You obviously have a pretty good grasp of science as well as mathematics; I can't begin to dispute that and I never questioned that.
Yeah well, I think you did in fact question it with your last post about intellectuals. Just for the record: I've never pretended or claimed to be an "intellectual". I'm not even sure if the word has a solid objective meaning of its own, or if these days it's functionally just a hook that others hang their own subjective gloss on, whether positive or negative, acknowledging or pejorative.
And while I have my opinions on things, they're not based on me thinking that I am exclusively right or that I am smarter than anyone else. On the other hand, I don't accept the implication that my opinion may differ from someone else's either because I'm dumber than they are, or because I'm too dumb to actually know that I'm not as smart as I think I am, which is what your "definition" of an intellectual seemed to be suggesting.
But, you still failed to furthur your argument about this film or Hollywood in general.
I'm not sure that I
had an argument about Hollywood
in general, so I wasn't aware that I was expected to further one. My point of dissatisfaction with this film specifically was questioning its disregard of some aspects of basic physical reality, as I raised in my first post. I personally feel -- as a general principle of story-telling -- that if a movie has to pretend the world doesn't work the way it does just to make the story work, then the story is weak to start with. This movie only strayed a little way into that territory, so it's not a major plot-point that's in question. And I wasn't dismissing the movie as a whole, just saying "hey, that bit of the story doesn't work".
I feel there's a distinction between the examples of bad science I gave here from this movie, where they contradict physical reality, and the examples you gave in your first post in this thread, which are only things that we don't know enough about for us to make them work, not things that (necessarily) are made actually not possible by what we do already know.
I posted about these simply as a way of starting a conversation on something that intrigued me about the plot as it was constructed in this movie, and to see if anyone else felt the same way. Some did, in fact, and others didn't, which is fine. But, as I pointed out before, the almost predictable responses of "hey, it's only a movie", "don't you know what entertainment is ?!" and/or "if you want something to be intelligent, go watch a documentary" are just so lame and tedious there comes a time when that should be pointed out. As I said earlier, it's really just an attempt to keep everything at the shallow end of the bell-curve cloaked within covert aggression.
And maybe I just don't understand why people would argue for something to be dumbed down. Is it really just defensiveness because people fear somehow in themselves that they actually aren't as smart as the general population and want everything brought back to a level they subjectively feel comfortable at ? I wonder sometimes whether that's all it is, and trust me I can certainly empathise with that feeling. But I don't quite get why someone saying "why do they do dumb things in movies that make no sense? It spoils the enjoyment for me" pushes their buttons hard enough for that person to become the focus of their wrath.
But it *does* spoil the enjoyment. In my case, it pushes me out of subjective participation in the movie and back into the role of a disinterested distanced observer, and then I have to try to re-engage. I don't enjoy that, and I wish it wouldn't happen, and I don't see anything wrong with saying that.
I don't participate in conspiracy theories, so please don't take what I'm about to say as one: but I do wonder why American movies, as a genre, if you will, have such a strong pull towards making things so dumb and loud and overblown in a mindless way. OK, that probably sounds like I'm rubbishing American movies, but I don't mean it that way; I mean it's a broad trend in American movies that in many instances distinguishes them as a body from the bodies of films from other cultures. I don't think it's a deliberate planned thing, hence my saying it's not a conspiracy theory or anything of that kind -- but it does seem to me to be a kind of cultural character of American movies. Americans as a nation or a culture aren't dumb or inattentive to detail, so I wonder why American movies seem to be ?
What did you think of Jurassic Park, entirely based on science?
OK, let's see how much we do actually think alike.
Hey, I love Michael Crichton's books, and have done since "The Andromeda Strain" was serialised in the weekend newspaper in my city as part of the marketing campaign for the theatrical release of the movie. I love the way Crichton's been able to take intriguing new ideas that are just coming up over the horizon and spin them into a story that's (usually) entertaining and that cleverly illustrates both those ideas and other scientific principles.
