The Hot Blog

You're on Facebook?

I am mostly inactive, but I have a lot of people who have made friend requests, I am. But I almost never post. Twitter only. And even then, not that much.

So people are deluding themselves into thinking they're seeing more than they are? Really?

That's the height of arrogance, David. Echoes of your "Jesse James" criticisms. I get the point you're TRYING to make, but I think a number of the reviews out there (and I'm certainly speaking for myself loudly here) make the case that they both bought what they were watching and understood perfectly what was being exhibited.

Today is a great day, David Poland took a giant step toward calling Roger Ebert a stupid whore.

If I sounded surprised, it's only because I wouldn't think you'd advertise the fact. Otherwise, you'd get friend requests from the posters here and they'd, well, I don't know, importune you for a column? Although you could set up one of those fan pages for yourself and/or MCN. Especially MCN. That would not be a bad idea if you ask me. Not that you are. Just a suggestion. At least you didn't say you're on MySpace. That would be sooooo embarrasing. No 14-year-old girls around here. Or bands.

Those who don't share your enthusiasm for a couple Wachowski movies (we all know which two) are going to have fun with that "seeing more than is there" angle.

Hey... I'm just looking forward to someone arguing that ST has anything remotely approaching depth, intellectually or emotionally. I don't actually think it will happen.

Mostly, I expect "I liked it" to be the depth of the text in support of the film.

And I was wrong about Roger... "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."

wow, david poland, that is possibly the weakest, most arrogant, desperate thing you have ever written, blatantly insulting the intelligence of those who might see more in trek than you do, which would appear to be...most everyone.

my feeling is, you don't like 'trek' but the overwhelming critical consensus is positive, so you have to boost your own ego and praise another 'mainstream' critic - who also happens to be a well-known big freaking grumpass of galactic proportions - to bolster your extreme minority opinion, while also taking a swipe at ebert for seemingly liking everything, thus making your your minority opinion somehow more salient...or do you know ebert doesn't like 'trek' so this is your way of priming the pump, so when he comes out with a less than four star review, you can act like even more of a know-it-all?

you don't like 'trek', one man's opinion, fair enough. man up and stand by it, don't try to take everyone else down a peg as you float away in your little life raft.

Just a curiosity: is intellectual or emotional depth a requirement for excellent cinema? I'll concede the film lacks the latter, while arguments could be made for the former (depending on your definition of that broad term).

oh dp, i didn't see your last comment at 2:24 before i posted mine, but you are getting way too transparent (see my 'ebert' prognostication). you KNEW ebert didn't like it, just admit it and stop acting like an eight year old.

It's a shame the lousy reputation of ST:TMP has pretty much foreclosed attempting anything like that again. It has its flaws, but it's also the only one of the Trek flicks to take seriously the whole "to explore strange new worlds" aspect of Roddenberry's original credo. That's what makes Trek great, that sense of wonder and mystery about what's out there and man's unceasing pursuit of it among, and even beyond, the stars.

I want to see Star Trek mostly because when they're fighting on the platform that looks pretty cool. I hope the bad guy gets thrown off and goes "noooooo" all the way down.

I'm not kidding!

I don't understand why people - SMART PEOPLE - can't deal with strong criticism that is NOT about them?

You are NOT an idiot if you love Star Trek?

But it's not fucking Ibsen. It's not even Shakespeare.

Why does it so offend some of you to have this pointed out, in great detail... with no real argument against other than "I LOVED it!"

Congratulations! I love a lot of shit too. (Not Phantom, IO... if you want to slap me, find something true. Speed Racer works.) But it doesn't mean that I think that B13 is great cinema. It is a great empty vessel that I loved. But if someone said it was silly or thin or better stunted than acted or directed, how could I take personal offense?

"Is intellectual or emotional depth a requirement for excellent cinema?"

YES!!!! YES!!!! A MILLION TIMES... YES!!!!

Name a single piece of excellent cinema that does not offer a strong emotional or intellectual experience?

"I want to see Star Trek mostly because when they're fighting on the platform that looks pretty cool. I hope the bad guy gets thrown off and goes "noooooo" all the way down."

That ladies and gents, is why I hated Sky Captain. Not only did it fail to make a worthwhile villain, but the film climaxes with Sky dueling with the villainous figure right at the edge of a giant, bottomless pit of doom, only to have Sky simply punch the villain out and have her crumple to the ground. I mean, really, the film seemed to lack such basic principles that it didn't know that when you have characters dueling at a bottomless pit, someone needs to fall in!

I never saw Sky Captain, but now I'm glad.

Since we were speaking of The Crow in the other thread, can I mention that not only is the best climax where the villain is thrown off a roff, it's even better when they have been fighting on an old creepy church, hopefully in the rain such as The Crow, Batman or even Disney's Beauty and the Beast? And in the Crow he even gets impaled!

"Name a single piece of excellent cinema that does not offer a strong emotional or intellectual experience?"

At the end of the day, "The Godfather" is just a mobsploitation flick, "North by Northwest" is merely an engaging romp, "Double Indemnity" is a simple yarn told in an intriguing manner and "The Departed" doesn't go further than it's high-octane ambitions. And I'd call all of them "exceptional cinema," to name but a few.

Your beloved "Fight Club" might even count here, because at the end of the day, it's simply a "neat" premise carried across in an exciting way. Which is what I'd say for "Star Trek."

And regarding the idea that people think you're criticizing THEM, what do you expect when you essentially tell them they're deluding themselves? Without that kind of thing, maybe the reaction wouldn't be as severe.

Additionally, I think there's something to be said for the "emotion" of energy present in "Star Trek," energy that has only been criticized as "loud" or "noise" by, well, the older set.

Kris, I'd say those movies don't provide a great intellectual experience...but as DP laid out, they do carry an emotional one.

