Star Trek: Into Darkness

[seanotron 2307]

I love the Fifth Element, but it is absolutely ridiculous and chock full of plot holes. Not to mention the fact that the central figure in the story is basically just space magic.

 

As for TOS episodes where the Enterprise enters an atmosphere, 'Tomorrow is Yesterday' immediately springs to mind. Not only do they spend a fair amount of time in our lower atmosphere in that episode, but they fly through a black hole, which I imagine would be considerably more difficult than spending some time in an ocean.

 

Though I should point out that dammit, I am not, in fact, an astrophysicist.

[rcavanah 21]

P.S. Movies need to make sense. Just because it's Sci-Fi doesn't excuse plot holes, poorly constructed plans, or malformed motivations.

 

I don't even...

 

This is a problem. No offense, but with the amount of people saying stuff like this, it sounds like the viewing audience is a little kid who just now learned the meaning of "plot hole" and are waaaaay overflexing that muscle.

 

I just don't get all the complaining about Star Trek, and I think I blame the internet. It's changed the way we view things. It's like something can't just be good, but people have to show how they're smarter than something that's perfectly fine. Think about it: Decades ago, people walked out of the theater after seeing a movie like, oh, I dunno... something good, like Mad Max 2, but not of legendary Spielbergian quality. Back then, lots of people walked out of that kind of movie saying "THAT WAS AWESOME!" and now for some reason we're calling foul on a massively enjoyable film with far fewer flaws.

 

Something's just off here. It's not about entitlement to opinions, but just plain ol' entitlement... and it's not actually about plot issues, because people have dealt with those for ages. it's about some weird hive-mind perspective shift in the audience. I'd say it's a sign of increased intellect, but I think it's more accurately a sign of decreased perspective.

[rcavanah 21]

Yunno something, I've been thinking a lot about my post above, and I think I've realized that the thing that modern audiences have lost is "tonal literacy."

 

When people are disappointed by a latecoming sequel or reboot, they fail to see the big picture: that it's a new year, with new technology, and people speaking in a different manner than they did when the last film was made. That all adds up to create a different tone, but instead of taking it as a whole, most tend to zero in on plotholes which may or may not have been equally present in prior movies in a series.

 

Take Indiana Jones 4. I actually loved the middle of that movie, pre-paternal reveal, with Indy and Shia LaBeouf running around finding clues. The rest was just off, and I could put it down to monkeys and waterfalls and soft focus on Karen Allen, but the fact is, there was equally-silly stuff in prior movies. The problem was that lots of little things added up to create a certain tone that was unfamiliar; it never got dark toward the end, the way earlier Indy films did.

[wakefresh 689]

 

I don't even...

 

This is a problem. No offense, but with the amount of people saying stuff like this, it sounds like the viewing audience is a little kid who just now learned the meaning of "plot hole" and are waaaaay overflexing that muscle.

 

I just don't get all the complaining about Star Trek, and I think I blame the internet. It's changed the way we view things. It's like something can't just be good, but people have to show how they're smarter than something that's perfectly fine. Think about it: Decades ago, people walked out of the theater after seeing a movie like, oh, I dunno... something good, like Mad Max 2, but not of legendary Spielbergian quality. Back then, lots of people walked out of that kind of movie saying "THAT WAS AWESOME!" and now for some reason we're calling foul on a massively enjoyable film with far fewer flaws.

 

Something's just off here. It's not about entitlement to opinions, but just plain ol' entitlement... and it's not actually about plot issues, because people have dealt with those for ages. it's about some weird hive-mind perspective shift in the audience. I'd say it's a sign of increased intellect, but I think it's more accurately a sign of decreased perspective.

