Warbler said:
Khan is supposed to Indian? I never got that.
Indeed he was; a Sikh in fact. This was mentioned in Space Seed.
It is, however, common for actors to play characters from ethnic groups, as long as they have the right general appearance for the role. I have no objection to anyone of one particular ethnic group playing a member of another group.
Warbler said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Warbler said:
Vaderisnothayden, what do you so bad about TWOK and Montalban's performance? I've never heard anyone describe it as anywhere near stomach-turning, and why is the character of Khan so beyond belief? I agree that majority isn't always right but when so many think a movie is good, I've got to believe there is a good chance that the movie has some sort of merit in it.
Why do you have to believe that? The majority is so often wrong that its views are really no guide to quality. Shit is often hugely popular. Look at Titanic. Total shit. Massively popular.
in your opinion its shit. not mine. granted, I think it could have been done better. I wish it would have stuck more to the real story rather than a fictious love story. But it is a good movie, imho. As for why I believe a movie has a good chance of having some sort of merit, its because I just find it hard to believe that so many people could like a movie that has absolutely no merit. If figure if millions and millions of people like a movie, at least somewhere in those millions of people must be a few that have good judgement and/or judgment simular to my own.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I don't go by the critics' views either, because too often they are totally wrong, and pretentious about it, too. Sometimes critics seem to be the people who understand movies the least. I often run into reviews that show an amazing lack of insight or perception.
while I don't always agree with critics, I do not find them to be people who lack an understanding of movies. I necessarily go by them either, but I do respect their opinions. I more interested in not whether like or hate movie, but why they hate or like that movie.
Vaderisnothayden said:
The Montalban Khan performance is ridiculous hamming of an extremely self-indulgent sort. If you can't see why it's revolting I don't know how to explain it to you. I would think it would be obvious.
well if its so obvious, how come you are first person in the years since its released that I've run into that feels this way about Montalban's performance?
Vaderisnothayden said:
As for Khan being beyond belief, I don't believe I said anything to that effect to you,
yes you did. right here:
Vaderisnothayden said:
But Khan is awful. It's badly made generally and the character of Khan is awful beyond belief, including a stomach-turning performance from Ricardo Montalban. I can never fathom why some people think this movie is so good.
Vaderisnothayden said:
but he is beyond belief, because nobody acts like that. You can't believe in a story when you've got that shit going on, or the "Khaaaaan!" scream.
the Khaaaaan screem is part Shatner's performance, not Montalban's.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I also don't appreciate the casting of a Hispanic guy to play an Indian role.
Khan is supposed to Indian? I never got that.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Warbler said:
I have to kind of take issue with that, because you are sort of saying that TOS itself wasn't interesting or dramatic.
TOS is mostly crap. Nimoy is great as Spock and there's some good character interaction, but the show is inept in the extreme. I don't think anybody should approach Trek with any illusions about TOS.
TOS is crap???? to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous. It is certainly not crap. Are the special effects crap? maybe. But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget. I find many of the episodes have a powerful message. Take City on The Edge Of Forever. That is certainly not crap. I don't how you can call TOS crap. If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
in your opinion its shit. not mine. granted, I think it could have been done better. I wish it would have stuck more to the real story rather than a fictious love story. But it is a good movie, imho.
Zero depth =bad movie. The love story was plastic.
As for why I believe a movie has a good chance of having some sort of merit, its because I just find it hard to believe that so many people could like a movie that has absolutely no merit. If figure if millions and millions of people like a movie, at least somewhere in those millions of people must be a few that have good judgement and/or judgment simular to my own.
Millions of people thought the world was flat, thought racism was good, and sexism, etc. Millions of people liking something in no way says it's good.
while I don't always agree with critics, I do not find them to be people who lack an understanding of movies. I necessarily go by them either, but I do respect their opinions. I more interested in not whether like or hate movie, but why they hate or like that movie.
They haven't earned my respect. The lack of undertstanding that I've come across among critics has amazed me.
well if its so obvious, how come you are first person in the years since its released that I've run into that feels this way about Montalban's performance?
Because people are subconsciously motivated to copy each others' views. I'm not the only person who feels this way about Montalban's performance, but I do know that a lot of Trek fans feel the way you do.
Vaderisnothayden said:
As for Khan being beyond belief, I don't believe I said anything to that effect to you,
yes you did. right here:
Vaderisnothayden said:
But Khan is awful. It's badly made generally and the character of Khan is awful beyond belief, including a stomach-turning performance from Ricardo Montalban. I can never fathom why some people think this movie is so good.
I said the character is AWFUL beyond belief, as in really really awful, which is not the same thing as saying the character is beyond belief, which simply means the character is not believable.
Vaderisnothayden said:
but he is beyond belief, because nobody acts like that. You can't believe in a story when you've got that shit going on, or the "Khaaaaan!" scream.
the Khaaaaan screem is part Shatner's performance, not Montalban's.
I never said it was part of Montalban's performance. I said that you can't believe in a story "when you've got that shit going on" (the Khan performance) OR the Khaaaan scream. In other words, you can't believe in a story when you've got Montalban's performance OR Shatner's hamming. And the "or" kinda means "and". But the point is I wasn't saying Shatner's hamming was part of the Khan performance, I was saying it added to the negative effect of the Khan performance.
Khan is supposed to Indian? I never got that.
Yes. Khan Noonien Singh. Yes, he's Indian. As in from India.
