Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture?

Few media franchises have been able to capture the imaginations of several generations as much as Star Trek. It's one of the biggest cult phenomenons of all time. Since its debut in September of 1966, it has completely changed the course of science fiction, and continues to inspire a whole host of technological innovations such as cell phones and voice controlled computers. It was also the first major television program to present a world where multiculturalism and equality was not only seen as a strength, but vital for mankind's survival and eventual exploration of the final frontier. The show had a humble three season run, and a small but notable group of original fans. When the show ended in 1969, a renewed interest in science fiction and space exploration emerged due to the recent moon landing (most of TV shows of the 60s centered around Westerns). It was after this period that NBC began to show reruns of the episodes, thus fostering a whole new batch of fans.



The first full-fledged Star Trek Convention took place in 1972, and shortly thereafter, the Star Trek Animated Series returned the franchise to the small screen. By this time, it was easily the biggest science fiction franchise of all time and started to really make its presence known in broader pop culture, even to the point of NASA naming one of its premiere space shuttles after the famed starship Enterprise  in 1976.





By this point, it was clear to NBC executives that a new live action show would be a good investment and plans were eventually set to release the sequel show Star Trek: Phase II in 1977. During development, the science fiction world was shaken harder than it had ever been with the unexpected, but gargantuan release of Star Wars. This sci fi titan encouraged the producers of the Trek show to invest in a movie instead, since Star Wars was able to rake in so much money at the box office. Before Star Wars, the prospect of releasing a science fiction movie was seen as a major gamble. Lucas was only able to do it because his film American Graffiti did so well, and thus was given the privilege to make whatever he wanted.



The release of Star Wars was also partially responsible for growing the Trek fanbase even larger than it already was. Before the age of commercial home video release, many Star Wars fans would have to wait years before seeing the film again after its original run. As Star Trek was still on TV with reruns, many people would watch it in order to satiate their newfound appetites for science fiction. Thus with this new unexpected move, the producers at NBC expanded the script of the pilot episode for Phase II into something that would be suitable for a feature film. With the entire cast of the original show signed on to reprise their roles, and with Academy Award director Robert Wise on board with the project, the show appeared to be in the best possible hands for success. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was set up for cinematic greatness... but



When the film finally came out in 1979, it was met with lukewarm critical response, and underperformed at the box office raking in 139 million, compared to Star Wars' 775.5 million. Why was this? It had more than quadruple the budget that Star Wars had, was directed by one of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century, and it featured the beloved cast-members who had become icons of the 1960s. The problem lied with the overall focus of the film. Let me explain:

Creator Gene Roddenberry was always keen to tell thought provoking, and highly cerebral stories. He liked to dig deep in the psychology of the human experience and evoke various epochs of human history and paint allusions to mythology and great literary epics. The problem was that this type of storytelling wasn't usually the most commercially popular Star Trek thematic structure, and by this point, Roddenberry should have been aware of how it had backfired in the past. For example, the very first Star Trek pilot in 1964 was rejected by NBC because of how cerebral it was and were gracious enough to allow Roddenberry a second chance, with a 1965 pilot that was more character driven and had an action oriented plot. Roddenberry was able to tell his cerebral stories multiple times throughout the course of the show, but he did so usually in the mix of more action oriented episodes, and even still, the cerebral episodes were still very character driven. Throughout the course of the show, it should have occurred to him more than it seemed to at the time, that people were more connected to the characters and their relationships with each other more than the complicated stories and the various references to the classics of ages past. And certainly, none of the appeal from the very start had anything to do with expensive special effects. The fact that the first Star Trek movie is so obsessed with dazzling the audience with images more-so than the development of these beloved characters was one of the biggest criticisms of the film. And especially as it was acting as a bit of a response to the immense popularity of Star Wars, it is baffling that they would make the Trek film so meditative and methodical rather than intense and mesmerizing the way Star Wars was. Also, Star Wars was another case where the characters were really the heart of the action. None of those groundbreaking special effects would have meant a thing if the audience didn't care about what Luke Skywalker was doing, or about the workings of the Force, or how the Rebellion was to defeat the Empire once and for all. The special effects added a nice frosting to an already delicious cake, whereas Star Trek: The Motion Picture seemed to like a half-baked flavorless cake with a copious amount of frosting in order to compensate. Because of its slow pace, many commentators then and since have labeled it Star Trek: The Motionless Picture.



