sycasey

It's like when superhero movies try to make fun of the silly costumes they wore in the comics. I mean, why are we here? I'm watching this movie because I want to see superheroes. It's okay if they look like superheroes.

I'm still not sure how to vote on this one. I enjoyed the movie, but not sure it's quite a GREAT film on its own terms (likeThe King of Comedy is), and I don't see that it's had a huge cultural legacy (like, say, Wrath of Khan does). I'll wait to read more arguments in the thread here to see if I can be swayed. I'm not buying Amy's argument for why this film makes better use of the camera than Wrath of Khan does. I think that film makes just as much use of the background/foreground stuff she referenced for The Bad Seed, though at times it's more of a left side/right side divide, owing to the more modern widescreen 2.35:1 frame.

This is a very strange movie. It's like they took all of the necessary scenes, threw them into a blender, and assigned them at random. Every scene seems to have almost nothing to do with the last. As nonsensical as some of the pop-culture references were, all of the lampshading the screenwriter did with this very silly concept is the only thing that makes it at all watchable. At least it's attempting a campy tone, rather than taking everything deathly seriously. Anyway, I had some thoughts about Natalie (Sarah Hyland's character). Paul notes that it was strange to have the other characters make fun of her for wearing glasses, like this is something out of the 1950s. By 2014, it seemed like thick-rimmed plastic glasses had become downright fashionable among teenagers, so at first this does seem like a weird throwback trope and an example of lazy writing. But then I realized that at this school, Natalie appears to be the only person who needs glasses. That includes students, teachers, administrators, the royal family, whoever. No one else wears them. Given that the Vision Council of America states that about 64% of the population wears glasses, it seems noteworthy that only one person at this school appears to need corrective lenses. Perhaps there is something about being a vampire (or half-vampire or whatever) that is supposed to eliminate the need for vision correction, but Natalie missed out on it and is forever outcast for that reason? That might go a long way towards explaining her bizarre psychosis.

Hard to say if this is a BMD influence or just people who voted "no" feeling more compelled to post. Devin didn't do the same active campaigning for this one he did with Re-Animator.

It's suffered a lot from being kinda boring.

There are a handful of negative takes over there, so it's probably both. I'd actually say this thread tilts towards the negative (or perhaps mostly "soft no" votes -- people who like the film but don't think it's a Canon film). And yet, it's held a pretty consistent 65-35% lead in the voting.

I hope he elaborates on the next pod!

Indeed. Honestly, I think Amy is conflating "low-budget" with "TV Movie." At one point she notes that the camera just remains in a static master shot sometimes; she attributes this to either the cheapness (budget) or filmmaker laziness (TV Movie). I think that's plainly wrong. Holding a long master shot is usually a CHOICE. A cinematic choice. Check out Every Frame a Painting on "ensemble staging": Now, I don't think Meyer takes his ensemble staging to the same extremes that Bong Joon-Ho does in this video, but the principles are the same: he understands that Star Trek is fundamentally an ensemble piece, so he uses his camera placement to emphasize the ensemble whenever possible. Even if Bones or Sulu or whoever aren't really doing anything major in that scene, he wants them in the shot. He wants you to know they are there. It's also not "easy" to shoot a scene this way, though it looks deceptively simple. If you watch TV shows, they typically do NOT hold the master for very long. TV directors much prefer to cut to close-ups as soon as possible. It's the most expedient way to draw audience focus and tell the story quickly. If you choose to hold a master shot, it means the actors all have to be on their game and ready to play off of each other. It puts onus on the staging, blocking, and subtle camera movement to help tell the story. And IMO, it also subtly enhances the tension in the scene, whether it be comedic or dramatic tension: the whole thing feels like more of a high-wire act, people performing without a net. A perusal of the careers of Woody Allen and Richard Linklater can demonstrate the subtle power of long takes and ensemble staging. It bothers me when critics take this classical approach as "simple" or "uncinematic." It's subtle, but that's not the same as simple.

I disagree with Amy's characterization of the filmmaking in Wrath of Khan. The limitations are mainly ones of budget (having to re-use sets, not shooting on location, etc.). However, I think Meyer makes good use of the widescreen frame, and the editing does a pretty good job of "covering" for the fact that everyone is standing on cheap-looking sets (and in some cases not even in the scene together). He's not swinging the camera around like Scorsese, but it's a solid "classical" filmmaking approach. The camera is not unmotivated most of the time.

