Burning Questions: The Dumbing Down of Star Trek

Did you see "Into Darkness" this weekend?Hey everybody. Michael C. here. 

When the Trekkies complain that the JJ Abrams reboot had abandoned the spirit of the franchise, I understand their point. I am certainly no Trekkie (or do they prefer Trekker? See, I have no idea.) But I was raised on Star Trek: TNG, and while that show was never a gateway drug to the larger Trek universe, it did instill a respect for what the brand could be at its best. Its combination of exploration adventure, an optimistic portrait of the future, and Bradbury-esque ethical conundrums is a potent mix when it’s firing on all cylinders.

So I sympathize when the die-hard fans accuse Abrams of gutting the heart out of the franchise and stuffing the shell with streamlined, box office friendly action. Sure the ship is still the Enterprise, and Kirk and Spock are still at the helm, but is it still Star Trek? 

At the same time, as a movie fan first and foremost, I also felt the thing to do is judge the movie on its own terms. Should I deny I had a good time at a film because it didn’t meet my preconceived notions of what constitutes a Star Trek movie?

Now that Star Trek: Into Darkness has delivered more of the same hyper-charged fun and kicked off the debate again (Headline from Vulture: Prepare to be Bombarded Into Happiness) I think it’s about time I resolved the issue. Just how upset should I be about the dumbing down of Star Trek? 

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: Great Soundtracks, Lousy Movies

Will people like this soundtrack more than the films it's for?Hey everybody. Michael C. here. Most of the time I try to find a topical question to address in this column, or failing that a universal question that is always pressing to some degree or another. But sometimes there is that third category of utterly random questions that bubble to the surface and refuse to stop nagging me until I’ve shared them with the world. Where the minds of most people produce useful thoughts like “Let’s go walk in the sunshine” or “It’s never too early to plan for retirement!” my mind cranks out gems like “It’s crucial that we know which film to soundtrack ratio has the biggest disparity. Quickly! Stop what you’re doing and make up a list of candidate films!”

I suspect many faithful readers can relate.

So let’s call this week’s episode more of a simmering question than a burning one, because that’s the query I want answered. Some films are best remembered only for introducing a star (The Silver Chalice) or for a single line of dialogue (Beyond the Forest). What movies would drift off into obscurity, if not for their killer playlists? What is the biggest difference in quality between a crappy film and an awesome soundtrack? 

Doing a preliminary scan I realized finding a definitive answer was going to be trickier than I thought...

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: Why Get Excited For More Star Wars?

Hey everybody. Michael C. here.

Leia & Han will return. Will it still be TLA?Isn’t it always the way that you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone? I didn’t really appreciate as it was happening, but for a hot second there wasn’t any urgent need to talk about Star Wars.

Sure there was always the dull murmur  - this is the Internet, after all – but it seemed like every obsessive fan tribute had run its course from Robot Chicken to Family Guy to an entire documentary about obsessive Star Wars fandom. It even felt like folks had started to have their fill of beating up on the prequels, especially after the team over at Red Letter Media had picked all the meat off those particular bones with their epic series of takedown videos.

But it was not to be. Lucas sold off the rights, and that was that. It was like the scene in Jedi where they open the gates at Jabba’s Palace to unleash the horrible monster, only there would be nothing to stop the beast this time. Who would get his or her own spin-off franchise? Boba Fett? The Millennium Falcon? Princess Leia’s hair buns? No speculation was too crazy or unfounded.

Since this looks to be the new reality, at least until the Sun explodes destroying the Earth, and with it the Star Wars franchise, once and for all, maybe some of you can help me by explaining why the prospect of more sequels is a good thing. What is there left to say with Star Wars?

Star Wars wraps it up with tidy finales.

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: Can You Really Separate A Performance From The Film?

Hey everybody. Michael C. here. Growing up in the dark days before Twitter, back before I could get my Oscar gripe on 24/7, I had to focus all that emotion on Siskel and Ebert’s annual "Memo to the Academy" special. Watching year after year, one of the refrains the duo drilled into my head was that the Academy should expand their idea of what constitutes an Oscar-worthy performance. Don’t lazily jot down the names of those appearing in best picture contenders. Evaluate each performance on its own merits, apart from the film that contains it. They were adamant on the subject. 

Or at least they were, until the 1998/99 episode when Gene found the limits of Roger’s open-mindedness by suggesting James Woods receive a Best Actor nod for John Carpenter’s Vampires. After Gene went on for a bit about Woods’ talent for commanding the screen, Roger demurred, “Yeah, but if you’re gonna nominate someone for Best Actor you kinda want them to be in a little better movie, don’t you think?”

Gene wasn’t having it: “No. I want the performance. I don’t care about the movie.” 

This altercation zeroed in on a question that has always nagged at me. If even a harsh critic of stodgy thinking like Ebert has to draw the line somewhere, is the issue that cut and dry? Is it really possible to separate the performance from the film? [more]

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: Can a Bad Sequel Diminish a Classic?

Michael C here. When you tune in to the movie chatter frequency one of unavoidable refrains you hear is that such and such sequel has spoiled a classic film. You know the drill. Part III forever tarnished The Godfather, turning a perfect two-part saga into a disappointing, lopsided trilogy. Oliver Stone ruined Gordon Gekko by dragging him out for a belated encore.  “Blah blah Jim Carrey blah blah The Grinch blah blah blah MY CHILDHOOD!”  

And so on.

This chorus was most recently heard lamenting the way Oz the Great and Powerful helped itself to a box office bonanza by trampling the sterling legacy of the Judy Garland classic. Next it will be Evil Dead’s turn to besmirch the memory of a cult classic. Amid all outraged accusations of violence towards film history shouldn’t we stop to consider if the basic idea has merit? Can an inferior sequel actually diminish the standing of a classic? 

Let me state right up front my answer is a firm “No, it can’t.” Except when it can. Let me back up...

Click to read more ...