The appeal of Torture-Porn and Popcorn?

[Bob The Skutter]

^I'm saying this stuff has been around for thousands of years, why is it suddenly a problem now? Why is only now "Dark and gritty" where as before it was just another way to tell a story?
I'm saying how is it a fad if fads are short term when you say this fad has existed for 30 years?

Yes there's a cultural trend towards wanting to see more realistically drawn characters and more shades of grey, because life is shades of grey and people are complex and contradictory in their character, so black and white 2 dimensional characters have become boring, but that isn't a bad thing, and despite this there is still plenty of choice out there. Of the TV I watched yesterday do you know how much of it was "dark and gritty"? None o f it. I'm going to cinema today and what I'll be seeing isn't dark at all.

You don't like something? Fine but at least have a reason other than "dark and gritty" especially when the thing you're calling that isn't at all.
It's like telling us the sky is brown and water makes you thirsty, it's nonsensical.

Don't like BSG because of the way it jumped about, or stuck far too much to the depressing end of the scale? Could see your point.
Don't like Star Trek because it was an action popcorn film with stupid plot points and and annoying direction? Can totally understand it.
Don't like Saw because it is grisly and gory with badly drawn characters? Again I could understand.
But to blanket them all in the same trend, and acting like they're all connected in some way is just silly.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm kind of at a loss to respond to that. You've got some pretty major denial going on. That's like saying Love, American Style, Hair and Doonesbury weren't part of the same cultural trend.

Again, this isn't something I saw in a dream, it's not subtle and it's not a big secret; it's something that's been well known and publicly discussed for a long while.

Gep himself linked to one of these pages earlier:

One. Two.

It's everywhere, man. I don't know how you can miss it.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I'm kind of at a loss to respond to that. You've got some pretty major denial going on. That's like saying Love, American Style, Hair and Doonesbury weren't part of the same cultural trend.

Again, this isn't something I saw in a dream, it's not subtle and it's not a big secret; it's something that's been well known and publicly discussed for a long while.

Gep himself linked to one of these pages earlier:

One. Two.

It's everywhere, man. I don't know how you can miss it.

But the point is you're including things that have no reason to be included, and excluding things the should be. DS9 was most certainly darker and edgier than Star Trek (2009). Hell even Enterprise and Voyager were darker in places than Star Trek was, but they're not part of it because they're not now?

Seems to me that the only trend is that children grew up loving these characters and wanted to see more complex stories told with them, or similar characters... Which I still fail to see as a bad thing.

It's only bad when it's done badly.

 

[Kegg]

The only time I can think of was when he inhaled some spores.

That's the time I meant. Sulu also only ran around fencing when he was under the effect of a space virus too, but then, that stuff happened in the original Star Trek a lot.

An aside: "This Side of Paradise" is my favourite original Star Trek episode. This is probably because I'm of the dark and gritty generation and I like shows where people express, like, their feelings, man.

Thank you! It's contemporary. It's in the wind. That's my point.

My point is just because something is contemporary you want to give it this label. Had a Star Trek film with the same sequence of events been made in the 1970s you probably wouldn't have considered it dark and gritty. I think you're really just connecting the fact the film has a modern attitude, which it does, to your thesis that lots of modern stuff and especially the modern stuff you dislike is dark and gritty. When anyone applies basically the same criticisms to such incredibly divergent works as nuBSG and nuTrek, the eyebrow raises, as it were.

Now, seriously, gentleman, am I being punk'd here or what? What is it about this subject that gets some people so bent out of shape?

It doesn't make any kind of sense to us. It's like if I sincerely insisted that Double Indemnity is a buoyant example of a non-dark and gritty film that's optimistic and pleasant and has a happy ending. This is really just one of the more baffling opinions I've seen held on the internet recently. Hating the new movie and loathing it for its modern sensibilites or adolescent tone or poor writing and so on make sense to me; this does not.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Seems to me like he is making the very same mistake as a lot of writers/producers are only in the opposite direction. Mistaking mature storytelling for dark and gritty, just as some shows mistake dark and gritty for mature, or sex and violence as adult when the way it's written or played is actually juvenile and immature.