So what was the objective of Roddenberry's decision to make the movie in this manner? Many people have speculated that instead of imitating Star Wars with its action oriented plot and lighthearted atmosphere, he used another epic science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey as its main inspiration. Knowing Roddenberry's style it is easy to understand why. 2001 was basically an epic poem from antiquity but on film and exploring the entirety of human evolution in one fell swoop. It started with proto-human primates in Africa more than 4 million years ago and chronicled the advancement of human intelligence and technology in the form of a relationship between humanity and an unseen ultra-advanced alien species that has helped drive human evolution with the use of monoliths that somehow aid in human development. The film also deals with the danger of technology growing into weapons (as evidenced by the first "tool" being a weapon itself) and the danger of creating Artificial Intelligence which lacks the basic human psychological filter that discerns between ethics and logic. The film was controversial when it was first released, but despite that, it quickly became highly respected and was soon considered one of the greatest films of all time, as well as a major influence aesthetically on Star Wars.



It is highly likely that Roddenberry wanted to recapture some of this magic by introducing some of Trek into it. After all, 2001 seems like something Roddenberry would have come up with. The plot is even quite similar. It features this mysterious but highly destructive cloud that is on a direct course for Earth. When the Enterprise intercepts it and investigates, the crew realizes that the cloud is intelligent and run by some sort of machine. When they travel into the heart of the cloud, they discover that it is in actuality one of the Voyager probes sent into space (the real life ones that NASA launched around the time the film came out) and it somehow evolved during its journey and attained a type of consciousness. It was on a path for Earth because it was looking for its creator, which is actually quite a neat concept because in reality that has been the objective of humanity since our earliest abilities to rationalize. While this is a thought provoking plot in its formative shell, the actual implementation of these ideas and the execution was simply not what either Star Trek fans nor average moviegoers were expecting to see. They wanted to see a return to the playful banter between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and explore the characters in a deeper way than the television show was able to do, whereas Roddenberry was less concerned about progressing the story of the characters and more concerned about creating an epic film that would surpass both 2001 and Star Wars, and he unfortunately failed in that pursuit.



Luckily for Star Trek, this hardly put the series in any considerable danger because Paramount soon greenlit a smaller budgeted sequel that would change up the leadership and produce a film that was closer in touch with both the original series, and with the sensibilities of a Trek film that was lighter and more fun. The result was the highly praised Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan which did several things. It continued the famous Khan storyline from the original show, deepened the character of Kirk as we are introduced to his former romantic partner Carol Marcus and their son David, and took a major risk and raised the stakes by deciding to kill off Commander Spock in a climactic sacrificial gesture to save the crew of the Enterprise. The action was palpable and the literary and historical allusions were much more contained and palatable. Keen viewers could notice that it was essentially a retelling of both Moby Dick and A Tale of Two Cities, and there were some intelligent set designs that made the Enterprise resemble a submarine. Many people considered this to be the film that the first entry in the series should have been, and has been credited by many fans as revitalizing the series. It was this film that launched five more films: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. These films also helped Trek return to the television screen with the launch of Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1987, which lasted for seven seasons and then spawned many more films and series that continue even to this day.



While personally I really like Star Trek: The Motion Picture and really relish those overly cerebral storylines, I completely understand why it failed. Fans want to see the characters they love do something important, and many felt that The Motion Picture was highly lacking in that regard. I do think the negative reaction was a bit undeserving though. Personally I feel like there was an attempt to add some flair to the development of these characters. For example, we learn early in the film that Spock has failed a very important Vulcan ritual that is meant to finally purge all emotions. His failure is significant, because Spock (who is half human/ half vulcan) has always attempted to downplay his humanity. This failure only adds to that internal conflict. We also see Kirk struggle with his increasing age, and his fleeting years a Starship captain... although I will admit this is done much more effectively in Wrath of Khan where it is given much more of a spotlight to shine.



