|
Ferrinus posted:So the thing is, it doesn't actually matter who's being pandered to, "pandering" is a useful shorthand. I'm not sure whether the forces that work to ensure that disproportionately large swathes of media pointlessly sexualize their female characters think that they're raking in the heterosexual man/homosexual woman dollar or whether they themselves are literally just two guys who control all movies and just love babes or what. Obviously there are plenty who were successfully pandered to/titillated/whatever phrase you want to use (several of them testified here in this thread), but what percentage they make up of Earth's population is totally immaterial. It matters because if you were able to explain who you think is being pandered to then we could examine the claim that the scene should be seen as pandering. Without that the claim is meaningless. You could claim anything and everything is pandering if you feel no need to explain beyond the claim itself, but don't expect to convince anyone else with arguments that vague. You've skipped some steps here; before we talk about the scene in question as part of a larger pattern of "pointlessly sexualizing female characters" first establish why we should see it as part of that pattern. Who here was titillated by that briefest of shots in the film? Why are you now conflating being pandered to and being titillated? If a dude watched a film and found a female character's accent sexy you might say he was titillated by that detail, but that doesn't mean the detail was included to pander to him or that the film pointlessly sexualized the actor or her character. quote:Context isn't the same thing as details. If this were the sexy fun The Enterprise Crew Goes To The Beach movie, you wouldn't see me complaining about the mere fact of the existence of shots of Carol Marcus in a bikini. I know context isn't the same thing as details, that's why I said "context and details". Why is it that seeing a brief shot of a woman in a bra is inherently sexual in a bad, juvenile way but seeing a brief shot of a woman in a bikini is not? Why is it that the context doesn't matter here if it comes in the form of dialogue or the character's attitude but it would matter if it was a change in setting? I have no idea what you mean by that last bit, can you explain the basic problem in a clearer way? Preferably one that doesn't involve a wacky anthropomorphization of the film (like I get that can be a useful way of speaking sometimes, but here its just obscuring your point). Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jun 27, 2013 |
# ? Jun 27, 2013 08:31 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 13:23 |
|
jivjov posted:You're arguing that context isn't important. That's utterly absurd. Context turns what could have been shameless exploitation of a female character into strong character development for not only her but another character as well. I don't think you read my post. Lord Krangdar posted:Who here was titillated by that briefest of shots in the film? Why are you now conflating being pandered to and being titillated? If a dude watched a film and found a female character's accent sexy you might say he was titillated by that detail, but that doesn't mean the detail was included to pander to him or that the film pointlessly sexualized the actor or her character. See? See? Apparently it's super important who was or wasn't literally turned on by that set of frames and it's now time to set out a comprehensive census. I knew this would happen. quote:I know context isn't the same thing as details, that's why I said "context and details". I never said context didn't matter. In fact, I provided an example of an alternate context in which that scene would've been completely unremarkable. What I'm saying is that the details of that scene - the character's specific attitude about and response to being ogled by Kirk + the camera - isn't relevant to the complaint being made.
|
# ? Jun 27, 2013 08:50 |
Alice Eve was pretty hot when she was standing in her underwear. Just sayin'. Also, why was Carol Marcus suddenly British? Looks like some Limey-washing to me.
|
|
# ? Jun 27, 2013 09:03 |
|
So a screenshot of the scene has been posted an average of once per page since the discussion started (or at least p. 145)! Edit ... which seems to have translated in this thread going up 1 point in the ratings! Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jun 27, 2013 |
# ? Jun 27, 2013 09:57 |
Cingulate posted:So a screenshot of the scene has been posted an average of once per page since the discussion started (or at least p. 145)! I don't think it was posted on page 146.
|
|
# ? Jun 27, 2013 10:54 |
|
But twice on p. 146.