I haven't commented on my vote yet, so here goes: I voted yes. The first time I saw the film I liked it very much, but I'm not sure I would have voted for it at that time. However, over the years I have come to see how much it means to people, both hardcore Trek fans and casual ones (I'd count myself in the latter group). It's clearly had a life beyond just being "good for a Star Trek movie." The "Khaaaaan!" scream and Spock death/funeral have entered the larger cultural lexicon, perhaps not on the level of, say, the most iconic Star Wars scenes, but on a level just below that. The clincher for me was watching it last week in preparation for the podcast, and damned if the movie didn't still work. I found it just as entertaining and engrossing as ever. Spock's death and Kirk's speech were still moving, Montalban still a very entertaining villain, and the thematics hit home very well. Some of the criticisms laid out in this thread make a certain logical sense, but I think miss the point of why the film has power: it is a simple, elemental genre story. So yes, of course the themes are obvious, and of course the conflict lacks nuance: that's the strength of it! Wrath of Khan is about simple, easily understood human themes -- aging, death, revenge -- and it weaves those themes consistently throughout the narrative. That seems easy, but when you think about how many genre films fail at this "simple" task, the focused, muscular storytelling of Khanseems like even more of a miracle. It's not reinventing the wheel in terms of technique, but I think on a technical level (given budget restrictions, etc.), I think it's well made. I didn't have any issues with Meyer's choices re: editing or camera placement. As for Amy's arguments against it: some of them I think are valid: it's fair to question how well this works for a non-fan, or to point out that Star Trek might be better served by inducting the whole series into the Canon rather than singling out one movie. What I don't like is when she starts getting into "remaking the movie" criticisms. For example, taking issue with the fact that Kirk doesn't ever struggle with wanting revenge himself. Could that be an interesting take if he did? Sure, but at that point you have a different character and a different film with different concerns. You'd practically have to re-write the whole thing to make that work. I'd rather hear about what this film is trying to do and why that does/doesn't work. Whatever Devin's faults may be, I think he's usually good about sticking to that. Sometimes Amy exasperates me with her digressions.

It's not mansplaining if the men are actually more knowledgeable about the subject. Devin and Dave certainly are more knowledgeable about Star Trek than Amy is. This term ("mansplaining") is so badly misused now, it's used to describe ANY time a man says something you don't like to a woman. That's not what it means. It's when a man goes on explaining something to a woman who almost certainly knows more (or at least as much) about the subject than he does. I don't think it's fair to accuse Devin and Dave of that. If the argument is that they talked too much and didn't allow Amy a chance to give her take, then that's something else (not mansplaining). Personally, I don't think so. Amy got a chance to make her points. Devin and Dave may not have AGREED with those points, but it's not like they didn't actively try to give her space (Dave especially).

"Anyone" is a tough standard.

I saw Wrath of Khan before I'd ever seen an episode of the original series, and I immediately understood that it was a good, well-told story. Honestly, the opinion that it doesn't hold up outside of Trek fandom baffles me. It is THE movie that showed Trek could hold up outside of that.

Empire was voted out based on "vs." episodes, though. If it had been a stand-alone episode I think there's no question it gets in. Though I am still baffled by Jurassic Park winning over Empire in that episode.

That's not insane, that's objective truth.

For those who are still catching up, Wrath of Khan is available with a Hulu or Amazon Prime subscription, no additional charge necessary.

Dewey Finn, George McFly, Superman (as Clark Kent)

EDI playlist: 1. David Bowie - Heroes 2. The Ramones - The KKK Took My Baby Away 3. Led Zeppelin - What Is and What Should Never Be 4. INXS - Need You Tonight 5. The Skyliners - Since I Don't Have You 6. The Strokes - Last Nite 7. Johnny Cash - I've Been Everywhere 8. Eiffel 65 - Blue (Da Ba Dee) 9. Bill Medley/Jennifer Warnes - (I've Had) The Time of My Life 10. The Pixies - Monkey Gone To Heaven This fairly reveals me as a classic and/or 80s rock fan who occasionally dips into VERY cheesy/campy stuff.

I liked Devin's idea that the film is Canon-worthy because it was prescient about what popular culture would be like in the future. That solidifies my Yes vote. But I also think sometimes a film can be Canon-worthy if it's just GREAT enough that it has to be seen. The King of Comedy is one of those for me.

Just a hunch, but I think this one is making it in to the Canon.

I wonder where that audience score comes from. A lot of it might be from the original release, when a lot of people went to see it based on the media hype and didn't know what they were in for. Experimental or avant-garde films tend to get bad audience scores, because general audiences don't like feeling confused. It doesn't necessarily prevent them from building a major legacy.

Don't think the odds are in your favor on this one, but you are welcome to your opinion.

Honestly, I think your personal dislike of the film is blinding you a little bit to its overall cultural impact. I mean, it's already been 17 years since The Blair Witch Project's release and people are still talking about it, and clearly it's still popular enough to inspire a sequel/reboot. I'd say that's enough to qualify it as more than a gimmick or fad. It hasn't faded. That said, I agree that simply having a large cultural impact and/or influence on future filmmakers isn't BY ITSELF enough to make a film worthy of Canon status. It's a big point in the film's favor, but it's not everything.

Did anyone else think that Sam Shepard's plan to kill Josh Lucas seemed needlessly complicated? His plane is out of fuel! Just let him crash in the ocean, no fuss, no muss. Instead he gives him the location of a secret Alaskan base, and then rather than have him killed as soon as he lands on the tarmac, they all wait to have a phony "doctor" administer poison with a needle. Everyone at this secret base seems in on the "kill Josh Lucas" plan, so why not get it over with right away? Instead, they took exactly the right amount of time to let Josh figure out that it was a setup. This seems like a sub-Bond villain plan, with none of the usual flair you get in those movies. Well below the standard we should expect from the United States Navy.

Maybe this gets into what they also discussed on the podcast: it's an experimental film. It's not making any concessions towards being "audience friendly." It's actively trying to remove any sense that you're just watching a movie. For something like A Clockwork Orange or American Beauty there is probably a certain level of technical accomplishment or aesthetic beauty that can be appreciated even if the film isn't "working" for you. With The Blair Witch Project they have (by design) removed those kinds of aesthetics. I can see how that creates a more polarized reaction.