different incarnations, some of which managed to add new characters that went on to be recognized as key pieces of lore. For instance, in Batman: The Animated Series Joker was often given generic henchmen, but then someone had the idea that it might be interesting to see a henchwoman for a change. This resulted in the creation of Harley Quinn, a character often reappeared in future versions of Batman's adventures and herself had a long and complex evolution.

But of course, the darkness and brooding of Batman remained throughout most subsequent iterations. With the exceptions of obvious parodies (as in The Lego Batman Movie) the idea of Batman being dark seemed to be solidified in the minds of his writers. After Tim Burton, we see it reappear again and again, from Batman the Animated Series to Christopher Nolan's Batman films to the Batman: Arkham series of video games. They keep trying to frame Batman as being dark and brooding. And to be honest, I'm kinda sick of it.

Every time Batman appears post-West, it's the same story. Bruce Wayne was the son of rich parents who were killed in a mugging-gone-wrong that happened after they left a theater one night, which inspired Bruce to become a vigilante who strikes fear into the hearts of criminals. Blah blah blah, you know the deal. Even The LEGO Batman Movie implies this backstory. Then of course we have all the same bad guys and their gimmicks- The Joker, who has a habit of cheerfully committing murder in a carnival atmosphere; the Riddler, who likes to challenge people to figure out his crimes based on riddles; Two-Face's habit of acting on a coin flip. It's been done.

And let's face it, maybe it was cool when Tim Burton did it, maybe even when Nolan did, but for all the efforts to treat the series as serious, the Batman franchise as a whole is pretty cartoonish. This is literally about a rich guy who puts on tights to fight crime and feels the need to make absolutely everything in his life bat-themed. Even many of his enemies. Joker, Two-Face, the Riddler, Scarecrow, the Penguin, Mr. Freeze. How are any of these characters realistic? They're all bizarre outlandish characters who rely on silly gimmicks, whose plans mostly hinge on destroying Gotham simply because they're evil. When was the last time Batman actually take on a criminal like you might find in real life?

Batman as a character has been portrayed in sixteen feature films and appearing in video games since 1986. I think we've seen enough of the character at this point, and yet we keep seeing a new Arkham game coming out every few years while other more interesting superheroes remain untouched. Sixteen different Batman films, some of which were released within only a few years of the character's comic debut. Yet it took seventy six years and the release of Batman vs. Superman just to get Wonder Woman (another character who is equally iconic in the comics) onto the big screen.

You know how many video games Wonder Woman has starred in? Sure, she's appeared in some games, either as a playable character in an ensemble cast or as a supporting NPC, but how many has she actually taken the lead in? Exactly zero. Batman, Superman, and other Superheroes get to appear time and again. Sure we can keep cranking out Arkham games because we haven't had enough Batman, but nobody seems to have considered the possibility of a Wonder Woman game.

And this is just it, I'm sick of Batman. I'm sick of his stupid costume. I'm sick of his brooding. I'm sick of his cliched backstory being repeated again and again for the sake of edginess. I'm sick of the relentless efforts to turn what is really quite cartoonist into something serious. I'm sick of every single thing Bruce Wayne uses having to be bat-themed. I'm sick of the whole "strike fear into the hearts of crime" thing that never seems to actually fix anything. The point is, Batman as a character has been done to death. He's been done so many times that every single repetition of the exact same thing is just infuriating.

You know what I'd love to see? I'd love to see a really good Wonder Woman video game- in fact I'd like to see a few. I'd love to see Wonder Woman take central stage more often. She's a way more interesting character than Batman anyway.

However, as Batman is a deeply ingrained part of our pop culture, and too profitable to go away any time soon, I would like to also propose some ideas for how it may be possible to refresh the character.

Literally how almost every single Batman story after the Adam West show begins.

One approach that might be a nice change is to abandon the serious brooding approach in favor of a return to Adam West-style campiness. You could still have similar plots but embrace the silliness of it.

Another possibility might be to try experimenting with alterations to Batman's backstory. For instance, how might it affect the character if only one of his parents were killed in the mugging, rather than both?

Yet another direction we could go is to perhaps rework the "strike fear into the hearts of criminals" thing, especially given that simply beating up criminals whenever they're found doesn't actually fix anything- in fact, if anything it's more likely to make it worse. Perhaps a suitable alternative could be to take advantage of his dual identity, with Bruce Wayne using his financial resources and connections to do things that actually help reduce crime, while Batman focuses strictly on the people who get in the way, perhaps even using one persona to gather information that can be used by the other. So that Bruce Wayne can use his connections to get information on organized crime then sabotages their efforts as Batman.