He's been a hero of mine for a long time, so it's pretty disappointing to me to discover of late that he's got feet of exceptionally slimy and crumbling clay. I'm disappointed that he's taken to politicising and editorialising his own interests in science, so that, for instance, in "State of Fear" the characters who share his own view -- that global warming doesn't in fact exist, but that the warming trends and shifts in weather patterns we are currently seeing are in fact part of a cycle that occurs naturally and oscillates over hundreds of thousands of years -- were all calm, decisive, intelligent, good-natured, perceptive and generous of spirit, whereas the characters who gave credence to the concept of global warming were fanatical, violent and intemperate, supremely stupid, dangerous, mean-spirited and incompetent. The whole book was just too coarsely grained, so that instead of the usual Michael Crichton voice of reason and intriguing possibilities we just got a wild-eyed ranter who kept trying to shove a propaganda tract at us. Hugely disappointing, especially when he'd chosen to write on a topic where I personally think we could all do with some reasoned debate and intelligent information from a source other than a politician or an industry with a vested interest.
And in his more recent book, "Next", he sank even lower by taking a Washington DC journalists who had famously given "State of Fear" a very negative review and caricatured him as a vicious pederast who enjoyed raping little children violently enough to hear their bones crack while doing it. One can argue that he can write anything he likes about any character he invents, but he made the links to the real-life person (who is *not* a pedophile!) very clear indeed, so it was clearly just a form of vicious pay-back. I think that just disgusting and cowardly behaviour on Crichton's part.
OK, sorry, just felt the need to say all that. It's very disappointing to see someone known for the intelligence of their writing become so clearly irrational and start frothing at the mouth.
In short, Jurassic Park: great ideas, ridiculous movie.
Though maybe not for the reasons you might think. My issue with the movie was that it was full of moments so typical of Spielberg, where characters' motives, intentions, memories or even personalities can just shift at a moment's notice, or the physical locations in which they find themselves can suddenly alter, just to accommodate some bit of business that Spielberg has suddenly thought up and figured might look cool in his movie. (A tiny, immediate example was where the ground on the T Rex's side of the fence, which allowed him to walk up to the fence and eat the goat and smash through the fence onto the roadway, just two minutes later becomes a 120-foot drop with a massive tree in it that the jeep can get stuck in and slowly tumble down, chasing two of the characters down through the branches. Yeah, sure, it's maybe cool and exciting taken on a moment-by-moment basis, especially if you don't try to link each moment together to make a coherent sequence -- but that's how a baby responds to the world, forgetting the details of one sensation the moment another one comes along to take its place. Some people say "hey it's just a movie, who cares?", but for me it's like "hang on a second, there was just a mound there against the fence that the dinosaur was standing on -- how come there's now a big pit for them to fall down ?"
It's not just me being picky; there's actually a very strong principle in film-making where it's important to establish the physical environs of a scene, and maintain some consistent sense of spatial relationships for the audience. Spielberg consistently rewrites that rule whenever it gets in his way; but he isn't being a capital-A artist and transcending the rule: he just ignores it, and doesn't put anything in its place.
As with the physics of the world he sets his films in, so with the changeable nature of his characters. Mid-scene they'll do complete about-faces on their reasoning or intention -- not as a character arc thing, but simply because Spielberg suddenly needs somebody to say something contrary so he's got dramatic tension. It's a recurring cheat on his audience, and it's phenomenally dumb film-making.
Jurassic Park was full of it, and its sequel was even worse.
That's why I read fiction novels and that's why I love Hollywood. It is an escape from the very boring monotony of real life to the very fantastic world of Hollywood and fictiona novels. If you can't see that, then you are robbing yourself of an incredible experience.
Hmmm, the majority of my reading is fictional, and often escapist of some kind -- science fiction (my favourite), fantasy (some of which is great, but most of which is dross) and horror. As with fantasy, some of modern horror is masterful storytelling, and some of it is utter crap.
I don't think it's ever been a case that I *couldn't* see the appeal of Hollywood and fictional writing -- though I personally don't quite share the view that real life is either very boring or monotonous -- but that I have different expectations from fiction and Hollywood than it seems you do.
There's also the fact that, for me, "entertainment" can be a cerebral event -- a fictional movie can be mentally stimulating and satisfying -- as well as the more sensational responses of visual awe, auditory overwhelm or the thrill of an adrenalin rush. I don't see that it has to be an either/or situation.
You might
very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
reply
share