|
Lobok posted:Is Gary Mitchell ever referred to by any other name or title? Or might they have used the character but changed his name? Maybe the only reason the filmmakers don't want you to know he's the main villain is because "Gary Mitchell" is terribly plain, boring, and non-threatening. Well sure it's not an inherently threatening name, but when you're a Psychic Death God your Christian name doesn't really matter Though if they changed his name to, say, Godfist "Gary" Melterprise for the movie I can't say I'd mind much
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Lobok posted:Is Gary Mitchell ever referred to by any other name or title? Or might they have used the character but changed his name? Maybe the only reason the filmmakers don't want you to know he's the main villain is because "Gary Mitchell" is terribly plain, boring, and non-threatening. Khan. V'Ger. The Borg. Gary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Is Gary Mitchell ever referred to by any other name or title? Or might they have used the character but changed his name? Maybe the only reason the filmmakers don't want you to know he's the main villain is because "Gary Mitchell" is terribly plain, boring, and non-threatening. Maybe he'll take some badass crazyperson nickname. The Caligula to Nero's Nero.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Gary Mitchell taking the name Khan, or at least a scene where he considers taking the name and goes "No, too obvious" followed by a slow-mo lens flare wink into the camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
If I was a hack I would just look up some people that have turned into gods in mythology. Find a decent sounding name and bam, Gary changed his name to Garuda cause the federation are a bunch of snakes who must be killed or some bullshit like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I can't wait for this movie to come out, I'm also glad its looking like Khan won't be the villain. Why reboot a series if you're going to do the same stories just slightly different? (spiderman you were good, but c'mon Sony, just let the franchise go) That made me think, what if this is just a brand new character for a villain rather than a rehash? If so the JJ Trolling is complete.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:Khan. V'Ger. The Borg. Now I'm just imagining George Costanza furiously screaming "GARRRYYYYYY!!!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Pastamania posted:JJTrek isn't Star Trek. Star Trek has always been about pulpy, two-fisted space adventures, starring Kirk, where they go around gawking at weird poo poo and occasionally loving or punching it. The utopianism of the original series is overhyped - like they allowed a Ruskie on the crew, and will drop the occasional line about how they eliminated poverty (but not how they eliminated poverty, natch). That's not the focus of the show. The point was really that, while Earth was apparently now a great place, the crew were always flying away from Earth into infested, psychedelic hellholes - and trying their best not to be slain or driven mad by the latest cosmic fucker or apocalyptic murder-computer. Like it or not, there's all manner of weird poo poo in the "J. J. Trek", that does indeed focus on how these characters' personal philosophies allow them to confront a meaningless universe of "disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence." That nihilism is personified by the villain (who, in turn, personifies Star Trek: Nemesis). It approaches this in an aesthetic way - down to the acknowledgement that there's no sound in space, but, god drat it, we're going to do it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Star Trek has always been about pulpy, two-fisted space adventures, starring Kirk, where they go around gawking at weird poo poo and occasionally loving or punching it. The utopianism of the original series is overhyped - like they allowed a Ruskie on the crew, and will drop the occasional line about how they eliminated poverty (but not how they eliminated poverty, natch). That's not the focus of the show. This is pretty much true if you watch TOS. There are some deeper episodes but other than that it's a Western in space. I think a lot of us probably have TNG in mind when we think of "the spirit of Star Trek."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Trekmovie's saying that the long trailer has Chekov in a red tunic. Maybe Sulu will get a blue one?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Is Gary Mitchell ever referred to by any other name or title? Or might they have used the character but changed his name? Maybe the only reason the filmmakers don't want you to know he's the main villain is because "Gary Mitchell" is terribly plain, boring, and non-threatening. I'm glad you said this. Although I would love it if the story was about the Federation facing the horrendous threat of a posh, psychic bloke called Gary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:I'm glad you said this. Although I would love it if the story was about the Federation facing the horrendous threat of a posh, psychic bloke called Gary. It might even be fine within the movie after some point but I'm mostly talking about keeping it under wraps for the marketing. No trailer in the world could sell an audience on that name except for the fans who were already going no matter what anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Star Trek has always been about pulpy, two-fisted space adventures, starring Kirk, where they go around gawking at weird poo poo and occasionally loving or punching it. The utopianism of the original series is overhyped - like they allowed a Ruskie on the crew, and will drop the occasional line about how they eliminated poverty (but not how they eliminated poverty, natch). That's not the focus of the show. The show's actually pretty committed to being politically radical in confronting a lot of '60s culture. It's not just that they had a Russian, but that there was an episode where a black dude disagreed with Spock