Ok, I'll bite. Some of my favorite movies (many in the screwball comedy genre), don't have provide an intellectual or emotional experience....they're just so much damn fun that I enjoy spending time in their universe. For example, The Lady Eve, Trouble In Paradise, The Palm Beach Story, The Affairs of Cellini, The Merry Widow, The Awful Truth....to name a few. I love spending time with these characters...but I never get an emotional experience...I don't cry when the film is over...I'm more invested in their antics then in whether they will get together or not. And I don't feel they offer an intellectual experience...in fact the world these films take place in are so fictional that not much even really applies.

I think these examples disprove your theroy.

...sorry...theory.

I'd call laughter an emotional _and_ intellectual experience.

"The emotion of energy"

Wow.

And another attack on age that has no weight... because it doesn't hold up at all. People way older than you LOVE the movie and no doubt, people younger than you will agree about how thin it is.

The emotion of energy... really... breathtaking...

And in spite of how some of you read it, my comment about Ebert was not at attack. I am amazed how people cannot get this concept, even though I keep throwing it out there... We are all allowed to like what we like. But just because we like it doesn't make it good cinema.

And Leah... really didn't expect you to hide behind the tyranny of popularity. Do you want to argue that the best 10 movies of any year are the 10 highest grossing?

Personally, I do think there is a generational issue between how people who loved the first 3 Star Wars see the newer ones versus those whose first Star Wars is really Phantom Menace. And I am willing to - and have - acknowledge(d) that turning Trek into Transformers may be very popular.

There are many good reasons why this film is not very good. And there are many very good things in the movie, especially the effects themselves... though you can't see many of them because of how Abrams shot them.

The great irony of this discussion is that I anticipate liking Transformers 2 much more... in no small part because Bay seems to be pulling a little further back from the bots and leaning more on personality, increasing the ability for the audience to share emotion with the machines. You can do both. Trek fails by this standard, as did the first Transformers, which years later, even as I anticipate a massive hit of a sequel, has almost no cultural resonance.

Disposable is not the worst thing in the world to be. People go through the drive-thru even though we know it's not healthy. But we don't pretend that the Big Mac is filet mignon... even though many of us might actually enjoy the Big Mac more.

Slap the fans around all you want with your faux shock at such a harmless phrase, David. The fact is, you can't argue with the way the film has obviously excited people (for which there is plenty to be said), and as usual, when you can't wrap your head around it, we're all out to lunch.

No response to the emotional/intellectual rebuttal, of course.

And it wasn't an attack on age. It was an observation. I don't know too many younger than me who have chalked the film up as "thin," but you're welcome to provide proof to the contrary. I think it's just a phantom hypothetical tossed in to help your argument along, though. Of course, there will be a sampling of examples on each side of the line, but that argument would go around in circles.

Crying is not the only emotion, DV.

Tell me you don't feel something strongly about the characters in The Lady Eve that sustains over the course of their on-screen journey. Tell me that both of the lead characters don't have major emotional character arcs that you are sucked into no matter how many times you have seen them have that experience on screen.

The genius of Sturges is that he is so incredibly cynical and so incredibly sincere all at once. Of course those movies are emotional experiences.

And yes, this speaks to Kris' "emotion of energy," as it is, mock though I might, real... but it is the least mature kind of emotion possible.

Truth is, Pirates of the Caribbean is a lot closer to Star Trek than The Dark Knight. But what salvages Pirates is that it is so much better directed a piece of cinematic fluff. Verbinski found ways to recreate the familiar in ways that influence films everywhere now... and as he started repeating ideas and just making them bigger - which is very much the ST situation - they got boring for people who loved the first film.

Also, your Big Mac/Filet is so, so silly. But I'm sure it sounded good as you were typing it out.

"But just because we like it doesn't make it good cinema."

So then the inevitable question that this is heading is, what are the criteria? What's the difference between a Big Mac and filet mignon, for the sake of this conversation?

I'm basically sensing a massive rift between the philosophies of what constitutes great filmmaking, simple as that. It'll be an endless debate.

*tosses in the towel*

And Kris, here's a question for you - what's your response to Armond's review, divorced from David appropriating it for his purposes?

jeff hits it on the head, really. Anytime someone fights against the subjectivity defense, he or she immediately rigs the game by setting the terms. To boot:

"it is the least mature kind of emotion possible"

This is opinion, pure and simple.

Dang, I missed the cutoff.

You have found the deep core of why I keep offering this argument and why you (and others) seem so intent on avoiding it...

No one fucking said you were "out to lunch."

What I said was, "You like something that is profoundly mediocre."

You and yours are the ones who have to hype up every criticism into arma-fucking-geddon.

Grow up and own you enjoyment of shite.

And I have my head 100% wrapped around why many people like this movie. I completely get it. And I DON'T FEEL THE SAME WAY. (Boo! Hiss! Evil!)

The greatest irony of this is that you yourself seem willing to acknowledge that the film isn't that rich.

GREAT!

Own it!

You're so busy feeling insulted by me - and White and Ebert and surely others - that you become blind to what we ALL seem to agree upon.

But people don't seem willing to debate the movie... they have to debate the personalities commenting on the movie.

Every single summer there is a big, dumb movie that gets a pass by the majority of critics. And every single summer, there is a smart, unusual movie that gets slammed by critics because of whatever reason. This is not brain surgery.

You want to be right... tell me how great Abrams' compositions are... explain the emotional arc of Kirk and Spock... tell us all the moral message of this film... I'll listen... make the case. Or just keep telling me what a meany I am because I refuse to raise popular mediocrity to another level of quality because people had a good time at the movies.

And you know what? There are other writers who will tell me what a suck-up I am because I accept something like Pirates. Others can argue about the Blu-ray of French Connection. Etc, etc, etc.

