The appeal of Torture-Porn and Popcorn?

[Spaceman Spiff]

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.

I like you, and I enjoy talking about classic horror and science fiction with you, but I don't know why anyone engages you on this topic when you say things like this. It betrays what I suspect underlies most of all this, which is the usual boring ol' generation gap. Everyone thinks the stories and music they grew up with were the best, oblivious to the fact that the previous generation saw it all as garbage, and ignorant of the parallel that has to their own perspective.

It's all right there in your choice of language. Twist the knob back a few years, swap "dude" and "kewl" for "cat" and "ya dig?" and it's the same darn attitude.

Not to mention that you're being disingenuous in some of your arguments. The whole point of Nero destroying Vulcan was that it was supposed to be awful. How the heck is it a "kewl upgrade?" Do you sincerely believe that it was written with the intent to wow the audience with how cool genocide is?

The way you just slap the "dark & gritty" tag around willy nilly lessens the effect for when it's really needed. As hinted at earlier, Starz needs a slap in the head for Spartacus: Blood and Sand, because they're doing all that for its own sake. Every other word is "fuck" or "cunt," they show as much T&A as they can cram into an hour, and every battle injury literally explodes with blood. It's the cinematic equivalent of party with parents out of town. It packs in as much "you can't do this on a network" as it can. All HBO/Showtime style shows are guilty of that to a degree, but this one goes much further than any of them. I'm fine with nudity, "profanity" and fictionalized violence, but this show just has too much. It's so gratuitous that it gets laughable pretty quickly. There's even a scene where Spartacus is giving a stabbing, and a cascade of blood explodes behind him--it's not coming from his opponent; it's literally used as scene decoration.

 

[RJDiogenes]

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.

I like you, and I enjoy talking about classic horror and science fiction with you, but I don't know why anyone engages you on this topic when you say things like this. It betrays what I suspect underlies most of all this, which is the usual boring ol' generation gap. Everyone thinks the stories and music they grew up with were the best, oblivious to the fact that the previous generation saw it all as garbage, and ignorant of the parallel that has to their own perspective.

I don't think the Generation Gap issue really applies to me; I don't necessarily prefer the stuff I grew up with. In fact, I dislike a lot of it, and a lot of stuff I like is from previous decades and centuries. Furthermore, I first started having these conversations back around 1980 or 81 when the trend began; my best friend at the time and I used to discuss it a lot (little did I know how long it would last or how bad it would get). Anyways, I'm hep enough to know the difference between nostalgia and standards.

It's all right there in your choice of language. Twist the knob back a few years, swap "dude" and "kewl" for "cat" and "ya dig?" and it's the same darn attitude.

Not quite the same attitude, since I'm not opposed to change or innovation-- in fact, I'd love some-- I'm opposed to mediocrity, conformity, negativism, et cetera. I could again cite the fact that some of the architects of this fad (trend, culture, whatever) are in agreement with me, but I suppose they're even older than I am at this point.

Not to mention that you're being disingenuous in some of your arguments. The whole point of Nero destroying Vulcan was that it was supposed to be awful. How the heck is it a "kewl upgrade?" Do you sincerely believe that it was written with the intent to wow the audience with how cool genocide is?

I meant a kewl upgrade to Trek, by the standards of what is currently fashionable. Theoretically, it was supposed to be awful in-story, but it was kind of brushed off, which is part of my point.

The way you just slap the "dark & gritty" tag around willy nilly lessens the effect for when it's really needed. As hinted at earlier, Starz needs a slap in the head for Spartacus: Blood and Sand, because they're doing all that for its own sake. Every other word is "fuck" or "cunt," they show as much T&A as they can cram into an hour, and every battle injury literally explodes with blood. It's the cinematic equivalent of party with parents out of town. It packs in as much "you can't do this on a network" as it can. All HBO/Showtime style shows are guilty of that to a degree, but this one goes much further than any of them. I'm fine with nudity, "profanity" and fictionalized violence, but this show just has too much. It's so gratuitous that it gets laughable pretty quickly. There's even a scene where Spartacus is giving a stabbing, and a cascade of blood explodes behind him--it's not coming from his opponent; it's literally used as scene decoration.

