Chris Pine's comments that modern movies can't be cerebral... what about Interstellar? The Martian?

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

He clearly appreciates the value of the cerebral side of sci-fi, but is this strictly true?

“You can’t make a cerebral Star Trek in 2016. It just wouldn’t work in today’s marketplace. You can hide things in there – Star Trek Into Darkness has crazy, really demanding questions and themes, but you have to hide it under the guise of wham-bam explosions and planets blowing up. It’s very, very tricky. The question that our movie poses is ‘Does the Federation mean anything?’ And in a world where everybody’s trying to kill one another all of the time, that’s an important thing. Is working together important? Should we all go our separate ways? Does being united against something mean anything?”
​

How would this explain the success of 'Interstellar' and 'The Martian'?

Star Trek is expansive enough that it can be either adventure, or cerebral like 'Forbidden Planet' or '2001: A Space Odyssey'. It seems as if Paramount are obsessed with comparing Star Trek to works of sci-fi along the lines of Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars, when to my mind, Star Trek, whilst being capable of this type of story, warrants comparison to things like 'Interstellar' too - it is much more grounded in real space exploration than the other aforementioned action films.

So why can't we have a Christopher Nolan or Ridley Scott directed Star Trek, featuring a score by Hanz Zimmer? Just as an experiment? :-) Indeed TOS was directly inspired by the atmosphere of Forbidden Planet - 'The Cage' and 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' are both very cerebral pilots.

 

[2takesfrakes]

The problem with the intellectualism of prior STAR TREK incarnations is that it never has a meaningful discussion about anything it brings up. Everything in TUC, for example, funnels into only one "logical" response. The Klingons are forced into a situation of absolutely requiring outside help. Even Kirk is forced into extending the first olive branch. He's also forced into his inner contemplations regarding hating on Klingons, because of Chang forcing the situation - setting him up and sends him off to the slammer. There's no real investigation, deliberation, arriving at ... with anything. Everything's forced ... even the very script itself. Which is not unusual for the so-called intellectualism of other STAR TREK offerings. Elements are simply poured into a funnel. And Pine's right, the first obligation of a show is to not be boring. Forcing messages on paying customers is boring. Entertainment being entertaining has to be the first thing ...

 

[RAMA]

Fitting "cerebral" stories into a 2 hour action-adventure/space opera format is tough. They have to balance it out. Would a Star Trek movie have worked with a crewman stuck on a planet and having to survive? Probably not, it would have driven fans crazy...it's not really what is expected.

As was pointed out, a story for this genre in movies has tended towards action-adventure. The one movie that didn't, wasn't very successful critically or creatively. The new movies balance out character, action, and message with scale better than the original 10...a fact not lost in Hollywood..ST09 was so good it was nominated for 127 awards..including the first Writer's Guilld Award for a Star Trek movie...why? It wasn't "cerebral", but it built early versions of well-known characters, tugged at people's emotions and still managed to be more professionally made films than the usual Trek movie.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Seems like this thread wants to be in the Star Trek Movies XI+ forum....Energizing.

 

[Khan 2.0]

They tried it with TMP. the result was... interesting

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Interesting points by everyone - but, what I mean is, if cerebral storytelling "can't be done" in the Hollywood system - how come 'Interstellar' did it? If only superheroes sell, how come 'The Martian' was a smash hit? If space opera can only succeed by being like 'Guardians of the Galaxy', why was 'Gravity' even made?

Is it impossible for a Trek movie to be like '2001' or 'Forbidden Planet' or 'Interstellar', or just hard?

Since 'Forbidden Planet', with it's Freudian take on Shakespeare's 'The Tempest', was the direct inspiration for TOS, it's arguably the best example.... Crew lands on an alien planet, in their government-built starship, finds mysterious ruins of a civilization far in advance of their own, but which has vanished in the tides of history, and encounters a monster from the human psyche.... Their weapons have no effect - they solve the problem using their intellect.

I think the Motion Picture was an attempt at emulating '2001: A Space Odyssey', but a poor one overall - there just wasn't enough of a point to sustain a film - it might have made a good episode - whereas 2001 was full of ideas. I don't think it's failure should doom the idea for all time - it's like saying that "because 40 years ago, I played a bad game of pool, I am not going to try ever again".

