zombie84 said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
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.
But since there is almost no bad press/reviews about the film, what makes you say that? If you presented the film to people today as though it were a contemporary film, then yes they would probably find it's conventions dated. However, as any film from the 1980s is as dated as STIV is, and as many films from the 1980s are enjoyed by viewers today (who expect the films to abide by 80's conventions), there's little reason to think that there would be a massive re-evaluation. There hasn't been one, as far as any evidence suggests. As for Wrath of Khan, I think a decent amount of its fanbase wasn't even alive when it was released, considering how old it is, which seems to go against a theory that the film was liked in 1982 but would be re-evaluated as poor today. There isn't any wide re-evaluation going on, and hence no reason why we should be asking the question in the first place.
The problem is there are some pretty mistaken ideas about art and what's of artistic value.
See, there you go again. Artistic merit in cinema is based on the following criteria: if it's a movie, then it's pretty much art. There's never been a major motion picture made without some amount of skill in it somewhere, whether lighting technicians, camera assistants, dolly grips, or actors, even if its only miniscule skill or a poor effort. The medium defines it as such, and whether it's "good art" (read: real art, as you might define it) or "bad art" (read: not art, as you would define it), is entirely subjective to the tastes, criteria and personal preferences and opinions of the person qualifying it as such. People in the 1930s would never call a comic book "art." Which is bullshit--there's clearly artistry there, even if the artists skills are poor, calling it "Art" with a capital A just depends on whether or not you enjoy comic books.
Oh there are other criteria for evaluating movies, sure, but artistic value and emotional depth is the big one.
According to who? You?
How do you define "artistic merit"? If I say a film is artistic because the lighting is beautiful but you disagree because the lighting is not beautiful, why is one of us right and one of us wrong? If everyone defines artistry according to their own definition and terms, based on their own preferences and response to specific works, then there can be no objective definition.
How do you measure emotional depth? If the film speaks to you, moves you, or entertains you in some way. Ergo, there is no objective measurement. Teenage girls are 100% valid in saying that Twilight is the most emotionally deep film they've ever seen, because for them it is, it created an emotional response; I am also 100% valid to say it has no emotional depth whatsoever, because for me the film failed to stir any emotion or intellectual stimulation. Basically: if "emotional depth" is a criteria, then that means we are measuring a personal feeling, a personal emotional response to a film. Whose response do we measure? Yours? And how the hell would be measure it anyway? Emotional depth is a personal judgement based on our perception of what consistutes emotion in the first place, and depth in the second place. This means that its 100% subjective. Emotional depth is created inside a person, not outside, which means there is no correct or incorrect answer.
Well I would argue that you should have come back when you were an adult and tried to assess it anew. I am constantly reviewing and testing my views and assessing things anew, giving myself the chance to form different views if it's warranted. I don't give my views an easy time.
A view you had when you were young won't always be the same as when you are older, but that doesn't make it any more or any less valid. To the person you were when you are young, a film stirred something in you--now that you are a different person, a film might be more effective or less effective. And in 20 years you will be a different person again--and you may find that you like a film more, or less. Appreciation is subjective, and based on who you are--which is why not only can two different people have two different experiences, but the same person can have a different experience with himself at a different stage in his life, where he has grown different tastes, criteria and expectations from his art and entertainment. See the pattern here....
Considerable odds that some such people could like a movie with no merit. Even highly intelligent people make mistakes and people like things for the oddest reasons.See, this is the same nonesense again. If they like the film, it has merit, by the very fact that it is liked. It doesn't have merit to you because you don't like the film, don't feel it has good writing, etc. But other people feel it does. This means that for them it has merit. There is no objective merit outside of what we think.
I know it's not just me with one view and everybody else with another, hence my not being so convinced by your and zombie's view that the non-Trek fans would all think the same of this film as the majority of Trek fans do.This is a relative statement; enough people like one set and dislike another with regularity that it is a reasonable assesement to say it is a vast majority view, IMO. However, there are obvious exceptions, there are always minority views. Whenever you get a large enough pool of people--ST fans--the exceptions add up to equally large numbers. I don't doubt that you could find dozens of people who share your views--I mean, different people like different things, so they've got to be out there.
The problem is that your stance that people's views on films are invalid because they are "wrong" about a films merit is not only just plain crazy, it is incredibly insulting and very, very ego-maniacal. Because what it boils down to is that either you are the gate-keeper for what consistutes "art", which makes you the Ubermensch, or you are not, which makes you wrong like us. And if you are wrong, then first of all who are you to be judging, but more imporantly who is right? How do you know who would be the "correct" view, anyway? Especially if every "majority view" is just a poor, proletariat herd-thinker, according to you?
I'm sorry, but this is such an immature, idiotic view of art and of human pyschology, and it's quite insulting to everyone that's not you. We judge things based on our perferences and tastes, which are influenced by the time and place we live in, our life experiences, and our inborn biases for certain things. No one is right and wrong, people just respond to things in one way and another. About the only thing we view objectively is whether the filmmaker was successful in finding an audience, because this is basically just tallying the hands of his or her intended audience who liked and who didn't like the film. This is mathematic and not anything qualitative, and therefore about the only thing that can be intellectually analysed. But it has nothing to do with the content.
In your ponderous studying of art and cinema, you might want to re-consider your philosophy here. There are different films because there are different people, and people like films you dislike and you like films other people dislike because...gasp! They are all just opinions. My girlfriend thinks Blade Runner and Star Wars are two of the worst films she has ever seen. They do nothing for her, and she's something of a cineaste no less. For her, the films are failures: the characters unidentifiable, the themes uninteresting, the dialogue poor, the effects uninteresting. For me, they are two of my favourite films for total inverse of everything she holds about the films.
And she's right. For her, the films have bad characters, uninteresting plots, and no emotional or intellectual interest. Welcome to the world of art.
So basically anybody who doesn't agree with your relativistic view of art is immature, egomaniacal, idiotic, etc? Nice to know. I won't bother discussing art with you in the future.