My opinion is that bad storytelling is bad storytelling regardless of whether it's light and fluffy or dark and gritty. And to mistake all adult or mature stories as dark and gritty is to dismiss a lot of layers and just focus on elements that may only play a tiny role in the narrative.

Saw for example is dark certainly, but it doesn't have gritty realism... the plot is absurd in the extreme. A dying man who is a skilled engineer decides to teach the world a lesson and plans so well in advance that he takes on 2, perhaps 3 apprentices, gives them instructions on how to set up these murderous traps and plan the deaths (tests) for well over a dozen (at this point) people who deserve teaching the lesson that life is precious... Not only that but he has tests planned for his apprentices which are tied in to the tests of other people that he's already testing that they have no knowledge of and still manages to pull it off 4 films after his death?
There's no reality to those films, the plots just get more and more convoluted and less realistic by the film.

 

[stj]

It's hard to believe that you people aren't really getting the point. Maybe you have some residual embarrassment at being caught enjoying meanness for its own sake. If so, it wasn't necessary to post at all.

And, Star Wars and the wretched new Star Trek have quite different tones. The plot of the new Trek is twisted like a pretzel so that Spock attacks Kirk. It wasn't believable even while sitting in the theater seat. It was done so the audience could enjoy Spock attacking Kirk. The new Kirk pretty much lords it over everyone so the audience can enjoy him smirking at the losers. Scotty get dumped into a halfwitted set of transparent water tubes heading into a giant blender (a true wtf? moment, except the audience pretty much understands the movie is Kirk kicking ass, haha!) just so the audience can laugh at him. The difference in tone between Star Wars and Star Trek is enormous. As I say, it is really hard to believe that any one can't see it.

Near as I can tell, the only confusion here is with the posters who somehow think that drab, solemn, slow dreck is fundamentally different. The kicks, the supposed fun, are still, despite pretenses at exploring issues, all about seeing winners win by being meaner. This reaffirms the basic worldview. This is very consoling for people who identify with the mean characters, which in the end, means optimistic.
For a certain kind of person, that is. For others, it's just an agenda.

Don't confuse the "gritty" in this tiresome cliche with "gritty realism." The dark and gritty works are usually even more unrealistic. They only get tagged as realistic because their view of humanity as evil and/or worthless articulates a primary principle of conservatism.

 

[Kegg]

It's hard to believe that you people aren't really getting the point. Maybe you have some residual embarrassment at being caught enjoying meanness for its own sake.

Nothing of the kind. I'm a nasty person who loves vile things, but even I am puzzled when a cube is called a circle.

And, Star Wars and the wretched new Star Trek have quite different tones. The plot of the new Trek is twisted like a pretzel so that Spock attacks Kirk. It wasn't believable even while sitting in the theater seat. It was done so the audience could enjoy Spock attacking Kirk. The new Kirk pretty much lords it over everyone so the audience can enjoy him smirking at the losers.

Yeah, and? That's not dark and gritty. That's smug in-your-face teenage rebelliousness. If Spock attacking Kirk was portrayed as vicious or evil or just not some punk losing his cool, then you'd have a point. You know what dark and gritty means, no?

Near as I can tell, the only confusion here is with the posters who somehow think that drab, solemn, slow dreck is fundamentally different. The kicks, the supposed fun, are still, despite pretenses at exploring issues, all about seeing winners win by being meaner.

I never disputed his assertion that Dexter, say, is dark. Of course it's dark. It's also not solemn or drab - it's fun. But darkly fun.

