|
jivjov posted:So what exactly does make for a "strong character" if all the things Carol accomplishes don't count? Interesting and nuanced motivations. An arc which doesn't simply piggyback that of the plot. Idiosyncratic traits which are not rote, especially if they aren't related to the men in the film. Edit: I'm not just stopping with Marcus here, this isn't really a film which makes room for that many Strong Characters outside of Kirk and Spock and maybe Khan. Which isn't so bad for an exciting, plot-driven action movie!
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Using a character whose defining trait is her victimhood as a counterpoint shows clearly that you are not really following. How can I clarify? Both are treated at key moments as helpless victims denied agency by male characters (Black Widow being menaced by the Hulk, Marcus being dominated via transporter by her father), and both have scenes in which the camera/audience is invited to appreciate their body while a male character is berated/attacked for doing the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
You don't even need to see The Avengers to see that the Marcus and Black Widow images aren't conveying the same thing: Black Widow is in an extremely compliant pose - in fact, it's almost defensive, like she's a shy girl next door tee hee. The one of Marcus/Eve (what a fantastic last name for the role she's playing, by the way!) is defiant and not at ease. There's stress in her body posture and she looks like she's about to tell someone to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Both are treated at key moments as helpless victims denied agency by male characters (Black Widow being menaced by the Hulk, Marcus being dominated via transporter by her father), and both have scenes in which the camera/audience is invited to appreciate their body while a male character is berated/attacked for doing the same. Those aren't similar at all. The hulk scene employs rape imagery that triggers Black Widow's rape trauma (because she is defined by her victimhood), whereas Into Darkness employs domineering father imagery (manipulating her and silencing her voice in the guise of protecting her (sounds familiar?)). Kirk is also obviously not berated or attacked. Marcus dismisses him nonchalantly. I'm sorry man, but your analysis lacks nuance. You gotta step up your game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:You don't even need to see The Avengers to see that the Marcus and Black Widow images aren't conveying the same thing: Black Widow is in an extremely compliant pose - in fact, it's almost defensive, like she's a shy girl next door tee hee. And yet for all her skivvy-clad "defiance", Marcus' final scenes in the film utterly deny her any agency. She is teleported against her will, injured by Khan, and then screams helplessly as Khan destroys the Admiral. And then she disappears from the movie. The notion that the underwear scene presents her as "strong" is superficial and unsubstantiated by the rest of the film. It's a tactic so transparent I'm astonished that anyone fell for it; it's designed to create the illusion of a credibly-written woman ("this ain't your grandpappy's docile movie woman, no siree") while still letting the audience leer and generally maintaining the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:And yet for all her skivvy-clad "defiance", Marcus' final scenes in the film utterly deny her any agency. She is teleported against her will, injured by Khan, and then screams helplessly as Khan destroys the Admiral. And then she disappears from the movie. The film has an average shot length of probably under three seconds. The superficial qualities that you dismiss are the content, are the depth of the character. Nuance is more important than complexity and your argument doesn't really have either. You're talking in broad generalities (the character screams, we see her breast), complaining about an imagined audience that leers and hates instead of deciding upon your own desire. ("What does this represent? What do you represent?") It's the 'Zack Snyder is a fratboy / George Lucas is stupid' thing all over again. You're not actually taking on the responsibility of reading the film. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Dude, I really don't want to her a peep from you about who lacks or possesses nuance when earlier you conflated criticisms of the scene with prudery. The interpretation of the scene as anti-objectification is not just superficial (although it is certainly that), but also contradictory, thin, and extraneous. The remainder of the narrative fights your reading. The camera and the lighting fight your reading. The film's marketing fights your reading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
To talk about those superficial qualities which are the content, then, I'd like to draw your attention back to this excellent post from the previous page:Bugblatter posted: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. I'm all for empowering the reader (how the hell else did Alfred "Torture the Women" Hitchcock become a fixture in feminist film study) but this film in particular gives very little, textually, which can be used to substantiate Carol Marcus as a character at all, much less a gender hero. Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Dude, I really don't want to her a peep from you about who lacks or possesses nuance when earlier you conflated criticisms of the scene with prudery. You conflated defense of the scene with erections. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