TOS is crap???? to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous. It is certainly not crap. Are the special effects crap? maybe. But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget. I find many of the episodes have a powerful message. Take City on The Edge Of Forever. That is certainly not crap. I don't how you can call TOS crap. If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
As you are probably aware by now, I don't care whether or not an opinion is blasphemous by the view of some group or not. I choose the views that seem right to me, not the ones other people approve of. The special effects are a small part of the problem with TOS. I couldn't care less whether the episodes have a powerful message or not. I don't feel messages necessarily add to the quality of art. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't and sometimes they actually take from the quality of art. City on the Edge of Forever is sorely overrated. You don't know how I can call TOS crap, but I don't know how anybody can watch that stuff and not think "This is shitty". It's good-natured crap. It has some good ideas. It has some good character interaction and Nimoy was great in it. It was politically advanced for its time and may have had a positive cultural influence, quite apart from leading to some good spinoffs. But it's still crap. That's just the reality of it. How somebody can be a fulll fan of that show now and think it's on the overall good is something I can't fathom. I'm not saying all this to bother you. This is just what I believe. You are perfectly entitled to like TOS and think it's good if you want to, but don't expect me to.
If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
Well, as I have said, something being popular doesn't mean it's good. All you need to get 5 shows and 11 movies is for Trek to be popular and then you have the motivation to make more and continue the franchise. But Trek evolved. The movies eventually improved on TOS and then there was TNG, which was a far superior show, and then the 90s Trek evolved out of that, which had good stuff. But I've no illusions about the quality of the show it all evolved out of. When I watch TOS it's solely for Nimoy's excellent performances.
Chewtobacca said:
Warbler said:
Khan is supposed to Indian? I never got that.
Indeed he was; a Sikh in fact. This was mentioned in Space Seed.
It is, however, common for actors to play characters from ethnic groups, as long as they have the right general appearance for the role. I have no objection to anyone of one particular ethnic group playing a member of another group.
When it implies they think all darker skinned people are the same, then it is certainly offensive. And Montalban looked nothing like an Indian.
zombie84 said:
I think you are approaching Khan in the wrong way VINH. It's hammy and over the top--and that's what's great about it. Shakespear is hammy and over the top, too, and that's what is enjoyable about it a lot of the time, you can relish in the pure cartoonish stylization of it. Khan is a masterpiece, and a big part of that is the fact that you have Khan and Kirk as these two really big personalities, the film is almost like a sophisticated comic book.
I have to agree, I never heard of ANYONE disliking WOK while liking the others, and certainly haven't heard of anyone liking ST V more than any other film, least of all WOK. There's a reason why critics, audiences, and fans alike have been hailing the film for 25 years as a great film, let alone the best in the series. "I'm not crazy, EVERYONE ELSE is crazy!!" But to each his own. I find this sort of view incredibly bizarre--I have to wonder, if you think ST V is the second-best in the original series and WOK among the worst, what exactly are you looking for in a ST film? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm just curious as this viewpoint is the inverse of almost every other person on the planet that has seen the films.
I think you are approaching Khan in the wrong way VINH. It's hammy and over the top--and that's what's great about it. Shakespear is hammy and over the top, too, and that's what is enjoyable about it a lot of the time, you can relish in the pure cartoonish stylization of it. Khan is a masterpiece, and a big part of that is the fact that you have Khan and Kirk as these two really big personalities, the film is almost like a sophisticated comic book.
Shakespeare's over the top hamminess works. WOK's doesn't. Khan and Kirk don't come off like two big personalities -they come off like two big mistakes. Particularly Khan. Kirk not all the time, just when Shatner's hamming too much. Montalban's performance is like nails on a chalkboard. I would not use the word "masterpiece", let alone "sophisticated", for WOK. It's a dumb, poorly-made, childish movie.
There's a reason why critics, audiences, and fans alike have been hailing the film for 25 years as a great film, let alone the best in the series.
There's a reason for everything, but it's not always the reason you think it is. I think WOK's popularity has a lot to do with the human capacity for herd-thinking.
what exactly are you looking for in a ST film?
A decent movie. I don't say "This is a Trek movie, so I'll make an exception for it and accept all sorts of ridiculous bullshit".
I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm just curious as this viewpoint is the inverse of almost every other person on the planet that has seen the films.
You don't know the views of almost every person who's seen the film. And in so many eras, to not be a bigot you had pretty much have the inverse of the views of most people, so having the inverse of the view of the majority doesn't making my view wrong.
I'm not saying its wrong. There is no right and wrong, its all just matters of taste. I DO think its wrong to attribute the wide popularity to a herd mentality. Thats a cheap cop-out. I think you either just approach the films in a different way (which is not to say we accept the crap, just that we don't see certain elements as crap but as part of the appeal, case in point with Shakespear) or you simply have tastes with regards to them that almost no one else has. I'm sure there are some people who share your views, and I don't think it means you have to feel bad or anything, but I do think I am absolutely correct in saying that about 98% of everyone who has seen the films would say STII is good and STV poor, rather than the reverse, and not because of an argument as simplistic as "herd mentality."
You'd be surprised how much herd thinking is behind human thinking. It has an effect far beyond what people think. People are far more susceptible to it than they realize. It's not a simplistic argument at all.
I wouldn't be so sure about the views of 98% of people who've seen the films. I don't think you can have knowledge of that high a percentage and nor do I think you have grounds to guess the views of that high a percentage. I wouldn't be so sure that "almost no one else" agrees with my view.
