|
Cingulate posted:Value ≠ subtext though. Especially your quote therein just looks like "text" to me. Which is not bad, I was just surprised at other people bringing up the "sub" thing. Ok, well maybe that was a poor choice of words on my part. It's sorta besides the point, though. quote:Intent whatever, I'm mostly interested in two things: 1. what does this scene do with "people"? How do, for example, majorities ("people") perceive it? 2. how does it unfold to a critical, reflected, even informed analysis? I don't think there is much overlap between these two, either. Instead of trying to suss out what other people ("majorities", "most people", "the viewer") think maybe just tell us what you think, and why. You've described the scene here, but not what makes it both sexy and sexist.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
computer parts posted:I'd say Kirk's fighting has never ended up well for him. Naw but his bravery and willingness to fight against absurd odds is what got him the Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Or, as has been documented as happening in numerous motion pictures, it was implied to her that if she didn't do the scene they would seek out an actress who would be willing to do it, and then she would be out the exposure and money that goes with appearing in a huge budget blockbuster sci-fi franchise film. But no, the up-and-coming young actress appearing in her largest role to date probably really really wanted to have a scene where she appears in her underwear. I mean, if you're gonna start bringing in hypothetical thought processes, I'm probably gonna side with the one that's been demonstrably true for decades. Not that this is actually relevant or whatever, because speculating on her motives is both absurd and meaningless, but she spent approximately all of her screen time in Crossing Over naked so I don't think she's like, super sad about being in her underwear for about 10 seconds in a scene where she's shot from angles that make her look like a Greek goddess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Not that this is actually relevant or whatever, because speculating on her motives is both absurd and meaningless, but she spent approximately all of her screen time in Crossing Over naked so I don't think she's like, super sad about being in her underwear for about 10 seconds in a scene where she's shot from angles that make her look like a Greek goddess. Why would you say that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Naw but his bravery and willingness to fight against absurd odds is what got him the Enterprise. Lord Krangdar posted:Instead of trying to suss out what other people ("majorities", "most people", "the viewer") think maybe just tell us what you think, and why. You've described the scene here, but not what makes it both sexy and sexist. Trying to answer what I remember thinking when I saw the scene: probably something like, yeah okay, this one they put in for the little boys, I feel a bit silly now. She is very pretty, for a blonde, and that is a very nice composition. Okay, that was 2 seconds of lingerie that will dominate everyone's memories and discussions regarding Alice Eve's part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Honestly I'm finding I remember the image of her being in uniform almost as much as her being out of it. I haven't seen Eve in anything else I think, but much of the time she's been used as a generic babe, so it was good to see her pull off this sort of bubbly, ever-curious and assertive character. A few people called her wooden but I think she showed herself to be pretty good. She makes a lasting impression in a way that a lot of other "beautiful women in lab coats" don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I'd have to conclude that the scene is simultaneously about admonishing and mocking Kirk for seeking sexual gratification from Marcus [SMG, Danger] while also providing that same gratification to the (assumed to be exclusively male) audience [DFu4Ever], elevating the viewer as possessing a privilege to leer that diegetic characters do not. Why, that would render the scene completely disingenuous, as sincere gratuitousness masquerading as ironic/satirical gratuitousness, as Whedonesque. I think you're exactly right about this. The scene makes an ostensible effort to be above pointless cheesecake and male gaze and so on, but oops! Not quite there! That's a good definition of "Whedonesque".