Star Trek, aber, isn't dark. Kirk triumphing over Nero is just the good guy hero doing the good guy thing. He's glib and crass but he's not presented as someone whose actions are morally questionable or even morally notable; he's just doing what he does and it's all good.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Same here, I love dark stuff. I enjoy being able to see mean and horrible things happening, not because these things are real, if they were real it would be an awful, terrible thing, but in the context of fiction horrible things work. That doesn't mean I don't also love whimsical, surreal, weird and light.
I like a whole spectrum of fiction, but I don't understand why contemporary things are "Dark and gritty" while older ones simply are what they are. "Because it's the culture" doesn't cut it, there has been a culture of dark storytelling for thousands of years. Children's stories for hundreds of years have a dark side tucked in to their unreal and whimsical worlds, yet Grandma getting eaten by a wolf isn't dark, the giant grinding up bones to make his bread is nothing. Boba Fett slowly digested over years, fine. But Kirk being a jerk to Spock in order to do what needs doing? Oh no that's Dark and Gritty.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

^Seems to me like he is making the very same mistake as a lot of writers/producers are only in the opposite direction. Mistaking mature storytelling for dark and gritty, just as some shows mistake dark and gritty for mature, or sex and violence as adult when the way it's written or played is actually juvenile and immature.

A perfect, recent example of this is the new Spartacus show.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Seems to me like he is making the very same mistake as a lot of writers/producers are only in the opposite direction. Mistaking mature storytelling for dark and gritty, just as some shows mistake dark and gritty for mature, or sex and violence as adult when the way it's written or played is actually juvenile and immature.

A perfect, recent example of this is the new Spartacus show.

The first series of Torchwood is also a good example. I often find gratuitous sex and violence are there to cover bad writing, to the point where I've had to be convinced to watch good shows because sex or violence showed up very early and I suspected it was there to distract.

 

[RJDiogenes]

But the point is you're including things that have no reason to be included, and excluding things the should be. DS9 was most certainly darker and edgier than Star Trek (2009). Hell even Enterprise and Voyager were darker in places than Star Trek was, but they're not part of it because they're not now?

I never said that. DS9, as well as some of VOY and ENT, definitely were D&G. I thought I mentioned above the thematic (and visual) darkening of Trek as time went on. It's not something I thought was appropriate, and I would have done it differently, but at least they did it well for the most part.

Seems to me that the only trend is that children grew up loving these characters and wanted to see more complex stories told with them, or similar characters... Which I still fail to see as a bad thing.

That would be great. But, unfortunately, people have come to confuse "complex" with "demented."

It's only bad when it's done badly.

Or too much, or inappropriately. I really don't want to see Peanuts revived by Robert Crumb. Type mismatch, if you see what I mean.

An aside: "This Side of Paradise" is my favourite original Star Trek episode. This is probably because I'm of the dark and gritty generation and I like shows where people express, like, their feelings, man.

Of course. That's what stories are all about. But that's not what's happening here.

My point is just because something is contemporary you want to give it this label. Had a Star Trek film with the same sequence of events been made in the 1970s you probably wouldn't have considered it dark and gritty. I think you're really just connecting the fact the film has a modern attitude, which it does, to your thesis that lots of modern stuff and especially the modern stuff you dislike is dark and gritty. When anyone applies basically the same criticisms to such incredibly divergent works as nuBSG and nuTrek, the eyebrow raises, as it were.

Why? As I've demonstrated above, Art exists within the context of the times. If such divergent works as TOS and Laugh-In result from the same context, why is it so hard to see that nuTrek and nuBSG do? Do you think that Stargate Universe has nothing in common with nuBSG because its predecessors didn't? As for how I'd feel about the same sequence of events happening in the 70s, I can't say. One problem is that they didn't just write this sequence into the mythos-- they retconned it in. If it happened in the 70s, and was well done, without compromising the characters and theme-- who knows?

It doesn't make any kind of sense to us. It's like if I sincerely insisted that Double Indemnity is a buoyant example of a non-dark and gritty film that's optimistic and pleasant and has a happy ending. This is really just one of the more baffling opinions I've seen held on the internet recently. Hating the new movie and loathing it for its modern sensibilites or adolescent tone or poor writing and so on make sense to me; this does not.

