|
lizardman posted:Nemesis used the "big black terrible spiky ship of doom" as a representation of a corrupt ideology and technology just as Abrams' Trek '09 did - the deadly radiation that is Shinzon's superweapon also apparently ran the whole ship, so it stands to reason the technology could be harnessed for good in someone else's hands - and Shinzon himself is literally Picard if he didn't have his optimistic ideals and aspirations, and the film puts Shinzon in his big black spiky ship shrouded in greenish darkness and friends that look like Nosferatu to contrast with the Enterprise and its relative coziness and lightness to illustrate that nihilism & cynicism = bad and optimism & faith = good. They do exactly that in 2009, with the superbright 'Jellyfish' ship that Nero keeps locked inside. The crucial detail is that Young Spock suicide-bombs this 'Jellyfish' right into the Narada, obliterating them both. TNG's version of optimism isn't good enough. You have to start over completely fresh.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla you're over-analyzing things waaaaay too much. Sure, your analysis seems logically consistent but it's highly unlikely that it was the intent of the films to portray what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Subyng posted:SuperMechagodzilla you're over-analyzing things waaaaay too much. Sure, your analysis seems logically consistent but it's highly unlikely that it was the intent of the films to portray what you're saying. Welcome to CinD
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:They do exactly that in 2009, with the superbright 'Jellyfish' ship that Nero keeps locked inside. The crucial detail is that Young Spock suicide-bombs this 'Jellyfish' right into the Narada, obliterating them both. TNG's version of optimism isn't good enough. You have to start over completely fresh. I think Hbomberguy's post actually helped me better understand what you're getting at (even though I'm not exactly sure who he was responding to): Hbomberguy posted:The idea of society as something fragile and difficult to build or protect is completely at odds with Star Trek's bizarre happy spacefuture where everything is fine except for those Reptilian Jews. The latter is quite clearly an ideological fantasy. The 'problem' with Star Trek, then, being that if you're constantly having to fight off evil moustache-twirling villains from destroying your idealistic utopian society, then maybe you don't really have much of an idealistic utopian society after all. I do think that's interesting. That said, I think "TNG era mindset didn't go far enough" is quite a bit softer position than "these terrible villains and their terrible spaceship represent those terrible movies", which makes me think either our discussion has shifted your perspective a little, or that you were being exaggeratedly incendiary for trolling purposes you can admit it, I won't judge! Personally I still don't go with that reading, I feel it would make the Abrams movies really hypocritical: these are still the same movies about the same revenge-minded, conspiracy-minded, moustache twirling villains, they just simply handwave them away with 'these villains are from or inspired by that other timeline'. That's not a real response, it's an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Subyng posted:SuperMechagodzilla you're over-analyzing things waaaaay too much. Sure, your analysis seems logically consistent but it's highly unlikely that it was the intent of the films to portray what you're saying. Drunkboxer posted:Welcome to CinD Yeah, Subyng, you seriously don't know who you're talking to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Sure, your analysis seems logically consistent but it's highly unlikely that it was the intent of the films to portray what you're saying. Who cares?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Subyng posted:SuperMechagodzilla you're over-analyzing things waaaaay too much. Sure, your analysis seems logically consistent but it's highly unlikely that it was the intent of the films to portray what you're saying. Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Dammit Who? posted:Who cares? Who cares about anything? You can ask "who cares" about literally everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Who cares about anything? You can ask "who cares" about literally everything. For starters, only drooling retards care about authorial intent where it concerns criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Subyng posted:SuperMechagodzilla you're over-analyzing things waaaaay too much. Sure, your analysis seems logically consistent but it's highly unlikely that it was the intent of the films to portray what you're saying. I intended it. What now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:You're right in that it wasn't half as "dark" as a lot of fans act like it was. I also wonder why people think in a universe with almost limitless energy sources and the ability to make anything out of thin air would be more realistic if it had wars about territory and trades routes. The Dominion War wasn't about resources, it was about xenophobia and ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The Dominion War wasn't about resources, it was about xenophobia and ideology. Eh. It was also about controlling the worm hole from the cardassian perspective. That's just a trade route.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
No, the Cardassians were in it to restore themselves to power in a quadrant that had outpaced them and reduced them to second-rate. Trade through the wormhole happened but it wasn't a major factor in the war at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:No, the Cardassians were in it to restore themselves to power in a quadrant that had outpaced them and reduced them to second-rate. Trade through the wormhole happened but it wasn't a major factor in the war at all. Yeah but the main goal was to control bajor and the wormhole right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:Yeah but the main goal was to control bajor and the wormhole right? Not for Cardassia, except as a symbolic victory. Getting control of Bajor again was a big goal of Dukat personally, but that was just because he was bitter. And getting control of the wormhole was key for the Dominion because it was the means by which they could reach the Alpha Quadrant at all and they had huge military forces on the far side; if the wormhole had been open to them after open war broke out, the Federation would've fallen easily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Ok good point but I stand by my dismissive statement about DS9.