In the end, most fans can enjoy both films nowadays, even though the favorite will always be Wrath of Khan. Star Trek has always been lucky enough to course correct when things go wrong. It may take a failure of some kind, but its longevity is a testament to the power it has over people. Let's just hope future Star Trek storytellers keep the deep love for the characters in mind as their ultimate priorities, so we can keep on learning about and exploring this rich expanded Universe.

The Star Wars Prequels: Cult Classics?

For the longest time, it was agreed upon by virtually everyone in the Star Wars fandom that the "prequels" of the series (Episodes 1, 2, and 3) were the worst Star Wars had to offer. Yes, there are some relatively decent parts, and Revenge of the Sith isn't the worst movie of all time, but it was clear that these prequels did not measure up in terms of quality to the original trilogy, or "OT."

Critics, including myself, often cite the overuse of CGI (especially in Attack of the Clones), the absurdity of the writing, the blatant miscasting of some characters, and the all too familiar wooden, stiff acting from some of the series' stars. Popular YouTube channel RedLetterMedia has outlined the problems with these movies very well, albeit, in a bit of an awkward fashion, so I would recommend checking out his review when you have the time. He takes the time, especially in The Phantom Menace, to seriously articulate the absolute ridiculous decisions George Lucas frequently made over the course of the development of these films. Check that out here.

However, as time has passed, making the film's flaws even more apparent in the prequels (especially how poorly the CGI has aged), these monstrosities have developed somewhat of a cult following from a specific generation; zoomers (or Generation Z).

Being of the Millennial/Generation Z generations, I certainly have a nostalgic love for these movies, but I certainly recognize how terrible they are in terms of overall quality. The films are objectively bad, but that doesn't mean I can't watch them and reflect on my childhood. But, this movement is drawing increasingly more power amongst the Star Wars community.

For example, doing a simple Google search of "the star wars prequels," returns the top suggestion of "the star wars prequels are good."

After clicking on this suggestion, you'll find that there are entire subreddits, articles, threads, videos, and websites dedicated to various people (mostly Gen Z and Millennials) laying out their arguments as to why the prequels are actually good. These aren't just a counterargument anymore; they've become a mainstream opinion.

But why is this? Why are these clearly significantly flawed films being regarded as hidden masterpieces? In my opinion there are two reasons: nostalgia, and memes.

First off, I understand the nostalgia. I had a Phantom Menace VHS that I popped in all too frequently. I dressed up as Obi-Wan Kenobi for Halloween at least twice, and swung my canonicly correct lightsaber around with the Duel of Fates scene. I loved watching that movie, and I love looking back on those memories. This does not make the movie good. We can like different things, and we can enjoy a movie that other people don't like, but our nostalgic memories do not make the film any better. My Obi-Wan Kenobi costume does not negate the fact that 30% of the Phantom Menace scenes revolve around politics. My color-changing Anakin Skywalker lightsaber does not erase the ridiculous "so love has blinded you" mess of a sequence in Revenge of the Sith. Nostalgia may make a film enjoyable, but it does not make it good, as many of the Gen Z and Millennial commentators may suggest.

The second reason, in my opinion, is memes. One of the largest subreddits on the entire Reddit site is the of r/PrequelMemes. Through this subreddit, certain lines have been immortalized and are great for making relatable, funny memes. Lines such as "Hello there," "I am the Senate," and "Execute Order 66" are all good examples of this. Even the formerly most-subscribed YouTuber PewDiePie made a video about the subreddit. This, coupled with the nostalgia that Gen Z and Millennials have for the series, create an apparent formula for a rising love of the series.

I believe that it's these rose-colored glasses that create a fandom for these movies. From a critical perspective, we have to recognize that these movies are not the quality Star Wars fans deserve, and if we continue to fool ourselves into thinking so, the next films will be mirror images of these prequels. Be careful what you wish for.