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I think you're exactly right about this. The scene makes an ostensible effort to be above pointless cheesecake and male gaze and so on, but oops! Not quite there! A Whedon character would never appear in a bra. Instead, she would wear a 'functional' short-sleeved jacket over a tight tank top and tight leather pants. She would also pretend to be down with Kirk's advances before revealing herself to be a kung fu werewolf/kung fu robot/kung fu alien, because [boilerplate menstruation symbolism]. She would then hurt him physically, though not so much that he is actually injured. The Marcus character cuts through the bullshit. Here is a woman's breast. How do you react? Some react poorly, but that was obviously anticipated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A Whedon character would never appear in a bra. Instead, she would wear a 'functional' short-sleeved jacket over a tight tank top and tight leather pants. See, doesn't that fit perfectly as sincere gratuitousness masquerading as ironic/satirical gratuitousness, though? Haha, yeah, this woman's totally tough and strong and way too cool for me! As she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions. Man, I am totally reacting maturely to this smokin' babe in her underwear that Star Trek has provided for me - exam passed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:See, doesn't that fit perfectly as sincere gratuitousness masquerading as ironic/satirical gratuitousness, though? Haha, yeah, this woman's totally tough and strong and way too cool for me! As she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions. Man, I am totally reacting maturely to this smokin' babe in her underwear that Star Trek has provided for me - exam passed. But ... that's not really it at all. She wants to change her clothes. she asks Kirk to look the other way, lke an adult. He fails and get... irritation."sincere gratuitousness" would be her posing for him for no reason, or her acually falling for him or her being introduced as a "good girl" that then turns out to be a sex maniac, or pretty much anything else other then what we got. It's a woman in a bra. They exist. Even in space. The joke is that Kirk is asked to respect her and fails because he needs to grow up. He couldn't handle being the the same room as a girl changing clothes. How does that not reflect poorly on him? What are "my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions" btw? Because I would have expected her to be a love intrest and for her to fall for Kirk and well... that diden't really happen. I guess the question to the people who didn't like the scene is: what should have been different? What could have been different but still give of the same message as that scene did?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Hellbunny posted:But ... that's not really it at all. She wants to change her clothes. she asks Kirk to look the other way, lke an adult. What Kirk expects is for the woman in underwear to pander to him by acting flirtatious or sleeping with him or whatever. But I'm the viewer; what I expect (either due to a sense of entitlement or just weary resignation) is to be pandered to by being shown a woman in her underwear. And Star Trek delivers, booya! I mean, what, I guess it can be applauded for not having Marcus posing in a sultry fashion on top of that? Here's how you do the scene: when Kirk looks, we either get a shot of Marcus's face or we get a shot of Kirk over Marcus's shoulder. They have the exact same exchange with the exact same connotations. The movie proceeds. Also, gently caress's sake. Toothpaste also exists - even in space !! - but we don't follow the characters as they see to their morning and nightly hygiene.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Also, gently caress's sake. Toothpaste also exists - even in space !! - but we don't follow the characters as they see to their morning and nightly hygiene. ...but we would see that if hygiene were a theme in the film. The movie Hannah, recently, had a prominent tooth-brushing sequence. With Into Darkness, the focus is on the racist and sexist attitudes that persist in spite of the series' superficial utopianism, because the history of all hitherto existing Star Trek is the history of class struggles. It makes perfect sense to tackle this subject head-on by showing a breast and asking what the audience represents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What Kirk expects is for the woman in underwear to pander to him by acting flirtatious or sleeping with him or whatever. But I'm the viewer; what I expect (either due to a sense of entitlement or just weary resignation) is to be pandered to by being shown a woman in her underwear. And Star Trek delivers, booya! I mean, what, I guess it can be applauded for not having Marcus posing in a sultry fashion on top of that? That wasn't my experience as a viewer, at all, though. Of course I see the need to, at times, speak of a hypothetical generic viewer (though I'm not sure why he apparently must be a straight dude). But let's not let this hypothetical person's reactions overshadow actual posters accounts of how they experienced the scene. quote:Here's how you do the scene: when Kirk looks, we either get a shot of Marcus's face or we get a shot