Or how about films are considered good by many people because they are good films? That people just honestly believe that? People are very vocal about their love and hate for certain films, especially in the ST circles where people will bash STV to death and then profess great love of STII. This argument doesn't hold much water, nor is it possible to prove in any case.
Anyway, having read much about the films, talked to many people about the films, even been to a Star Trek convention, I can say that of the hundreds of people I've interacted with about them, I have never heard of that before. I'm not being literal in saying that 98% of people believe that, but certainly I've never encounted anyone who shares your view, nor even heard of such a thing from others, so at the very least its an incredibly minority stance on the films. As I said, nothing wrong with that, to each his own, I just find it a bit strange, and not because I'm some brainwashed sheep.
zombie84 said:
Or how about films are considered good by many people because they are good films? That people just honestly believe that? People are very vocal about their love and hate for certain films, especially in the ST circles where people will bash STV to death and then profess great love of STII. This argument doesn't hold much water, nor is it possible to prove in any case.
Anyway, having read much about the films, talked to many people about the films, even been to a Star Trek convention, I can say that of the hundreds of people I've interacted with about them, I have never heard of that before. I'm not being literal in saying that 98% of people believe that, but certainly I've never encounted anyone who shares your view, nor even heard of such a thing from others, so at the very least its an incredibly minority stance on the films. As I said, nothing wrong with that, to each his own, I just find it a bit strange, and not because I'm some brainwashed sheep.
That people just honestly believe that?
People can just honestly believe something and still be thinking in a way that is influenced by the herd. A lot of herd influence is not something the influenced people are consciously aware of.
Or how about films are considered good by many people because they are good films?
There are so many crap films that a lot of people believe are good.
so at the very least its an incredibly minority stance on the films.
Among fans. There are so many casual moviegoers out there who don't talk about the films at conventions or on message boards or whatnot.
especially in the ST circles
Exactly, in ST circles. Where people are just perfectly set up to have their views influenced by other ST fans. What about outside ST circles? Some ordinary moviegoer who goes to a Trek movie -they have opinions too and you don't know all their opinions. They're the ones least likely to make special exceptions for Trek movies and tolerate shit like Khan.
This argument doesn't hold much water
I think that's a matter of opinion.
I'm going to stop debating the herd mentality thing, because people won't appreciate the argument much, but don't expect that my opinion on the matter is going to change. I don't mean any offense to anybody with the herd-think viewpoint, I just believe in it and I brought it up because I felt it was unavoidable at that stage of the discussion.
Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.
As to herd mentality, you are basically writing off anything that is popular, which is not constructive or any sort of specific argument, nor is it proveable in any case. As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films). Anyway, it's hard to even divide non-fans and fans in the ST world because usually anyone that likes some of the films is considered a fan, and most people who don't consider themselves a fan in some degree don't like ANY of them, hence the disussion about ranking popularity becomes moot.
The herd argument is stupid and in bad taste though. It's not much an argument as it is unfalisifiable paranoia.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Zero depth =bad movie. The love story was plastic.
I would disagree I do see depth in it. It is not super deep, but it is there. I think you have a misconception that a movie must be deep to be good. I disagree. It certainly helps, but I lot of things add up to decide whether or not a movie is good. Story, soundtrack, comedy, performances, characters, direction, action, etc. lots of stuff. I think you are falling into a trap saying "well if it doesn't have any depth, it must not be good". under that line of thinking alot of otherwise great westerns, comedies, action and adventure movies and sometimes dramas get labeled as bad. Amount of depth, imho is only one part of a very large and very complex equation as to what makes a movie good or bad.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Millions of people thought the world was flat, thought racism was good, and sexism, etc. Millions of people liking something in no way says it's good.
yes, the majority isn't always right, that is why I said "there is a good chance" not a 100% certainly.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Khan is supposed to Indian? I never got that.
Yes. Khan Noonien Singh. Yes, he's Indian. As in from India.
I stand corrected then.
Vaderisnothayden said:
well if its so obvious, how come you are first person in the years since its released that I've run into that feels this way about Montalban's performance?
Because people are subconsciously motivated to copy each others' views. I'm not the only person who feels this way about Montalban's performance, but I do know that a lot of Trek fans feel the way you do.
I wasn't copying anyone else views. I formed my own, when I first watched the movie and then re-watched it over and over and over again as a kid.
Vaderisnothayden said:
TOS is crap???? to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous. It is certainly not crap. Are the special effects crap? maybe. But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget. I find many of the episodes have a powerful message. Take City on The Edge Of Forever. That is certainly not crap. I don't how you can call TOS crap. If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
As you are probably aware by now, I don't care whether or not an opinion is blasphemous by the view of some group or not. I choose the views that seem right to me, not the ones other people approve of. The special effects are a small part of the problem with TOS. I couldn't care less whether the episodes have a powerful message or not. I don't feel messages necessarily add to the quality of art. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't and sometimes they actually take from the quality of art. City on the Edge of Forever is sorely overrated. You don't know how I can call TOS crap, but I don't know how anybody can watch that stuff and not think "This is shitty". It's good-natured crap. It has some good ideas. It has some good character interaction and Nimoy was great in it. It was politically advanced for its time and may have had a positive cultural influence, quite apart from leading to some good spinoffs. But it's still crap. That's just the reality of it. How somebody can be a fulll fan of that show now and think it's on the overall good is something I can't fathom. I'm not saying all this to bother you. This is just what I believe. You are perfectly entitled to like TOS and think it's good if you want to, but don't expect me to.
wow. all I can say it that we are miles and miles apart in our opinions of TOS. wow.