What this does show is a major gender bias in superhero media, one which is slowly changing, but still present. We can see a similar tendency with Superman, a character who originated only a few years before Batman, and went through an even more complicated evolution. The original comics from the 30's were much more simplistic than later iterations. The most prominent part of the lore to really be established was Superman's alter ego as a reporter named Clark Kent. Originally he was just an invincible human with bizarre superpowers who used his unique abilities to fight crime- not Lex Luthor or anything like that, but more realistic criminals like scam artists, extortionists, corrupt politicians, and so forth.

From there the character evolved and started appearing in serials. One particularly noteworthy appearance was the 1946 radio serial Clan of the Fiery Cross, a story arc in which Superman fought the Klu Klux Klan, aided by activists who had infiltrated the Klan and provided the show's producers with information. This serial was such a huge hit that it even ended up being a huge blow to the Klan in real life. But at this point, Superman was just that- a superman. He was just a guy who had lots of crazy powers that he could use to fight criminals.

And like Batman, Superman has been through many different incarnations across comics, movies, video games, and television. Over time these various iterations produced the lore that would become associated with the Superman franchise. It became established that Superman's love interest was Lois Lane. Like Batman, we start to see various nemeses associated with Superman- with Lex Luthor as the most prominent. Later on he started to get a backstory stating that he was an alien sent to Earth from a dying planet (offering more justification for his superpowers). Then there's also Superman's ongoing relationship with Batman. When the idea of him being invincible started to get tedious he was given a weakness in the form of a mineral called Kryptonite. Then there was the idea of him having a cousin, Supergirl, who was also sent to Earth.

But what can we say for someone like Wonder Woman? Sure, she's been through a lot of different iterations in the comics, but what else? She occasionally appears in animations, usually as part of an ensemble, starred in one TV show, and a single feature film (with an upcoming sequel), and zero video games where she has a starring role. Keep in mind that she's one of the most iconic figures in DC comics, often shown alongside Batman and Superman, not to mention she also made her debut around the same time. Yet a lot of what is written about her has not changed all that much.

So why is it that we get Batman and Superman again and again but so little of Wonder Woman? The simple answer is because Batman and Superman are white men. And that's just it? They don't have to be, that's just how they were originally designed and nobody ever questioned it. It's not like their sex or ethnicity are key defining features of their character, so why not change them? Surely we would not have to change anything if we had, say, a black actor playing Superman. Or even if we changed it up. Why not just have a female Batman or a female Superman? And I don't just mean Batgirl or Supergirl, I mean like actually have the roles of Batman and Superman be played by women.

And of course these female characters are consistently overshadowed by their male counterparts. Sure, sometimes Batgirl is incorporated into the Batman lore (emphasis on the sometimes) as a sidekick. Sometimes she is ommitted entirely, and sometimes you run into other situations. In the Arkham series, Barbara Gordon's status as Batgirl is restricted entirely to backstory. In the present, she is paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair, mostly talking to Batman over a radio, and offering a convenient excuse for the games to keep her from actually taking an active role in the story. She then gets reduced to a damsel in distress for most of Arkham Knight.

Now the good news is that there is some hope. The massive success of Black Panther shows that  non-white superheroes can still be huge hits, and we have seen a recent trend of female superhero movies finally starting to appear (after several decades of being almost non-existent)- starting with Wonder Woman (2018) and continuing through Captain Marvel (2019), Dark Phoenix (2019), and the upcoming Black Widow and Wonder Woman 1984. This surge suggests a growing awareness of the problem of gender inequality. So at least there is some effort to address the problem.

But the underlying issue still stands. The thing is Batman and Superman are getting old. They've been done to death. We need a break from them. Their tired backstories have been retold over and over again and they're always the same. We don't need a new Batman film or Superman film, TV show, video game, whatever. Give us something different. Maybe some more Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel. I am sick of Batman and Superman. If you want to go that route how about a good Supergirl movie, or give Batgirl her own film (especially considering her only feature film appearance so far was 1997's Batman and Robin).

And to their credit, sometimes this has happened. Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther both came from lesser-known parts of Marvel Comics and proved to be huge hits. The 2018 Aquaman film did a lot to undermine the character's long-standing and often-ridiculed reputation for being useless. But Batman and Superman are overused and have been in way too much. It's time to put them aside, at least for now. We need a break from them.

