Porn Trek!

[Belegon]

If you hated it, you hated it, but I think you read it completely wrong--though I understand why read it that way and had that visceral reaction to it if you did read it that way.

The movie is about murder, not suicide. The man, however, in becoming aware and witness to the "murder" of the woman who hurt him, realizes that he's killing himself along with her. More, he realizes that she doesn't deserve to die. At which point, he tries to stop it from happening in the hopes of saving them both.

The resolution of the film, however, shows that it's not so easy as the man, or the doctor who created the procedure think to murder others or yourself. The essence of the movie is whether or not all we are is our memories. And the movie's answer to that question is a resounding "NO!" It says we're far more than that.

Far from being about the inability of humans to handle disappointments and failure, it is a movie that proves that we can learn to handle all kinds of disappointments and failures. Even the very worst disappointment and failure, the times when we disappoint and fail ourselves. This is evident when, during his last memory of her, our hero accepts and forgives the "murder" he's caused of both of them. Far from seeing it as a failure and a disappointment that he can't stop the process, he accepts it all. Everything he's done and is about to lose.

Thus, the movie is all about learning to accept loss.

And that acceptance is what allows him, awake, aware, and making a fresh, new conscious choice on the matter, to bravely risk certain failure and disappointment by wanting to be with this woman all over again, even after he's heard on tape how he disappointed her, and how she failed him. Hence, the two of them survive the "attempted" murder, which erases only memories, but not what who they really are, and what they feel for each other. And both learn to deal with failure and disappointment.

And that is what the movie is about.

Beat me to it. Well said.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Explaining it won't help. I still don't like Eternal spotless sunshine mind thingy.

 

[3113]

Explaining it won't help. I still don't like Eternal spotless sunshine mind thingy.

*sigh* Yes, Thee, I get that! I didn't explain it in hopes of changing anyone's mind about whether they hated it or not. I explained it only to let Rob know that, so far as I was able to see, it wasn't about suicide or some wimpy inablitiy to accept failure/disappointment. Like it or hate it, I felt that comment should be answered lest people potentially interested in seeing the movie get the wrong idea.

And I felt that way because I'm at fault for bringing it up as a "counterweight" to Trek and I didn't feel it was fair for that counterweight to be misrepresented. But really, my mention of that movie was not to elicit responses of "I hated it" or "I loved it." It was just and ONLY an example of a non-"campy" sci-fi film used for purely comparison purposes.

So. If you or anyone else hated "Spotless Mind" so much that you can't just skim over this comparison, then, please, put whatever substitute counterweight you like in its place. Whatever sci-fi movie you feel is not action-adventure, not pure fun, serious, layered, etc. and very much the opposite of Star Trek. Imagine that example is there, not Spotless Mind. Imagine Spotless Mind never got mentioned. Just an example that you can nod your head about, say, "Yeah, Trek is the opposite of that," and move on.

 

[jomar]

......Whatever sci-fi movie you feel is not action-adventure, not pure fun, serious, layered, etc. and very much the opposite of Star Trek.
...

I liked Spotless Mind, but Gattica is an alternative.

 

[CharleyH]

As to why I felt the performance was better than you apparently did, if that is what you meant, I think that is lodged almost entirely in the "I can do that!" scene. I totally bought into this seventeen year old kid running his ass off to prove he belonged and he could help and his joy in not only saving lives but in meeting the challenge. That scene colored my entire opinion of his performance.

I completely respect your opinion, Bel. I was simply curious about authorial vision. At one point in Hollywood history, the director was the authorial voice and so at one time one might blame the director for poor acting. These days, one can't tell the actor from the auteur.

 

[McKenna]

Srsly? Nobody else has a crush on Nero?

 

[Belegon]

I completely respect your opinion, Bel. I was simply curious about authorial vision. At one point in Hollywood history, the director was the authorial voice and so at one time one might blame the director for poor acting. These days, one can't tell the actor from the auteur.

In my opinion, those days are not only past... I don't think I miss them. Sure, we can get into a discussion about prima donna "talent" that will make me feel differently, at least for a little bit.

And I do feel that the director should still be the leader of a production. The final word. It is in many ways his vision that we see onscreen.

But I enjoy the idea that modern movie-making is such a collaborative effort. The fact is that this sometimes results in things going awry. But when it works, I think it works brilliantly. My favorite all-time remains Casablanca and many of my other favorites are indeed movies that are or were much more focused in the vision that was being translated.

But then there are others...