 

[RAMA]

Cerebral is such a loaded term..some people look at Forbidden planet and despite it's ideas (most of which we had no idea of until the plot revealed them in the last 20 minutes) look at it as impossibly dated with stilted dialogue.

Interstellar was a very specific plot, one that probably wouldn't have fit into a Star Trek story.

 

[BillJ]

He clearly appreciates the value of the cerebral side of sci-fi, but is this strictly true?

“You can’t make a cerebral Star Trek in 2016. It just wouldn’t work in today’s marketplace. You can hide things in there – Star Trek Into Darkness has crazy, really demanding questions and themes, but you have to hide it under the guise of wham-bam explosions and planets blowing up. It’s very, very tricky. The question that our movie poses is ‘Does the Federation mean anything?’ And in a world where everybody’s trying to kill one another all of the time, that’s an important thing. Is working together important? Should we all go our separate ways? Does being united against something mean anything?”
How would this explain the success of 'Interstellar' and 'The Martian'?

Audience expectations are tricky. Star Trek has been an action movie franchise for a really long time.

 

[stardream]

I haven't seen Gravity or the Martian because...the idea of people alone for long periods of time just talking to themselves doesn't interest me. I never saw Castaway either.

I don't even like that one episode of M*A*SH* where Hawkeye's jeep broke down and he spent most of the episode with a Korean family monologuing to them in English while they just smiled and got out of his way.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Interstellar was a very specific plot, one that probably wouldn't have fit into a Star Trek story.

Interstellar was very specific, but I was thinking of the films more in general terms - for example, 'The Martian', takes an extremely problem solving and intellectual approach - it is full-on enlightenment type belief in the natural sciences being the ultimate tool - full on Hegelian. It even ends with the protagonist transferring his knowledge onto a new generation of scientists, building upon the lessons of the past. Interstellar also shows humans finding their way out of problems through science, and that the natural world is a wonder to be explored - very humanist.

I saw this interesting video about 2001, and it's influence on Hollywood:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Terok Nor]

I think his heart was probably in the right place when he made these comments but it comes across to me that he thinks audiences are too dumb to wrap their heads around anything too mentally taxing. Clearly not the case based on the successful movies mentioned by the OP.

With that said, the Star Trek movies have never been particularly representative of the franchise as a whole. Most of Shatner's Trek movies and the TNG movies were action movies too even if some of them had a bit more substance than the JJ Abrams movies. Trek just works better on tv in my opinion.

 

[1001001]

I haven't seen Gravity or the Martian because...the idea of people alone for long periods of time just talking to themselves doesn't interest me. I never saw Castaway either.

To each his/her own, but I think you're missing some good movies there.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Are we assuming in this thread that we are talking about the kind of movies intended to make huge amounts of money? If we don't have that assumption I could go down a huge list of cerebral movies that didn't make blockbuster money but still made more than they cost.

You can make cerebral movies so long as there is also digestible character drama. And just because a movie has action doesn't mean it can't be smart. I agree that a movie like Star Trek TMP wouldn't make a lot of money, but as long as Star Trek has aliens and sexual tension and explosions, and a main story whose main points are easily digestible, it can be as smart as you want and it could still make money.

I would agree though that in 2016, attention span length is at a historical low. If The Twilight Zone were released today with the same scripts except with modern references, people would say it was boring because they take their time to establish story so the twist at the end has a larger payoff. People can't stand stories that take their time for a larger payoff, if a single episode of something goes by without a big gun battle they start whining.

Lars Von Trier (Correct me if I have the director wrong) has been quoted as saying "My movies tend to make 20 million dollars, so I only make movies that cost less than 20 million."

 

[RAMA]

I haven't seen Gravity or the Martian because...the idea of people alone for long periods of time just talking to themselves doesn't interest me. I never saw Castaway either.

I don't even like that one episode of M*A*SH* where Hawkeye's jeep broke down and he spent most of the episode with a Korean family monologuing to them in English while they just smiled and got out of his way.

I watched The Martian in 3D on my 4K TV, and let me tell you, there was nothing boring about it.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

My only criticism of The Martian was that it was too sentimental.

 

[EyalM]

What was cerebral about Gravity? It's a survival story in space. I loved it, but in real life Sandra bullock would be dead in 5 minutes.
Interstellar was about the power of love...

