Dr. Stoopid replies (vol. 1)

Published on Monday, February 9, 2009 at 4pm

Buddy asked: "…do you think the cast list for the Watchmen agreeable with the characters they are playing? and [what are your] thoughts on the new Star Trek movie"?

I am generally positive on the matter; but I have to say at first blush I was underwhelmed by the casting reveals for Watchmen. I didn't really immediately recall most of these folks from previous roles, except Carla Gugino (mmm Carlo Gugino) and Billy Crudup. [Well, Danny Woodburn from Seinfeld, o' course too.] So I looked things and felt a little crestfallen or empty. But the longer I contemplate the casting list the better I feel, for two reasons.

First, less money spend on huge superstar casting is more money to spend on the brilliant, brilliant job they are doing on making this piece look just like the graphic novel, which I regard as a very good thing. Yes, movies (arguably) should be different from the source in important ways*, but this is (in my mind) the finest graphic novel ever written, and so much of that is due to the tone and mood built upon the design and detail of the piece.

Second, I think in my case, as unfamiliar with the "styles" of these actors as I am, I will be less apt to focus on the actor and more likely to see the portrayals, or roles. I think that is a good thing. I don’t want to see Christian Bale (for example) playing Ozymandias. I want to see Ozymandias. Now, I know that Matt Goode portraying him, but I don't have any notions of Goode, really at all. Except he looks kinda of young.

They all do. Look young. It's clear we’re dealing with a spryer and action-y "heroic" group of heroes here (who seem, by the way to actually refer to themselves as "the Watchmen"...hmm). This is good when we’re looking at them in their early years perhaps, but it’s clear from the trailer that this mode is still used for the contemporary action as well.

This is surely a deliberate choice by the director; perhaps he wants the film to have a more robust, action-movie, dramatic feel. That's all right I suppose. I'm excited, and giving this guy (Zach Snyder) the benefit of the doubt – optimism even. The parts he shot from the 300 graphic novel were nearly perfect. In this film, he seems even more intent on representing the story as closely as possible. Good, I say; finally.*

Regarding the new Star Trek film, I am divided, and regard this as a terrifically complex topic in contemporary pop culture. Part of me is very excited and cannot wait to see this movie. Part of me is anxious.

On the one hand, does this property, so sacred to so many, really need a reboot? Looking at the most relevant comparison I can think of in recent media, Battlestar Galactica, I think there are some grounds for pause here. We gained a lot in the BSG reboot, and we lost a lot too. This new BSG is adored by fans, to be sure; I am one of them. I love it. I love it. But, ya gotta admit, it's not your big brother’s Battlestar. It's dark, gritty and morally ambiguous if not downright nihilistic (seeming) at times. This is not to say there is no moral center in it, but it's a far cry from the purity of the first series, which is amazing in its own right. I love them both, and I admit the contemporary sensibilities of the newer series are more compelling to me.

Buuut, this is Kirk we're talking about here...and Spock. It's a lot to risk. We're recycling our mythos so quickly these days — at least to a guy with some decades'-long perspective on these things. It's exciting, because it means there are new Star Trek movies to see; but it's scary too, because there is damage that can be done. [We fear change.] This film though is taking us into (at least on film) uncharted territory, viz. the past, the origins of the familiar crew. So, part of me says, "Why not?" But part of me listens to the cases made by many others, who will suggest all manner of reasons why not. Once told, a story becomes real, and for people like me, that reality impacts everything that touches on it.

Let me illustrate: What if Kirk sleeps with Uhura? Sexy and perfectly in keeping with our sensibilities these days with movies and TV, but did he? I mean, before? I think not. Kirk's first love is the Enterprise and its crew, and sure, he flirted with Yeoman Rand and all, and banged every alien from here to Ceti-Alpha 5, but did he, uhh, jettison solid waste where he ingested nutrients? What does that relationship do to future (i.e., past) Kirk and Uhura? Does it square with how you think of the characters or the show? If not, which takes precedent? Which Star Trek canon is canon?

To borrow another contemporary example: were there elves (besides Legolas) in the Battle of Helm’s Deep? Not even a little. But I have many friends who not only think so, but aren’t interested in rolling that back to the original "truth" of it. That kind of thing has an impact on me because it has an impact on the mythology...at least as it is held by the people who define and are defined by it.

So is this property safe in these new hands? And if not, is that a bad thing?

Yeah, I am uptight about such things, and you wouldn't be the first person (if you were so inclined) to say, "Tone, you are hugely over-thinking this stuff." It's true. I am. I do. But this is why I wanted you to ask Dr. Stoopid. These aren't the answers; they are my answers, i.e., the answers as (presumably) only I would write them.

I hope you enjoyed reading them — protracted as they are. If you have more questions for Dr. Stoopid, please post them in the comments here.
And thanks, Buddy, for asking.