It's a conversation, not a trial, man. I'm a film critic, not a doctor! And then there will be a group who will explain why I am not actually a critic. Why would I care what they think? How could I do my work if I really did?

See?

jeff:

Let's see, wrong-headed, he relegates the cast to the CW-style "prettiness" many of us expected (a prejudice I think it's clear he carried with him into the theater). I sensed the same hollow criticism in David's original review, but LYT was quick to offer the right defense.

He apparently couldn't keep up with the action (and therefore, the cosmological ideas) because he describes them as a "blur." I was able to follow quite well, thank you very much.

He latched onto the idea that the film was embracing a television mind set early on and never relinquished it, even when it didn't fit or make much sense (even in Lane's convoluted sense of things).

He brings up a reverence for Peckinpah, which speaks volumes to his own blind spot for style over substance, or worse, style posing as substance (as we've seen in his head-over-heels devotion to Spielberg, making his pan of this film all the more ironic).

I think that about covers it. We saw two different films, simple as that.

Mr. Poland, I think that when you say something like,

"What I said was, 'You like something that is profoundly mediocre.'"

You may need to admit that it may not be the most felicitous way to have a conversation.

(I say this as someone who basically expects to agree with Armond White's review).

Yes, Kris... nothing is anything but opinion... including the color of the sky... are we stoned college freshmen having a super-serious discussion?

Thing is, I think you are kinda full of shit, since you have a history of embracing substance... regardless of whether I agree about the quality of that substance.

How many times do I have to say that I am fine with complete subjectivity... that I only ask that it is posited as such and not claimed to be objectivity when objectivity so clearly flies in the face of it.

And what, exactly, is silly about the Big Mac/filet mignon thing? Lazy to just claim that. Are you saying that you can't like street hot dogs and haute cuisine? Are you saying there is no difference? Are you saying that you can't have highbrow tastes and still love crap?

Woudl you prefer Andy Warhol vs Picasso... or a cute, cheap convertible vs a boat of a Bentley?

I hate that you make declarations and so rarely are inclined to make the argument... drives me nuts.

To answer J-Mc's question, the difference between a Big Mac and a filet mignon is that one is objectively a finer cut of meat... but that doesn't mean that you have to like filet better or want it all the time or anything else.

And to keep expanding a metaphor... social norms change. There may be cultures that would worship the Big Mac - say, one that doesn't have lettuce available readily - and throw away the filet for not having enough fat and being too abundant.

Someday, someone may be smug enough to offer a metaphor that remotely connects JJ Abrams' Star Trek to The Godfather. It will happen!

Mediocrity is the best we will get out of, what, 95% of what is offered us by the world, J-Mc.

If 5% is great and 25% is mediocre and 70% is outright shit and Star Trek is the top half of that mediocrity... really... is that so terrible a comment?

DP, two things:

First, your scale is weird. If Star Trek is in the top half of your 25% scale - in other words, somewhere in the top 17% - that seems pretty good to me. In fact, so good that 'mediocre' seems like an improper choice of words. I'd use 'mediocre' for something in the middle of the scale, from 30%-70%. But that's just semantics.

Secondly, your other answer to me:
"the difference between a Big Mac and a filet mignon is that one is objectively a finer cut of meat"

True, but not really what I was asking, unless you can tell me how we can objectively determine how to extend that metaphor into the world of art, where there are very few things that can be objectively measured.

Mediocre - adjective.

1. Of only average or moderate quality; neither good or bad;barely adequate.

2. rather poor or inferior.

Dave, it seems you're using it in the sense of the second part of the first definition. Many here may be interpreting it as the second definition.

If you consider it the upper part of the top 25% of movies coming out this year, would you call it "above average"? (In the range of "excellent-above average-average-below average-terrible".)

I think Dave is arguing that the movie is meretricious, and that many people are falling for the cheap spectacle and flash, and ignoring the underlaying lack of substance and significance.

Part of the problem with contempory film criticism is that people do not know how to "read" the language of cinema anymore and take their likes and dislikes very personally. I had many friends who said they hated the last Indiana Jones film yet when I asked them to be specific as to why, they could not really be specific merely saying it was stupid or dumb.

Similary, try debating a hot button Oscar film with someone on empirical terms and they always resort to emotion or cultural significance. This is especially true around Oscar time if you want to debate a film like Milk or Crash. I avoid Oscar parties like the plague now precisely because it is not about empirical standards of artistic excellence but about a "cause".

I rarely read critics anymore who talk about composition, story arc or theme or subtext and to talk about those things to the casual viewer is to come off like a nut case.

And yet we all - have - to have our widescreen DVD's to come off as "cool". Personally, I am much more impressed by film aficionados who can explain why it is irrelevant to have some titles in widescreen or why some flicks actually play better on full screen VHS. Those who know what I am talking about, will know what I am talking about. I'll take a grunged up full screen copy of Texas Chainsaw Massacre anyday over a newfangled DVD version...same with many 70's grindhouse films or martial arts flicks.

But now...we also have the advent of the culture where we have elevated Big Macs to the status of Filet Mignon and there are no more standards. I think this is the result of a generation of movie buffs weened on VHS who love but they love but can't admit much of what they love is shit because to do that would make their life seem like a waste.

Look at Harry Knowles' list of favourite DVD's every month or QT's inspirations if you need proof. Hey, I love Dan Ackroyd in Doctor Detroit...but it - is - shit. I find Bertolucci's The Last Emperor a real slog to get through...but I know why it is great cinema.

Point is, I do think that there are empirical standards of good art and bad art. Good film and bad films. There is a huge grey zone in between those extremes, but the fact that we have blurred those benchmarks is part of where the trouble lies.

