Defend your most controversial film opinion. (Page 4 of 15)

Loving the sweatshirt, actually

Hey, feel free to send me the new one. My birthday was a month ago!

Last edited by Saniss (2013-10-14 22:59:49)

Also, I plan on recording and defending my MOST controversial opinion (of this year) tonight or tomorrow. Finally got a mic.

So, rerail in about 24 to 48 hours.

We need a whole thread just for this.

Ok, a couple of days I said I would withhold my most controversial opinion in anticipation of recording and releasing of my podcast about it. Well, thanks to Teague, I have been working with different applications to make the recording less, well, sucky. So, slight delay in the recording, so I will outline the opinion here, with going in to all the details because, that would be a wall of text. Also, spoilers. Fair warning 

I don't think Star Trek Into Darkness is a terrible film. I don't think it is a perfect film, by any measure, but it strikes a chord, in me anyway, that is more reminiscent of the Original Series, than many of the other Trek films. It has got a lot of reviews and opinions and dismissal as hack, shallow and an aping of Wrath of Khan. Yes, I know, it has scenes taken directly from Wrath of Khan and I think that is why the parallels are immediately drawn as well as the villain.

Ok, my quick rundown of the strengths of the film and why it works for me.

First, the theme is strong, running through the entire film, as it explores different aspects of the darker aspects of humanity, as well as responses to tragedies and terrorism. The film doesn't shy away from the fact that Harrison's attack is a terrorist attack, and the use of automated weapons to kill a Federation citizen without a trial. It also doesn’t shy away from the fact that Kirk and Spock are not perfect. It doesn’t  just leave us with the idea that the crew is all together now and things are perfect. It actually builds the theme from the idea that humans are flawed and can either get better or worse.

For those unaware, close to the time that this film was released, a Senator in the US Senate performed a filibuster expressly to prohibit the use of drones by the President of the United States to execute American citizens without trial. There is more to it than that brief summary, but suffice to say, it was an interesting social commentary and debate presented in the film.

Secondly, the characters are what drive this film forward. It was a bit of a surprise to me that the film took place so soon after Trek 09, only one year after that. Yet, it is interesting, that in all of the fan fervor over Kirk being promoted too fast, the writers actually engaged that point and presented him as a captain who wasn't quite ready. Kirk's character arc is among the more interesting to me because he literally starts out as a fairly selfish human being. He has no scruples breaking the rules because, to him, those rules are not important. He has no problem breaking the Prime Directive to save Spock because that is just a rule and a rule is not as important as him keeping his crew safe and looking good while he does it. It all reflects back on him.

Spock is a lesson in contrast to Kirk's point of view, being more selfless, but not recognizing the impact of his selflessness upon others, especially Uhura, until later in the film. Spock is the less the Mr. Spock that fans would know from the series, and more of a younger Spock, who struggles to keep his emotions in check, who's loyalty and duty to Starfleet sometimes succeeds other influences. He exists in conflict with Kirk, because Kirk will lie while Spock will not. Spock will follow the rules, almost to a fault.

Unfortunately, the other characters do not get the same level of character arc as the others, but do serve as a commentary for and against Kirk and his decision making. The only other characters that are explored with any depth are the villains: Admiral Marcus and John Harrison/Khan. Marcus is presented in sharp contrast to Admiral Pike, and actually usurps Pike (after Pike's death) as Kirk's role mentor, if even for a time.

Marcus' character is fascinating to me, as a Star Trek fan, in terms that he really plays on an idea that has been explored in Deep Space 9: Section 31. Very much the "Black Ops" of Starfleet, they represent the very dark and, almost primal, response to survival of the Federation. For Marcus, the very subtle maneuvering of his position against Khan is an interesting political twists and turns that are probably not quite as obvious. Marcus was obviously aware of who Harrison/Khan really was and helped create the false identity so he could operate within Section 31. Then, much like an agent who knows to much, Khan was burned, only to begin his own contingency of overthrowing Marcus and dominating Earth.