There's Always a Lighthouse, There's Always a Man, but this Time There's No City

Lots of free time, not sure what to do with it, trying to write more often, and I'm stuck in quarantine. Might as well use some of that time to watch some movies, right? Fortunately, I have access to Amazon Prime, and with that a fairly large uncatalogued of films I'd barely tapped until now (it was being used more often for watching TV shows). So here I was seeing what their fairly extensive library had to offer, and I stumbled across a curious title called The Lighthouse, an independent film from last year revolving around the growing conflict between a pair of lighthouse keepers. Sounded like an interesting one to check out.

Somewhere in the 19th Century, two men- Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson) and Thomas Wake (Willem Dafoe) arrive at a lighthouse with a contract to oversee it for four weeks. The lighthouse is located on a remote island, the surrounding waters of which may or may not be inhabited by sirens and a kraken (it's a bit confusing). They go about their usual routines, doing the various tasks that need to be performed to maintain the lighthouse and chores that need to be performed on an everyday basis. But over time the boredom and repetitive work begins to mess with their heads. The fact that Wake seems to be keeping secrets doesn't help. When their replacements fail to arrive at the end of the four weeks, things only seem to get worse. Tensions mount between the two men as both start to lose their sanity.

Probably the most obvious touch in the film is its decision to shoot in black and white- which was actually a pretty good choice. Obviously the use of black and white gives the film an old-fashioned look, but it doesn't look like something you'd see in classical Hollywood. Instead, a lot of the film looks like something you'd expect to see from late 19th/early 20th century photographs of a lighthouse rather than an old movie. Structurally, The Lighthouse has a much closer resemblance to the European art films of the 1960's than anything you'd see from Hollywood. It seems to have traces of Robert Bresson and Ingmar Bergman, which makes the black and white all the more fitting. I don't think I can imagine this film being in colour.

Pulling off a minimal setting (the entire film being set in and around the lighthouse) with the cast limited almost entirely to two actors is no easy task, but The Lighthouse makes full use of these limitations. The film does a surprisingly good job of making the day-to-day lives of its protagonists seem compelling, even if some of the details can be harder to follow. Depictions of chores from repairing the roof to hauling coal convey a sense of boredom, frustration, and monotony, yet seem to really draw the viewer in. The tight spaces of the lighthouse itself are often used to create a sense of unease and disorientation that only heightens the Bergman-esque discomfort.

But while the film may have an interesting aesthetic, it's also just as much about sound. Diegetic sound is used to its full effect in conjunction with a haunting musical score that often includes suspiciously foghorn-like sounds. But when it isn't making use of its soundtrack or the various noises around the island, it's creating unease through silence. In fact a lot of the film's audio is made up of either diegetic noises or complete silence. Dialogue is present, but used sparsely. It actually takes some time before we hear anyone speak.

The two leading actors also do a very good job with their roles. Robert Pattinson has come a long way since Twilight. In The Lighthouse he fits into the role so well you could almost be forgiven for not recognizing him. Same with Willem Dafoe, who really developed a unique voice for Thomas Wake, though his thick accent may sometimes be hard to understand.

The Lighthouse is not an easy film to sit through, but it is one that is worth exploring if you are able to find it. I would recommend this to fans of art films from the 1960's, especially the works of Ingmar Bergman. In many ways, The Lighthouse feels like an homage to Bergman and some of his contemporaries (not as much Fellini or Antonioni in this one, though). But if even if, like me, you never really got into art cinema it's still an interesting experience.

Thursday Movie Picks: Prequels

Wow, it's been a while since I did one of these, but... um... I've been trying to do more writing somewhat more regularly and I suddenly remembered, I have this series and I got to wondering if it was still going on. Turns out it is! Awesome! Now I can see about participating in these events again. Hooray!

I can't promise I'll reliably have a post every week but I figure this will at least give me something to do in quarantine.

Also a chance to do some film discussion again. I know a lot of the few things I've posted recently have been more about video games with some incorporation of film theory, but what can I say? I've branched out, and there's a lot of stuff in film discussion that transfers well to other media.

Since I haven't done one of these in ages I suppose I should explain how it all works for whoever is actually still reading my sporadic ramblings. Thursday Movie Picks Meme is a regular activity hosted by a blog called Wandering Through the Shelves. The premise is pretty straight forward- each week there is a theme, and participants are challenged to pick three movies that fit the theme. The official page contains a schedule for all of this year's themes.