I'm sorry, when I posted that I must have been thinking of some other thread where titillation in films was compared to spice on food.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted: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. No, that's false. As I've said several times, I agree that the scene is scripted so as to shame Kirk for ogling and demonstrate Marcus's mastery of the situation. I am not criticizing the lines the characters say, I am criticizing the inclusion of the scene at all, for broader reasons involving trends running through media in general rather than this particular movie. For some reason you just can't get over this and are reacting by dissecting the minutiae of the scene itself - even though I'm not talking about them and haven't disagreed with the thread's analysis of them. quote:Did you see the brief shot of a scantily-clad woman as a "bonus"? If not, who are you claiming did? Hmm, interesting. Here's the thing, though, if I showed you this, and cited it as an example of pandering, titillation, or some other word you don't want to confront directly:  , and you were a fan of the game being advertised, I'm sure you'd be keen to ask things like: aren't there places on the internet you could go to see women in even more extreme states of undress? Isn't Evony itself just a bureaucratic kingdom management game? Who would play Evony just to see an image of a sexy woman when google image search is a mere click away? Who is this image supposed to appeal to, anyway? Does it appeal to me, Ferrinus, and that's the only reason I posted it? Why is it there, anyway? Who do I, Ferrinus, think that it's "for"? Does it even really arouse anyone? At the end of the day, if you can't see that a ton of nerdy mass media is shot through with the pointless sexualization of women, then that's your problem, not mine. I'm not going to let you waste my time with this kind of pedantic legalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Here's what strikes me about Marcus's scene, incidentally. It happens lateish in STID, when the movie's already entered high-stakes action thriller mode and everyone's worried about capturing Khan or solving the mystery of section 31 or whatever. It's not a scene early in the movie back on earth when everything's relatively fine and you might expect a bachelor Kirk to be on the prowl, it's not even a scene early in the mission when Marcus has just been introduced to the crew and the Enterprise is still in transit so a bored and antsy Kirk might be willing to try his luck, or whatever. In fact, both characters are in transit and in a rush, off from doing one important thing to do another really important thing, and Marcus is in a hurry to get changed - it's obvious to everyone, Kirk included, that there are not going to be any smoldering makeout sessions on the brief shuttle ride to the bomb disposal zone. Also, thus far Marcus hasn't shown any romantic interest in Kirk at all. So, Marcus tells Kirk not to look, but Kirk looks, and all of us watching the movie look along with him. Obviously there is not going to be a romantic encounter on the shuttle ride, but that doesn't matter - Kirk and the camera want to scope out a hot babe, so they do, and drat the consequences! Marcus reacts really coolly, apparently unfazed by being looked at when she specifically instructed us not to. But, that's what happened - Marcus didn't want us to look at her, and we did anyway. We've violated Marcus's privacy. And whether Marcus were to react by posing bravely and affecting cold disinterest, or by gasping in shock and pulling her clothes up over her body, or by blushing endearingly, or whatever, the point remains that she's been wronged. It's not actually Carol Marcus's responsibility to display steely resolve when ogled against her will, it's Kirk's responsibility to show some basic decency, and by putting the focus on Marcus's breezy reaction the film distracts us from the fact that we shouldn't have looked in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, that's false. As I've said several times, I agree that the scene is scripted so as to shame Kirk for ogling and demonstrate Marcus's mastery of the situation. I am not criticizing the lines the characters say, I am criticizing the inclusion of the scene at all, for broader reasons involving trends running through media in general rather than this particular movie. For some reason you just can't get over this and are reacting by dissecting the minutiae of the scene itself - even though I'm not talking about them and haven't disagreed with the thread's analysis of them. Because the minutiae of the scene are what makes it a worthwhile inclusion. If you weren't disagreeing with the thread's analysis of those elements you wouldn't keep saying the scene is pointless in relation the rest of the film. quote:Hmm, interesting. Here's the thing, though, if I showed you this, and cited it as an example of pandering, titillation, or some other word you don't want to confront directly: I don't want to confront those directly? You're the one who has been giving me the run around every time I try and pin down what the gently caress you're arguing using those words. You still have utterly failed to answer the simplest of questions about your own position: pandering to who exactly? Confront that directly! You know, that list of questions might actually make for an interesting, fruitful discussion that could illuminate sexist trends in entertainment and possibly help us understand where they come from. But I get the impression you don't feel the same way, so let's just label that image pandering to --------? and repeatedly refuse to delve any further. Maybe we can vaguely gesture in the direction of phrases like "male gaze" for extra credit. quote:At the end of the day, if you can't see that a ton of nerdy mass media is shot through with the pointless sexualization of women, then