Yeah. How dare he make a movie that is meant to entertain people rather than abusing his position as director to hit the audience over the head, repeatedly, with some half-baked crackpot philosophy he pompously calls his "vision"?

Let's face it: film is an absolutely awful medium for conveying anything substantial. It's short, you can't get inside people's heads, and you can't spend too long explicitly discussing any idea lest it turn into a lecture. You have to imply and simplify.

Even the deepest of films is much shallower than it could have been, had it been a novel. Which, in turn, is much shallower than just biting the bullet and writing about whatever idea you want to tell people about in a comprehensive, rigorous, and explicit way. All the movies people rave about as being meaningful or deep are about as deep as a 10 minute introductory talk on the topic that you can find on YouTube.

I much prefer movies that face the fact and just tell an interesting story with a gripping and believable plot, realistic characters, crisp dialogue, convincing effects, and a fleshed out mileu. If Star Trek lacks those things, fine. But criticising it for not telling you some message is just absurd. It would be like looking for some message in my dinner at a restaurant. How ridiculous would it sound if I left a restaurant saying "The food tasted great, but the chef didn't use it to comment on the human condition, so I rate my dinner as awful". The purpose of a restaurant is to be delicious. The purpose of a movie is to tell a story.

 

I completely agree with Taure which is a sentence I never thought I'd say. Panning him for not cramming philosophy down people's throats is ridiculous. Setting that aside I really couldn't disagree with you more on the movie. It isn't going to be a timeless classic or anything but its still a fun and entertaining movie and easily worth the money.

 

...Taure, did you even read my review?

I said very early on that I gave up on this film being a worthy successor to Trek's ideology, instead accepting it as a popcorn flick. But even by those standards, it's a bad popcorn flick, riddled with plotholes and idiocy. You're saying the purpose of a film is to tell a story - fine, by that standard, Star Trek: Into Darkness tells a fucking terrible story. DLP could write a better screenplay than this dreck.

And forget Trekkie nitpicking: even by popcorn movie standards, it's not within spitting distance of good. And when you couple it with all the allusions it makes to better Trek movies (mostly taking place throughout the last half hour of that film), Into Darkness reveals itself for the pathetic, soulless cash grab that it is.

Let's compare it to a popcorn movie that came out around the same time last year: The Avengers. Sure, that movie has problems, but the plot makes sense in its own internal logic and features characters I care about. The dramatic stakes are there, and you can get invested in what's happening while still having a great time. Star Trek: Into Darkness, on the other hand, can't even reach that high, and decides to cloak its thin, completely-telegraphed plot behind pointless melodrama, dialogue straight from the nearest sitcom, and the barest veil of Trek iconography.

As for the rest of your little diatribe deriding film as having no artistic value... well, I hope you're trolling, because otherwise you look profoundly ignorant. Sure, film tells a story, but said stories can have meaning and value and emotional impact with a resonant message. To suggest otherwise makes you look like a dumbass.

 

Film has no artistic value? Where did I say that?

Film is a visual medium. The same things that make it suck at delivering the goods on meaning also mean it can be great art. Stuff like the green tinge to every scene inside the Matrix - that's art. It's clever. It looks good - iconic, even. It's a masterful way of using the cinematography to help tell the story. But it doesn't have anything to do with shoving some philosophy on the watcher (and while we're on the Matrix, this is a great example of a film with a message being extremely shallow. "How can you tell that life is not a dream?" Welcome to the first five minutes of Philosophy 101. Luckily the film is entertaining despite the attempt at philosophy).

Emotional impact is similar. Films of course have emotional impact. But again, that's not really anything to do with any kind of philosophy. It's to do with identifying with the characters and the situations they find themselves in.

As for saying Star Trek is a bad popcorn movie... you seem to be in the minority there. It's received generally positive reviews from most publications, and the response here is generally positive too.

 

Hey Silens, did you actually watch the interview with Stewart where good ol' JJ said that he didn't like Star Trek as a kid because it was too philosophical? Later on in the interview he said that he grew to like it as an adult because of the philosophical side.


And yeah, the move was worth it just because a) I like Chris Pine's Kirk, and b) space ships.

 

Now that's a review I can get behind.