I could spend a lot of time on the characters, but that will take up a lot of more space than I really feel you all will want to read through. To sum up, Khan is not the same Khan as in Wrath of Khan, simply because this Khan has had the opportunity to acclimate and plan for the new world he has found himself in. To me, this makes this Khan all the more villainous, not because of his motivations, but because of his capability. He has become more dangerous by virtue of the fact that he knows the world, and has no qualms in dominating it again. Yes, he wants to visit his revenge on Marcus, and he does, but more to his goal, is the simple fact that he still believes he is superior and should rule. All of the weapons he helps Section 31 build are really his tools for domination. To me, this layering of plans within plans, wheels within wheels, is far more interesting, and gives me more to think, about Khan’s plans and his schemes, even without overt description in the film itself.

I spent more time on characters simply because, for me, they drove the story forward far more than some of the other plot points. A quick example, the space jump with Kirk and Khan is a silly action scene and pure fan service, as is the Enterprise underwater. As Scotty points out, it is totally ridiculous, but it is not offensive so much as it is pointless. I feel more time could have been devoted to the plots and machinations of Marcus and Khan, as well as time with the rest of crew.

Like I said, this isn’t a perfect movie. The science is bad, the action pieces are sometimes either gratuitous, e.g. the Enterprise under water.  The moments were it shines is where the movie focuses on characters, the fact that they are flawed, damaged, human beings (or half-human in some cases) who are growing and learning together.

That is a quick, hopefully not overwhelming wall of text. There is more to say but I will not be saying it right now.

I think ultimately the real problem with HULK is the ending, where the film dissolves into abstraction to the point of incoherence. Had the ending been more satisfying I think ten years on people would have revised their opinion of the film, given time to remove themselves from their expectations and appreciate it for what it is, but unfortunately it's a film with a lot of ambition that simply fails to deliver.

I have come to appreciate the film in its failure, though, because it failed ambitiously. I'd rather see more films that bite off more than they can chew than films which fail because they aim for inoffensive mediocrity.

Oh right. Those too.

EDIT: Oh, I've got a controversial opinion that I've just recently been reminded of: Richard Harris' portrayal of Dumbledore was not any better than Gambon's. He was clearly disinterested and phoning it in.

Last edited by Dorkman (2013-10-20 07:13:15)

Ok.

Dollhouse is a brilliant concept for a show, but your defense of Eliza Dushku is off base. She's simply never shown a range to her acting required for that part. She's clearly more comfortable playing a particular type of character (and every person reading this knows immediately what character), and the rest are all weak. She has decent moments, sure, but that's like saying a broken clock is right twice a day.

Also, and maybe this is my "controversial opinion", but Tahmoh Penikett has never impressed me. He's always so stiff and unnatural. I thought he was generic in BSG, uninteresting in Dollhouse, and between him and Dushku, you now have 2 main characters who simply couldn't carry a show.

Basically you needed 2 very strong actors that could make Echo and Ballard interesting and engrossing despite the situations they were in, and they picked two actors that, while very good at certain things, just weren't able to pull off what they needed to in order to live up to the concept.

Frustratingly, the rest of the cast was excellent. Enver Gjokaj, Dichen Lachman, Olivia Williams, Harry Lennix, Amy Acker...all did a fantastic job bringing something special and interesting to their characters. Even and Fran Kranz, who isn't really known for playing a wide range of characters, still made his character worth an emotional investment.

As I said, I enjoyed it and don't think it's as bad as some make it out to be...but I really feel that if they had gotten 2 actors better suited to carry the lead roles, Dollhouse would have been much better and lasted much longer.

On the flip side...I do have a "wish" about Dollhouse:

I still don't understand their thought process for Dumbledore, he is supposed to be weary soul yes, but he's also supposed to be really lighthearted at times, a kidder. But through the entire series he is just slow and out of breath and dull. [Among the countless other disappointments] that really disappointed me.

So I'm not going to defend it because I don't got time for all THAT SHIT right now, but one of my pretty controversial film opinions: I HATE the Harry Potter films, like outright loathing level shit here for almost everything they do. At almost every single choice it was like they looked at the book and thought "Sure it's good but how do we make it horrible".

One of these days I'll get around to doing my full SFDebris style rant about the HP movies. One day.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2013-10-20 15:45:19)

I really want to hear this