of Kirk over Marcus's shoulder. They have the exact same exchange with the exact same connotations. The movie proceeds. But then we would lose her body language, which helps the scene develop her characterization (not just Kirk's). It's one of those "a picture is worth a thousand words" situations. quote:Also, gently caress's sake. Toothpaste also exists - even in space !! - but we don't follow the characters as they see to their morning and nightly hygiene. Sometimes we do, if there is another purpose to the scene. Also this isn't a good comparison because if there was a scene involving tooth-brushing nobody would be demanding that the tooth-brushing be implied but not shown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:...but we would see that if hygiene were a theme in the film. The movie Hannah, recently, had a prominent tooth-brushing sequence. It definitely makes sense if, while tackling the subject of sexism, you want to make sure to show the audience a breast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It definitely makes sense if, while tackling the subject of sexism, you want to make sure to show the audience a breast. It's bizarre to me that people here are talking as if seeing a split-second shot of a woman in her underwear is really arousing or particularly desirable at all in our current cultural context (see: talk of "horn-dogs" and boners). We've come a long way since the Beavises and Buttheads of the world would rent a movie just to freeze-frame on a shot of a naked woman, and even then there was the Sears catalog with racier imagery (not really racy at all) than this film on page after page. Now we live in the age of Google, if somebody really wanted to see a woman in a bra they could stay home and use Google image search (or even just pause the trailer), save themselves a chunk of time and money. I doubt that anyone in the theater was particularly turned on by that short shot and certainly nobody went to see this film primarily because they thought it would be sexy. The posters who seem to be assuming otherwise are just projecting that attitude on vague hypothetical viewers or out-dated stereotype caricatures (the horn-dog sci-fi nerd who only interacts with fictional women, or the "gently caress YEAH BOOBIES" frat boy). It's kinda like that old "but what about other people's children" argument, only now it's "but what about those other nerds". I realize that the issues of objectification and "male gaze" are bigger than that, but my point is Alice Eve was not reduced to a sex object here because the scene is barely sexual and the focus is on her character's personality, not her breasts (even though, yes, they appear on-screen under clothing for a split second). Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Well, it's not particularly arousing or desirable. It's just, popular media keeps doing it, in every possible context, forever. I don't generally watch sci fi action movies to scope out hot babes in their underwear, but, well, there they are regardless. I tell you what, though, I really love "this doesn't merit any criticism because you can just Google up some porn at home". Everything else around you is already attempting to arouse and titillate you, this shouldn't even be on your radar!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Well, it's not particularly arousing or desirable. It's just, popular media keeps doing it, in every possible context, forever. I don't generally watch sci fi action movies to scope out hot babes in their underwear, but, well, there they are regardless. Ok, but does anybody? Because if not then where is the talk of horn-dogs and boners coming from? quote:I tell you what, though, I really love "this doesn't merit any criticism because you can just Google up some porn at home". Everything else around you is already attempting to arouse and titillate you, this shouldn't even be on your radar!! I had edited another bit to the end of my previous post, maybe you missed the edit. But anyway, this looks like a willful attempt to misunderstand what I'm trying to say so maybe cut that out if you're interested in discussion beyond your own made up caricatures. Like this: Ferrinus posted:Haha, yeah, this woman's totally tough and strong and way too cool for me! As she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions. Man, I am totally reacting maturely to this smokin' babe in her underwear that Star Trek has provided for me - exam passed. This is an obvious straw-man caricature, it doesn't represent the views of anybody in the discussion or anyone else. Can we get past that poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:
Cultural context is a an important factor for determining why a piece of media is arranged how it is. "Women in revealing clothing" is not as controversial an issue as it was 30 years ago, much like how having gay couples is controversial now but probably won't be in 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Manet's Olympia doesn't even wear a bra. How scandalous!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Cultural context is a an important factor for determining why a piece of media is arranged how it is. "Women in revealing clothing" is not as controversial an issue as it was 30 years ago, much like how having gay couples is controversial now but probably won't be in 30 years. I have 3 hits on the non-controversy on the first page. On the other hand, this IS getting old and it looks like we won't come to an agreement. Seriously, does anybody expect to change anyone else's opinion regarding this? Also, there's a sexism in film thread open that's also started debating this. Is there anything else we can discuss regarding this movie? Spaceships anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