Certainly, to say The Godfather is "just" a mob film or North by Northwest is a "romp" is to both miss and make the point entirly.

I taught at a film school a little over a year ago and the first question I always asked the students is "Why are you here?" The next is for them to name one film that inspired them. I am always saddened at the amount of students who have no idea how to answer that question and how poor their general knowledge of film is. How reluctant they are to watch old films or B & W.

Perhaps if films schools started going back to proper film criticism as opposed to being obsessed with notions of "other", "post-modernism" and "deconstructionism" we can get back on course.

But by that standard, who on earth expected Star Trek to be filet mignon? I'm a huge fan of the original series, and I applaud its efforts at being meaningful and tackling difficult subjects, but let's face it, it often was very didactic, on-the-nose, preachy, and -- yes, boring.

The Star Trek movies that work are the ones that add a hefty dose of action while still developing the core characters: Star Trek 2, 4 (I guess substitute comedy for action here), 6, First Contact, etc.

The Onion News videoclip that was making the rounds yesterday hit it right out of the park... and I say this as a big ST fan.

(Of course, I haven't seen the new movie yet, so I reserve the right to hate it). :)

3 points:

1. Harry Knowles routinely puts movies that he hates onto his weekly lists of new DVDs. Why? To get kickback traffic from the links. Seems dishonest, but whatever.

2. Nicol said, "I do think that there are empirical standards of good art and bad art. Good film and bad films."

Without biting off more than this blog discussion can possibly chew....what are these empirican standards of which you speak? Is this an easy-to-run-down list?

3. (and this is where it gets snarky), Nicol, by bringing up 'the other', 'post-modernism', and 'deconstruction' as negatives, it suggests that you don't really understand them or their use.

^ Actually, Jeff, Nicol is spot on with regards to your point number 3.

Depends on what you mean. I'm also referring to Nicol's longstanding distaste of liberal academia.

Are those three overemphasized in certain places? I wouldn't argue against that point. But they certainly are intellectually valid and useful.

The Other? Not really one of Robert Mulligan's best, but Uta Hagen was pretty good.

Jeff, it is exceptionally rare for any of those to be intellectually valid or useful. And I say that as someone who has almost assuredly spent more time in academia than the two of you combined.

Laughter is a response...not an emotion.

I don't feel any kind of connection to the characters in The Lady Eve...but I delight in watching their antics (yes, I think you can use that word about these types of films). Dave was talking about an emotional experience...which I don't think most screwball comedies provide. Even in Bogdanovitch's screwball redux, What's Up Doc, I could give a shit whether the two main characters end up together or not, but I am perfectly satisfied by the amount of laughter those films have given.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not an academic, but I got a lot out of my undergrad class on feminist film theory and various art history and English classes I took.

On the flip side, the undergrad class I took on 'contemporary art' was mostly a waste of time, and USC's graduate-level critical studies classes were mostly disasters, especially the one that emphsized identity politics.

My previous post was to Blackcloud. To David V:

Joy is an emotion. I laughed at Observe and Report, but The Lady Eve gave me joy.

Jeff, I think we're not in total disagreement. Feminism, if it's not getting bogged down in the inanities of gender theory, yields a useful interpretive/analytic lens. And perhaps in your art history and English classes you had the fortune of having profs who were faithful to the material and not intent on demonstrating their fidelity to the "cutting edge." Anything calling itself "critical studies," though, might as well rename itself "wholesale rubbish," since that's what you'll find.

To clarify, it's deconstructionism and postmodernism that I find useless. The notion of an "other" has its uses, but has become almsot a cliche and thus devoid of analytical power. Interestingly enough, and since I'm perched in academia I can see this, those doctrines are definitely much less popular now than they were even ten years ago. Their heyday is definitely behind them. FWIW, my background is in the humanities, specifically history, where this stuff was quite popular in certain precincts.

As for the idea of "liberal academia," one can be plenty liberal, even leftwing, and still find postmodernism to be nothing but obscurantist cant. One prominent example would be Noam Chomsky, who I imagine is quite at the other end of the political spectrum from Nicol.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

Blackcloud,

Thank you. I deliberatley did - not - want to use the term left-wing or liberal because there are many liberal/leftwing critics who - do - get what I am talking about (Armond White, A.O. Scott, Roger Ebert...hell, even Jeff Wells knows film history like the back of his hand).

I talking though about a disproportionate amount of energy taken to talking about these instruments, not the instruments themselves.

For example, one might want to take into account feminist, Marxist or deconstructionist film criticism....but to base ones education - solely- on it goes too far. That was certainly my experience.

Similarly, I also need to ask, if one is going to use these tools...then why not a conservative or capitalist deconstruction also? Just food for thought.

I remember when we studied Oliver Stone's Salvador, the whole film was dismissed because it was "sexist" by the standards of the profs. Of course we watched Desperately Seeking Susan every semester (no joke) for its "feminist" values. Other things such as composition, acting, writing..etc were not taken into consideration.

I suggest this has been to the detriment of modern film criticism and establishing a universals acceptance of at least some standards of good or bad.

Students thought Its a Wonderful Life was a bad film after a Marxist deconstruction. Other qualities such as acting and writing were not to be considered.

Jeff,

No, these standards are not easy to come by. I cannot list them here. That is why you should need to take a four year degree and much study to get them. B

But when the head of my film department came down to my class on first day and told us to dismiss "old fashioned" notions of criticis, such as acting, directing, compostion, themse, subtext etc. for notions or "other" and "deconstructionism" I knew something was off.

Put more simply...when film students come out of class thinking Taxi Driver was trash because of the scene with Scorsese in the backseat and Desperately Seeking Susan is unappreciated "art" due to its polemic...something is askew.