 

I wish I could like this 1,000 times! I agree that it is a matter of decreased perspective, but not of movies, but of a person's place in history and time. Star Trek is a very popular sci-fi franchise that has been made for "the masses" (more on the usage of that term in a minute) in many different mediums -- cartoons, tv shows, movies, comic books, novels, etc. There is a big backlash to the Abrams Star Trek films because Abrams has said explicitly that he wanted to make the movies appeal to more than die-hard Star Trek fans. And so now, you have people -- people who mistakenly believe that Star Trek is a niche subculture instead of a 50+ year old corporate entertainment franchise -- nitpick everything that they believe is "dumbing down" Star Trek for "the masses." They nitpicked the casting choices ("they're just models in space"); they nitpicked that old cast didn't get major roles; they nitpicked how the ship looked; they nitpicked the science (which is fucking strange since the bedrock of Star Trek is the warp engine and transporter, neither which exist in reality).

 

The lack of perspective extends even further when you see people use phrases like "the masses" when describing people who they feel are "bringing down" the franchise. Like I said before, Star Trek is a fucking 50+ year franchise. Several generations have grown up seeing either a movie or a TV show set inside of this world. They are not ignorant to its existence. They get the general gist of what is going on and the characters. But there is this weird winnowing of what defines a "true" Star Trek fan and that "small" group( remember its a 50+ year old franchise) should be able to dictate how everyone else gets to consume, feel, and say about the movie so that the "masses" (the same fucking people who have been exposed to the story for 50+ years) properly "get it."

 

Hearing "nerds" go on about how X is getting "dumbed down for the masses" is like listening to a fundamental Christian talk about the "war on Christmas" and how Christians are prosecuted in the United States. In both instances, both groups lack a perspective to see that they are the majority, have ever shifting standards of what define a "true" member, and feel that they should be allowed to dictate how others digest a popular aspect of culture.

[rcavanah 21]

Hearing "nerds" go on about how X is getting "dumbed down for the masses" is like listening to a fundamental Christian talk about the "war on Christmas" and how Christians are prosecuted in the United States. In both instances, both groups lack a perspective to see that they are the majority, have ever shifting standards of what define a "true" member, and feel that they should be allowed to dictate how others digest a popular aspect of culture.

 

Yeah, it really does go to show that core human behavior remains the same whether you're religious or political or anything. Everybody has their religion, and whether that's nerd culture or politics or actual religion, it falls upon the individual to have the proper perspective.

 

This might sound strange, but what the hell: I'd consider myself a fundamentalist AND a person with perspective. I don't see any point in remaining religious without being a fundamentalist... but it matters what you perceive the proper fundamentals to be, and it just so happens that my religious fundamentals don't involve dogma or bending people to my will through legislation (and it's silly that anyone does, because what does God care if somebody only does what he wants them to do under threat of prosecution? But I digress...). Of course, I don't feel like a part of any wider fundamentalist community, so if you take somebody from a similar background as myself and remove just an ounce of perspective, that's where it gets wonky. Suddenly you've got droves of people who feel like they're alone, and that's dangerous.

 

But the thing that really baffles me is how that entitlement AND the niche-complex can both exist at once. Because if you're a die-hard Trek fan, you should probably realize that you're going to be harder to please; as your tastes become more refined, you enter into a contract with the media that says you're just not going to get as much of what you love, because you've already found what you really love. That came out of a particular time and place and set of expectations, and it's yours now... but it also means you can't keep going back to that same source and expecting it to happen again. On the other hand, if you're still on-board and you've accepted what it's gonna take to get some more content (in this case, something set in the same universe but with a wider appeal), then you have every right to feel entitled to an enjoyable experience. But that's where perspective comes in.

[PhillipMedoc 648]

But there is this weird winnowing of what defines a "true" Star Trek fan and that "small" group( remember its a 50+ year old franchise) should be able to dictate how everyone else gets to consume, feel, and say about the movie so that the "masses" (the same fucking people who have been exposed to the story for 50+ years) properly "get it."

