I’m with you. I thought Charlie’s Angels the First is lots of fun, and actually own a copy. I think it’s a perfect send-up/homage to what was already cheesy source material. It is what it is: over-the-top, candy-coated fun. I don’t want every movie to be like that, but I appreciate the ones that are and do it well.

Yes, David, some more challenging, adult fare does manage to get made and even distributed, but a whole lot more doesn’t get anywhere near a greenlight.

You’re right, you are a great storyteller. I haven’t read science fiction this good in years!

Several points:

To believe that the only films that get made in America are popcorn flicks is to ignore the majority of films made and maybe even more than half of the films released into theaters. If you don’t live in Los Angeles or New York, the internet and your local video store are just about your only options, but take a look at the top 10 lists in the New York Times end of year wrap-up and try to honestly say that mainstream filmmaking dominates there. The films exist, just the market for them is smaller so you have to seek them out.

The overwhelming majority of filmgoers are populists, not elitists. They want entertaining pap with, hopefully, a clear, decent message. Since the overwhelming majority of filmwatching experiences are going to be of these films, it behooves us to put the most talented people possible in the position to make sure that clear, decent message gets across and actually adds something to the world. These films have the greatest direct impact on others by sheer force of numbers, and to be a part of that process is an honor. With the possible exception of films that inspire future filmmakers by pushing the possibilities of the language, mainstream filmmaking offers the greatest opportunity to make a difference as a writer or a filmmaker.

Additionally, mainstream films largely subsidize the more challenging American cinema. Yes, you get pure entertainment like Star Trek and pure schmaltz like Up (not meant to be demeaning; these are my two favorite films of the year so far because they’re so good at what they do), but that helps fund the other films on the schedule that you prefer. Tentpole films, more predictable in their earning patterns, are used to anchor the rest of the plate, allowing room for challenging films which are more hit-and-miss, but thus are given less funding, to be given a shot.

Finally, I would like to say that as a writer myself, pure storytelling is a major draw for me. Being able to make the best version of a story, regardless of its intentions, is a challenge and a reward all its own. Art demands a message, but for me personally writing can also work in the same way as, say, exercise. Perfecting a swim stroke, playing pickup ball in harmony, or running farther than I ever have before is its own reward, as is the self-improvement related to that. Part of being a craftsman is to be in love with your tools.

For me personally, I call them onto the carpet not because I don’t think they’re skilled, but because depending on how you view Hollywood in general and your personal position on the Art vs. Commerce spectrum in particular, these guys are Collaborators par excellence. A lot of their defenders immediately go to a “Why do you hate big, fun movies? Go back to your dorm room and fall to one knee before masturbatorial black and white angst-fests” defense. For one, I don’t think that’s really the issue. For two, I think that’s a pretty gross simplification of what we’re talking about here.

For me, the issue is not so much that these guys write popcorn movies, it was that 1) the report on their talk that this thread is attached to was written in a sort of breathlessly fawning tone, as if Kurtzman/Orci are a force for Pure Good rather than poster boys for tentpole overload. And 2) it’s not that I don’t like tentpole movies, it’s that, increasingly, that’s the ONLY kind of movie that gets made in America. Hey man, I love Snicker bars, but that doesn’t mean I think we should stop making Filet Mignon. Someone else pointed out that when they went to a movie recently, the previews were “Terminator,” “GI Joe,” “Harry Potter,” and “Transformers.” All pre-existing franchises, all but one based on children’s entertainment, and all aimed at the 13-year old boy in all of us. Nothing wrong with this, but a diet of nothing but this kind of movie makes for a sugar headache and an atrophied brain. The tone of the report on the Kurtzman/Orci talk was that there’s nothing greater in the world than to give your talent over to servicing these giant marketing juggernauts, and I just refuse to go along with that thinking.

I’d also take issue with the people claiming K/O bring an “A-List approach to B-material.” Bullshit. You want an A-list approach to B-material? Go rent a Coen Bros. movie. Those guys almost exclusively write in genre, and if you think a K/O joint holds a candle to anything in the Coen’s catalog, then there’s probably nothing we can agree on. K/O bring a B-Movie approach to B-material, and the $200 million spent hiring world class technicians to bring their scripts to life cover up all the problems.

I’d also like to burn down the straw man argument that the only kinds of movies that exist are either “Star Trek” or “Cries and Whispers.” That’s ignoring a whole country of delicious middle ground. 2007 (let’s forget last year and the first half of this year) had a lot of great genre movies that were done for a price and genuinely made you think: “No Country for Old Men” (chase movie), “Eastern Promises” (gangster), “Assassination of Jesse James” (western), “Zodiac” (serial killer), even “The Bourne Ultimatum.” (conspiracy thriller). These films have plenty of the thrills and chills the summer movie fans demand, and the Kurtzman/ Orcis of the world would never go near these because doing so would mean they’d have to do a little more artistic heavy-lifting and a little less “Yes Man”-ing with the studio execs.

But what do I know? I can’t even follow a plan of attack in “World of Warcraft.”

I guess that’s the way of the internet. Most people are either name-callers or sycophants. I like that comments on this site are usually pretty civil.

Mr. August: While it seems silly to want an answer to a question you mentioned tongue-in-cheek, I honestly am curious as to where you find inspiration.

Obviously, I am not wondering who you try to emulate because if you were just emulating I doubt you’d be successful at all. But I am interested if there are specific artists (screenwriters, authors, musicians, etc) that motivate you or challenge you to do better.

The problem is that Spock chooses to maroon Kirk there in the first place at that moment. Meeting Spock after that is actually fairly logical, but its kind of a whopping coincidence that Spock maroons Kirk rather than say locks him up in the brig. Ultimately it doesn’t matter that much because most of the audience seem happy to forgive the moment.

And for examples of structurefucks, I’d suggest Heinlein’s By His Bootstraps as the granddaddy.

That explains why the story is so broken, I guess.

I’m still surprised at how close it comes to flying apart into over-witty ’90s-style deconstruction without ever actually abandoning its own internal sense of peril — to the characters, the stakes still seem real, even in the midst of all those absurd antics. I think that’s great.

Charlie’s Angels chooses to be dumb for laughs and escapism, which is not the same as settling for some dumb because of “meh.”