Vaderisnothayden said:
If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
Well, as I have said, something being popular doesn't mean it's good. All you need to get 5 shows and 11 movies is for Trek to be popular and then you have the motivation to make more and continue the franchise. But Trek evolved. The movies eventually improved on TOS and then there was TNG, which was a far superior show, and then the 90s Trek evolved out of that, which had good stuff. But I've no illusions about the quality of the show it all evolved out of. When I watch TOS it's solely for Nimoy's excellent performances.
true popular does not equal good. But, its doesn't equal bad either. I think was it does equal is there being a greater than 50% chance of being good. There has to be a reason why something it popular, and its not always because we're all lemmings
Vaderisnothayden said: You'd be surprised how much herd thinking is behind human thinking. It has an effect far beyond what people think. People are far more susceptible to it than they realize. It's not a simplistic argument at all.
I would sort of agree with that. My father has an old saying "the mob is easily led". But I pretty certain that I have formed my own opinions on Star Trek II, I am not following "herd thinking"
Vaderisnothayden said:
I wouldn't be so sure about the views of 98% of people who've seen the films. I don't think you can have knowledge of that high a percentage and nor do I think you have grounds to guess the views of that high a percentage. I wouldn't be so sure that "almost no one else" agrees with my view.
maybe not, but I do think you say most people do not agree with your view. I think we can be sure of the views of I'd say 50%-70% of the people you've seen the films.
Vaderisnothayden said:
There are so many crap films that a lot of people believe are good.
in your opinion.
Vaderisnothayden said: Among fans. There are so many casual moviegoers out there who don't talk about the films at conventions or on message boards or whatnot.
most of these casual movie goers may not have seen the film.
Vaderisnothayden said: Exactly, in ST circles. Where people are just perfectly set up to have their views influenced by other ST fans. What about outside ST circles? Some ordinary moviegoer who goes to a Trek movie -they have opinions too and you don't know all their opinions. They're the ones least likely to make special exceptions for Trek movies and tolerate shit like Khan.
oh, I think you'd be surprised to find out what they think of Khan. I be very surprised to find out they thought Khan was "awful beyond belief" or that Montalban's performance was "stomach turning".
Vaderisnothayden said: I'm going to stop debating the herd mentality thing, because people won't appreciate the argument much
yeah you're right. I don't appreciate that argument to much. I am not a lemming. I make up my own mind about things. I listen to Sinatra style music. I started doing so when I was a kid. I guarantee you very few others in my school listened to my kind of music and I didn't appreciate the kinds of music they did listen too, I still don't. I also have my hair in a very conservative style for someone my age. I had it that way when I was in high school when long hair for guys was in style. It was not a popular hair style. I don't do things because the majority do it. Does what the majority do have an affect on me? yeah. I'm also sure it has an affect on you. But this idea that we much all be lemmings is comes off as arrogant. As zombie said "everyone else is crazy and you're not". Isn't just possible that when the majority likes something, that you don't, that maybe just maybe, they are seeing something that you are missing, that you are in the wrong and not them. Isn't that a possibility?
So where can I see this RedLetterMedia review of The Wrath of Khan?
Warbler said:
TOS is crap???? to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous. It is certainly not crap. Are the special effects crap? maybe. But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget. I find many of the episodes have a powerful message. Take City on The Edge Of Forever. That is certainly not crap. I don't how you can call TOS crap. If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
I wouldnt go so far as to say TOS was crap, but I myself have never particuarly cared for it. I like TNG more, but I prefer the films in general.
When I read something like the compelling, suspenseful, dramatic events of 'Undiscovered Country' are somehow bad because they're not well enough in line with the Utopian ideals of the series, my feeling is always that I'd rather have a good epic movie than some episode where the Enterprise meets the Greek gods or breaks the Prime Directive so Kirk can monologue on morallity.
That 'First Contact' is bad because it kicks ass and has intense human emotion, rather than a Captain who drinks some tea and decides he's philisophically opposed to stopping the Borg and then makes a speech about secular humanism and socialism strikes me as a fairly irrelevant argurment against my favorite TNG film.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I'm going to stop debating the herd mentality thing, because people won't appreciate the argument much, but don't expect that my opinion on the matter is going to change. I don't mean any offense to anybody with the herd-think viewpoint, I just believe in it and I brought it up because I felt it was unavoidable at that stage of the discussion.
Oooooh, a puzzle!
I say the dude on the left is not part of the herd. He's got a different hairstyle.
When Paramount paid to put out the Director's cut of TMP I was really hoping they would revisit Star Trek V because up until they get to Godworld it's a return to what I liked about the OS to a large extent.
The special effects need redoing (they were done in haste on the cheap and it shows) and the end of the film needs a major redo but there is a lot in there worth saving.
I've always been a fan of Laurence Luckinbill and he turns in a good performance, sadly the usually dependable David Warner doesn't really do much but then he isn't really given much to do.
Some of the comedy could do with a trim to make the best of it work better too, sometimes it's almost a toe-curlingly over done as in The Undiscovered Country but on the whole the main cast are on form.
The comedy Klingon ship could be largely trimmed though I liked the nonchalant way another Voyager probe gets disposed of (a nice comedy bookend to TMP).
TNG had some fine moments but it's largely a soap with a techo-babble B plot of the week.
Ye Gods the incidental music of Star Trek spin off shows are awful and intrusive too.