|
# ? Jun 27, 2013 11:00 |
|
Ferrinus posted:See? See? Apparently it's super important who was or wasn't literally turned on by that set of frames and it's now time to set out a comprehensive census. I knew this would happen. You seem inordinately aghast that someone might ask you to actually back up your claims and explain your positions. If you didn't want to talk about those individuals you didn't have to bring them up. Looks like you want to vaguely reference these people who were supposedly aroused or titillated or pandered to but never actually explain who they are and how you know, let alone why its a problem. I didn't ask for a "comprehensive census", and this thing you do where you retreat into absurdly exaggerating the arguments of other posters is not cute or whatever. In fact, its getting very old. quote:I never said context didn't matter. In fact, I provided an example of an alternate context in which that scene would've been completely unremarkable. What I'm saying is that the details of that scene - the character's specific attitude about and response to being ogled by Kirk + the camera - isn't relevant to the complaint being made. So you keep saying. I'm not even sure what the exact complaint being made is anymore, given your reluctance to pin down the details. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jun 27, 2013 |
# ? Jun 27, 2013 15:42 |
|
Lord Krangdar posted:You seem inordinately aghast that someone might ask you to actually back up your claims and explain your positions. If you didn't want to talk about those individuals you didn't have to bring them up. Looks like you want to vaguely reference these people who were supposedly aroused or titillated or pandered to but never actually explain who they are and how you know, let alone why its a problem. This has been made clear for multiple pages. I don't want to get into multiple-pages line by line war in which you point out that Alice Eve shot from below is worth only 76% of the porno points that Alice Eve shot from head on would be indexed against contemporary lingerie advertisements. I think Supercar phrased the actual complaint best and I'm just going to paraphrase him: that scene's a continuation of a trend running through media generally in which women are incessantly evaluated in terms of their sexuality. Carol Marcus in her underwear confidently rejected Kirk's juvenile advances, great! But she still turned up in her underwear to clarify for us in the audience as to how she looked in her underwear and whether or not she wanted to bang someone, as has like every important female character in this series of movies who wasn't someone's mom. You don't have to watch Star Trek Into Darkness to see a scantily-clad babe - but if you watch it, you get a scantily-clad babe as a bonus, even though it's a jarring interruption in what was otherwise a sci fi action thriller!
|
# ? Jun 27, 2013 21:00 |
|
You seem utterly convinced that the shot is a "jarring interruption". Well, it's not, it fits the narrative of the film and develops not one but two different characters
|
# ? Jun 27, 2013 21:45 |
|
I'm hoping in the next film they give Kirk that green wraparound he sometimes wore. They seem to like limiting how much he wears gold, so maybe green would work better! It'd be another nice bright colour to add on the bridge, at least.
|
# ? Jun 27, 2013 21:55 |
|
So here's a movie with a grand total of two female characters. One of them has no real characterization beyond "loves the male lead", the other one fulfils the age old "sexy scientist" stereotype. The fact people can actually argue that Alice Eve stripping to her underwear was some great example of female empowerment or character development is hilarious. If you want to defend this film as pulpy entertainment or a guilty pleasure go ahead, but there's a hilarious level of obtuseness behind the argument that this was an important example of character development. Are people in denial about what a dumb movie this way or something? The emotional beats were almost the exact same as the first film. Spock has to learn to express his emotions appropriately (again). Kirk has to learn how to temper his brashness (again). The plot doesn't make any sense (why would a 300 year old man know anything about weapon design?) and is nothing more than a vehicle for getting the characters from one action scene to the next. This movie was not high art. They didn't show Alice Eve in her underwear because they legitimately thought that was somehow the most effective way to express their character. There just isn't an :eyeroll: big enough for people actually trying to argue that scene was an artistically motived decision. This movie was a brainless rollercoaster ride and nothing more. The reason Alice Eve took off her top was so that the audience could be titilated. If they wanted to establish her as a strong character there would have been a million other ways to do it. They decided to show off her body as fan service to the audience. You're watching shlock folks. Defend it if you want but don't try to pretend its something more than it is.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 00:19 |
|
Helsing posted:The fact people can actually argue that Alice Eve stripping to her underwear was some great example of female empowerment or character development is hilarious. Just because you're too distracted being titillated to pick up on character moments doesn't mean that everyone who watched the film is as well. EDIT: While I'm at it, let's look at this gem too: Helsing posted:If they wanted to establish her as a strong character there would have been a million other ways to do it. And hey, guess what, they did. She got herself transferred on board the Enterprise under a fake name, she defused the torpedo with the cryo tube in it, she stood up to the head of Starfleet who also happened to be her father. Showing her mid-clothes-change doesn't magically invalidate all the other character development she got. It was another facet. jivjov fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jun 28, 2013 |
# ? Jun 28, 2013 00:34 |
|
jivjov posted:And hey, guess what, they did. She got herself transferred on board the Enterprise under a fake name, she defused the torpedo with the cryo tube in it, she stood up to the head of Starfleet who also happened to be her father. Showing her mid-clothes-change doesn't magically invalidate all the other character development she got. It was another facet. Her final active moment in the film is to run screaming across the bridge of the Enterprise.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 00:44 |
|
When you put it that way it's almost like there isn't a reason for it!