 

Well, I could point to this:

I don't even know where to begin here, because it shows a complete misunderstanding of how film can convey substance through nuance, thematic ties, and subtext - you know, the same way novels work, but in a more varied medium. If you think that lectures are the best/only way to deliver substantive material and that film can't deliver in the same way... well, I'd argue you're completely wrong and point you towards some superb essays on cinematography (like this one).

And sure, if you're just looking at the 'text' of the film, you're not typically going to find many ideas that push your philosophical bounds (even still. I can think of maybe a dozen films off the top of my head that are literate enough to serve as surprisingly eloquent philosophical digressions). It's the combination of that script and additional factors like cinematography and direction and lighting and music and actor performances which add additional nuance and meaning to the story beyond just the text of the story. It's what makes the art mean something.

Same thing with emotional impact: one of the things that tended to make the original Star Trek so powerful was its underlying philosophy of human manifest destiny and futuristic utopianism. That theme underlying all of the human elements adds weight and emotional heft to the interactions between the characters, showing that they believe in something greater than themselves, something worth fighting and dying for. It adds bigness, it adds deeper underlying currents of drama, it can mean something.

Really? That's your argument - 'the majority of other people like it, ergo you're wrong and your opinion is invalid'? Well, if you want critics who have come down against this movie with valid rationale, I could link you here and here.

I did catch that. The problem with it is that J.J. Abrams isn't a good enough filmmaker to realize any of that philosophy besides the shallowest of retreads of what has been done before. So much of the writing in this film feels like it's half-heartedly reaching for that underlying philosophy and then completely collapsing into itself due to the complete lack of logic. It also doesn't help matters that Abrams just isn't a filmmaker with anything interesting to say - his films are technically sound (for the most part), but they don't mean anything besides shallow lights on a wall.

And maybe it's just me, but I can't stand Chris Pine as an actor. The man has no charisma to me, and I don't like the way he plays Kirk. That might be personal preference, but it certainly colours how I watch the film.

 

Setting aside the fact that the only two you posted were from a blog and Internet magazine you really have no leg to stand on when it comes to "the majority of other people like it, ergo you're wrong and your opinion is invalid" seeing as how you just stated "here are two people who agree with me therefore their opinion is valid and yours is not."

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it but the majority of people and myself included really enjoy Pines Kirk. I thought it was an all around good movie with good performances from all the actors. I still think Quintos Spock is a ridiculous douchebag 65% of the time but he did a good job withe character.

 

The point is that there's no valid rationale. The appeal to popularity is the only valid argument here, given that the purpose of a blockbuster is to be popular. If the film is popular, then it's a good blockbuster.

Bull. The socialist utopia line is something people who get paid to talk about these things trot out to justify their paycheck, but it's completely disconnected with what actually brought the majority of Star Trek fans to the franchise.

Coming from someone who has loved Star Trek from a young age, the main thing that made Star Trek so powerful is this: "Hey, look! Spaceships! That's so cool! I wish I could have one!" Visit any Star Trek fan forum and you won't find many conversations about socialism in Star Trek. You'll see huge 100 page discussions about whether or not the Enterprise could beat the Death Star.

(In fact, Star Trek got a lot more interesting when they started dismantling the socialist Utopia idea in DS9 with the introduction of currency).

And the characters are normally fighting to save the world (or a world). That's where the sense of bigness comes from. The utopia stuff actually undermines it a lot, as watchers find it difficult to identify with that sort of society. Which is why it was always minimised, with a focus on conflict, not how everything was peaceful and nice.

 

Silens, I can agree with you about the plotholes, and the fridge logic, and I absolutely agree about the ending, although it didn't engrage me so much as it made me roll my eyes. That was bad, lazy writing, pure and simple. And I say this as someone who, on balance, quite enjoyed the film.

But - and maybe I'm just looking at philisophy from a different perspective from you in this context - pretty much every plot point revolved around some sort of ethical issue.

Spoiler

Was Kirk right to ignore regulations? Was the Admiral right to prepare for war? Was Khan justified in his revenge attacks (at first, at least)? Is it right for Kirk to kill Khan without even speaking to him?

They aren't exactly original questions, and it is certainly open to debate about whether they were handled well - I thought they were; present for you to think about if you wanted, but unobtrusive enough that they didn't overwhelm the film - but to say that they aren't there is just wrong.