TOS had some hard hitting stories written by serious writers and with a darkness that TNG and every other spin off rarely got to grips with (now that one with the bugs living inside people...you know the one where Riker eat the wiggly worms...that was a step in the right direction).
And back when the Cybermen...erm the Borg were scary that was nice.
Tar monster...where are you now?
And that freaky one where the ship started turning into a Mayan temple.
zombie84 said:
Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.
As to herd mentality, you are basically writing off anything that is popular, which is not constructive or any sort of specific argument, nor is it proveable in any case. As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films). Anyway, it's hard to even divide non-fans and fans in the ST world because usually anyone that likes some of the films is considered a fan, and most people who don't consider themselves a fan in some degree don't like ANY of them, hence the disussion about ranking popularity becomes moot.
The herd argument is stupid and in bad taste though. It's not much an argument as it is unfalisifiable paranoia.
Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.
That's the it's-all-subjective viewpoint. I don't subscribe to that view.
you are basically writing off anything that is popular
No I am not. Things can be popular and be good. All I am saying is that something being popular doesn't mean it's good.
As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films).
Well, that's back in the early 80s. The sort of artificial character portrayal that the film goes in for would make it less popular if it were released now, because films go in for that sort of thing less nowadays. And some people developed their view of the film back in the 80s and never got around to revising their view in recent times. Plenty ordinary moviegoers, if shown that film, would think it was pretty lame.
anyone that likes some of the films is considered a fan, and most people who don't consider themselves a fan in some degree don't like ANY of them
A fan in the sense that I'm talking about would like Trek in general and interact with other fans. I don't think liking a particular Trek film makes somebody a Trek fan.
The herd argument is stupid and in bad taste though. It's not much an argument as it is unfalisifiable paranoia.
In your opinion (which is a stupid thing for me to say really, because of course it's your opinion). I don't believe so.
Warbler said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Zero depth =bad movie. The love story was plastic.
I would disagree I do see depth in it. It is not super deep, but it is there. I think you have a misconception that a movie must be deep to be good. I disagree. It certainly helps, but I lot of things add up to decide whether or not a movie is good. Story, soundtrack, comedy, performances, characters, direction, action, etc. lots of stuff. I think you are falling into a trap saying "well if it doesn't have any depth, it must not be good". under that line of thinking alot of otherwise great westerns, comedies, action and adventure movies and sometimes dramas get labeled as bad. Amount of depth, imho is only one part of a very large and very complex equation as to what makes a movie good or bad.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Millions of people thought the world was flat, thought racism was good, and sexism, etc. Millions of people liking something in no way says it's good.
yes, the majority isn't always right, that is why I said "there is a good chance" not a 100% certainly.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Khan is supposed to Indian? I never got that.
Yes. Khan Noonien Singh. Yes, he's Indian. As in from India.
I stand corrected then.
Vaderisnothayden said:
well if its so obvious, how come you are first person in the years since its released that I've run into that feels this way about Montalban's performance?
Because people are subconsciously motivated to copy each others' views. I'm not the only person who feels this way about Montalban's performance, but I do know that a lot of Trek fans feel the way you do.
I wasn't copying anyone else views. I formed my own, when I first watched the movie and then re-watched it over and over and over again as a kid.
Vaderisnothayden said:
TOS is crap???? to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous. It is certainly not crap. Are the special effects crap? maybe. But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget. I find many of the episodes have a powerful message. Take City on The Edge Of Forever. That is certainly not crap. I don't how you can call TOS crap. If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
As you are probably aware by now, I don't care whether or not an opinion is blasphemous by the view of some group or not. I choose the views that seem right to me, not the ones other people approve of. The special effects are a small part of the problem with TOS. I couldn't care less whether the episodes have a powerful message or not. I don't feel messages necessarily add to the quality of art. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't and sometimes they actually take from the quality of art. City on the Edge of Forever is sorely overrated. You don't know how I can call TOS crap, but I don't know how anybody can watch that stuff and not think "This is shitty". It's good-natured crap. It has some good ideas. It has some good character interaction and Nimoy was great in it. It was politically advanced for its time and may have had a positive cultural influence, quite apart from leading to some good spinoffs. But it's still crap. That's just the reality of it. How somebody can be a fulll fan of that show now and think it's on the overall good is something I can't fathom. I'm not saying all this to bother you. This is just what I believe. You are perfectly entitled to like TOS and think it's good if you want to, but don't expect me to.
wow. all I can say it that we are miles and miles apart in our opinions of TOS. wow.
Vaderisnothayden said:
If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
Well, as I have said, something being popular doesn't mean it's good. All you need to get 5 shows and 11 movies is for Trek to be popular and then you have the motivation to make more and continue the franchise. But Trek evolved. The movies eventually improved on TOS and then there was TNG, which was a far superior show, and then the 90s Trek evolved out of that, which had good stuff. But I've no illusions about the quality of the show it all evolved out of. When I watch TOS it's solely for Nimoy's excellent performances.
true popular does not equal good. But, its doesn't equal bad either. I think was it does equal is there being a greater than 50% chance of being good. There has to be a reason why something it popular, and its not always because we're all lemmings
Vaderisnothayden said: You'd be surprised how much herd thinking is behind human thinking. It has an effect far beyond what people think. People are far more susceptible to it than they realize. It's not a simplistic argument at all.