Gremlin 1 & 2

Gremlin is a Horror/Fantasy film that was released in 1984. It was directed by Joe Dante and produced by Michael Finnell. This film received some backlash, because critics believe that it was "to dark".










Dante decided to take a different approach in Gremlin 2 and make the movie less "dark" and more cartoon-like, by going in a anarchistic direction. The violence that occurs is slapstick, which is a style of humor involving exaggerated physical activity that exceeds the boundaries of normal physical comedy. Dante added cast members and kept some the same. A big change from the first film is also the plot. The first film took place in a small fictional town. In the second film, action takes place within a skyscraper in New York City. After the second film released, the critical responses varied. For the people who thought that the first film was to dark were the ones who gave the second film a better review, but their were also fans who disagree with make the movie less dark or more cartoon-like, and they didn't have a problem making that known. Some critics thought the film had qualities the original lacked, such as wit. A  National Review critic called the film "much freer and wittier than the first one," though he felt the sequel shies away from becoming an important piece of satire.

Everyone will not agree with the changes that Dante decided to make from the first film to the second, but overall the film received more positive reviews than negative. Despite the film not performing well at the box office, it was nominated for several Saturn awards, namely for Best Director, Best Fantasy film, Best music and Best Special effects. 

Mary and the Witch's Flower, a remarkable film but not a contender.

            Studio Ponoc, a Japanese animation studio founded by the former lead film producer of Studio Ghibli, Yoshiaki Nishimura. In the year 2017 Studio Ponoc released the film Mary and the Witch’s Flower in the same year it was adapted for Western audiences with a full English audio dubbed over the Japanese audio. In terms of the International Feature Film Oscar category there are four rules that must be met for a film to be considered for this category. The rules that must be met are as follows: the film must run in commercial theatres in its home country for at least a week, the film’s dialog must be predominantly non-English, lastly the “creative control” of the film must primarily have been in the hands of the nominating country’s people. Studio Ponoc while a Japanese animation studio, did not meet these requirements to get nominated the film in itself shows just what the Studio is capable of. 

            In terms of requirements that failed to be meet by Mary and the Witch’s Flower the list is quite extensive. Studio Ponoc’s Mary and the Witch’s Flower was aired in Japan under the title Meari to Majo no Hana to its theaters earning roughly 428 million yen during its opening weekend. The film continued to air on roughly 458 screens throughout Japan, earning it the title of the sixth highest grossing film of the year in Japan. The film’s dialog while airing in Japan was Japanese; however, the English dubbed version is the version primarily found outside of Japan in terms of streaming services and film viewings. The requirement states the dialog must be predominantly non-English, and while that is true for the Japan screening it is not true for the other versions of the film, so it resides in a grey area. The secondary requirement that a film must meet is the requirement for the “creative control” to be in the hands of the nominating people, and with Mary and the Witch’s flower this is where the true issue arises. Primarily the “creative control” of the film comes from its source material where for Mary and the Witch’s flower is a British children’s novel called The Little Broomstick originally written by Mary Stewart in 1971.

While Studio Ponoc was in charge of the animation style of the film the overall story and themes are held within the confides of the source material and therefore cannot be in the hands of the nominating people. In this is the figurative nail in the coffin of Mary and the Witch’s Flower’s chances to be nominated for the International Feature Film Oscar.

            While Mary and the Witch’s Flower was a remarkable film to view, with its Studio Ghibli like animation and storying telling, the film suffered from the crux that is nonlocal source material. Under the requirements presented by the International Feature Film Oscar Mary and the Witch’s Flower could not have been submitted in turn of the 2017 submission that was Yu o Wakasu Hodo no Atsui Ai (Her Love Boils Bathwater) which was submitted but not nominated for the award.    

'Raw' Has a Powerful Message That Was Sadly Silenced

Seeing as how we're talking about international films (many of which get snubbed of proper recognition at the Academy Awards), why don't we combine it... with a genre that often gets snubbed at the Academy Awards? Horror.