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:06 |
|
jivjov posted:Just because you're too distracted being titillated to pick up on character moments doesn't mean that everyone who watched the film is as well. I'm incredulous that you actually think the motive behind that scene was anything other than titillating the audience. It was a very silly summer blockerbuster movie. The buxom young blonde woman shows off her breasts because that's something that a male dominated audience is going to appreciate. quote:And hey, guess what, they did. She got herself transferred on board the Enterprise under a fake name, she defused the torpedo with the cryo tube in it, she stood up to the head of Starfleet who also happened to be her father. Showing her mid-clothes-change doesn't magically invalidate all the other character development she got. It was another facet. That isn't character development, that's cliched action schlock. You're trying to give this movie a way deeper reading than it deserves. The characters all just mechanically act out the roles that are necessary to carry forward the action. There's a small amount of mild characterization regarding father issues and male bonding tossed in for flavour but that's it.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:09 |
|
Helsing posted:I'm incredulous that you actually think the motive behind that scene was anything other than titillating the audience. It was a very silly summer blockerbuster movie. The buxom young blonde woman shows off her breasts because that's something that a male dominated audience is going to appreciate. It's a movie. Of course everyone mechanically acts out roles. That's what the script tells the actors to do. Who are you to say how "deep" of a reading a film does or doesn't deserve anyway? I'll be the first to admit that I don't dig particularly deep into movies; I've made some pretty contentious posts about Avengers and the other Marvel comic movies. But at least I'm not so dense as to look at a screen and completely ignore everything going on in a scene the moment breasts become involved.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:13 |
|
Out of curiosity, did this ridiculous discussion occur in the Iron Man 3 thread, because I clearly remember Pepper running around in her bra for the last portion of that movie and it had just as much justification as this scene did. Why the lack of bitching in that case? Why no fervent demand for justification that in turn ignores every bit of reasoning given? I would like all of you that are up in arms about bras and panties to scrutinize every single TV show and movie you watch just as critically as you have ol' Into Darkness. Then, when you've hit a proper level of outrage, go find the thread for whatever it is that you are watching either here in CD or in TVIV and assist in turning that thread into the same cesspool of discussion that this thread has been turned into. Oh, and...
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:36 |
|
DFu4ever posted:Out of curiosity, did this ridiculous discussion occur in the Iron Man 3 thread, because I clearly remember Pepper running around in her bra for the last portion of that movie and it had just as much justification as this scene did. No, it was more nerds bitching that the villain didn't act like the racist stereotype he was based off of.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:39 |
|
DFu4ever posted:Out of curiosity, did this ridiculous discussion occur in the Iron Man 3 thread, because I clearly remember Pepper running around in her bra for the last portion of that movie and it had just as much justification as this scene did. Why the lack of bitching in that case? Why no fervent demand for justification that in turn ignores every bit of reasoning given? Because star trek fans are more likely to have white knight complexes than comicbook fans? While Trek has always been progressive in a sort of "two steps forward, one step back" kind of way, treatment of women's bodies in comic books has been almost universally exploitative.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:41 |
|
Snak posted:Because star trek fans are more likely to have white knight complexes than comicbook fans? While Trek has always been progressive in a sort of "two steps forward, one step back" kind of way, treatment of women's bodies in comic books has been almost universally exploitative.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:43 |
|
misguided rage posted:Also because the focus in those scenes wasn't solely on Pepper's cleavage. If anyone thinks the discussion here is about women in film never being allowed to be less than fully dressed they're probably an idiot. You saw her for literally two seconds. That said...here is a peace offering I spent DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jun 28, 2013 |
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:52 |
|
This place is like a dorm room! Only we all use the same pinup pic. Also, it would probably be best if we all just stopped and started talking about something else. Possibly spaceships. DFu4ever posted:You saw her for literally two seconds. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jun 28, 2013 |
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:52 |
|
I love the little details, like how her left hand points, symbolically, towards the window. She isn't standing around, but seems to have paused mid-stride. I believe those are her clothes in her hand, neatly folded and held onto. Her entire demeanour is businesslike.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:52 |
|
It is THE iconic picture of NSTII.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 01:55 |
|
I have no issue with the action of the scene. Eve changing, Kirk peaking, but Eve just coolly telling him to turn around works well as development for the characters and, as written, does have all the themes that SMG and others were detailing. However, according to the general rules of editing (which JJ normally follows extremely consistently) it's a really weird place to cut to a wide one-shot, especially if Eve's character is supposed to have the upper hand. I'd also never light a shot like that unless the main point of the image was showing off the curve of the breast and muscle tone. There are other things going on with the shot (largely thanks to Eve's body language) which others have pointed out, but those two elements are, if not problematic*, at least very jarring and overpowering. Audiences will pick up on the oddity of the edit and the light, even if only subconsciously, so it's not surprising that this is stirring a lot of debate. *For my two cents, I'd say they are. However, it's not especially worse in this film than many others, it's just executed in a clumsy manner which draws attention to itself.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 02:12 |