I think that while the classics remain the classics and there will always be standouts....the rank and file movies being made today, the best of the worst if you want to view it that way, are actually better than they were in the days of the studio system. The bar has been raised and the "average" film is, IMHO, a better movie than it once was. And much of that is due to the collaborative process. If something really sucks, it is often (not always) shouted down long before it can reach the audience precisely because collaborators (actors, writers, cinematographers, editors and even the much maligned executives) have the freedom to speak up.

There is also the fact that an independent film can actually be made and seen today... which not only allows for unique visions to be seen outside of film school but also allows new talent to win recognition.

 

[Katyusha]

One more thing, which I think might be explained in the movie, but I'll ask nonetheless.

In the original Star Trek series, Kirk took over the captain's reins from, I believe, a man named Pike. The Enterprise series has a Captain Johnathan Archer as Enterprise's first captain. So Kirk is, at least, the third man to helm the Starfleet flagship in the original chronology. But, at least two reviews of the new movie indicate that the Enterprise is on it's maiden voyage, with the implication being that Kirk was the first captain.

Does this film, then, ignore the original timeline?

I've only been skimming the comments here and not really reading them in detail, so forgive me if all of what I'm about to say has already been hashed. The series Enterprise takes place much earlier than the Star Trek original series. Captain Archer's ship is the first interstellar starship named Enterprise, but he's dead and gone before Captain Pike ever takes the helm of the USS Enterprise, registry number NCC 1701, which is on its maiden voyage like any other brand-new ship with a familiar name. And Earth has a history of ships named Enterprise anyway...I recall both an aircraft carrier and a space shuttle with that name.

I haven't yet seen it here yet, but I've seen it elsewhere; people are upset with this movie not adhering to other parts of the Star Trek timeline as well, such as Captain Pike being promoted to Admiral, which never happened in the original series; he died as Fleet Captain on Talos IV after having been involved in a horrible accident on a space station. What people need to remember, particularly the hard-core Trekkies, is that the destruction of Romulus takes place more than 30 years *after* Star Trek: Nemesis, which is the final film dealing with anything having to do with the original universe. Nero goes back in time because of that and once he does, the entire timeline is changed and we find ourselves in a completely new environment where anything is possible.

Srsly? Nobody else has a crush on Nero?

No...but I've got a crush on Scotty now.

 

[alyxen]

...

I don't know what to think about the plot, about the two Spocks - hey, speaking of which, how the hell is he going to have Pon Farr if Vulcan is a black hole??

More importantly, is it now going to have to be a three way?

 

[3113]

The latest on the new film--here's what Hitler has to say.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I am wondering if they are going to redo the initial Kahn storyline, and have them bump into him all over again. I think that could be really interesting.

Who you like to see play Kahn in this new timeline?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The latest on the new film--here's what Hitler has to say.

I like it. And, like he said, I guess I'll just have to go see it myself.

 

[Katyusha]

I am wondering if they are going to redo the initial Kahn storyline, and have them bump into him all over again. I think that could be really interesting.

Might depend on how far-reaching the effects of Nero's and Spock's time traveling was. Since the timeline wasn't changed until Kirk was born, then the assumption is that the Eugenics Wars still happened and Kahn and his minions are still out there. But perhaps things are so changed with having to re-establish Vulcan and what-not that the Enterprise's missions are such that they never *do* run into Kahn. Or maybe another ship does and maroons them on Ceti Alpha V, or a different planet entirely.

Or maybe Kahn and his supermen wind up being allies of the Federation (wouldn't that be interesting ).

Who you like to see play Kahn in this new timeline?

Oh geez...I don't know. There are so many actors out there today that play such a good bad guy that I wouldn't know where to start. You?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Might depend on how far-reaching the effects of Nero's and Spock's time traveling was. Since the timeline wasn't changed until Kirk was born, then the assumption is that the Eugenics Wars still happened and Kahn and his minions are still out there. But perhaps things are so changed with having to re-establish Vulcan and what-not that the Enterprise's missions are such that they never *do* run into Kahn. Or maybe another ship does and maroons them on Ceti Alpha V, or a different planet entirely.

Or maybe Kahn and his supermen wind up being allies of the Federation (wouldn't that be interesting ).

Even the smallest action in the past could, over a human lifetime, have enormous consequences. Sort of like the "butterfly effect" in Chaos theory. Admittedly Kahn is a really entertaining development and a smart writer/producer team wouldn't want to DX the guy . . .