 

Hearing "nerds" go on about how X is getting "dumbed down for the masses" is like listening to a fundamental Christian talk about the "war on Christmas" and how Christians are prosecuted in the United States. In both instances, both groups lack a perspective to see that they are the majority, have ever shifting standards of what define a "true" member, and feel that they should be allowed to dictate how others digest a popular aspect of culture.

There's a parallel in video game culture(?) right now -- actually I think all "nerd" pop culture is undergoing a radical transformation. The rise of the internet over the last couple of decades and the subsequent generation that grew up using the damn INFORMATION SUPER HIGHWAY has shined a light on how fans and fandom have traditionally considered themselves a closely knit community of whatever specific thing, when in reality there's thousands (or millions) of people who like that specific thing.

 

Prior to the internet, if you were a superfan of Star Trek or anime or whatever, it was somewhat difficult to 1) find others that shared your interests, 2) there was sometimes a sense of shame in having a nerdy hobby, and 3) oftentimes it was hard to even access whatever nerdy shit you liked. People used to trade tapes and shit through zines, or put ads for pen pals in the backs of magazines. This is true for almost all alternative/underground/etc culture in the 1980s and 90s. People felt a sense of ownership, not quite entitlement, that grew out of genuine love and respect for this obscure thing that was incredibly important to them -- Deadheads, D&D, punk rock, early 90s rave, etc.

 

So you take that mindset and turn on the WWW. All of a sudden you find out that there's a ton of people who are also into comic books. Remember when Comic Con wasn't a gigantic media theme park? When E3 was actually a trade show? I think many people like having the idea that they discovered something first, that it was special to them, and can't be that way for others. I definitely prickled a bit when the new Doctor Who became so popular because I was like "shit, Tom Baker and Lalla Ward have been my jam forever". Pop culture is a gigantic shared experience now -- and it actually always has been (100+ million people watched the final episode of M.A.S.H.) -- we just couldn't connect on the same level we do now. It can be disconcerting to realize that you're not a super special snowflake.

[RyanSz 3140]

we just couldn't connect on the same level we do now. It can be disconcerting to realize that you're not a super special snowflake.

 

This reminds me in the latest season of Robot Chicken, they did a parody of The Terminator where this vegan chick wished everyone would see it her way and go vegan. Someone comes from the future and says it happened but animals got super aware and started killing humans. He keeps telling her that in order to prevent that she needs to eat meat, but she refuses even as cows are shooting at her. So the guy calls a time out for the cows to stop shooting so he can break down why she's a vegan, and it's not because it's healthy or whatever, but rather she gets to be a part of a niche group and feel superior/special compared against others. She finally admits it and eats the burger but complains that she doesn't feel special anymore to which the guy tells her she'll find something soon, and cut to a title card saying that she binged watched all five seasons of "The Wire."

 

Unfortunately, every time something makes it huge there are those neo-hipsters who claim that it's ruined now because it's popular. It happens a lot with the recent blast of Marvel movies, and even with director's like Joss Whedon, who was mainly a cult guy before Avengers raked in a billion dollars. You can expect more of the same next year if Guardians of the Galaxy makes it huge.

[ugtv.org 3]

And I see the opposing trend in movie making. Directors not caring about the script. It feels like every Sci-Fi director says, "Let's make it pretty, don't worry if it doesn't make sense, if people will believe a trillion ton space ship can go 10 times the speed of light they'll believe anything."

 

For instance [spoilerS] Kahn says, "Give me back my people." Kirk says "No." Kahn says, "How about I just shoot out your life support and take them." Yeah, why doesn't Kahn do that? He's already talked about his savegry. It's not like he's a super nice guy. It's not like he cares at all about all the other people he's killed. This isn't a plot hole, this is just bad writing. [/spoilerS]

[seanotron 2307]

And I see the opposing trend in movie making. Directors not caring about the script. It feels like every Sci-Fi director says, "Let's make it pretty, don't worry if it doesn't make sense, if people will believe a trillion ton space ship can go 10 times the speed of light they'll believe anything."