The rules that international films (recently changed from "foreign films," cause let's face it, every film from someone in a country other than the US is foreign), are extremely stringent, and the Academy has faced a lot of criticism for it. I think the most ridiculous of these rules is that there specifically can only be one film from each country that is submitted from each country, and that is exactly how Raw was snubbed of its nomination.

Boasting an excellent 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, the film is made in France and meeting all the requirements to receive a nomination, Raw is a horror that cuts much deeper than what is initially seen on the screen.



The film centers around Justine, who has been a vegetarian her entire life. However, after enrolling at her new vet school (which is filled with hazing, bullying, and harassment), she is peer pressured into eating meat, which in turn sends her down a path which not many have ever been before.
Clearly a representation of addiction, Raw attempts to capture truly what it's like to get off of a drug (or really any kind of) addiction, and what a relapse feels like. Instead of using a literal drug however, Raw uses satire to display exactly how society and many viewers see people who are trying to get over addiction; as monsters.
There are some pretty terrifying moments in Raw that remind me of my high school days, and also thankfully make me glad that I didn't go to a college similar to the one that is depicted. The ending is a crazy twist, and there is almost no barrier that affected my enjoyment.
Very powerful, well acted, well written, and beautifully shot, Raw exemplifies what a horror film should be, which is super impressive because in the last fifty years or so, horror has been perfected and almost completely owned by the United States.
However, when we talk about The Academy Awards, it's a completely different ball game. Not only are horror films often discriminated against, but so are Film that come from larger countries.
The "one film per country rule" is super discriminatory against bigger countries. While I understand that you want every country to have equal representation, The Academy must understand that by silencing films such as Raw, and not allowing it the exposure it rightfully deserves, people are being robbed of not only an experience, but a lesson. I would suggest that the rule be completely stripped and that the category (in terms of how films are submitted) work like any other.
I feel like if this rule was stripped away, films such as Raw could adequately be recognized and more people would receive the film's message. I feel like in today's world, there is such a negative attitude toward addiction. Even trying to get better is viewed negatively (ex: going to rehab). Raw attempts to make addiction out to be what it truly is: a disease. If more people understood this, I think we move toward a more brotherly society that strives to see people improve their lives, and are encouraged for doing so. Silencing these moves and denying them the exposure they rightfully deserve is just plain wrong and must change.

"Blind Date" 

By: Tyler English

Blind Date is a 2015 French romantic comedy film that is both directed, and starred by Clovis Cornillac. Melanie Bernier, Lilou Fogli and Philippe Duquesne are French actresses who also played huge roles in this film as well. 

Melanie Bernier, who is an extremely shy woman in the film has just moved to an apartment in Paris. She had been living with her piano teacher, but is now pursing her own pianist career on her own. Her first night she hears strange noises and a picture on her wall begins to move so she made a visit to her former home where her piano teacher resides. Once she returns back to her own home, she realizes that the noises she is hearing is being made by her neighbor. He explains to her that the walls separating their homes are hollow and that almost every noise can be heard. He purposely makes unnecessary noise when a new tenant moves in to try to scare them off, but Melanie was not going for that. Clovis Cornillac, her next door neighbor is a puzzle creator who needs his peace and silence, while she is a accomplished pianist who is preparing for a competition that could change her whole life. This is difficult for the both of them and they are required to coexist in order to succeed in what they both want. 

Despite how such a good film Blind Date is, I don't believe it was eligible to be considered a Best Foreign Film according to the list of rules. Blind Date was in fact played in a commercial theatre in it's home country for at least a week, and also the dialogue in the film was predominantly non-english. I think what kept this film from being eligible was that the "creative control" was not largely in the hands of the citizens and was largely in the hands of Clovis Cornillac, and possibly a few others. I say this because when watching , you can feel the originality of this film and can tell that the Director and writer wanted this one way and one way only. I highly think this film still should have been eligible due to it being such an amazing watch.