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I intended it. What now? ...yes, obviously you intended your own posts, I never questioned that. What now? Nothing. As if anything posted in this thread has any consequence other than to be read by others? DrNutt posted:For starters, only drooling retards care about authorial intent where it concerns criticism. Sure, but you maybe should care about authorial intent where it concerns a poster trying to determine authorial intent? That's what I gather from some of SuperMecha's posts about, as another poster put it, "Abrams-Star-Trek-movies-as-meta-commentary-on-past-Star-Trek-works". If someone's going start arguing about the meaning of various aspects of the movie, then yes, plausibility of intent by the author is important because a meaning or message has to have a source (the author) who intended to express that message. I could probably contrive some post about how the number of eyebrow hairs on Chris Pine's face reflects some important motif but you probably wouldn't buy it. lol at posters being so defensive. Welcome to CinD indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:You're right in that it wasn't half as "dark" as a lot of fans act like it was. I also wonder why people think in a universe with almost limitless energy sources and the ability to make anything out of thin air would be more realistic if it had wars about territory and trades routes. Trade routes probably not, but territory, definitely. Those energy sources have to come from somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Subyng posted:lol at posters being so defensive. Welcome to CinD indeed. "You're overanalyzing" is usually in defense of anti-intelluctualism and an attempt to shut down discussion, which is why people jumped on your post. In fairness, SMG did say "Abrams is saying such and such about DS9" which I think is mostly shorthand rather than literal (I kind of doubt JJ Abrams sat down and watched much Deep Space 9 if at all), but of course comes across that way. SMG deserves all the credit in the world for getting CineD to really *talk* about the movies we watch, but I feel like his reading of Abrams' Treks is an example of the kind of "seems-overreaching-but-is-internally-consistent-and-you-can't-really-disprove-it" interpretations that frustrates people. It's like arguing about whether God exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Sure, but you maybe should care about authorial intent where it concerns a poster trying to determine authorial intent? That's what I gather from some of SuperMecha's posts about, as another poster put it, "Abrams-Star-Trek-movies-as-meta-commentary-on-past-Star-Trek-works". If someone's going start arguing about the meaning of various aspects of the movie, then yes, plausibility of intent by the author is important because a meaning or message has to have a source (the author) who intended to express that message. I could probably contrive some post about how the number of eyebrow hairs on Chris Pine's face reflects some important motif but you probably wouldn't buy it. People get defensive when new people bluster into threads where people are having discussions about film crit and go "WHOA GUYS AREN'T YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS TOO MUCH???" Why don't you contribute something instead of reflexively attacking something you don't agree with while not providing any sort of counter-argument other than "nuh-uh!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
lizardman posted:"You're overanalyzing" is usually in defense of anti-intelluctualism and an attempt to shut down discussion, which is why people jumped on your post. Except when said in relation to SMG, whose whole gimmick is overanalyzing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:For starters, only drooling retards care about authorial intent where it concerns criticism. Nah, many great critics consider(ed) intent to be of at least some significance. Booth felt it was an important component in examining a work's ethic. Even Barthes softened his stance against it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
lizardman posted:"You're overanalyzing" is usually in defense of anti-intelluctualism and an attempt to shut down discussion, which is why people jumped on your post. I apologize then, I wasn't trying to poo poo over SMG's post. DrNutt posted:People get defensive when new people bluster into threads where people are having discussions about film crit and go "WHOA GUYS AREN'T YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS TOO MUCH???" Why don't you contribute something instead of reflexively attacking something you don't agree with while not providing any sort of counter-argument other than "nuh-uh!" Again, sorry, but considering how passively worded my "attack" was I still think you need to chill the gently caress out. Subyng fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:For starters, only drooling retards care about authorial intent where it concerns criticism. What if the criticism stems from the critic completely missing the point the author was trying to get across? I know this forum loving despises authorial intent, but it sure as poo poo has a place in any film discussion, especially if the discussion involves attacking the creator due to an interpretation that is completely different than what was actually intended. Ignoring authorial intent is easymode criticism for people who like to start circlejerks over their particular interpretations. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:especially if the discussion involves attacking the creator due to an interpretation that is completely different than what was actually intended. Who cares? If they can back up their read of the film and have a good discussion, who gives a poo poo if that particular read isn't what the director intended? It's not "easymode criticism" for people to find critical reads of films that enhance their film-watching experience. Like, how depressing would it be if you couldn't glean anything out of a Frank Miller work other than what he intended? Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:What if the criticism stems from the critic completely missing the point the author was trying to get across?  I intend for the above shape to be a circle. What is the shape? What do I intend the shape to be? Do you despise my intent?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:What if the criticism stems from the critic completely missing the point the author was trying to get across? The point of de-emphasizing authorial intent is to put the focus on interpreting the contents of the films, which is something we can know and discuss, rather than intentions which we can't know, therefore can't really discuss, and which don't really exist in the simplistic ways they're spoken about anyway. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Furthermore, are you a frat bro?