And I can't understand why not. All those elements you list are obviously aspects of the film-- as are the D&G elements. How can rewriting a story to include the deaths of two parents and the destruction of a planet not be considered dark? If somebody wrote an Alternate History story of an America where a quarter of of the original thirteen States were obliterated in the mid 1800s, would you consider that dark? For that matter, do you consider the Civil War dark?

^Seems to me like he is making the very same mistake as a lot of writers/producers are only in the opposite direction. Mistaking mature storytelling for dark and gritty, just as some shows mistake dark and gritty for mature, or sex and violence as adult when the way it's written or played is actually juvenile and immature.

No, I'm not doing that at all. Just the opposite. Obviously, as you say, most of the dark & gritty stuff is juvenile garbage. It reminds me of the Underground Comix of the 70s; their claim to fame was sex and drugs, but the quality of the art and writing, with a few exceptions, was abysmal. One of the biggest problems with this fad is that it equates adulthood with arrested adolescence.

My opinion is that bad storytelling is bad storytelling regardless of whether it's light and fluffy or dark and gritty. And to mistake all adult or mature stories as dark and gritty is to dismiss a lot of layers and just focus on elements that may only play a tiny role in the narrative.

No, I would never do that. Part of my point is that adult stories do not have to be dark & gritty. It is possible to tell great stories about people who are actually mature and behave rationally and aren't morally bankrupt and don't puke all over themselves or blow cigarette smoke in the faces of pregnant women or try to murder mouthy cadets or get into bar fights or sacrifice others for their own secret agendas... and so on.

I like a whole spectrum of fiction, but I don't understand why contemporary things are "Dark and gritty" while older ones simply are what they are. "Because it's the culture" doesn't cut it, there has been a culture of dark storytelling for thousands of years.

And there has been a culture of Peace and Love for thousands of years; but it was the dominant force in the 60s. Now the dominant force is Dark & Gritty. Again, common knowledge. I don't know how anybody can miss it. And you know it's getting bad when some of the very architects of the fad express regret (or at least bemusement) at its pandemic state.

 

[RJDiogenes]

A perfect, recent example of this is the new Spartacus show.

I never heard of that one.

The first series of Torchwood is also a good example. I often find gratuitous sex and violence are there to cover bad writing, to the point where I've had to be convinced to watch good shows because sex or violence showed up very early and I suspected it was there to distract.

Torchwood actually is a good example. I gave up on it early on because it was pointlessly dark and gritty; on the other hand, the latest story, "Children Of Man" I think it was called, was very dark but also well done.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Things are a product of their time, but that doesn't mean because shallow storytelling was something that happened a lot in the 80s everything was shallow. I'm beginning to see what your point of view is, and I even think we agree on certain points, but I disagree with your interpretation and general outlook on the situation.

I don't think dark, gritty, edgy and realistic are bad things, just used badly by a lot of people. I don't agree that Star Trek was Dark and Gritty because there were dark elements, when the tone of the entire film is taken in to consideration it's a popcorn film not a stark and uncomfortable reimaginaing of the Star Trek universe, there are just drastic events to separate the 2 universes.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

A perfect, recent example of this is the new Spartacus show.

I never heard of that one.

The first series of Torchwood is also a good example. I often find gratuitous sex and violence are there to cover bad writing, to the point where I've had to be convinced to watch good shows because sex or violence showed up very early and I suspected it was there to distract.

Torchwood actually is a good example. I gave up on it early on because it was pointlessly dark and gritty; on the other hand, the latest story, "Children Of Man" I think it was called, was very dark but also well done.

Torchwood series 1 is annoying because it has potential but because it's a spin off of a family show but for adults I think they felt the need to push the boundaries as far as possible to show it wasn't a kids show, so they misjudged adult and ended up with adolescent swearing and sex for the sake of it. The second series seemed more comfortable with what the show was and improved.
Children of Earth was possibly my favourite TV all year, a proper adult show that wasn't pushing sex and violence for the sake of it and seemed to have discovered what it could be.

After reading The Writer's Tale it kinda seems a shame Russell T Davis cannibalised it from the idea he'd had for a separate longer running show that would have been a bit more of a drama exploring the idea of a western nation becoming a totalitarian state.