and was right and everyone respected him just as much as Spock. There's another one where two characters are in danger, a black man and a white woman, and it's the white woman who dies to demonstrate the danger of the situation--after that, the crew work together to sve the black man. It looks hamfisted and stupid to you because you have the benefit of 40 years of hindsight to diagnose colorblind racism as stupid, but the show absolutely has a political agenda more radical than anything you'd see on tv today in terms of challenging America's horrible culture. A big part of that has to do with a strong desire to make peace and establish an equitable solution for everyone, like the episode where they find a rock creature killing miners because the miners are mining its eggs--they negotiate a lasting peace and go out of their way to preserve lives. It loving floors me how obliviously sexist every frame is in light of that, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It loving floors me how obliviously sexist every frame is in light of that, though. That's my favorite part of TOS, the hilarious horse-blinder aspect of its progressivism. I don't understand how the writers could have been so tuned into the racial and political prejudices of the time while still writing scenes like "a woman archaeologist??" *double-take, eyes pop out, slide whistle*
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Like it or not, there's all manner of weird poo poo in the "J. J. Trek", that does indeed focus on how these characters' personal philosophies allow them to confront a meaningless universe of "disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence." That nihilism is personified by the villain (who, in turn, personifies Star Trek: Nemesis). It approaches this in an aesthetic way - down to the acknowledgement that there's no sound in space, but, god drat it, we're going to do it anyways. Also they both have super space ships that are made mostly out of random spikey bits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Are you saying that Nero personifies Star Trek: Nemesis? I'm trying to put the pieces together on that, and all I can come across is that that Nero is a vain, backwards and self-destructive remnant of another reality, whom the protagonists have to execute. And by doing so they not only preserve their reality but lay down its corner stones by establishing the crew. He's the shambling zombie remains of the old franchise, full of weird flourishes nobody in the new movie can understand because you need to study 40 years of other media to follow (borg technology, Romulan politics, time travel, feud with Spock, exciting adventure with Captain Picard etc--all told in tie-in comic books you need to buy ahead of time). They have to kill him to go on and live their own lives because he threatens to kill star trek with his over-complicated backstory and premise. I guess because the franchise was so weighted down with backstory that it was driving all the viewers away and thus dying by degrees. I think that Nemesis was lovely because it was totally rambling and unfocussed and dark without having a lot to say
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The show's actually pretty committed to being politically radical in confronting a lot of '60s culture. It's not just that they had a Russian, but that there was an episode where a black dude disagreed with Spock and was right and everyone respected him just as much as Spock. There's another one where two characters are in danger, a black man and a white woman, and it's the white woman who dies to demonstrate the danger of the situation--after that, the crew work together to sve the black man. It looks hamfisted and stupid to you because you have the benefit of 40 years of hindsight to diagnose colorblind racism as stupid, but the show absolutely has a political agenda more radical than anything you'd see on tv today in terms of challenging America's horrible culture. A big part of that has to do with a strong desire to make peace and establish an equitable solution for everyone, like the episode where they find a rock creature killing miners because the miners are mining its eggs--they negotiate a lasting peace and go out of their way to preserve lives. While that's all true, the focus of the series is on all the rock monsters and sentient nebulae as the new others to be dealt with. The 'colourblind' equality of the federation serves as a pregiven premise/backdrop to the action - which is all about presenting a baseline 'humanity' in conflict with those who would deviate from it. That's why the sexism is not really too surprising. But it's also what makes the series truly interesting. The exploitative treatment of women in the series is part-and-parcel with a pulp/exploitation aesthetic that subsequent works tried to transcend with mixed (mostly inferior) results. It provides some texture to the proceedings, presenting Kirk's sexism upfront and unapologetically. I think a character like Deanna Troi is much more sexist than anything in the Kirk show. And it works because the original series never strove for 'realism' in the sense of accuracy to a canon. It's unabashedly a fantasy of sex and violence. In resembling a pre-prequel Star Wars film, and sharing the same writers as Transformers, Star Trek 2009 totally gets it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
I feel this best represents the contrast between these two competing notions of Star Trek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnPIPOaRUFg
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:That's my favorite part of TOS, the hilarious horse-blinder aspect of its progressivism. I don't understand how the writers could have been so tuned into the racial and political prejudices of the time while still writing scenes like "a woman archaeologist??" *double-take, eyes pop out, slide whistle* Star Trek was sexist but still for the time amazingly sexually progressive. I mean, for all they played with the women as targets for kirk and emotional creatures they never did something like "a woman archaeologist??" *double-take, eyes pop out, slide whistle* or showed that women serving alongside men was anything out of the ordinary (well, mostly). Uhura being a proficient lieutenant and senior officer in the service who happened to be a woman was mindblowing to the 60's audience. Even if in the scripts she pretty much just opened hailing frequencies. And hell, in the original pilot, the first officer of the ship was strong, professional woman who took over command for a decent bit of the episode. The studio made them get rid of her for the series. Yeah, looking at it now there's lots of sexism all over the place, but it should be acknowledged that for the time it was still pretty drat good. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
It really is a relative thing- in a lot of sci-fi movies of the time you'd have the Woman Archaeologist give up her career to marry the hero and be a housewife. They had Majel Barrett as No. 1 in the pilot but focus groups complained about that bossy woman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:It really is a relative thing- in a lot of sci-fi movies of the time you'd have the Woman Archaeologist give up her career to marry the hero and be a housewife. There is an episode where that happens, though. There's this lady diplomat who needs to get back to the ship because she has some space disease and the shuttle they're on crashes into this planet where an energy blob is keeping some guy eternally young. It's a lady energy blob who's hot for the dude and he's grossed out because it's not a human lady. Meanwhile, the diplomat is about to die and only wishes she had time for love instead of pursuing a career. She says something like, "I was so busy being a diplomat, I never found the time to be a woman..." Then, Spock gets the great idea of having the energy blob inhabit her body, cure her disease, and gently caress the stranded dude. The dying lady agrees and says it would fix all her regrets to become a meat puppet so some guy can get over his space racism. It's way hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:While that's all true, the focus of the series is on all the rock monsters and sentient nebulae as the new others to be dealt with. The 'colourblind' equality of the federation serves as a pregiven premise/backdrop to the action - which is all about presenting a baseline 'humanity' in conflict with those who would deviate from it. That's why the sexism is not really too surprising. I agree that no episode is about celebrating a post-racial socialist utopia, but just because it's the premise doesn't mean it's lazily constructed or incidental to the show. There's a very specific social world that the show presents as normal, but that doesn't mean it's inconsistent with or in competition with the adventure plot of a lot of episodes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Is it really space racism if you don't want to gently caress an energy blob?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Is Gary Mitchell ever referred to by any other name or title? Or might they have used the character but changed his name? Maybe the only reason the filmmakers don't want you to know he's the main villain is because "Gary Mitchell" is terribly plain, boring, and non-threatening. Why don't you say that to his face, Mortal?  Too late. He heard you anyway.  korusan posted:Trekmovie's saying that the long trailer has Chekov in a red tunic. Maybe Sulu will get a blue one? And perhaps he'll move from helm to botany, in an opposite move of the OT. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Is it really space racism if you don't want to gently caress an energy blob? Exactly. Racism is walking the other side of the sidewalk because you saw a group of black men walking towards you. Replace those black guys with Klingons and you're probably seen as a heads up individual with a preference for not being stabbed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:Exactly. Racism is walking the other side of the sidewalk because you saw a group of black men walking towards you. Replace those black guys with Klingons and you're probably seen as a heads up individual with a preference for not being stabbed. It's ok because klingons really are bloodthirsty murderers? What the hell?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
Astroman posted:And perhaps he'll move from helm to botany, in an opposite move of the OT. That was never more than a hobby. He was head of astroscience at the start of TOS before he became chief helmsman. (I may have just gone and watched Where No Man Has Gone Before)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Is it really space racism if you don't want to gently caress an energy blob? Don't say that til you've tasted the gravy, cis-solid hardonormative bigot! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
A human heart posted:It's ok because klingons really are bloodthirsty murderers? What the hell? Yes, that's the joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Star Trek was sexist but still for the time amazingly sexually progressive. I mean, for all they played with the women as targets for kirk and emotional creatures they never did something like "a woman archaeologist??" *double-take, eyes pop out, slide whistle* or showed that women serving alongside men was anything out of the ordinary (well, mostly). They most certainly did. Slide-whistle is an overstatement but there were numerous examples (the archaeologist being one) where the main characters not only exhibit bafflement at running into women who hold down any position of achievement or responsibility, the show rarely gives the women characters any chance to show *why* they are to be found in such roles. They end up being romantic foils or damsels in peril. Yeoman Rand makes the Captain's lunch! The Cage is an interesting anomaly in that Number One was obviously an accomplished woman in a position of power (though Captain Pike voices discomfort over serving with a woman) so clearly the show runners had some awareness but by-and-large the show's liberalism was almost entirely focused on race or politics. Whether that was due to the writers or what CBS was willing to put on the air at that time I don't know (I suspect it's a combination of both).