that's your problem, not mine. I can see the trends you're referring to and still disagree that the scene in question should be lumped in there. Ferrinus posted:Here's what strikes me about Marcus's scene, incidentally. It happens lateish in STID, when the movie's already entered high-stakes action thriller mode and everyone's worried about capturing Khan or solving the mystery of section 31 or whatever. It's not a scene early in the movie back on earth when everything's relatively fine and you might expect a bachelor Kirk to be on the prowl, it's not even a scene early in the mission when Marcus has just been introduced to the crew and the Enterprise is still in transit so a bored and antsy Kirk might be willing to try his luck, or whatever. In fact, both characters are in transit and in a rush, off from doing one important thing to do another really important thing, and Marcus is in a hurry to get changed - it's obvious to everyone, Kirk included, that there are not going to be any smoldering makeout sessions on the brief shuttle ride to the bomb disposal zone. Also, thus far Marcus hasn't shown any romantic interest in Kirk at all. So is it still just pointless, meaningless juvenile titillation injected in on a whim? Because what you've described here sounds like something a lot more complex than that. Especially when you realize that we the viewers don't have to agree with Kirk's actions in the scene, and I've already argued over and over that the main point of the scene is to develop his flaws. I'm pretty sure that both the fictional character Carol Marcus and actually existing Alice Eve are going to be just fine after enduring the terrible traumatic violation of being glanced at for the briefest of moments (not so sure about those Sears underwear models though, maybe you better check on them). Incidentally, this latest post of yours makes it clearer than ever that SMG was dead on earlier; your argument requires you to inadvertently reduce the confident woman in the scene to only a fragile victim and nothing more, even though there is more going on there (what you've dismissed as mere "minutiae"). SuperMechagodzilla posted: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? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Here, use this pic for a change. http://www.startrek.com/article/exclusive-interview-alice-eve quote:The scene in which you change clothes, a photo of which has been all over the Internet, is viewed by some as fun, sexy and old-school Star Trek, while others think it’s sexist, gratuitous and undermines Marcus as a character. What are your thoughts? Edit: to clarify, I'm not quoting this to make a case for or against anything, I simply remembered having read an interview where she's talking about that and decided to quote the whole passage. Now if you want to switch to other pictures of her, there's two that spring to mind:   Incidentally, they're saying very different things about the movie. Also, the insinuation that the people who find the scene problematic are the real sexists because they immediately sexualise her (everybody and their mum, including Alice Eve, Abrams, Lindelof, David Letterman and his audience see the sex in the scene), disapprove of women's bodies in general (it's always been about how nudity is presented, not about nudity) or only accept female nudity when it's shown as a sign of submission (what?) is not helping the debate. You shouldn't use your arguments about the movie mainly as convoluted attacks on the characters and political integrity of other posters. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 10:53
|
|
|
In an alternate universe, the same people arguing whitewashing are arguing that the Star Trek (with Shah Rukh Khan) as Khan unfairly portrays minorities as terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
Are you trying to say that if you decide to make a movie that features a spaceplane crashing into a few skyscrapers and settle on a villain named Khan, you're looking at some tough decisions to make?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I don't want to confront those directly? You're the one who has been giving me the run around every time I try and pin down what the gently caress you're arguing using those words. You still have utterly failed to answer the simplest of questions about your own position: pandering to who exactly? Confront that directly! Maybe it would help us understand what the gently caress you are trying to ask here if you could show us some example of pandering from some other film and give us a satisfactory rundown of "who" that's pandering to, because that just looks like it's either an impossible question to answer or an impossibly thick question to ask at all. It's pandering to the young male demographic the movie is built for, a demographic which responds positively in focus groups to seeing naked ladies. It's pandering to the business executives who are demanding that the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it can be stuck into the trailer. It's pandering to forums user Ho Chi Mint, whose post I would quote but then I'd just be quoting the darned image again Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:It's pandering to the young male demographic the movie is built for, a demographic which responds positively in focus groups to seeing naked ladies. It's pandering to the business executives who are demanding that the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it can be stuck into the trailer. It's pandering to forums user Ho Chi Mint, whose post I would quote but then I'd just be quoting the darned image again * I'd like to include David Letterman here. VVV I have not made myself very clear it seems. I mean, the argument in defence of the scene as not sexist seems to be that when the demographic you describe as being pandered to feels pandered to, they're objectively wrong. Whereas your point is that they have no problems feeling pandered to still. VVV Cingulate fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