Yeah, that's at the extreme end of the spectrum. But the operative words here are "to a degree." There are two ends to any spectrum, as well as all that middle ground; and any element of a cultural trend must blend in with other elements; there are no sharply defined edges. I think one of the shows that you're referring to above is probably Weeds, which depicts a family that grows and sells illegal marijuana, if I'm not mistaken. Is it dark and gritty? I don't know, since I've never seen it, but I think not. Is it "edgy," in the sense of "pushing boundaries" (or at least selling themselves as doing so)? Yes, I think so. Does "edgy" blend in with "dark and gritty" as part of the overall cultural trend? Of course. I don't think it's me throwing around tags willy nilly so much as my distinguished opponents taking me to court and splitting hairs.

Now give me your honest opinion: Do you think that the recreators of Trek blew up Vulcan, killed off a Mom and Dad, and portrayed the main characters as damaged goods to fit in with the current love of darkness and corruption or not? And if not, what do you believe their motivation was?

 

[Kegg]

Not sure what you mean, since Dark Knight was not as lighthearted as the 60s Batman.

I thought it was pretty obvious. I was just using an example we could all agree on. We can all agree that Dark Knight is dark and the 60s Batman is not. So if I were to say that Dark Knight is lighter than 60s Batman... saying the cultural context disproves me would be a pretty terrible argument. The cultural context is something that explains why something is dark, not that it is dark. Stuff like the pencil joke is a little more convincing (and the best thing in the movie, clearly, but I disgress.)

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

You've pretty much fallen into a rather poor fallacy at this point. It's true because I say it's true. That's wonderful when your word is the same thing as an argument and/or evidence, but it's neither. Look I don't hold any particular malice towards this viewpoint, give me an argument that actually makes sense and I'll happily acquiesce whatever point it had.

In Planet Of The Apes, the blowing up of a planet was presented as, like, the worst thing ever, dude;

Which is pretty dark, though. I can't see anyone not seeing the ending of Planet of the Apes as a fairly bleak one.

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.

That's more 'This sucks' than 'this is dark and gritty.' It's patently obvious that the writers and the director did not set out to create a cast of morons, though whether they did this or not is debateable, of course. It's equally obvious that they're striking in the general direction of optimism and nobility, even if that aspect is mainly foisted on the old guys, Pike and Spock, and the kids get to be angry and boisterous.

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

Greedo shooting first in reverse, I guess, becuase it darkens the original rather than lightens it? Interesting that many light touches were added to that and also E.T. (where the guns were replaced by what, walkie-talkies? I did not see the re-release but I heard about that), anyway, I don't buy it. If it's only dark in relationship to the rest of the brand then it isn't dark.

Now give me your honest opinion: Do you think that the recreators of Trek blew up Vulcan, killed off a Mom and Dad, and portrayed the main characters as damaged goods to fit in with the current love of darkness and corruption or not? And if not, what do you believe their motivation was?

I haven't actually read any interviews or listened to DVD commentaries etc. on the subject, so this would just be my inferrence: They wanted to, among other things, follow some similar beats from Star Wars, give the characters stuff to get mad about; have a big action setpiece, and probably wink to the fans that in this universe anything could happen (as far as Vulcan goes).

Moreover, they wanted to key it into, again, the adolescent tone of the film: Both Kirk and Spock have a strong bond with their deceased relative as a major character point. It influences what career Spock took when he turned down the Vulcan Science Academy, it influenced what career Kirk took when he went into the service. It even gives their arcs just a little bit of parallelism, which is again likely intentional, given their bromace is a thematic setpiece for the movie.

That's not dark and gritty. Dark and gritty has the characters go depressed, soul-searching, have them react in horror to the events - the sort of numb, raw, grim feeling that pervades the BSG miniseries. The overriding interest of the new film is basically adventure, and everything, including character and plot, is secondary to that.

I'd also like to note, just to be an arcane Trekkie jerk, that early dialogue in the original Star Trek - for most of season one, actually - suggested very consistently that Spock's parents were dead, them being alive was a retcon, and I believe the reference to Kirk's father living in the new film is the only one referring to the Prime universe. It's also worth noting Kirk father's death is framed as a heroic sacrifice; I can't really see such an ennobling incident as 'dark and gritty.' Dark and gritty are the Wayne parents being killed by some two-bit hoodlums.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I thought it was pretty obvious. I was just using an example we could all agree on. We can all agree that Dark Knight is dark and the 60s Batman is not. So if I were to say that Dark Knight is lighter than 60s Batman... saying the cultural context disproves me would be a pretty terrible argument. The cultural context is something that explains why something is dark, not that it is dark. Stuff like the pencil joke is a little more convincing (and the best thing in the movie, clearly, but I disgress.)