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Is it really space racism if you don't want to gently caress an energy blob? McCoy criticizes him for the archaic belief that it's gross to be seduced by an energy blob. He's all like, "You fool! Can't you see she loves you? It doesn't matter what species she is!" The guy is a famous space explorer who was lost in space generations ago, and the energy blob kept him eternally young. His refusal to date her is the one example of his out-of-date prejudices, but one that I would probably call sensible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Bottom line is that there is probably no 60s show that is more progressive than Star Trek was Was TNG considered progressive at the time? Seems a tiny bit more "safe" doesn't it? Still love it of course. Cellophane S fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
You have to take what you can get from older progressives. The man who created Wonder Woman also espoused a belief where submission (female as male) was paramount to peace and solidarity. Perhaps hence The Lasso of Truth. Roddenberry was obviously a loathsome philanderer, and we have to reconcile that with what he wanted to do with Star Trek. I don't know how much it helps to write a verdict saying the show is either unequivocally progressive or not. I can only believe that the show's influence has been positive, and that's what counts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
Each show and movie has to be taken in context, though. Each series tackled social issues of the time (and even foresaw some problems a la computerized warfare.) The movies--with the exception of TUC and TVH--seem to be focused more on personal matters. TWOK & TSFK: Growing old and mortality. TFF: Friendship, family, and loyalty. GEN: Again, mortality, and what it means to be human. FC: I'd argue this is the only movie that actually explores revenge. Insurrection: Loyalties and moral challenges. Nemesis: Well, who knows. I'd argue it's got a deeper subtext of nihilism and defeatism. Also heavy-handed questions of nature and nurture. Now, all of those are definitely framed with action and, in some cases like TFF and Insurrection, by larger political issues. And, for all it's failings story wise, JJTrek really did try to raise questions of nature vs nurture and finding our true selves and questioning our purpose. Nero had no true purpose. He was bent on destruction without a true motivation (ignoring the context the comics provide). Kirk and Spock are exploring their purposes and their place in society. I'll ignore the Countdown comics here because I consider them fan-wank. Even though I really enjoyed them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Bottom line is that there is probably no 60s show that is more progressive than Star Trek was Well, kind of. Just remember that TNG was, at the early stages, pretty much Space Communism Utopia in the time when people had a raging hard-on for Reaganomics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
GATOS Y VATOS posted:Well, kind of. Just remember that TNG was, at the early stages, pretty much Space Communism Utopia in the time when people had a raging hard-on for Reaganomics. Yeah, as much as Roddenberry didn't think it through, ideas like "no money" and transubstantiation of matter in the form of free and unlimited replication was pretty  for the 80s.Not to mention a female chief medical officer, female security chief, blind helmsman, and the addition of their formal mortal enemy, a Klingon, to the bridge crew (which was as significant in the world of the show as having Pavel Chekhov on TOS). This significance of all this was that besides Worf, this was all not even acknowledged on the screen. It just was. Gender and disability were as non issues to the crew in universe just as having an black, asian, and Russian were in TOS. It just literally was not needed to be brought up, which in and of itself is significant. They had a robot as part of the crew and within a season were grappling with the idea of it's human rights. This not only serves as an analogue for numerous other oppressed classes, but presages a debate which I believe we will have within our lifetimes. The first episode was a slimy third world government guy trying to exploit a defenseless creature to win points with his first world benefactors--who resoundingly rejected and chastised him and freed the creature. TNG was progressive in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
If Star Trek 2013 is bringing back a canon villain, is there any reason to restrict the candidates to TOS? Are there canon villains from the other shows that would work? I have no idea what the demographics of Star Trek moviegoers are, and whether your random teen on the street is more likely to have seen TOS or the new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I have no idea what the demographics of Star Trek moviegoers are, and whether your random teen on the street is more likely to have seen TOS or the new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Bottom line is that there is probably no 60s show that is more progressive than Star Trek was Jack Gladney posted:It looks hamfisted and stupid to you because you have the benefit of 40 years of hindsight to diagnose colorblind racism as stupid, but the show absolutely has a political agenda more radical than anything you'd see on tv today in terms of challenging America's horrible culture. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Astroman posted:Yeah, as much as Roddenberry didn't think it through, ideas like "no money" and transubstantiation of matter in the form of free and unlimited replication was pretty Some great points there. You're absolutely right
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:40
|
|