 

[Kegg]

A perfect, recent example of this is the new Spartacus show.

I vaguely recall hearing about a TV show many years ago which was meant to be a more faithful adaption, IIRC, of the novel which the Kubrick film was based on (which was by Howard Fast if memory serves). I take it they're doing this again? Heh.

I never said that. DS9, as well as some of VOY and ENT, definitely were D&G. I thought I mentioned above the thematic (and visual) darkening of Trek as time went on.

An aside: The new Trek bucks the trend here too, Trekwise. We're back to brightly colour-coded uniforms, compared to the grim purple/black ensembles of the TNG film era.

Why? As I've demonstrated above, Art exists within the context of the times.

Of course it does. But when you're unable to give me a reason that nuTrek is dark and the original Star Wars isn't other than 'context of the times', you have no argument at all.

To wit:

If such divergent works as TOS and Laugh-In result from the same context,

And Psycho. I want to hear you say that Psycho is not as dark and gritty as Star Trek, because of context. And it has a much smaller body count you know, so it has to be less dark.

why is it so hard to see that nuTrek and nuBSG do? Do you think that Stargate Universe has nothing in common with nuBSG because its predecessors didn't?

Stargate Universe is heavily 'inspired' by nuBSG, the new Star Trek, however, is clearly its own animal. Even if there were a BSG influence, it clearly didn't effect the film's need to appear 'dark'.

How can rewriting a story to include the deaths of two parents and the destruction of a planet not be considered dark?

Wait, what?

Did you just write that?

You've already conceded that precisely these elements did not make Star Wars a dark movie.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^Things are a product of their time, but that doesn't mean because shallow storytelling was something that happened a lot in the 80s everything was shallow. I'm beginning to see what your point of view is, and I even think we agree on certain points, but I disagree with your interpretation and general outlook on the situation.

Shallow storytelling didn't just happen in the 80s-- it's happening now-- well, it always happens, but in relation to the D&G style, it's worse. I think we do agree on some essential points, which is why I'm baffled by the disconnect here.

I don't think dark, gritty, edgy and realistic are bad things, just used badly by a lot of people.

Yes, I agree. Note my comments about Harlan Ellison and Dangerous Visions. Done badly is the problem. Also overused and used inappropriately.

I don't agree that Star Trek was Dark and Gritty because there were dark elements, when the tone of the entire film is taken in to consideration it's a popcorn film not a stark and uncomfortable reimaginaing of the Star Trek universe, there are just drastic events to separate the 2 universes.

This is what I mean: We're saying the same thing (sort of). You agree that there are dark & gritty elements.

Torchwood series 1 is annoying because it has potential but because it's a spin off of a family show but for adults I think they felt the need to push the boundaries as far as possible to show it wasn't a kids show, so they misjudged adult and ended up with adolescent swearing and sex for the sake of it.

This is an important element as well: Pushing the boundaries becomes an end in itself, rather than a means to an end.

An aside: The new Trek bucks the trend here too, Trekwise. We're back to brightly colour-coded uniforms, compared to the grim purple/black ensembles of the TNG film era.

Indeed. That much I liked. It actually had me feeling optimistic for a while.

Of course it does. But when you're unable to give me a reason that nuTrek is dark and the original Star Wars isn't other than 'context of the times', you have no argument at all.

Why not? Aside from that not being the only reason, I've already explained why context is important.

And Psycho. I want to hear you say that Psycho is not as dark and gritty as Star Trek, because of context. And it has a much smaller body count you know, so it has to be less dark.

Sure. And Grindhouse movies. Closer to the time period I was discussing, there were movies like Planet Of The Apes and Soylent Green which contained dark elements. But, first of all, this tone, again, was not the primary tone for Pop Culture; secondly, if you note the themes of these dark movies, you see that they still arose from the same social consciousness that informed Trek and Laugh-In et cetera. The dark elements of nuBSG and nuTrek are the same posed cynicism that informs other shows, movies and books of this trend.