Also, and I say this as someone who's seen a few episodes of the show, and most of the later films, but are we really going to say that every single episode or film in the franchise thus far has been a philosophical masterpiece?

 

The Enterprise would soooo beat the Death Star.

The reason I started liking it was because... Space Ships, Phasers, Aliens, Time Travel, Alternate Dimensions. Philosophy or "the moral of the story" had nothing to do with it. In fact, the more moralistic or philosophical the story was, the less I enjoyed it.

 

What is life? Why are we here? Is this a dream? Do my farts smell as good to other people as they do to me?

 

Why do hot dogs come in packages of eight but hot dog buns in packages of six?

 

Heh. Actually had to reread that two or three times before I could believe you'd written it. Broad, subjective, and almost certainly lacking the research to be able to properly back it up.

Who are you and what have you done with Taure?

So there's a direct correlation between the size of something and its capacity for substance, now?

Every intricate and comprehensive theme, philosophy, idea, protest, expression and saga that have ever been conveyed by short or simple mediums - from hieroglyphics to single photographs to Owen's poetry to Dylan's songbook - would beg to differ.

Quantity =/= quality.

Film can't get inside people's heads.

I'd heard rumours for a while about this. Shame to see it confirmed. Mind if I borrow the study you're citing, when you've finished pulling it out of your arse?

What? What was happening in your head when you wrote that? You're arguing that telling =/= storytelling... well, no shit, but when did lengthy discussions of individual ideas suddenly become the best way to convey complex themes in any form of fiction?

And I love the derision in 'imply' and 'simplify', too, as though implication and simplification are tools that are a) exclusive to film, and b) not imperative in the telling of any story.

There are so many examples of this not being true it's unsettling. The only way you can reach this sort of conclusion is if you isolate what is being conveyed from certainmethods of conveying it, but surely nobody would be outlandish enough to think only words can convey substance? That cinematography, editing, sound and performance don't also contribute to delivering the core ideas...

I spoke too soon.

Just to review, a moment ago you were arguing that written fiction is superior at delivering complex themes. Now, out of nowhere, you're implying that the more 'meaningful' and 'deep' (I presume that translates to 'effective' and 'comprehensive') way to convey anything substantial is to isolate it from any kind of simplification or narrative.

/GL and two Millenia of allegory disagree.

The attitude of ~90% of moviegoers. Crack on. But irrelevant to everything that came prior in your post. 'I like films that don't try to be too clever' is valid. 'I dislike over-analysis of movies' is also valid. 'It is impossible for film to convey substance' is not.

It so, so wouldn't, and I think you probably know that.

My diagnosis? Narcissism. You being unable to appreciate, understand, or in some way connect with an artistic medium does not equal that medium being unable to be appreciated, understood or in some way connected with by other people.

 

Gah.

Okay, last post on Star Trek, mostly because I'm tired of being annoyed with it. GL already covered the stuff regarding Taure, so this is mainly to address the people who still say they like it: there's nothing wrong with liking the movie.

I'm serious, as much as I couldn't stand the new Star Trek movie, I'm not going to begrudge you guys for liking the film. Hell, I really wanted to like it, but between the mechanical direction, Chris Pine's lack of appeal (I think this might a personal foible, which is why I tried to play that element down in my review), and what the story tried to do, it just didn't work for me.

I remember watching the film Into Darkness builds off of and shamelessly rips off and feeling a genuine emotional connection, which for me was underscored by both connections with the protagonists and the undercurrent of meaning running through the movie. And as I said in my review, if I hadn't seen that particular movie, I don't think I'd have nearly as vehement as a reaction as I did. But I have seen that movie, and the fact that Into Darkness consistently tries to invoke the comparison just doesn't work for me. It didn't feel like a good homage to me, and it didn't resonate - and here's the thing, I really wanted it to resonate. In this movie you see signs that Abrams and his writers are trying to go for the big idea material that made Star Trek great - and maybe you saw it different, but I definitely don't think they pulled it off.