I would sort of agree with that. My father has an old saying "the mob is easily led". But I pretty certain that I have formed my own opinions on Star Trek II, I am not following "herd thinking"
Vaderisnothayden said:
I wouldn't be so sure about the views of 98% of people who've seen the films. I don't think you can have knowledge of that high a percentage and nor do I think you have grounds to guess the views of that high a percentage. I wouldn't be so sure that "almost no one else" agrees with my view.
maybe not, but I do think you say most people do not agree with your view. I think we can be sure of the views of I'd say 50%-70% of the people you've seen the films.
Vaderisnothayden said:
There are so many crap films that a lot of people believe are good.
in your opinion.
Vaderisnothayden said: Among fans. There are so many casual moviegoers out there who don't talk about the films at conventions or on message boards or whatnot.
most of these casual movie goers may not have seen the film.
Vaderisnothayden said: Exactly, in ST circles. Where people are just perfectly set up to have their views influenced by other ST fans. What about outside ST circles? Some ordinary moviegoer who goes to a Trek movie -they have opinions too and you don't know all their opinions. They're the ones least likely to make special exceptions for Trek movies and tolerate shit like Khan.
oh, I think you'd be surprised to find out what they think of Khan. I be very surprised to find out they thought Khan was "awful beyond belief" or that Montalban's performance was "stomach turning".
Vaderisnothayden said: I'm going to stop debating the herd mentality thing, because people won't appreciate the argument much
yeah you're right. I don't appreciate that argument to much. I am not a lemming. I make up my own mind about things. I listen to Sinatra style music. I started doing so when I was a kid. I guarantee you very few others in my school listened to my kind of music and I didn't appreciate the kinds of music they did listen too, I still don't. I also have my hair in a very conservative style for someone my age. I had it that way when I was in high school when long hair for guys was in style. It was not a popular hair style. I don't do things because the majority do it. Does what the majority do have an affect on me? yeah. I'm also sure it has an affect on you. But this idea that we much all be lemmings is comes off as arrogant. As zombie said "everyone else is crazy and you're not". Isn't just possible that when the majority likes something, that you don't, that maybe just maybe, they are seeing something that you are missing, that you are in the wrong and not them. Isn't that a possibility?
I would disagree I do see depth in it. It is not super deep, but it is there. I think you have a misconception that a movie must be deep to be good. I disagree. It certainly helps, but I lot of things add up to decide whether or not a movie is good. Story, soundtrack, comedy, performances, characters, direction, action, etc. lots of stuff. I think you are falling into a trap saying "well if it doesn't have any depth, it must not be good". under that line of thinking alot of otherwise great westerns, comedies, action and adventure movies and sometimes dramas get labeled as bad. Amount of depth, imho is only one part of a very large and very complex equation as to what makes a movie good or bad.
If a movie has no emotional depth, then it doesn't have much artistic value. But the movies that I think have or lack emotional depth may not be the ones you might expect. As for performances, if they're good enough they'll add to the emotional depth.
I wasn't copying anyone else views. I formed my own, when I first watched the movie and then re-watched it over and over and over again as a kid.
As a kid. But when you got older it was time to form an adult opinion of it, and by that time you had probably run into other people who thought it was good, which would have encouraged you to keep to your original opinion rather than revising it.
true popular does not equal good. But, its doesn't equal bad either. I think was it does equal is there being a greater than 50% chance of being good. There has to be a reason why something it popular, and its not always because we're all lemmings
Between the human capacity to get things wrong and the human capacity for herd-think, I think that explains the popularity of a lot of things. I don't think something being popular makes it any more likely to be good.
maybe not, but I do think you say most people do not agree with your view.
Most Trek fans, not most people in general.
I think we can be sure of the views of I'd say 50%-70% of the people you've seen the films.
I'm not so sure of that.
most of these casual movie goers may not have seen the film.
Many have.
in your opinion.
Obviously.
oh, I think you'd be surprised to find out what they think of Khan. I be very surprised to find out they thought Khan was "awful beyond belief" or that Montalban's performance was "stomach turning".
Well, I've been gratified to find that some such people agree with my views.
yeah you're right. I don't appreciate that argument to much. I am not a lemming. I make up my own mind about things. I listen to Sinatra style music. I started doing so when I was a kid. I guarantee you very few others in my school listened to my kind of music and I didn't appreciate the kinds of music they did listen too, I still don't. I also have my hair in a very conservative style for someone my age. I had it that way when I was in high school when long hair for guys was in style. It was not a popular hair style. I don't do things because the majority do it. Does what the majority do have an affect on me? yeah. I'm also sure it has an affect on you. But this idea that we much all be lemmings is comes off as arrogant. As zombie said "everyone else is crazy and you're not". Isn't just possible that when the majority likes something, that you don't, that maybe just maybe, they are seeing something that you are missing, that you are in the wrong and not them. Isn't that a possibility?
Well, I apologize for any offense given. Offense isn't my intent. Maybe you are one of those people who would have liked WOK even if the majority didn't, but I am sure there are a lot of people out there whose liking of WOK has a lot to do with the fact that it's liked by others. As for the majority having effect on my thinking, precious little, because all my life I have been the different one in so many areas. And I'm sorry, but I don't buy that I'm missing something in WOK that's of value.
Dear Everyone,
Love,
hot.like.Olie
Vaderisnothayden said:
Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.
That's the it's-all-subjective viewpoint. I don't subscribe to that view.