The situation is far more complex than this...but now that we haven't taught proper film criticism for a generation in our film schools I am not surprised that people do not know who to defend they're views. They haven't been taught to. And most modern critics with no knowledge or appreciation of film history play into that.

Hence, people who just love Star Trek "cause" or get all pissy because you critique a film that has a cause they are attached to like "Crash".

There is no easy answer, but to suggest that a generation of not teaching proper film criticism has not had an effect is to live in denial. I am glad you got something out of your feminist classes. But that cannot be all that there is.

As you are a lover of the non feminist Hostel films...I think deep down you probably agree with me.

To the subject of no objective levels at which to view art...I don't think that's true. In fact an email I had with my buddy is what made me think of this. To wit:

My friend runs an experimental dance company. It's a pretty popular one and they do maybe 6-8 shows a year, so I see maybe 2-3 a year. Now experimental dance theater is so NOT my thing. It helps that sometimes there's rampant nudity, but that's about it for me. So usually I'm a little bored, but he's good friend, what am I going to do?

BUT, even though I may be sort of bored and not into the performance, I can tell that it's quality. The dancers are great, the music is interesting, the lighting and staging are interesting. It's just not for me.

Art doesn't have to boil down to "I like it or not." You can look objectively at art.

"And to keep expanding a metaphor... social norms change. There may be cultures that would worship the Big Mac - say, one that doesn't have lettuce available readily - and throw away the filet for not having enough fat and being too abundant."

I would argue the case that today's generation already does worship the Big Mac in the sense that big movies are getting worse and great movies aren't anywhere near as big as they should be. Although you can't use the filet mignon metaphor there because a big mac does not cost the same as a great piece of steak, yet a great movie costs just as much as a truly awful one.

"I find Bertolucci's The Last Emperor a real slog to get through...but I know why it is great cinema."

But it clearly was not great cinema to you since you didn't like it all that much.

Big movies have always been terrible with a few good ones. Now they're just terrible in a different way.

Big Perm, not entirely true. There have always been good movies and always been bad movies, but there used to be more Big Good movies. Now there's mostly Big Bad movies. There are still the good ones out there, but they tend to be a little more lost in the shuffle, and are no longer a matter of studio self-respect that they used to be.

who went into 'star trek' expecting shakespeare? and who is proclaiming it is shakespeare, thus necessitating that the notion needs to be debunked and the film taken down a peg? gimme a break

'And Leah... really didn't expect you to hide behind the tyranny of popularity. Do you want to argue that the best 10 movies of any year are the 10 highest grossing?'

david poland:
huh? i honestly have no idea what you're talking about there in relation to what i said previously, are you confusing me with someone else? (do i speak another language or something? maybe i need an english to english translator).

to repeat my earlier sentiment, you're obviously trying to bolster your minority critical opinion that 'strek' is forgettable, noisy fluff by drumming up a couple allies in some weird new one-man 'iron man'-esque vendetta against the film, and further, that somehow the people who like the film just can't see that it's mediocre fluff but you do as the enlightened all-seeing one. i guess we poor feebs who have enjoyed 'trek' (which would appear to be the majority of critics thus far) and see something in it that you obviously do not, should be pitied.

personally, i like 'trek' because it's bold, exciting, funny, a bit philosophical, a bit brash, a bit nostalgic, a bit silly; it has a vision, it ties up, it has characters i care about (to varying degrees), and it makes me feel HAPPY. it works for me. i couldn't give a shit if it doesn't work for you and if you don't agree, but don't make out like i don't 'get' the mediocrity of it all and you do, that i don't know why i like what i like, and that i just can't admit i enjoy mediocrity, because that's why YOU have deemed it, all based on your subjective opinion.

for example: 'What I said was, "You like something that is profoundly mediocre."

that the film is 'profoundly mediocre' is simply your opinion, dp, and not a fact of nature like breathing air. and to state it as fact is belittling to those (many) people who don't agree with you, as if we just can't admit to ourselves that the movie isn't very good and we need you to council us on the error of our ways. unseemly and quite passive aggressive to boot. and then you complain when people call you on it as if you've been somehow victimized, when in fact you are the instigator. leaves a nasty taste in the mouth

I think you have to quanify that with examples before I can believe it. I'm a big believer in that nothing really changes. Every generation talks about how much worse the new generation of movies/tv/art is. And as terrible as big budget movies can be, there hasnt been a movie made in years that matches John Wayne as Genghis Khan.

"I'm a big believer in that nothing really changes."

From now on, I'm calling you The Big Parmenides.

After suffering through Angels and Demons tonight, I no longer have the energy to engage. At...all.

Glad to know I;m full of shit, though.

Martin on big movies "are no longer a matter of studio self-respect that they used to be."

true dat. Talk about pulling out all of the stops for an Epic, even if it was an awful bore or melodramatic snoozer. Somebody still cared about it more than a simple balance sheet item.

As for big *good* pictures, when will we ever see a David Lean again? Likely no one can afford the location shooting and the "cast of thousands" (they'd all be digital).

The average colon contains around 5 pounds of undigested meat so just about everybody is full of shit, except for vegetarians.

Nicol, for the life of me I'll never understand why you attended Pinko State University (good financial aid package?). I mean, I went to what would be considered a fully liberal, liberal arts college in the heart of liberal academia, New England, and never encountered the degree of liberal PC insanity that you apparently did in whatever Canadian university that you attended.

And please don't presume that 'deep down' I agree with you. Our perspectives aren't as far apart as you think, but our base assumptions are very far apart.

And I still don't really believe that there are such a thing as 'empirical standards' of good and bad art. If there were, you could list them here: 1) character development, 2) evocative cinematography, 3)unobtrusive editing, and so on. If there was such a canonical list of criteria, I wouldn't be asking about it, because art by definition defies such a way of thought - or at least it has since the Impressionists took over in France.