There's a spaceship's wall in the background of the Alice Eve meganude porn shot, straight lines emphasizing that she is not an object and cannot be understood that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Spaceships anyone? Not to get all male-gazey on the Enterprise, but the spaceships in this movie weren't nearly as pretty on-screen as the spaceships in the last one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Not to get all male-gazey on the Enterprise, but the spaceships in this movie weren't nearly as pretty on-screen as the spaceships in the last one. You're right though. The movie was ... pretty, but not even remotely as pretty as the two first ones. In fact, I argue the Alice Eve shot may be one of the more iconic things we got from this one. What other image comes to mind?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Getting gazey on the Enterprise is what I watch these movies for! The Vengeance streaking in behind the Enterprise in the warp tunnel and sending it spinning is gorgeous, but that's about it. It's a shame, because gorgeous shots of objects in space are the primary thing I liked about the last one (that and how funny Nero is). I felt like this movie lost that and didn't give anything in return, so didn't much care for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
I don't like the Vengeance. She's lazy. She's the Enterprise, but bigger. Look at WoK, the Reliant is really creative. She's the Enterprise, but upside down, how about that! But yes, she's like some shark coming up on its prey in that scene. In fact, one thing this movie did was make the submarine warfare thing ST has had going for a while more explicit, with multiple scenes of submerged ships, and the warp trails looking like a bit like a trail of twirling air bubbles in the water. However, during the sinking scene, people aren't getting crushed, they're getting sucked out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Getting gazey on the Enterprise is what I watch these movies for! I particularly liked the look of the planet at the beginning; it was a nice nod to the low-budget surrealism set designs from TOS. Another memorable image to me is the look on Cumberbatch's face after Kirk exhausted himself punching him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I like Alice Eve and welcome any study of her body. There should be a TMP like study of it as when they introduced the Ent-A with those long tracking shots. Perhaps she represents a manifestation of the ship, Enterprise to Kirk. Enterprise wants to keep it professional and Kirk wants to hammer it to warp every time guns blazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I particularly liked the look of the planet at the beginning; it was a nice nod to the low-budget surrealism set designs from TOS. Another memorable image to me is the look on Cumberbatch's face after Kirk exhausted himself punching him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't like the Vengeance. She's lazy. She's the Enterprise, but bigger. Look at WoK, the Reliant is really creative. She's the Enterprise, but upside down, how about that! Yeah, I didn't care for the design of the Vengeance in general, but the way she comes up on the Enterprise and the red of the torpedoes against the blue of the warp tunnel was really striking. Since Khan designed it, it would have been nice to see his psychology in action in that instead of just a more menacing version of the classic layout. Lord Krangdar posted:I particularly liked the look of the planet at the beginning; it was a nice nod to the low-budget surrealism set designs from TOS. The sequence itself was a neat throwback, and Spock's graceful acceptance of his impending death was my favorite character moment in the film, but I thought the planet itself was sort of ugly. Tastes vary, of course, and I appreciate that they went for something stylized instead of just a random forest. I just didn't care for how it actually looked, though I can't really put into words why. I liked the stark blue and red contrast in the warp tunnel sequence, so it's not just the BLUE and RED thing, but it just didn't look good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's the line in Fight Club again, something like, "whom would you like to get into a fight with? - William Shattner"? I only remember them mentioning Ghandi. Sir Kodiak posted:The sequence itself was a neat throwback, and Spock's graceful acceptance of his impending death was my favorite character moment in the film, but I thought the planet itself was sort of ugly. Well, yeah. But it was ugly in the same way the old TOS sets were but brought to life in a way they couldn't do back then, which I appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Well, yeah. But it was ugly in the same way the old TOS sets were but brought to life in a way they couldn't do back