Well then you are an idiot. If a film is entertaining to someone then its entertaining for them, it doesn't matter whether you share that view or not. You can back up your claims with arguments for sophistication of plot and character, but sometimes entertainment doesn't need to be sophisticated, otherwise we wouldn't have Jacky Chan, The Three Stooges, or low-budget horror, in all cases where the lack of sophistication is partly the appeal. But at the end of the day there is no objective truth beyond your perception of what you like and why, art is not some objective object that you can measure scientifically in this respect, its effectiveness is an emotional resonance created in people, sometimes for different reasons, but none of them any more or less valid than anyone elses.
Don't confuse the study of film and its mechanics, and the justification of why you like the film because of those mechanics, with something that makes your opinion somehow more real. It's not real, it's still just a subjective view at the end of the day, regardless of how you articulate it.
Vaderisnothayden said:
As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films).
Well, that's back in the early 80s. The sort of artificial character portrayal that the film goes in for would make it less popular if it were released now, because films go in for that sort of thing less nowadays. And some people developed their view of the film back in the 80s and never got around to revising their view in recent times. Plenty ordinary moviegoers, if shown that film, would think it was pretty lame.
This is a circular argument. It was recieved well in the 80s because thats when it was made. Its probably true that it wouldn't be recieved well today because it doesn't adhere to current fashions and trends--because its 30 years out of touch with those very fashions and trends! Because it was...you know, made in the 80s? You can only evaluate a movie's construction in the context of when it was made, not 30 years into the future. If it were made today, it would be quite different, and very likely conform to the fashions and trends in filmmaking that you feel is lacking in the film (because, you know, they didn't exist). This is basically like complaining that a movie from the 1920s doesn't have sound or colour.
zombie84 said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.
That's the it's-all-subjective viewpoint. I don't subscribe to that view.
Well then you are an idiot. If a film is entertaining to someone then its entertaining for them, it doesn't matter whether you share that view or not. You can back up your claims with arguments for sophistication of plot and character, but sometimes entertainment doesn't need to be sophisticated, otherwise we wouldn't have Jacky Chan, The Three Stooges, or low-budget horror, in all cases where the lack of sophistication is partly the appeal. But at the end of the day there is no objective truth beyond your perception of what you like and why, art is not some objective object that you can measure scientifically in this respect, its effectiveness is an emotional resonance created in people, sometimes for different reasons, but none of them any more or less valid than anyone elses.
Don't confuse the study of film and its mechanics, and the justification of why you like the film because of those mechanics, with something that makes your opinion somehow more real. It's not real, it's still just a subjective view at the end of the day, regardless of how you articulate it.
If a film is entertaining to someone then its entertaining for them, it doesn't matter whether you share that view or not.
I'm talking about how good a film is, not how entertaining it is.
but sometimes entertainment doesn't need to be sophisticated
No, but it needs to have quality if it's to be good art.
But at the end of the day there is no objective truth beyond your perception of what you like and why, art is not some objective object that you can measure scientifically in this respect, its effectiveness is an emotional resonance created in people, sometimes for different reasons, but none of them any more or less valid than anyone elses.
This is a complex subject about which you are very certain of your view. But I have my own reasons for not subscribing to that view.
Well then you are an idiot.
Are personal attacks really necessary? I don't see how that statement was necessary to making your point. It seems to have just been stuck in for the sake of making an attack on me.
Don't confuse the study of film and its mechanics, and the justification of why you like the film because of those mechanics, with something that makes your opinion somehow more real. It's not real, it's still just a subjective view at the end of the day, regardless of how you articulate it
Again, a complex subject. Your view is a popular one, but it is not the only possible view.
zombie84 said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films).
Well, that's back in the early 80s. The sort of artificial character portrayal that the film goes in for would make it less popular if it were released now, because films go in for that sort of thing less nowadays. And some people developed their view of the film back in the 80s and never got around to revising their view in recent times. Plenty ordinary moviegoers, if shown that film, would think it was pretty lame.
This is a circular argument. It was recieved well in the 80s because thats when it was made. Its probably true that it wouldn't be recieved well today because it doesn't adhere to current fashions and trends--because its 30 years out of touch with those very fashions and trends! Because it was...you know, made in the 80s? You can only evaluate a movie's construction in the context of when it was made, not 30 years into the future. If it were made today, it would be quite different, and very likely conform to the fashions and trends in filmmaking that you feel is lacking in the film (because, you know, they didn't exist). This is basically like complaining that a movie from the 1920s doesn't have sound or colour.
You're totally missing my point. You said people of a non-fan type would like the film, so I pointed out a reason why they wouldn't. It doesn't matter whether their reason would be just. All that matters is that they wouldn't like the film.
How good a film depends on how entertaining it is, because at the end of the day thats why people are watching. Sometime this "entertainment" can be in form of admiring its mechanics (editing, cinematography) or characters (writing, acting), or plot (writing, directing) or any combination, but all art is about eliciting some form of appreciation in the viewer, whether that is emotional or intellectual.
Actually, the last post on STIV being made in the 1980s is a good example of how what makes "good art" is entirely subjective, and very tied to historical context. What people considered "good" about films in the 1920 and 1930s is very different than the 1970s and 1980s, for example. If you were to show many typical films from the former to the latter, they might complain that the acting is over-the-top, the plots not realistic, the sets fake looking, no challenging messages, etc. And if you show a film from the 1980s to people today, some might have the same reaction. Do you really think that any of todays "masterpieces" will be looked at any differently from many people in 2050s?
Taste is subject to trends and fashion, it changes over time, and what people consider artistic, or noteworthy, or entertaining, or whatever is entirely temporal. Anything with expliciti sex and/or violence in it was considered "trash" until the 1970s, and even then it was rejected by many people for its moral ineptness and such. Ever since the 1970s, if there was no "hard" subject matter, a lot of people looked at it as fluff, and not very serious.
Art is subjective, and the trends in its appraisal change as much as the fashion styles on runways, because there essentially is no difference.
It's not a question of whether I would judge the film by the standard of now but a question of many people doing so.
The point is that you attempted to invalidate that films success by asserting it wouldn't be recieved as such today, the implication being that the film isn't really as good as its reputation holds. Which is a circular argument--it wasn't released today, it was released in the 80s and was very successful in the 1980s, and if it was made today it would be quite different.
zombie84 said:
How good a film depends on how entertaining it is, because at the end of the day thats why people are watching. Sometime this "entertainment" can be in form of admiring its mechanics (editing, cinematography) or characters (writing, acting), or plot (writing, directing) or any combination, but all art is about eliciting some form of appreciation in the viewer, whether that is emotional or intellectual.
Actually, the last post on STIV being made in the 1980s is a good example of how what makes "good art" is entirely subjective, and very tied to historical context. What people considered "good" about films in the 1920 and 1930s is very different than the 1970s and 1980s, for example. If you were to show many typical films from the former to the latter, they might complain that the acting is over-the-top, the plots not realistic, the sets fake looking, no challenging messages, etc. And if you show a film from the 1980s to people today, some might have the same reaction. Do you really think that any of todays "masterpieces" will be looked at any differently from many people in 2050s?
Taste is subject to trends and fashion, it changes over time, and what people consider artistic, or noteworthy, or entertaining, or whatever is entirely temporal. Anything with expliciti sex and/or violence in it was considered "trash" until the 1970s, and even then it was rejected by many people for its moral ineptness and such. Ever since the 1970s, if there was no "hard" subject matter, a lot of people looked at it as fluff, and not very serious.
Art is subjective, and the trends in its appraisal change as much as the fashion styles on runways, because there essentially is no difference.
It's not a question of whether I would judge the film by the standard of now but a question of many people doing so.
The point is that you attempted to invalidate that films success by asserting it wouldn't be recieved as such today, the implication being that the film isn't really as good as its reputation holds. Which is a circular argument--it wasn't released today, it was released in the 80s and was very successful in the 1980s, and if it was made today it would be quite different.
The point is that you attempted to invalidate that films success by asserting it wouldn't be recieved as such today, the implication being that the film isn't really as good as its reputation holds. Which is a circular argument--it wasn't released today, it was released in the 80s and was very successful in the 1980s, and if it was made today it would be quite different.
You are mistaken. I am not trying to invalidate the film's success, because I do not believe its success is proof of anything. I have no need to invalidate its success. I am merely trying to point out that it is not necessarily as universally loved as you seem to think it is, and I am doing that because you seem to believe this is an important point and because I am not so confident that everybody loves or would love it.
I edited the statement you were replying to, because I felt what I said didn't get my meaning across well enough.
How good a film depends on how entertaining it is, because at the end of the day thats why people are watching. Sometime this "entertainment" can be in form of admiring its mechanics (editing, cinematography) or characters (writing, acting), or plot (writing, directing) or any combination, but all art is about eliciting some form of appreciation in the viewer, whether that is emotional or intellectual.
There are different forms of appreciation. Some are deeper than others. Stuff that does not go deep enough does not rate as art no matter how entertaining it may be.
Actually, the last post on STIV being made in the 1980s is a good example of how what makes "good art" is entirely subjective, and very tied to historical context. What people considered "good" about films in the 1920 and 1930s is very different than the 1970s and 1980s, for example. If you were to show many typical films from the former to the latter, they might complain that the acting is over-the-top, the plots not realistic, the sets fake looking, no challenging messages, etc. And if you show a film from the 1980s to people today, some might have the same reaction. Do you really think that any of todays "masterpieces" will be looked at any differently from many people in 2050s?
No. But I don't draw the same conclusions from the whole thing that you do. I look at it rather differently.
Taste is subject to trends and fashion, it changes over time, and what people consider artistic, or noteworthy, or entertaining, or whatever is entirely temporal. Anything with expliciti sex and/or violence in it was considered "trash" until the 1970s, and even then it was rejected by many people for its moral ineptness and such. Ever since the 1970s, if there was no "hard" subject matter, a lot of people looked at it as fluff, and not very serious.
Art is subjective, and the trends in its appraisal change as much as the fashion styles on runways, because there essentially is no difference
I believe there is more to the matter than that, but I am not interested in getting into the complexities of it here and now.
To Zombie84: I am done with this discussion. I respect you because of the great work you have done in the area of Star Wars study, writing that book, etc. But I do feel you crossed the line with calling me an idiot. I am aware people could take offense at my vew attributing WOK popularity to herd-thinking, but I made it clear that the view was not offered as an insult to anybody. It was necessary to state that view to explain my view in general. Whereas I think calling me an idiot was totally unecessary and done solely for offense. I fear that this discussion could get less pleasant if it continues. I rather expect to be called an idiot again if it continues. I don't enjoy being called an idiot. So that doesn't incline me to continue the discussion. Also, we clearly have drastically opposed views on art and you are very confident in yours. It would take some work for me to satisfactorily explain my own views and it's much easier just to put an end to the discussion. Thank you for your good work on Star Wars.
Ric Olie said:
Dear Everyone,
Love,
hot.like.Olie
::waves::