And I'll agree with Heather, when they continuously tried to bring it up in the narrative, it felt clumsy and out-of-place and preachy - which, to me, is more evidence that they couldn't pull it off. The Dark Knight definitely has a similar problem, but that movie has a better pace and atmosphere and the more arch moralizing fit the tone of the film. Here, when set up against the sitcom-esque dialogue filled with quips and snark, it doesn't fit in the same way.

And as for the argument 'well, the rest of the critics liked it, ergo you're wrong'... well, I could throw the initial opening buzz surrounding Prometheus on the table, but that's not the point, because I've disagreed with critics a number of times. After all, I liked Pain & Gain and Spring Breakers a lot more than most critics, and I'll stand by both of our opinions as valid. I'll admit I'm not really a 'populist' reviewer and that I'm not a fan of turning off my brain when I watch movies - and really, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. Sure, people might raise questions on my 'sources' for negative critical reviews, but I feel they go more in-depth on the film than the majority of critical opinions circulating regarding Into Darkness.

And sure, I'll admit I overanalyze - but at the same time, if I can find this many issues with a film after a night of hard drinking and a morning with a bad hangover, and I'm not a film school kid, that might be evidence enough that the script has problems.

Eh, whatever. For those of you who enjoyed it, I'm happy for you that you managed to get something out of it. I just wish I could have.

 

GL: the point is that all fiction is a poor way to convey a complex ideas, and in particular philosophy, so all the comparisons to other narrative media to support your position are somewhat empty. Movies are just the worst of the lot.

You wouldn't try to use a fictional narrative to try to explain general relativity to someone. You wouldn't use a movie to try to explain genetics. You wouldn't use a movie to debate Keynes vs. Hayek. Why do people think that philosophy is so accessible compared to all these other subjects?

If you want to discuss philosophy, the correct venue is academia, just as it is for any other academic discipline.

 

Man. Totally wish I'd refreshed the page before posting. Just this last bit, because it's important. I'll try to keep it brief.

They require success, not popularity.

The popularity of a release of this scale is manufactured. It's not quite entirely artificial but it's bloated with hype and hysteria because that makes people flood into theates and then, in turn, market the film to their own networks. Whether the film is good or bad or enjoyable or philosophically sound is, at this point, irrelevant to its popularity: it's very strategically a la mode, courtesy of a behemoth campaign (I'm reckoning equivalent to ~40-45% of what they spent below-the-line). It couldn't be anything but popular. It's the effective management of expectations, important no matter what you're selling.

All that remains, then, is to determine its success. As mentioned, many people simply want to be entertained. They don't seek or even invite themes that tease too far beyond the edges of the frame. Success, then - thrilling, expensive, familiar and digestible. The business end? Success - it's profitable. The director? Yep - talk of the town, plus the producers are happy, so a little more leeway on his next picture. Crew? Success - it's over, they've been paid, there were no major accidents. Professional Critics? Success - a good or bad review is irrelevant when it's written well and being read, quoted and debated, ergo keeping food on the table.

And finally... Film fans. That is to say, a surprisingly large group who engage with and seek out cinema itself, who find that as a medium it can offer more than basic entertainment. Aim for films you don't know the actors in? Don't mind subtitles? Try not to anticipate whether you'll like or hate a film so that you can identify individual parts that you liked, that were bad, that you can gush over when impressed? Get disappointed when you've mistakenly trusted an actor or director or writer with something they've bungled? Know that a good film - a really good film - is like a one-on-one conversation with the director?

Then you're a secret film fan. Don't let on to the muggles.

Interestingly, that's exactly what I'd do.

 

This movie was shit because Kirk didn't rip his shirt off and beat any aliens to death with boulders. Also, he only fucked two aliens, and they were the same kind. 0/10, would not recommend.

 

Can a mod please move the argument about Star Trek to the actual Star Trek thread please?

On that note: I might have mentioned it earlier but I don't remember if I linked a trailer but I really am somewhat anticipating Now You See Me.. Jesse Eisenberg is not some one I'm happy about but the rest of the cast makes me smile. Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Michael Caine. Looks to be a funny and popcorn-ish movie that I'd enjoy.

 

Just one thing.. a big marketing campaign doesn´t necessarily result in high popularity. Just look at John Carter or a myriad of other films.

But enough of Star Trek.. just watched The Great Gatsby and I really liked it. An entertaining movie showcasing the imperfection of high society.