Oscar winners gives insight into Academy's future choices
Abstract:
The red carpet has been rolled up, the speeches have been given and the golden statues have been distributed. The Oscars are over and so is awards season. "The Hurt Locker" dominated the Academy Awards with six wins, including Best Picture and Best Director....
- Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Jed Pressgrove
posted 3/09/10 @ 9:24 AM CST
Star Trek had a boring, whiny villain. Conflict is not as much fun when the adversary sucks.
(Also, in judging action scenes, one must start at Seven Samurai, The Wild Bunch, Bonnie and Clyde, Stagecoach, The Killer, Hard Boiled, Sword of Doom, and Die Hard and go from there. Star Trek just isn't that relevant to the genre.)
If one places Star Trek in the context of sci-fi filmmaking, it didn't do anything that exciting, original, or noteworthy. It doesn't hold up well compared to the stalwart works of the genre from any decade. Science fiction is supposed to make us ask questions. The new Star Trek film doesn't focus on a question. Rather, it serves the audience generic but well-produced visual effects and a cast of classic characters. At the same time, some of these characters were lame, such as Uhura, who didn't serve much of a purpose outside of being meat for Spock and Jim. On the other hand, Karl Urban's Bones was a hoot, easily the best part of the film.
Don't get me wrong; it's a decent film. But it definitely didn't deserve a nomination for Best Picture, and in the grand scheme of things, the film is pretty much meaningless. It doesn't excel as a work of art or action fare.
If anything, Moon should have represented the sci-fi genre in the Best Picture category. It wasn't perfect, but at least it tried to say something rather than resort to cliched action like Avatar, District 9, and Star Trek.
(Also, in judging action scenes, one must start at Seven Samurai, The Wild Bunch, Bonnie and Clyde, Stagecoach, The Killer, Hard Boiled, Sword of Doom, and Die Hard and go from there. Star Trek just isn't that relevant to the genre.)
If one places Star Trek in the context of sci-fi filmmaking, it didn't do anything that exciting, original, or noteworthy. It doesn't hold up well compared to the stalwart works of the genre from any decade. Science fiction is supposed to make us ask questions. The new Star Trek film doesn't focus on a question. Rather, it serves the audience generic but well-produced visual effects and a cast of classic characters. At the same time, some of these characters were lame, such as Uhura, who didn't serve much of a purpose outside of being meat for Spock and Jim. On the other hand, Karl Urban's Bones was a hoot, easily the best part of the film.
Don't get me wrong; it's a decent film. But it definitely didn't deserve a nomination for Best Picture, and in the grand scheme of things, the film is pretty much meaningless. It doesn't excel as a work of art or action fare.
If anything, Moon should have represented the sci-fi genre in the Best Picture category. It wasn't perfect, but at least it tried to say something rather than resort to cliched action like Avatar, District 9, and Star Trek.
- Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
sd
posted 3/09/10 @ 7:50 AM CST