Big Perm - did you not see The Happening? or The Wicker Man? Those are absolutely on par with Wayne as Genghis.

"And I still don't really believe that there are such a thing as 'empirical standards' of good and bad art."

Ah, but everyone believes that there are such entities as good and bad art, and believes, more over, that such a subjective judgment that something is good art (or, in the technical sense, sublime or beautiful) can be described in objective terms which will compel others to grant their assent.

Such is the conundrum Kant attempts to resolve in the Critique of Judgement. Which is to say, we are here merely recapitulating a central issue in modern aesthetics.

Speaking of liberal academia, I had exactly one prof during undergrad who fit the postmodern, liberal, PC stereotype. She was in the philosophy department. The class? Aesthetics. Oh, the irony!

Was anyone surprised by White's review? The man simply enjoys playing the contrarian. He's made a career of it, seemingly. Poland's continued defense of him is always interesting (I knew he would link White's review instantly), as I feel as far as reviews go, Poland is generally always at a loss to describe his views when they become so middling.

Perm, I generally agree. I always use the argument for music that if you take out Bob Dylan, Elvis and The Beatles then people would have as much affection for their eras as people do for, say, the '80s.

Same goes for movies. I wasn't around then, but I am sure there were just as many bad movies made in 1939 as there are in todays generation but the very fact that they are bad has meant all anybody remembers is Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz.

'I think Dave is arguing that the movie is meretricious, and that many people are falling for the cheap spectacle and flash, and ignoring the underlaying lack of substance and significance.'

i think that is exactly what dp is saying, blackcloud, and can you - or anyone for that matter - not see how insulting that is for those of us (the majority i might add) who think the film is a significant, well-made, engaging corker of a ride with heart? are we so stupid that we are blinded by shiny things and spectacle, DUPED in our feeble mindedness into thinking we enjoy and see quality workmanship in a film that is in fact, poor cinema and a forgettable mediocrity, devoid of substance and meaning?

or, is it just possible that david poland is in fact the one that just 'doesn't get it'; he didn't connect with the movie, it didn't engage him, fair enough (i just had a quick first look at the reviews on metacritic, at 94 but with only about 10 in, and 'rotten tomatoes' with 70 positive reviews and 4 negative, including dp's, ebert's and white's), so he proceeds to brand the movie 'not good cinema' devoid of meaning or substance or emotion (i mean, this is 'star trek' not 'sense and sensibility') simply because he didn't care for it - and then implies the people who do like it are deluding themselves. rather arrogant and self-aggrandizing.

so who are the ones who 'don't get it'? those 70 people on rt who liked/loved 'trek', or the 4 who didn't?

All I know is the greatest thing about this thread is David V.'s great screwball roll call. Affairs of Cellini? Yowza! I got to see it for a second time a few years ago at LACMA, introduced by the great Fay Wray herself (on a double feature with another La Cava gem, Bed of Roses).

As for Star Trek: Looks entertaining. I'll go see it. Oddly enough, I've seen only a couple of episodes of original Star Trek, only one TNG (which a friend co-wrote), the first season of Voyager on DVD, and absolutely zero installments of Deep Space 9 and Enterprise. However, I've seen all but the last couple of Trek movies, and enjoyed even the bad ones.

I must admit Jeff brought some good examples...although I would look at those as medium movies and not big ones. I've only seen The Happening and that was ludicrous...what happened to Shamalyan? The dude lost touch with everything that made his earlier movies work.

I haven't seen Wicker Man but I watched the highlights on Youtube. You just KNOW Nicholas Cage added that stuff and they let him. Do you think they watched the dailies and thought they were making something good? I can't see how.

"i mean, this is 'star trek' not 'sense and sensibility'"

Yes it is a relaunch of a film franchise based on a television series but is that an excuse to make a whiz-bang excersize in noise and color? Especially when what fans love about the original material was the attempts at intellectual depth.

Look at the reverence that was given to the making of the original Star Trek and Superman movies. These were not treated as simply big television episodes but as huge epics at least making an attempt to capture the granduer of Lean or Ford.

"i think that is exactly what dp is saying, blackcloud, and can you - or anyone for that matter - not see how insulting that is for those of us . . ."

I can see why someone would feel insulted, Leah, but at the same time, as I've tried to argue above, this kind of subjectivity is inherent in aesthetic judgments. Their very nature means people are going to disagree, so it is best to try not to take it personally. The fact that such judgments are personal is why they shouldn't be taken personally. The shoe's always going to wind up on the other foot.

For example, I think The Two Towers is outright crap. Decidedly a minority viewpoint. Do I think people are wrong about that movie? Sure. Does it bother me that people like it? Nope. I don't take it personally. I'm also a defender of the prequels. Again, a minority viewpoint. Fine with me. I couldn't care less what people think. As long as you're secure in your perspective, that's all that matters. Of course, that's not going to stop disagreements, since the way one proves to oneself that one is right is by attempting to get other people to agree with one's perspective. Thus we get threads like this one and the "higher" entertainment one.

The question is, given that aesthetic judgments are inherently subjective, why does something like a consensus emerge? Don't ask me to answer it.

Given a choice between a new "old-school" Star Trek movie and a smart, popcorn version of the same, I'll take the latter any day, especially if it's JJ Abrams behind the reboot (who at the very least is a smart, savvy producer of enlightened popcorntainment.)

Star Trek aspired to social and intellectual depths. But any groundbreaking or interesting stuff it actually achieved was decades ago. In the meaningful and thematic and intellectual arena, it's been surpassed by Babylon 5, BSG, LOST, Firefly, The X-Files, etc etc.

'Yes it is a relaunch of a film franchise based on a television series but is that an excuse to make a whiz-bang excersize in noise and color?'

hcat: have you seen the movie? or are you just taking david poland's word for it that it's just a whiz-bang exercise in noise and colour? if you've seen it, fine, but if not, why be like that?