Okay, true, but I'm not sure of your point. They added the dark elements because it is all the rage. That there are dark elements still seems pretty self-evident to me.

You've pretty much fallen into a rather poor fallacy at this point. It's true because I say it's true. That's wonderful when your word is the same thing as an argument and/or evidence, but it's neither. Look I don't hold any particular malice towards this viewpoint, give me an argument that actually makes sense and I'll happily acquiesce whatever point it had.

They made arbitrary changes to the Star Trek story. These changes did not involve having Pike talk Kirk into leaving a peace commune to explore space on the Smithsonian ship Enterprise or include a surprising peace treaty with the Romulans caused by Nero's presence; it involved the death of parents, the corruption of characters, the death of billions, the compromising of Starfleet and the destabilization of the Federation (unless they completely blow off the effects of Vulcan and the vast damage to the fleet, which, I suppose, they likely will). They introduced dark elements that completely change the context of the Trek concept.

Which is pretty dark, though. I can't see anyone not seeing the ending of Planet of the Apes as a fairly bleak one.

Bleak, but cautionary. Taylor doesn't wallow; he grieves.

That's more 'This sucks' than 'this is dark and gritty.' It's patently obvious that the writers and the director did not set out to create a cast of morons, though whether they did this or not is debateable, of course. It's equally obvious that they're striking in the general direction of optimism and nobility, even if that aspect is mainly foisted on the old guys, Pike and Spock, and the kids get to be angry and boisterous.

They may not have intentionally created morons, but it was a side effect of their eagerness to re-imagine the characters as damaged and corrupted.

Greedo shooting first in reverse, I guess, becuase it darkens the original rather than lightens it? Interesting that many light touches were added to that and also E.T. (where the guns were replaced by what, walkie-talkies? I did not see the re-release but I heard about that), anyway, I don't buy it. If it's only dark in relationship to the rest of the brand then it isn't dark.

Right. Greedo shooting first and changing the guns to walkie-talkies was rewriting history, changing the concept. And why were SW fans upset about this? Because it violated the artistic integrity of the originals. And that's exactly what's happening here.

I haven't actually read any interviews or listened to DVD commentaries etc. on the subject, so this would just be my inferrence: They wanted to, among other things, follow some similar beats from Star Wars, give the characters stuff to get mad about; have a big action setpiece, and probably wink to the fans that in this universe anything could happen (as far as Vulcan goes).

Moreover, they wanted to key it into, again, the adolescent tone of the film: Both Kirk and Spock have a strong bond with their deceased relative as a major character point. It influences what career Spock took when he turned down the Vulcan Science Academy, it influenced what career Kirk took when he went into the service. It even gives their arcs just a little bit of parallelism, which is again likely intentional, given their bromace is a thematic setpiece for the movie.

That's not dark and gritty. Dark and gritty has the characters go depressed, soul-searching, have them react in horror to the events - the sort of numb, raw, grim feeling that pervades the BSG miniseries. The overriding interest of the new film is basically adventure, and everything, including character and plot, is secondary to that.

You're right, as far as that goes-- except I doubt if they thought through Kirk and Spock that much; especially since Kirk and Spock were both already in Starfleet in the original. But everything being second to adventure does not preclude the dark and gritty elements that they included. Also, I think your definition of dark and gritty is a bit narrow.

I'd also like to note, just to be an arcane Trekkie jerk, that early dialogue in the original Star Trek - for most of season one, actually - suggested very consistently that Spock's parents were dead, them being alive was a retcon, and I believe the reference to Kirk's father living in the new film is the only one referring to the Prime universe. It's also worth noting Kirk father's death is framed as a heroic sacrifice; I can't really see such an ennobling incident as 'dark and gritty.' Dark and gritty are the Wayne parents being killed by some two-bit hoodlums.

Well, the original Trek evolved as it was written, of course. nuTrek still took an established character and killed her off. As for the death of Kirk's father, yes, in and of itself it could have been presented as part of the history of the original-- except that it was explicitly stated to be different and the purpose was to turn Kirk into an unpleasant delinquent.