|
Ferrinus posted:I think Supercar phrased the actual complaint best and I'm just going to paraphrase him: that scene's a continuation of a trend running through media generally in which women are incessantly evaluated in terms of their sexuality. Carol Marcus in her underwear confidently rejected Kirk's juvenile advances, great! But she still turned up in her underwear to clarify for us in the audience as to how she looked in her underwear and whether or not she wanted to bang someone, as has like every important female character in this series of movies who wasn't someone's mom. You don't have to watch Star Trek Into Darkness to see a scantily-clad babe - but if you watch it, you get a scantily-clad babe as a bonus, even though it's a jarring interruption in what was otherwise a sci fi action thriller! I can't agree with this because none of that corresponds with my actual experience of watching the film. Sitting in the theater what I took from that scene as it flew by was this Kirk is pretty immature and Carol Marcus's attitude is nothing like most of the women from TOS. It was not a jarring interruption for me because the idea that Kirk is pretty immature, maybe too immature to be commanding the Enterprise, is something that runs throughout the film. The irony here is that you're complaining that women in film are "are incessantly evaluated in terms of their sexuality" yet you're the one choosing to focus on that aspect of the scene above any others. Did you see the brief shot of a scantily-clad woman as a "bonus"? If not, who are you claiming did? By this series of movies do you mean the two Abrams installments, or all the Star Trek films? quote:This has been made clear for multiple pages. I don't want to get into multiple-pages line by line war in which you point out that Alice Eve shot from below is worth only 76% of the porno points that Alice Eve shot from head on would be indexed against contemporary lingerie advertisements. This thing you do where you retreat into absurdly exaggerating the arguments of other posters is not cute or whatever. In fact, its getting very old. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jun 28, 2013 |
# ? Jun 28, 2013 04:40 |
|
jivjov posted:Just because you're too distracted being titillated to pick up on character moments doesn't mean that everyone who watched the film is as well. The only thing you listed here which is actually played as a character motivation of Marcus's which has to do with her character arc, to the extent that she has one, is contingent upon her father. It is not good when a female character's motivations are driven entirely by the men in the movie, and it's double not good when "oh, so she doesn't want to gently caress Kirk" is about half of the development she gets. If he doesn't ever gently caress Kirk in the movie, that would hopefully have been implicit without having to show us her naked body to prove it! This all goes for Uhura, too, whose motivations are pretty much entirely Spock-driven. It would be one thing if the men simply outnumbered the women to the extent they already do, it's quite another that the thing Uhura wants in this movie is literally for Spock to be a better boyfriend - that she's right about Spock's emotional weaknesses is barely a small comfort. Can you think of any male secondary characters who get maybe two or three moments of development in their movie, where one of those moments has to do with whether or not they want to gently caress a girl on the set and another moment has to do with their mother? I think that character would very much be seen as a joke. Here we have a character like that who is being played seriously. I am not on board. Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Jun 28, 2013 |
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:19 |
|
Here, use this pic for a change. She's quite lovely, I'm actually curious what she'd think if there was a way to ask, and perhaps this thread should just change to the Alice Eve own zone.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:24 |
|
You can't fit every single combination of character traits interacting with every possible circumstance in a single movie. We're a little short on the infinite time that would require. And how do you know that a male character that has a moment in which he makes it clear that he has no interest in having sex with a female character and also has plot interactions with his mother would be seen as a joke? Maybe you'd see a character like that as a joke, but since that hypothetical character wasn't in this particular movie, you can hardly speak for every single person and unilaterally declare that such a character is unequivocally a joke.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:25 |
|
Sadly her twitter is inactive or we could get this whole nerd debate settled lickety splitjivjov posted:You can't fit every single combination of character traits interacting with every possible circumstance in a single movie. We're a little short on the infinite time that would require. I don't get it, do I need to prove that my opinion is a consensus before you'll consider and address the points I made instead of the possibility of people seeing things my way (people do)
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:25 |
|
I'd say that what makes this image special, what evidently angers so many, is not that the character was a strong, capable woman who is degraded by being shown in her underwear. That happens all the time, without complaint. Instead, I'm going to perform a reversal: the issue is that the visible underwear degrades Starfleet decorum. She doesn't cover her shame when the captain turns around. She continues to perform her duties while unclothed, moving purposefully, as if nothing is wrong. But something is wrong! You can see a breast! The appearance of the breast is an affront to Starfleet (the racist and colonialist institution), and is unconscionable. Note again the purposeful stride and the symbolism of the one hand gripping the material while the other points towards the infinite. It's imagery of knowledge and enlightenment, but her breasts aren't hidden and she experiences no shame. And she denies Kirk knowledge (in the biblical sense now). This is what makes the image fascinating and, evidently, discomfiting.