Stargate Universe is heavily 'inspired' by nuBSG, the new Star Trek, however, is clearly its own animal. Even if there were a BSG influence, it clearly didn't effect the film's need to appear 'dark'.

I didn't say a direct BSG influence, I said a mutual influence.

Wait, what?

Did you just write that?

You've already conceded that precisely these elements did not make Star Wars a dark movie.

Well, first of all, there's the 'rewriting' part. Secondly, it is a dark element in both movies, but it carries a greater weight in nuTrek.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I think the disconnect is I don't think elements inform the overall tone of the film. I don't think labelling entire genres and sub-genres because of very small element of a story is fair. I wouldn't dismiss entire series or films as part of a cultural fad simply because there's a little part I dislike.

And I guess that I wouldn't have the same definition of the words that you do. For instance I'm watching a show right now, overall the tone of it is a comedy, but it contains everything from extra marital affairs to drug dealing and taking, to murder and under-age sex, but I wouldn't label it as a dark show despite the fact it contains those elements.

 

[Gepard]

It's hard to believe that you people aren't really getting the point. Maybe you have some residual embarrassment at being caught enjoying meanness for its own sake.

Nothing of the kind. I'm a nasty person who loves vile things, but even I am puzzled when a cube is called a circle.

^Same here, I love dark stuff. I enjoy being able to see mean and horrible things happening, not because these things are real, if they were real it would be an awful, terrible thing, but in the context of fiction horrible things work. That doesn't mean I don't also love whimsical, surreal, weird and light.

These, times two. I adore dark, gritty stuff with people acting miserable and pouting into the camera. Hell, I even like Stargate Universe! I wish Trek XI had been part of this "D&G" fad, because I probably would have liked it more.

Secondly, it is a dark element in both movies, but it carries a greater weight in nuTrek.

No. No it doesn't.

Jesus.

 

[Kegg]

Why not? Aside from that not being the only reason, I've already explained why context is important.

It's not an explanation. Put simply, context is a good argument for why something is so. Take The Dark Knight. I think we can all agree The Dark Knight is dark. Now, if I asked 'why is the Dark Knight dark?', a reply with cultural context seems fair.

But if I said 'The Dark Knight is as light-hearted as Adam West!', you couldn't well reply 'No it isn't, look at the cultural context, dark and gritty was really popular in this era.' You'd far more reasonably reply by giving various examples of things and tones and attitudes that are significantly darker in that film when compared to that show.

So no, it doesn't count. And I've yet to see an argument that really manages to explain to me how the film is a dark and gritty one.

Closer to the time period I was discussing, there were movies like Planet Of The Apes and Soylent Green which contained dark elements. But, first of all, this tone, again, was not the primary tone for Pop Culture; secondly, if you note the themes of these dark movies, you see that they still arose from the same social consciousness that informed Trek and Laugh-In et cetera. The dark elements of nuBSG and nuTrek are the same posed cynicism that informs other shows, movies and books of this trend.

There's enormous cynicism in Planet of the Apes, which is even more extreme in its terrible sequel. Humanity sucks, big time, and in the first movie Charlton Heston is a mouthpiece for all the casual cynicism about the dismal nature of the human condition which gets the most awful answer imaginable at the end.

Star Trek by contrast isn't anywhere near as cynical or even as thoughtful, honestly. It's an action-adventure spectacle that's a knowing wink and a nod homage to an old TV show, that ups the ante on teenage rebelliousness and then gives us our ready made heroes. They have more rock and roll and coolness and what have you, but at the end of the day they're heroes who save the day. The dominant themes, such as they are, are about destiny and making something of yourself and basically going out there and choosing your path to live an unordinary life of greatness. It's not the most unironic thing ever but it's miles from Planet of the Apes' cynicism.

Whatever is dominant in pop culture is more or less beside the point here, the issue is whether particular works fit particular labels. I'm not saying dark and gritty isn't popular, but I am saying Star Trek isn't dark and gritty. It's definitely nowhere near the grim psychological darkness of Psycho (or, say, the film of In Cold Blood, which is downright creepy.)

