Some thoughts and questions about why we like what we like. Oh, and Kirk.
I have things I should probably talk about, that might be interesting, but I keep falling into that cycle of "I'm too tired/busy/braindead to do it justice right now" which is what leads to not posting for months (and it also why I fail at emailing/calling/socializing back
( Read more... )
It really does--I feel the character, as a whole, could become something I can get behind. But he's not, yet, which is where good fic comes in! (And by "good" I, in my biased way, means "fic which posits that this really is the same guy as in TOS, under different circumstances.") But because it's in line with the popular opinion of Kirk, I am skeptical that that's what's meant to come through. I feel it's more likely that this *is* how they see TOS Kirk, and how they think the public wants to see him.
You stayed totally understandable. I think that along with the pull for "realistic" characters, we've gotten really cynical. In a way. (Though at the same time I can't watch romantic comedies.) And you can see it in fandom, too, where any OC can be seen as a Mary Sue. Kirk is too good to be true, I think, in many peoples' minds. And while I want to see that taken down--I want to see how he's not--I don't think it follows that he and others like him shouldn't be posited as viable characters. He's full of awesome as well as flaws and one doesn't deny the other. I'd say that's not considered deep anymore, but goodness I wouldn't call modern action movies or superhero films "deep." Maybe it's just not considered interesting. The thing about Kirk is that, for me, he manages to be upstanding and fabulous without being boring--and a lot of straight-ahead heroes really are boring.
(Which also relates to origin stories. Yes, characters need motivation and sometimes a kick in the ass, but major trauma usually isn't actually suited to that in RL. Awesome people can be traumatized, but they'd still (in most cases) be awesome if it hadn't happened.)
This. This is an excellent point. It's a good narrative motivator and a good way to establish our sympathy but it's not very realistic, and it goes along (I think) with the fact that we also must SAVE THE EARTH EVERY SINGLE TIME or it's not BIG enough. The stakes--personal or global--have to be EVERYTHING.
Reply
This! Totally and that's what I find depressing about it. And it's not jut Kirk. They seem to be very proud of themselves for the little shoutouts to TOS and yes guys, those things are fun, but having Sulu swing around a sword doesn't mean you've captured the spirit of Trek. (Where the point of Sulu with a fencing foil (NOT a Katana) was that the Asian kid (George) grew up pretending to be Robin Hood, and not being an Asian stereotype.) Not to say that the swordfighting wasn't awesome, but it also wasn't especially meaningful.
It's a very fun movie, and I'm definitely not saying that they totally missed the mark on everything, or that the change in pace from the old movies wasn't necessary. I'm not against making it appealing to non fans. I just think that there were possibilities to create something more IN ADDITION to what they already managed.
I haven't totally given up hope for the next movie(s) because they do seem to care, but their perspective on some things could use a little widening/trying to look at it from a differnet POV.
Personally, I had gotten so used to loving characters that are awesome but flawed and that I liked but that I never really admired as people, that the idea of a character that I might actually want to get to know in RL, that could be a real mentor and generally admirable person was kind of a revelation. Not to say that we shouldn't be able to see that the people we admire are poeple and have flaws, but there ARE some people (in RL and fiction) that are truly awesome people and they do not come along often, but that should only make them worth more. (This might be one of those things that goes in cycles? From the one extreme, where authority figures/heroes are awesome and flawless and the other extreme where we concentrate on their flaws and failings. Because too much from one side means we want the other perspective and currently we are in a more cynical phase?)
"must SAVE THE EARTH EVERY SINGLE TIME or it's not BIG enough. The stakes--personal or global--have to be EVERYTHING."
Like how they blew up Vulcan? I'm totally reserving judgement on that. They could do awesome things with portraying the consequenses, but if they did it JUST to change things around a bit so they'd be able to tell the story their way, I'll not like them for that.
But I guess that's one of the perils of having a movie series instead of a tv one. Much less chances to explore the day to day stuff.
Reply
Yes, totally. I felt the same about the Holmes movie, frankly: proof that you're familiar with canon =/= truthfulness to canon. (It doesn't NOT equal it, either, of course.) It's all fine and fun and everything, and I don't hate the movie, but I don't think the sword/tribble/dropped lines have much to do with what makes TOS TOS.
I'd have to know more about the history of heroic archetypes to be sure--I don't know how much cycle there is through that. Though maybe, yeah, we'll get tired of the current one!
Like how they blew up Vulcan? I'm totally reserving judgement on that. They could do awesome things with portraying the consequenses, but if they did it JUST to change things around a bit so they'd be able to tell the story their way, I'll not like them for that.
And then saving Earth. If you blow up Vulcan/save Earth in the first film... where do you do next? Now, maybe they will explore the consequences or maybe it'll be Khan or maybe it'll be something totally different, but it just feels like blockbuster films need to up the ante so far that there's no room for, "Hey, guys, this planet is really interesting!" Of course, that is a tv vs. movie issue, I recognize that. I think I'm just over Earth being in peril.
Reply
Leave a comment