then, which I appreciated. It's neat that they were able to nail that in a way which worked for you, but I'm not such a huge fan of the original series that I want to look at something ugly just for the sake of the reference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I only remember them mentioning Ghandi. Tyler: Alive or dead? Narrator: Doesn't matter, who'd be tough? Tyler: Hemingway. You? Narrator: Shatner. I'd fight William Shatner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's neat that they were able to nail that in a way which worked for you, but I'm not such a huge fan of the original series that I want to look at something ugly just for the sake of the reference. Hahah, I'm not actually either so I'm not sure why I liked that so much. I guess it reads as a clever visual joke to me; like you would expect that in updating elements of TOS in a different era with a bigger budget they would make them better looking, so its funny to see the same kinda tacky ugly look in the new, high-budget, polished context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok, but does anybody? Because if not then where is the talk of horn-dogs and boners coming from? What? Who am I supposed to be caricaturing here? I think someone's being a little sensitive! I'm echoing Supercar's point from up above. The scene doesn't subvert expectations, it fulfills them - who cares if it also hangs a lampshade on them? SuperMechaGodzilla posted:Manet's Olympia doesn't even wear a bra. How scandalous! Oh, come on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Oh, come on. Kirk already bedded two scantily-clad women earlier in the film, and nobody cared. This second, contrasting scene is presented very differently and makes many people very uncomfortable because the woman is nearly breaking the fourth wall and saying "I know you're looking, and I reject you." This is very similar to the Manet painting which also depicts a woman's breast and is controversial because the woman is breaking the fourth wall and saying "I know you're looking and I reject you."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What? Who am I supposed to be caricaturing here? I think someone's being a little sensitive! Whose expectations, though? Yours? Mine? A vague hypothetical person's? When you said "she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions" who were you presuming to speak for? I know there was an element of sarcasm there, but then you appear to think that's an accurate assessment of someone's (whose?) experiences. I haven't said anything about "lamp-shading" tropes, I have personally been arguing that the scene in question is a bit of characterization for both Kirk and Marcus and because its barely sexy or sexual I'm unable to accept that the scene exists to sexually objectify Alice Eve. Whether the scene subverts expectations depends on what the expectations actually are, like if a viewer expected Kirk to have his way with her just because he's Kirk and he's the hero then they would be surprised when his immature advances were rebuffed with such disdain. If a viewer is identifying with Kirk at that point, then SMG is right that in effect she is showing her disdain for both Kirk and that viewer. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This second, contrasting scene is presented very differently and makes many people very uncomfortable because the woman is nearly breaking the fourth wall and saying "I know you're looking, and I reject you." Yeah, I thought the Alice Eve bit was a nice subversion of the sequence in the first film where Kirk spies on Uhura getting undressed. Neither of them are embarrassed by their bodies, but there's a transition to the idea that Kirk should really have moved past this juvenile horseshit. It's not cute anymore. The pair of cat girls, on the other hand, I did not care for. They didn't even receive the basic characterization that we saw out of the Orion woman in the previous one, nor was there the same basic equality that we had between her and Kirk (e.g. they're both scantily clad, they both have their bodies shown off for the camera, they're both overtly promiscuous).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
I gotta say though that I love the overall argument that the woman must cover up because patriarchical institutions already control her body and male audiences can't control themselves. Your body is always-already sexualized and commodified, so the game is over. Sorry, ladies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Yes, that's definitely what's going on here - I'm not criticizing a scene in a movie, I'm criticizing women. How dare they, those women!Lord Krangdar posted:Whose expectations, though? Yours? Mine? A vague hypothetical person's? When you said "she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions" who were you presuming to speak for? I know there was an element of sarcasm there, but then you appear to think that's an accurate assessment of someone's (whose?) experiences. I meant expectations as in predictions, not expectations as in desires or demands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
Ok, so whose predictions? EDIT- Saying "complies completely with my expectations" implies more than predictions, it implies demands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:26
|
|