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:The point of de-emphasizing authorial intent is to put the focus on interpreting the contents of the films, which is something we can know and discuss, rather than intentions which we can't know, therefore can't really discuss, and which don't really exist in the simplistic ways they're spoken about anyway. Yes, and note the key word term here is "de-emphasizing," not "ignoring." An interpretation should be rooted in the work, not your belief about the creators' intent. There's nothing wrong with allowing your perception of creator intent to color the lense through which you interpret the details. That's a natural human reaction to any perceived act of communication. The problem arises when you use perceived intent to refute a different reading. Even if the creators didn't intend the effect it had on that person, their work still created that effect. It doesn't ultimately matter to SMG whether or not JJ intended his Treks to refute 90s Trek. He saw a refutation of 90s Trek.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:It doesn't ultimately matter to SMG whether or not JJ intended his Treks to refute 90s Trek. He saw a refutation of 90s Trek. Exactly. That doesn't mean it actually was a refutation of 90s Trek. Just that SMG interpreted it in that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Exactly. That doesn't mean it actually was a refutation of 90s Trek. Just that SMG interpreted it in that way. Well no, it "actually" was as far as SMG and anyone who agrees with him saw it. You don't have to take it that way, but you can't discount its validity unless you can demonstrate that the details of the film itself discount its validity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Well no, it "actually" was as far as SMG and anyone who agrees with him saw it. Yes, that's what I said. It's his interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Yes, that's what I said. It's his interpretation. Yes, but you said it as though it wasn't valid, it wasn't what the film "actually" said. But the film doesn't actually say anything. It's just a (painstakingly crafted) digital record of acting and CGI. It's a signal that has yet to be received. And it says nothing until it is decoded by a conscious being.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Art can only ever be what the artists says it is. My art is the best stuff ever. The 'details' of the work itself don't matter - what matters is my intent. And I intended for it to be the best, and not about X. Therefore, I win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Authorial intent matters a lot more when discussing artists than discussing art by itself. Examining a work of art independent of the artists intent is a good way to discover it's merits and faults, but it's a bad way of determining if you will like the artist's next work. If an artist has gone on record describing their intent, you can compare that to you interpretation of the work and whether or not you think they succeeded at communicating their ideas to you with their art. If you like a work of art, but the artist's intent is drastically different than what you get out of it, you have no reason to believe that this artist will continue make art that you like on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter if they make good stuff "on purpose" or not. You judge a work on its own merits, not how it measures up to what the author was trying to say. Sometimes trying to say something inevitably results in another thing. In other words, intent is interesting to me but not as a unit of measurement. If Verhoeven wanted Starship Troopers to be just an exploration of his 'ideal society' and accidentally made it incredibly fascist, that says something - it doesn't make the work a failure just because it didn't successfully sell me on a fascist utopia like he 'wanted' to. It would say that, effectively, fascism satirises itself. Since I sort of agree with that (accidental) message, I would know to watch his other, or next, films. I wrote a book once for a joke and only realised much later that the main character was a closeted homosexual attracted to his best friend, but at the time I just thought I was writing a funny comedy about a misanthrope. Understanding that one led to another made the whole experiment worthwhile, even though the book is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with interpreting films but its kind of funny how all the emphasis here is placed on reading the artistic or literary significance of movies rather than recognizing them as puerile money making exercises. If you want to understand why there are big spikey black ships or why every recent Star Trek is basically the same tired revenge melodrama over and over again then the best explanation is that these plot elements are intended to be profitable. Developing an elaborate explanation of why the spikey black death ship is actually a brilliant and subversive new reading on previous franchise instalments is pretty silly. Of course the films aren't entirely devoid of subtext but the idea that major plot points or props were designed to convey an artistic message rather than as part of a calculated effort to put asses into seats is implausible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There's nothing wrong with interpreting films but its kind of funny how all the emphasis here is placed on reading the artistic or literary significance of movies rather than recognizing them as puerile money making exercises. If you want to understand why there are big spikey black ships or why every recent Star Trek is basically the same tired revenge melodrama over and over again then the best explanation is that these plot elements are intended to be profitable. Developing an elaborate explanation of why the spikey black death ship is actually a brilliant and subversive new reading on previous franchise instalments is pretty silly. I think you need to re-read the last page of this thread, because you pretty much just started back at square one of the exact same argument all over again. Also I don't think anyone said the films were "brilliant and subversive". Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Art can only ever be what the artists says it is. I don't recall anybody saying this in this thread recently. However the tendency for people to ignore what the artist says it is (in effect 'art is never what the artist says it is') seems pretty entrenched and accepted in this forum. Interpretations are fine, but that's what they are: interpretations. An interpretation of a film says more about the person who came to that conclusion than it does about the film itself. Hopefully that was clear enough so that it's obvious I'm not just saying "JUST TURN OFF YOUR BRAIN GUYS  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
WarLocke posted:However the tendency for people to ignore what the artist says it is (in effect 'art is never what the artist says it is') seems pretty entrenched and accepted in this forum. I don't recall anybody saying that in this thread recently. Or ever. quote:An interpretation of a film says more about the person who came to that conclusion than it does about the film itself. That's why they're more valuable to facilitate discussion between us than trying to reverse-engineer the intentions of strangers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:31
|
|