I didn't say a direct BSG influence, I said a mutual influence.

Which is?

Well, first of all, there's the 'rewriting' part.

Which means what, pray tell? Something is only dark and gritty if it's darker than its predecessor in a given franchise?

Secondly, it is a dark element in both movies, but it carries a greater weight in nuTrek.

Debateable. I don't think there are any deaths nuTrek milks quite as much as Star Wars did Obi-Wan; indeed nuTrek's Obi-Wan (or Obi-Wans - both Pike and Old Spock fill this role) conspicuously remain alive at the end of the movie.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I think the disconnect is I don't think elements inform the overall tone of the film. I don't think labelling entire genres and sub-genres because of very small element of a story is fair. I wouldn't dismiss entire series or films as part of a cultural fad simply because there's a little part I dislike.

It informs the film, tone or not. Star Trek has been re-imagined fast-ly, dark-ly, and stupid-ly-- and even Simon Pegg-ly-- and you can certainly make arguments for the order of importance of these elements, but they all exist.

These, times two. I adore dark, gritty stuff with people acting miserable and pouting into the camera. Hell, I even like Stargate Universe! I wish Trek XI had been part of this "D&G" fad, because I probably would have liked it more.

See? There you go.

No. No it doesn't.

Jesus.

Yes, yes it does. And don't call me 'Jesus.'

It's not an explanation. Put simply, context is a good argument for why something is so. Take The Dark Knight. I think we can all agree The Dark Knight is dark. Now, if I asked 'why is the Dark Knight dark?', a reply with cultural context seems fair.

But if I said 'The Dark Knight is as light-hearted as Adam West!', you couldn't well reply 'No it isn't, look at the cultural context, dark and gritty was really popular in this era.' You'd far more reasonably reply by giving various examples of things and tones and attitudes that are significantly darker in that film when compared to that show.

Not sure what you mean, since Dark Knight was not as lighthearted as the 60s Batman. But you have certainly come up with another perfect example of the same concept under the influence of far different dominant cultures; you've pretty much proved my point right there.

So no, it doesn't count. And I've yet to see an argument that really manages to explain to me how the film is a dark and gritty one.

Because what I said it that it has dark & gritty elements, which is just true.

There's enormous cynicism in Planet of the Apes, which is even more extreme in its terrible sequel. Humanity sucks, big time, and in the first movie Charlton Heston is a mouthpiece for all the casual cynicism about the dismal nature of the human condition which gets the most awful answer imaginable at the end.

Planet Of The Apes is a cautionary tale; note cynical Taylor's reaction at the end.

Star Trek by contrast isn't anywhere near as cynical or even as thoughtful, honestly. It's an action-adventure spectacle that's a knowing wink and a nod homage to an old TV show, that ups the ante on teenage rebelliousness and then gives us our ready made heroes. They have more rock and roll and coolness and what have you, but at the end of the day they're heroes who save the day. The dominant themes, such as they are, are about destiny and making something of yourself and basically going out there and choosing your path to live an unordinary life of greatness. It's not the most unironic thing ever but it's miles from Planet of the Apes' cynicism.

In Planet Of The Apes, the blowing up of a planet was presented as, like, the worst thing ever, dude; in nuTrek, it was presented as a kewl upgrade.

Which means what, pray tell? Something is only dark and gritty if it's darker than its predecessor in a given franchise?

Sigh. No. Again: It's taking something whose core theme is peaceful and optimistic with noble and heroic characters and re-imagining it as a terrible holocaust with characters who are morons and mental defectives, because that's what's fashionable.

Debateable. I don't think there are any deaths nuTrek milks quite as much as Star Wars did Obi-Wan; indeed nuTrek's Obi-Wan (or Obi-Wans - both Pike and Old Spock fill this role) conspicuously remain alive at the end of the movie.

It carries a greater weight because of the re-imagining. It's Greedo shooting first-- in reverse-- on a grand scale.