BillJ wrote:
The Wrath of Khan has the most impressive effects of a Star Trek film to this day, including Star Trek 2009.
|
They are perhaps the most effective because due to exceptionally fine planning based on budget limitations they're the most cleverly tied to the story points of the movie. They're far from the most visually impressive.
BillJ wrote:
My Name Is Legion wrote:
LOKAI of CHERON wrote:
Eh?
|
Grist for humor is nonetheless TWOK's primary resonance for most non-trekkies. |
But for the jokes to work, the audience has to be aware the film exists. |
Absolutely. They don't, however, have to consider it brilliant cinema, just memorable in one way or another. If something is preposterous in some fashion, extremely formulaic or takes itself very seriously, that's just more fodder for parody or mockery. A good example is the spate of films a few years ago that made bank by sending up slasher and horror flicks.
You know, the old Universal monster movies are a good example of how stuff can become "classic" and pop culture touchstones without being excellent. The studio ground out so many films with the Frankenstein monster, Dracula, the "Wolfman" version of werewolves, etc. that in the public imagination these characters are still nearly completely congruent with Universal's treatments of them. But if you really watch as many of those movies as you can - and I have, over and over, I love a great many of them - you know that there are only a couple of extraordinary monster movies in the entire output of the studio. Lugosi was a ridiculous actor
on film who inhabited a single part well
once, Chaney Jr. never turned in a first-rate performance outside of (maybe) "Of Mice And Men," and people don't realize that most of the mannerisms and details they associate with the monster that Karloff created are really more typical of the Glenn Strange incarnation.
But alongside Freddie Krueger's glove and a hockey mask those characters still own Hallowe'en in the U.S.