For this one, the theme is prequels- stories that are released after a prior installment but with stories set before the events of their predecessor, as opposed to a sequel, which usually tries to pick up where the previous entry left off.

Sometimes you can run into weird situations- like having an entry that is supposed to be a prequel but gets labelled as though its a sequel, for instance by having a "2" in the title. Other times you run into stories that are both prequels and sequels at the same time. One installment of the Borderlands series of games is cheekily titled the "pre-sequel" because it takes place in between the original game and Borderlands 2, making it a sequel to the former but a prequel to the lattter.

As I've often enjoyed doing, I decided to try to come up with some titles most people wouldn't think of. I know there are some obvious ones. I could easily point to the Star Wars prequel trilogy but that's probably going to be done by a few people. Instead, I chose some that you could almost be forgiven for not even realizing they were prequels.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)

Okay so technically the canonocity of Leone's "Dollars Trilogy," if one exists, is the subject of hot debate. Some fans can't even agree if Clint Eastwood plays the same character in all three films, letalone establish the a firm continuity. The fact that many of the supporting actors play different characters in each film (i.e. Mario Braga, who appears in all three films as a bad guy with a dramatic death scene) doesn't help. But most people agree that chronologically The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, the last of the three films (after A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More) takes place before the other two. 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is undoubtedly the best of the trilogy, showing the full extent of the skill Leone developed over the course of making its predecessors. In this one, three men try to reach a hidden stash of gold based on partial information. Clint Eastwood, of course, returns as the "Man with no Name" (referred to here as "Blondie") from the previous films. The role of this film as a prequel is arguably most evident towards the end- when we see him finding his famous poncho and putting it on for the first time.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

You wouldn't think of this as a prequel, but The Temple of Doom takes place in 1935. Raiders of the Lost Ark takes place in 1936. Therefore it chronologically takes place before the first film, which makes it a prequel! The Temple of Doom admittedly doesn't have all that much to do with Raiders of the Lost Ark outside of the presence of Indiana Jones himself, mostly being a self-contained story that largely stands out from other films in the series in terms of narrative an aesthetic. Notably it is isn't a globe-trotting adventure like the other films (instead mostly taking place in India around a single area), and involves stopping the ruthless Thuggee cult, which is notably quite a jump from the Nazi and later Soviet armies Indy faces in his other adventures.

Some parts of the film are also just plain weird, even by Indiana Jones standards. One standout is the infamous dinner scene where our heroes are presented with the "fine dining" of live snakes, scarabs, eyeball soup, and "chilled monkey brains," a sequence that admittedly seems a lot more cartoonish compared to his later adventures. There's also a big sequence where Indy and his friends get chased in mine carts through a series of mine tunnels that look more like a roller coaster. Basically lots of insanity ensues.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

Bet you weren't expecting this one. The more obvious choice for Star Wars would be the prequel trilogy, but in many ways Rogue One is a much better film.

Rogue One one is a prequel to the original Star Wars movie, following the events that led right up to its predecessor's opening sequence and (although unknown to the characters) allowing Luke's journey through the original trilogy to begin. Specifically, it chronicles the theft of the Death Star plans which, as you may recall, was crucial to the events of A New Hope, but originally happened offscreen. The film even ends more or less leading right into A New Hope's opening.

Rogue One is a really well made film, not even just as a prequel- it stands pretty nicely on its own, too. Jyn Erso has easily become one of my favorite Star Wars characters. Like the films made by George Lucas, it draws on a variety of sources. The plot itself is somewhere between a heist film and a war movie, with a lot of WWII influences. It also does a pretty good job of recreating familiar iconography and characters while still finding room for new material.

Bonus: Bioshock Infinite (2013)

I know, I'm cheating slightly by including a video game, but just hear me out!

Bioshock: Infinite takes on a number of peculiar deviations from its predecessors, most obviously the change in setting from an underwater city to a city in the sky. Basically, imagine a city that consists entirely of the worst parts of American history and culture, in the sky, with a turn-of-the-century aesthetic, and you've got the setting of Bioshock Infinite. In many ways it can be seen as a thematic successor to the original Bioshock, but it is also a prequel... sort of. The game takes place in 1912 (the original Bioshock was set in 1960). While the meddling of space and time by various characters in the game, as well as the protagonists' hopping between universes may complicate some of the timeline, chronologically it does take place before the first game. 

Interestingly, the downloadable storyline Burial at Sea directly ties Infinite to the original Bioshock, revealing how one of its key players set the events of that game into motion.