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:32 |
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'd say that what makes this image special, what evidently angers so many, is not that the character was a strong, capable woman who is degraded by being shown in her underwear. That happens all the time, without complaint. Yo I actually roll my eyes every time I see something like this in a movie, I'm just kind of bewildered at how much defense this particular one is getting. Edit: I don't agree, not for a second, underwear scene notwithstanding, that Carol Marcus in JJ Arbams' summer sci-fi blockbuster Star Trek Into Darkness was a strong character
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:34 |
|
Space Hamlet posted:Sadly her twitter is inactive or we could get this whole nerd debate settled lickety split You're asking us to consider a hypothetical counter example instead of examining the actual scene we have from this movie. What good does it do to stand here and say "oh if the genders were reversed the character would be seen as a joke"? How do you know that?
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:36 |
|
jivjov posted:You're asking us to consider a hypothetical counter example instead of examining the actual scene we have from this movie. What good does it do to stand here and say "oh if the genders were reversed the character would be seen as a joke"? How do you know that? Because I see this character a joke due to the reasons which were the rest of my post Edit: The reason I'm asking whether anyone can name a male character like that is because there are billions of female characters like that. I'm struggling to think of a Male example but I bet one does exist somewhere Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Jun 28, 2013 |
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:39 |
|
Space Hamlet posted:Because I see this character a joke due to the reasons which were the rest of my post Why is Carol a joke? She's a strong character for many reasons, and her utter lack of concern about Kirk stating at her is just one of those reasons. Sure, she's an attractive woman in a revealing situation, and yeah it makes great "18-35 male" demographic bait to slap that shot in the trailer, but the scene represents so much more than that
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:47 |
|
What irks is that Marcus/Eve doesn't seem to know she's being exploited. Why is she so confident? Doesn't she know that men control her? Doesn't she understand that her vocal resistance to being exploited is an merely a vestigial annoyed face attached to a breast? Doesn't she know her place, as victim?
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:51 |
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What irks is that Marcus/Eve doesn't seem to know she's being exploited. Why is she so confident? Doesn't she know that men control her? Doesn't she understand that her vocal resistance to being exploited is an merely a vestigial annoyed face attached to a breast? Doesn't she know her place, as victim?
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:53 |
|
Ostensibly being an expert in something doesn't make her a strong character, taking steps to drive the plot forward doesn't make her a strong character, not wanting the bad thing to happen in the movie doesn't make her a strong character, not liking the movie's cartoon villain doesn't make her a strong character, having melodramatic scenes which display how upset she is that her father is a cartoon villain actively makes her less of a strong character, and I think I'm all out of traits that Carol Marcus has outside of the underwear scene SMG I would tell you that your window into my psyche is made up and that I feel identically about this scene as I do other gratuitous sexy shots in other films, but, you know, death of the author and all that
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 05:56 |
|
Using a character whose defining trait is her victimhood as a counterpoint shows clearly that you are not really following. How can I clarify?
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 06:02 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 13:23 |
|
So what exactly does make for a "strong character" if all the things Carol accomplishes don't count?
|
# ? Jun 28, 2013 06:02 |