'Especially when what fans love about the original material was the attempts at intellectual depth.'

maybe, i can't say i agree; i think fans loved the camp drama driven by the cult of personality and dynamic of the holy trinity - kirk, spock and mccoy - and the adventure of exploring space (a largely untapped resource in the '60s/early '70s) and silly new worlds.

i also think the 'attempts at intellectual depth' trumpeted about the original series of 'star trek' - the '70s reruns of which i watched as a kid every week - is greatly exaggerated and viewed through seriously rose-coloured glasses. i just recently watched most of the original series episodes on cable and there is an existential/philosophical quality to the rather clunky material, but the intellectual/emotional 'depth' people keep trotting about is greatly exaggerated; 'star trek' all about the characters of kirk, spock, and mcoy as logic, id and morality, and the new film uses this budding cult of personality as the basis for the conflict of the story.

'For example, I think The Two Towers is outright crap. Decidedly a minority viewpoint. Do I think people are wrong about that movie? Sure. Does it bother me that people like it? Nope. I don't take it personally. I'm also a defender of the prequels. Again, a minority viewpoint. Fine with me. I couldn't care less what people think. As long as you're secure in your perspective, that's all that matters.'

yes, blackcloud, i totally get what you are saying, but the difference is in your attitude and intent: you loathe 'the two towers' and don't mind saying so, you think others are wrong to like it but it doesn't bother you and you don't take it personally. the difference between you and dp in this instance is, you're not ridiculously defensive about your admittedly minority viewpoint, you don't imply that everyone who likes it is deluded with you being the arbiter of quality, and you don't try to bully people into admitting they like what you subjectively deem a crap film, then declare your opinion as 'THE OBJECTIVE OPINION', which takes an ego the size of saturn. sometimes it ain't what you say it's the way that you say it.

'kirk, spock, and mccoy as logic, id and morality'

obviously that should be 'kirk, spock and mccoy as id, logic and morality'

Can we agree that Tribbles is one of the silliest episodes?

Can we agree that even in Tribbles, the notion that a little, seemingly innocuous living toy can end up both threatening you in a real way and saving lives in a real way is a theme? Don't assume that furry and cute is safe and not worth attending to...

Is there an idea even that simple in this new film?

I'm not being silly. I can't think of a single object lesson in this film as simple and pure as Tribbles.

Maybe, "don't keep verbally abusing someone's mom or they will do the opposite of what you want them to do."

Is there another one?

Maybe, "have sex with your Starfleet instructor and you can make him reassign you to his ship if you demand it?"

I mean... I am being a jerk now... but that doesn't mean I am wrong. Star Trek wasn't Kant. But it did offer homilies of weight in almost evry single episode. This film's main thing is, "Don't fuck with The Kirk because he will out gun you every time, whether you are a friend, an enemy or a piece of green ass."

It's so funny to me when these fights happen... I am nasty debater... especially when people keep insisting on things that raise the bar beyond reason.

"Can we agree that Tribbles is one of the silliest episodes?"

No. The one where Spock jams with space hippies on the harp would be a better example.

"this film's main thing is, "Don't fuck with The Kirk because he will out gun you every time, whether you are a friend, an enemy or a piece of green ass.""

Seems to me that was one of the major things about the original series too. Where each successive Trek went wrong, IMO, was in emphasizing moral lessons over character action, so that by the time we got to Voyager, every single crew member was touchy-feely-preachy. Deep Space 9 really kicked into gear when Sisko started getting more Kirk-like, kicking Dominion ass and sleeping with the Mirror Universe versions of both Kira and Dax.

The theme of this Trek is discovering the balance within, between emotional response and logic, and how Kirk and Spock come at it from very different directions to end up at the same goal.

Not enough of a message? It is for me. Plus the way the script deftly uses existing continuity to completely rewrite existing continuity was a massive gamble that is achieved almost effortlessly with one near-throwaway conversation.

Oh yeah - and Pine's performance is objectively good.

"No. The one where Spock jams with space hippies on the harp would be a better example."

Spock's Brain is the best. Not only was that one outrageously idiotic, but I don't think it had a theme in the sense Poland is arguing.

Of course, if the new Star Trek movie is on the same level as Spock's Brain, then we're in deep trouble.

Pssst! David! Don't look now, but The Man got it a whole lot better than you did. For openers, she had to eyes to see and the heart to understand that it ain't mediocre (profoundly or otherwise) at all. (I'm even willing to forgive her the ageism in her lede graf.)

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/movies/08trek.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

You know, in the past, I've avoided joining the usual suspects to pile on you. But I'm afraid IO has a point: You really don't like this sort of movie, do you? I mean, like some people just don't enjoy Westerns, and others don't dig horror flicks. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all. But why not just owe up to it?

Yup. Manohla nails it.

Leahz - no I haven't seen it. But what I was trying to say, and I admit after rereading I was not entirely clear, I throw these out in the middle of the work day and am sometimes not as articulate as I would like (as well as failing to check the spelling), is that the film shouldn't be held to a lower standard just because it was based on a TV show. I was referring to your sentance that compared Trek to Sense and Sensibility and I took it to mean that since this movie was not based on some canonized literary source it did not need to reach for greatness and can be content with being a mild diversion.

I then pointed out that when the Trek series (and the first modern comic book film) first hit the screens they were treated with a sense of wonder and awe that (from most of the reviews) seems to be missing from this incarnation. I just think that even though its a big tentpole film, they should try to make it something more than a full throttle light show. Again I haven't seen the film so I am more than willing to accept that I am wrong, but none of the postings in the thread above seem to argue that there is a level of depth to the film that is present in the best of blockbusters.

