Monday, February 2, 1998
Not all big-budget films lack character, stories
FILMS Don’t dismiss social commentary
of epics like ‘Star Trek’
By David Hiregaard
I am very pleased to see that there are people who recognize
many of the big-budget movies for what they are – an endless
barrage of special effects designed to "excite" the viewer, much
like a ride at Magic Mountain is designed to do.
The notion that a single movie could gross close to $200 million
in ticket sales and even more in merchandising has made the studios
attractive to the multinational corporations that have been
gobbling up Hollywood for the past two decades. These movies, such
as "Independence Day," "Twister," "Starship Troopers," and even
"Titanic," represent the triumph of kineticism over content, action
over plot, comic book simplicity over real-life complexity and the
generous use of special effects. All notions of character and
coherence are sacrificed on the altar of speed.
I wish to thank Sonia Ortega ("Big-budget flicks hurt industry,"
Jan. 29) for bringing this unfortunate trend to the eyes of the
public who so readily lace the wallets of the corporate executives
who produce these movies.
There is, however, one problem. Ortega, with one great stroke,
labeled all big-budget movies as mindless amusement, without taking
a moment to analyze the content of the movies she so readily
dismisses. She compares "Star Trek" with "Lethal Weapon" and
"Barney’s Great Adventure," and implies that "Star Trek" should be
classified in the category of mindless amusement. "Star Trek" is
mindless amusement? The 30-year-old show has been called many
things over the years, but the idea that "Star Trek" is nothing
more than a plethora of special effects, without characterization,
plot, theme and soul, is utterly inconceivable. "Star Trek," in its
various incarnations, has commented on many aspects of American
society, from the pro-peace activism of the ’60s, to the gay and
lesbian movements of the ’90s, and all the while, has attempted to
analyze and explore the many facets of the human condition.
"Star Trek" constitutes one of the few meaningful TV shows and
movies that the American entertainment industry has churned out in
the past half century. Yet Ortega compares "Star Trek" with "Lethal
Weapon." Why does she do this? Because "Star Trek" movies cost
about $40 million to produce (half of which is used to pay for the
actors’ salaries, and not special effects). Ortega’s argument
employs correlation to justify causality. Just because "Star Trek"
movies cost a lot to make, they must be "mindless" because all
other "expensive" movies are mindless. As Spock would say, this is
"most illogical."
It is rare that I find an individual who believes that movies
are not made for escapism but for expanding the mind and soul. I am
glad to see that Ortega is one of them. I simply ask that she pay
closer attention to the movies that she so readily stereotypes as
special-effects driven. Unlike "Titanic," "Star Trek" is not funded
by the general populace. It is appreciated by the people who
recognize what real movie making should be. Live long and
prosper.