 

For instance [spoilerS] Kahn says, "Give me back my people." Kirk says "No." Kahn says, "How about I just shoot out your life support and take them." Yeah, why doesn't Kahn do that? He's already talked about his savegry. It's not like he's a super nice guy. It's not like he cares at all about all the other people he's killed. This isn't a plot hole, this is just bad writing. [/spoilerS]

 

Expediency, I'd imagine.

[wakefresh 689]

Unfortunately, every time something makes it huge there are those neo-hipsters who claim that it's ruined now because it's popular. It happens a lot with the recent blast of Marvel movies, and even with director's like Joss Whedon, who was mainly a cult guy before Avengers raked in a billion dollars. You can expect more of the same next year if Guardians of the Galaxy makes it huge.

 

I think many people like having the idea that they discovered something first, that it was special to them, and can't be that way for others. I definitely prickled a bit when the new Doctor Who became so popular because I was like "shit, Tom Baker and Lalla Ward have been my jam forever". Pop culture is a gigantic shared experience now -- and it actually always has been (100+ million people watched the final episode of M.A.S.H.) -- we just couldn't connect on the same level we do now. It can be disconcerting to realize that you're not a super special snowflake.

 

But the thing that really baffles me is how that entitlement AND the niche-complex can both exist at once. Because if you're a die-hard Trek fan, you should probably realize that you're going to be harder to please; as your tastes become more refined, you enter into a contract with the media that says you're just not going to get as much of what you love, because you've already found what you really love. That came out of a particular time and place and set of expectations, and it's yours now... but it also means you can't keep going back to that same source and expecting it to happen again. On the other hand, if you're still on-board and you've accepted what it's gonna take to get some more content (in this case, something set in the same universe but with a wider appeal), then you have every right to feel entitled to an enjoyable experience. But that's where perspective comes in.

 

 

Yes, to everything y'all are saying right now! A million times, "YES!"

 

People are so without any sense of self that just mere act of enjoying a piece of content (music, movie, book, etc) is an integral part of how they see themselves. Just because you like X doesn't mean anything more than you like X. It does not bestow extra attributes to your personality and it doesn't make you special or unique for liking it.

 

I think there is also this idea that people who consume the media now have "ownership" over it. I believe that some of the entitlement comes from that. Just like cat & beard said, people feel that them and only them were touched in a "special" way by this media and all others that come after are not as touched or as special. There is a book called "Jennifer Government" that sets up this dystopian world where people are so attached to brands and companies that they take on the company name as their surnames. I feel like that is the next step in all of this intense clinging to corporate media.

 

I hope with all of my heart that the writers, directors, producers of the new Star Wars films don't listen to anything that any fanboy has to say. Those new Star Wars movies are not for anyone but teenagers and young kids of this era. If you're in your mid-20s, the Prequels is your version of Star Wars (sorry!). If you're older than that than you experienced the original trilogy either in the theaters or on TV. Step aside and let a new generation grow to love the story (or not), but we already had our introduction, and like rcavannah said, those circumstances can't be recreated.

[seanotron 2307]

Look, just because I legally changed my name to Sean Trek Samsung DirecTV Vampire Diaries the 5th doesn't mean I have a problem, man.

[RyanSz 3140]

Look, just because I legally changed my name to Sean Trek Samsung DirecTV Vampire Diaries the 5th doesn't mean I have a problem, man.

Wasn't that the Secretary of State in Idiocracy?

[PhillipMedoc 648]

There is a book called "Jennifer Government" that sets up this dystopian world where people are so attached to brands and companies that they take on the company name as their surnames.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?id=7693065

 

Man tattoos face after radio station joke

 

 

[wakefresh 689]

http://abclocal.go.c...tory?id=7693065

 

Man tattoos face after radio station joke

 

 

 

Remember to vote this November, guys, because people like him sure will!