And I would like to be clear that I was not trying to infer that you or anyone else has marginal or mediocre tastes for liking this film. I have a great deal of respect for 95% of the people who write in here and look forward every day to see what you are posting.

no worries, hcat, i didn't think you were being insulting and i didn't take offence by what you said, i pretty much got your drift.

re: the original 'strek', it was cancelled after only 3 seasons for poor ratings, so i think the reverence afforded it is slightly exaggerated, the cult following having grown later with re-runs and hindsight.

...is that the film shouldn't be held to a lower standard just because it was based on a TV show. I was referring to your sentance that compared Trek to Sense and Sensibility and I took it to mean that since this movie was not based on some canonized literary source it did not need to reach for greatness and can be content with being a mild diversion.'

for the record, that's not what i meant at all. it's quite difficult to describe if you haven't seen the new retconning film, which actually has some of the flavor of the original series (human foibles, drunkenness, humour, womanizing, inter-species drama, etc) that was mostly lost in the spin-off tv series and films, but it also goes off on its own tangent in a fresh new way, no easy feat for abrams and crew.

the new 'strek' doesn't make any great attempts at being deep and meaningful, and yet i found it emotionally engaging and at times profound and philosophical (aided by good casting and good perfs), particularly spock's decision not to be ashamed of/or hide who he is, which resonates whether it pertains to race, sexuality, etc, and to think for himself instead of taking the expected path. there are little lessons like this throughout the film, pertaining to self-sacrifice, the bonds of friendship surviving beyond time and space, but the core of the film is the yin and yang of kirk and spock representing id and logic, aided by the grounding force of bones as morality/emotion, granted in a fledgling state. i suspect if there is more of the new strek to come, this dynamic of id/logic/emotion will be further explored in kirk, spock and bones as the driving force of the films, just as it was the driving force of the original series.

"I want to see Star Trek mostly because when they're fighting on the platform that looks pretty cool. I hope the bad guy gets thrown off and goes "noooooo" all the way down."

This scene, shown in the preview (which was nothing but one quarter-second shot after another) convinced me that, stupid science aside, this was not a movie I would want to see. I don't want to have to medicate myself before seeing a movie just to ward off the inevitable headache resulting from abusive lens-flare and quick-cuts.

This reminds me of a description of Transformers, which went something like "Take a half-dozen cars apart, weld them back together into a ball 15 feet across, then roll the ball down a hill and film it in closeup. This will provide you with all the FX footage you need for every robot battle in Transformers."

Have Bay and now Abrams convinced themselves that the only way to keep the hands of today's ADD-addled teens off of the keypads of their phones is to keep their eyes fixated on images that are constantly flashing, swirling, shaking and exploding? If so, then movies may become watchable again only after today's kids have settled down into sedentary middle age, Bay & his followers have died off, and the next newest generation has plugged their brains into a direct internet feed, removing them once and for all from the real world inhabited by the rest of us.

(And, I thought it was painfully hilarious when Snyder actually tried to apologize for not moving the camera around enough in Watchmen, arguing that he was trying to copy the framing of the comic pages. So now the speed freaks are using peer pressure to make everyone else try what they're on?)

"Mr. Abrams handles the action scenes better than he did in his only other big-screen outing (“Mission: Impossible III”), largely by not lavishing too much time on them."

Heh, heh. A quarter-second here, a quarter-second there, and pretty soon we can get back to Lens-Flare Theatre.

the future's so bright, i gotta wear shades!

jj on his sparkly sparklers:

'The flares weren't just happening from on-camera light sources, they were happening off camera, and that was really the key to it. I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening. There was always a sense of something, and also there is a really cool organic layer thats a quality of it. They were all done live, they weren't added later. There are something about those flares, especially in a movie that can potentially be very sterile and CG and overly controlled. There is something incredibly unpredictable and gorgeous about them. It is a really fun thing. Our DP would be off camera with this incredibly powerful flashlight aiming it at the lens. It became an art because different lenses required angles, and different proximity to the lens. Sometimes, when we were outside we'd use mirrors. Certain sizes were too big... literally, it was ridiculous. It was like another actor in the scene....

We had two cameras, so sometimes we had two different spotlight operators. When there was atmosphere in the room, you had to be really careful because you could see the beams. So it was this ridiculous, added level of pain in the ass, but I love... [looking at] the final cut, [the flares] to me, were a fun additional touch that I think, while overdone, in some places, it feels like the future is that bright.'

well, okay, then. i personally didn't mind all the bright and shinys, but my vote for best use of lens flare still goes to mctiernan & de bont for their sparklies in 'die hard'

From Kim Voynar's intro:

"Did we really need another Star Trek movie?...What more could there possibly be to explore about Kirk, Spock and the old Star Trek gang?"

Considering the demonizing of our current president and the Left as communists, socialists, and fascists (at the same time?) I'd like to see how we got from here to a Star-Trekkie future that "[has] no need for money" (a situation which came out of the closet in The Next Generation seemingly just to spite the Ferengi, who were either "a parody of Yankee traders" or Jews In Space--take your pick).

Were all the capitalists sent off to the gulags? Killed in a civil/world war? Or did everyone just finally shrug and say "Money...it's more trouble than it's worth"?

Just to clarify, Mr. Poland, are you saying that neither Voynar nor Wilmington understands 'where the lines are between "having a good time" and "understanding what you are seeing."'
The whole "objective" thing makes no sense to me in regards to something so subjective. Your "big, dumb" is not the same as mine and that's fine. It doesn't make either of us right. To me, "Star Trek" does have emotional impact (especially the Nimoy stuff). Oh, and an object lesson from the film: We all have competing impulses within us and we won't be whole until we figure out a way to integrate them. Reason without emotion is a dead-end road, and vice-versa.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)