No, it's not.
I don't care anymore
- Thread starter MadBaggins
- Start date
No, it's not.
Personally, I'm still excited, but my world, not even my movie watching world, orbits around this picture. There are too many good ones coming out this year (or next). But I am excited about it.
I'm content to let them take the time they need to ensure it's a great film, and that it's released at a time where it will be competitive.
This impatience among assembled fandom, I've always found puzzling and just a tad childish.
I'm content to let them take the time they need to ensure it's a great film, and that it's released at a time where it will be competitive.
This impatience among assembled fandom, I've always found puzzling and just a tad childish.
I probably should clarify. Progress is dehumanising (the sterile, technocratic world of the humans in the film, and the final apotheosis into the Star Child). Progress is violent (the brutal use of the bone being the first step that leads, in the famous thousands of years jump cut, right to the orbital nuclear weapons platform). But I didn't mean to say that violence is dehumanising.
Violence doesn't define us as humans; that's reductive. It's like saying that philtrums define us as human. 
Nah, not that either. 
Dan Ackroyd's character in "Dragnet" said that the defining characteristic of human beings is that we eat with utensils. You can pick any one of myriad behaviors and use that to "define" us. It's all reductive.
Dan Ackroyd's character in "Dragnet" said that the defining characteristic of human beings is that we eat with utensils. You can pick any one of myriad behaviors and use that to "define" us. It's all reductive.
I was gonna say a bunch of stuff about how pretension has turned out some pretty flat Star Trek... but Starship Polaris did it better then I could have.
Trek, when it thinks it important really really ends up ringing hollow and doesn't do much for broadening its appeal.
Recently I had an aspiring playwright tell me "Every playwright I've ever met has an almost altruistic need to change the world". First just thinking like is bound to produce horrendous work, so self aware and preachy it should be a turn off to any audience. She then went onto say neither novels or plays need to be entertaining provided they're enlightening...
Give me a break of course both plays, either on screen or stage or books first and primary job is entertainment. If as an ancillary outcome people are affected in some way by the work ok but seeking to be deep isn't being deep. Trek does that lot.
Sharr
Trek, when it thinks it important really really ends up ringing hollow and doesn't do much for broadening its appeal.
Recently I had an aspiring playwright tell me "Every playwright I've ever met has an almost altruistic need to change the world". First just thinking like is bound to produce horrendous work, so self aware and preachy it should be a turn off to any audience. She then went onto say neither novels or plays need to be entertaining provided they're enlightening...
Give me a break of course both plays, either on screen or stage or books first and primary job is entertainment. If as an ancillary outcome people are affected in some way by the work ok but seeking to be deep isn't being deep. Trek does that lot.
Sharr
You know, I'm not sure that the urge (or "need") to change the world is in and of itself altruistic. It's rather egocentric. The urge to help may be altruistic.
The ego leads the way; the telethons follow...
This is absolutely correct... I couldn't agree more.
There was a time in our not-so-distant past when certain European nations undertook to "civilize" the rest of the world. This was done by invading, conquering, and enforcing Euro-centric behaviors and values on the local populations. That's largely what's formed the geopolitical situation in the world today.
These people wanted to "change the world" but the people who were being "changed" didn't necessarily agree with the direction the "change" was leading towards.
As Dennis says, the desire to HELP is far better than the desire to CHANGE THE WORLD. "Help," after all, is only really help if the people you're "helping" WANT your help. Otherwise, it's merely meddling... and is likely to bring you ill will rather than gratitude on the part of those you're "helping."
The desire to change the world isn't necessarily a bad one... but it's a DANGEROUS one. History is filled with people who've wanted to "change the world," and a significant proportion of those people rank among the worst in human history.
I'm in favor of "helping those who help themselves." If people need help, and ask for it, you give them the help they need... but not indefinitely. The goal of help is to lift people to the point where they don't NEED your help anymore. Once they don't need your help anymore, you no longer have the power to control and coerce them. (I consider this to be a core conservative value, by the way... and it's one of the issues at the core of why I consider myself conservative rather than liberal. Not trying to pick an argument, just describing my own position... )
I wouldn't assume that. I'm of the strong impression we're going to get a movie, that is internally meaningful to the characters (THE PEOPLE!) and how they relate to one another. Something of far greater value to telling successful story then if V'Ger found its "creator" or not or the thousandth reiteration of how all humanity are brothers and we all should just get on well with one another.
Worse I kinda of find the assumption that *these writers* are somehow incapable of telling a meaningful story somewhat arrogant - that notions cropped up more then a few times and I've yet to see a compelling base for it - but for the fact they've previously written a highly successful movie...
Sharr
I have no idea if these writers are capable of telling a meaningful story. All I know for certain is none of their past ouevre has left any positive resonance for me, nor has it seemed meaningful. At this stage in the game, all we can judge Abrams and company is by their track record. Some people love them for it and some are decidedly less enthusiastic.
I would strongly disagree - but you knew that
Transformers proved more then anything you can take something a "general audience" shouldn't have given a fig about and make it a resounding success with a range of people. Where it comes to films or tv shows the best proof lays in making a popular product resound with many people. Nor would I say Transformers (or Lost, Felicity, Alias) are without "meaning" in their own contexts.
However I also tend to think Star Trek and some of its fans afford it more praise then it deserves trying to elevate it above "entertainment" - I don't think Lucy and gang were backing anything other but *Entertainment* when they funded two pilots. That it holds deeper meaning to some fans is par for the course with almost any reasonably successful tv show and a few not so successful shows.
Sharr
I'm sorry, what part of the world did Gene Roddenberry change exactly? Other than a corner of the entertainment industry and the fantasy lives of nerds, I mean.
Similar threads
