Timeless Vs. Time Capsule

I frequently find myself at odds with fiction (not just film) that dates itself with cultural references. Personally, I find the best stories have relevance long past their date of creation and still stand up to the test of time in terms of quality and references. I've seen the argument in favour of approaching art (comics in particular in the instance I'd seen this brought up) as a sort of time capsule, to capture the essence of a time and place. I'm for that in theory, but a lot of writers tend to put a lot of junky references or settings that only taint the work in their attempt to accomplish that.

A perfect example is the obligatory 'Homeland Security' references of the day. They're fucking everywhere and seem to be used as a cheap way of reminding us how SERIOUS and IN THE REAL FUCKING WORLD WE LIVE IN RIGHT FUCKING NOW whatever clichéd piece of shit story is being told. I think only Garth Ennis, that I've seen, has successfully applied this while countless others have failed.

Obviously there is a matter of quality involved in judging the value of references and the related context. A reference to something as big and culturally significant as Star Wars is hardly as jarring as one to a movie that'll be forgotten months after its release. The question I want to raise is one of preference.

Do you find yourself desiring a movie or other art form to reflect its time and place of origin, or would you rather it transcend such concerns? This will be difficult to distinguish given all art, whether we realize it or not pretty much intrinsically reflects its time and place. The question, then I guess, is to what degree do you guys like it?

Personally, I enjoy a balance between the two. Some stories have more weight when grounded in the time they were created, giving them a greater sense of context for their themes. I just prefer that it's not at the expense of telling the story itself by being too on-the-nose.

That's one of the many reasons these Disaster Movie type pieces of shit are so terrible. They build themselves so thoroughly upon a barrage of ready-to-be-dated references and jokes.

I think you make a great point. As I said earlier, there's an innate timely nature to any piece of art, so there will always be that time capsule quality to it. My interest is in how the posters here prefer their movies and such to cope with it, I suppose. I find a lot of things tend to supersede their storytelling with an effort to 'capture the zeitgeist', or at least bog it down.

Mark Millar (the writer who mentioned the time capsule idea in an interview a while ago, and inspired this thread) tends to use a lot of pop-culture references. It's odd because he's very two-faced with them. Sometimes they're movies or books that do have a significance worth referring to, and others they're completely inconsequential and will only serve to distract from the work.

I suppose it's hard for writers to strike that balance. Obviously nobody can say for certain what references will still be relevant or worth knowing at the time they're made, but you can make an educated guess I'd say.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Too true. I've actually just encountered a similar situation where Millar's current run on Wolverine has been described as Dark Knight Returns for Wolverine, and almost all I can think about as I read it is how much better Dark Knight Returns is.

Back to the actual discussion, a lot of works of art have become cultural touchstones to the point that they exist in the public consciousness almost entirely as references. I'd say those are fair game to allude to. Also, I'm sure many works we're living through the time of will get to that point themselves.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that constant anything is usually an iffy proposition, especially in art. Cultural references are one of the best examples of something that needs to be carefully applied.

There's definitely a lot of merit in reading or watching something that is 'dated' in the sense that it can be quite informative, or at least inspire one to educate oneself further about its origin and context. I just think overall I prefer stories to have that identifiable context, so I can in fact adapt and interpret it with my every day life. I think art can say valuable and insightful things about the human condition and our experiences together and apart, and I think more 'timeless' work is better at achieving it.

I definitely think you and Mark Millar have given me a much greater appreciation for 'dated' works now, however.