 

[RAMA]

Interstellar was very specific, but I was thinking of the films more in general terms - for example, 'The Martian', takes an extremely problem solving and intellectual approach - it is full-on enlightenment type belief in the natural sciences being the ultimate tool - full on Hegelian. It even ends with the protagonist transferring his knowledge onto a new generation of scientists, building upon the lessons of the past. Interstellar also shows humans finding their way out of problems through science, and that the natural world is a wonder to be explored - very humanist.

I saw this interesting video about 2001, and it's influence on Hollywood:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Well certainly ST09 had elements of this..for example, the scientific method is still in full force in the two new Trek movies. There's a huddle towards they end where they plan on catching up to Nero and they discuss the implications of the new timeline, and how to defeat him...they can't use their weapons to defeat him, so they come up with a plan. All problem solving.

STID is the same..exploration excites Kirk. Deep space excites Kirk, and the first 10 minutes on Nibiru are some of the most exciting exploratory moments of a new culture we've seen in ages.

None of those things make it "cerebral" but the straight line running through all Treks is still there.

This is something David Brin (who supports the positivity and science method of smart movies instead of the dystopias we are too often force-fed) notes in his capsule review:

Star Trek: Into Darkness. Folks wrote in, predicting I would hate this latest episode in the re-boot, because the core villainy originates within the Federation,. Aren't I the guy who most fervently celebrates Gene Roddenberry's optimistic vision of an improvable human and sapient civilization? (A very rare message indeed, these days.)

Hence it may surprise folks to learn that none of my fears were realized. J.J. Abrams delivered a fun and vivid -- if a little popcorny -- Trek adventure that I found entirely faithful to the wholesome and uplifting Roddenberry-Trek mythology.

Sure, there was a Starfleet villain. So? That happened often enough in the older films and the varied TV series. The key point is that the conspirators were acting in secret and in violation of the Federation's core principles. Hence, the scenario was not an indictment of civilization as a whole, nor a proclamation of the hopelessness of democracy -- as you see perpetrated relentlessly in the Star Wars prequels -- but rather it's a tale about society's ethical immune system (manifested by Enterprise and crew) discovering and neutralizing a lethal and immoral aberration.


That is what good sci fi does: "Watch out for mistakes! Pay attention to potential failure modes! Then envision that citizens can cure them with courage, openness and belief in us."

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2013/07/recent-sci-fi-films-okay-and-meh.html

 

[gerbil]

TWOK and TUC all tackled complicated themes while including wham-bam action sequences.

Lest anyone forget, The Martian and Interstellar each had their own wham-bam moments. Interstellar was sold largely on its visuals, as well. The Martian had a pretty strong monologue, montage, action beat.

A movie does need to entertain and it can do that in a variety of ways.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

A lot of folks are having a knee-jerk reaction to the first line in Pine's quote without considering the context. What he's saying is that if you were to do anything cerebral, ask tough questions, you have to hide it in the guise of a summer blockbuster. To which, by and large, is true for tentpole movies like STAR TREK.

Movies like MOON aren't tentpole movies and can be a bit more cerebral and daring.

STAR TREK, however, is a blockbuster franchise now — something that it's always been trying to be since TMP and TWOK.

And STAR TREK has always hid cerebral in the guise of action-adventure. That's what TOS was all about. To be frank, the cerebral-ness of Trek has always been exaggerated. TOS was on par with other contemporary dramas that were also tackling tough issues, such as drug addiction, abortion, etc. It's just that TOS is more remembered than say something like THE DEFENDERS.

 

[Harvey]

And STAR TREK has always hid cerebral in the guise of action-adventure. That's what TOS was all about. To be frank, the cerebral-ness of Trek has always been exaggerated. TOS was on par with other contemporary dramas that were also tackling tough issues, such as drug addiction, abortion, etc. It's just that TOS is more remembered than say something like THE DEFENDERS.

Social issue dramas like THE DEFENDERS, EAST SIDE/WEST SIDE, SLATTERY'S PEOPLE, and THE BOLD ONES tackled many more tough issues than STAR TREK did, and they did so head-on, without the trappings of purple polka-dotted people, to paraphrase Roddenberry.

If STAR TREK was on par with anything in the '60s, it was on par with other well-regarded action-adventure shows (I SPY, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE).