zombie84 said:
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.
Yes, you were. I said the film was financially and critically very successful. You said it was because the films "artificial" characterization was in style at the time it was released, and if people could evaluate it again they might change their minds. This is what you said:
"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 essentially saying it was only popular because standards were poorer (read: different) back then. But regardless: the film was released in the 80s and was successful in the 80s, by both fans and non-fans. It wouldn't be as popular now because its not in sync with 2010 tastes and styles--but it WAS in sync with 1987 tastes and styles, as you admitted, which is why it was popular.
Again, this brings me back to judging films based on temporal styles. A lot of people in the 1980s would say the film is pretty good, and clever, with witty writing, sophisticated effects, and well-developed characters, with a very relevant socio-political message. Today, they might not, because tastes have evolved and now people have different criteria, standards, and expectations of films in general. But this is like complaining a film from the 1920s has no color and sound. Its a reminder that evaluating the worth of anything in art and entertainment is strictly temporal to the context you are living in.
You're gettting me wrong again. My point in the paragraph of mine you put in quotation marks was that just because people back then liked the film didn't mean people now would like it. The point of that was not invalidate its success back in the 80s but rather to simply argue whether people out there (non-Trek fans) would like it nowadays, seeing as you seem to convinced it would appeal to everybody. I have no need to invalidate its success, but I fnd it very hard to believe that the average moviegoer today would think Wrath of Khan was great and as such I debated the point. The issue there was not about the validity of its success and whether that success proved anything, just the very idea that it would go down so well with modern moviegoers.
zombie84 said:
VISNH: Apologies for calling you an idiot, but I think the discussion at hand is one of the great problems of not only film studies but art criticism in general.
The problem is that people have this notion that art isn't subjective. It clearly is. I understand that the situation is more complex than sweeping statements allow. But the biggest problem in art criticism, and to a lesser degree in media studies, is that the intelligentsia thinks it can state definitively if something is good or bad, on grounds that at the end of the day rely only on the degree of sophistication of their argument. Some teenage girl thinks Twilight is awesome. Someone may say, "why, its so simple and the characters are dumb!" and she may say, "no, they appeal to me, I think its a very good movie/book." At the end of the day, there is no reply to that. You can state why YOU think she SHOULD consider them to be stupid and hollow, but she can understand exactly what you are saying and still state "I just don't agree." And that's that. Hell, cinephiles can't even agree amongst themselves about films, and they are supposedly educated about all the mechanics, intellectualism, etc of films.
The illusion of the objectivity of taste is the great lie that cinema professors invented to justify their existance. Its elitism that stands on a pedestal of bullshit.
That's why it personally bugs me when people pretend that taste is something that exists outside of their perception, some greater truth to be discovered if only they can analyse something enough. But the bottom line is that people love stuff you think is shit, and you love stuff other people think is shit, and there would be a lot of time saved if everyone just realised, "hey, people have different tastes, interests, and criteria for what is appealing to them."
Well you have your opinion and I have mine. Thank you for explaining yours.