They're not wrong if they feel pandered to? They are wrong if they think the scene escapes being problematic. Those are different things Edit: maybe you weren't addressing me or my camp there
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Not that I think she (or any other individual) could somehow settle the debate, but ... "There is sexuality throughout the movie. Chris (Pine) comes in in a very skin-tight suit and you… can see him. He has his top off at the beginning. Benedict (Cumberbatch) did a shower scene that wasn’t in the movie. I think that to ignore an element of sexuality is to ignore an element of humanity." I can't help but notice that she studiously avoids answering the actual question there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Not entirely. I mean, if there's sexuality throughout the movie than one more sexualized shot isn't entirely gratuitous even if it's not strictly necessitated by the plot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:"There is sexuality throughout the movie. Chris (Pine) comes in in a very skin-tight suit and you… can see him. He has his top off at the beginning. Benedict (Cumberbatch) did a shower scene that wasn’t in the movie. I think that to ignore an element of sexuality is to ignore an element of humanity." No she doesn't. Eve draws the distinction between sexuality and exploitation, saying that her character's humanity includes having breasts and other sexual signifiers, and is not undermined by them. This is the same distinction that detractors have so far failed to make. Note the immediate conceptual leap from "breast" to "come play my lord" in the comments here. The breast, in this view, is already in-itself a sign of weakness and an invitation for dominance. The game is over. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Maybe it would help us understand what the gently caress you are trying to ask here if you could show us some example of pandering from some other film and give us a satisfactory rundown of "who" that's pandering to, because that just looks like it's either an impossible question to answer or an impossibly thick question to ask at all. It was never a trick question; I mostly just wanted Ferrinus to explain who he was talking about so I wouldn't have to put words in his mouth in order to respond to his viewpoint. I kept hammering at the point because I thought his reluctance to answer might be because he doesn't actually know what he's arguing beyond applying a label and leaving it at that. I don't go around declaring shots in films to be pandering, though, so I don't have any of my own examples. I don't think I've ever even used that word in my life before. I guess depending on what the intentions were the church scene and blatant Christ/Superman shot in Man of Steel along with the marketing of the film directly to churches could be called an attempt to pander to churchgoing Christians, maybe churchgoing Christians who want to feel like a relevant part of current pop culture. quote:It's pandering to the young male demographic the movie is built for, a demographic which responds positively in focus groups to seeing naked ladies. It's pandering to the business executives who are demanding that the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it can be stuck into the trailer. It's pandering to forums user Ho Chi Mint, whose post I would quote but then I'd just be quoting the darned image again You don't know that business executives demanded the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it could be stuck into the trailer. Now we've already established that nobody needs to pay money to see this film to briefly glimpse images of a woman in her underwear, but maybe the filmmakers wanted to throw one in simply as "spice" or a "bonus" for the (straight) male demographic. But if that were the case why did they choose something so relatively tame? This franchise already has ready-made excuses to show some random sexy women, like Risa or the Orions. But they didn't choose those, they didn't choose to make Carol Marcus fall for Kirk, and there was no "come play, my lord" stuff here. Instead they put in a scene where a woman in underwear that's no more revealing than a bathing suit confidently expresses disdain for the immature young male who leers at her, is that what the young male demographic is clamoring for? And there's no "payoff" to the tease in the trailer, either; aren't the filmmakers disappointing the horny young males by not giving them anything they didn't already see in the trailer? Cingulate posted:Also, the insinuation that the people who find the scene problematic are the real sexists because they immediately sexualise her (everybody and their mum, including Alice Eve, Abrams, Lindelof, David Letterman and his audience see the sex in the scene), disapprove of women's bodies in general (it's always been about how nudity is presented, not about nudity) or only accept female nudity when it's shown as a sign of submission (what?) is not helping the debate. You shouldn't use your arguments about the movie mainly as convoluted attacks on the characters and political integrity of other posters. Well for my part, I haven't been saying they are "the real sexists". Just that they're happy to discuss the sexist implications of that scene but don't seem to be considering the sexist implications of their own arguments. And its not that they simply see sex in the scene, its that in order to make their criticisms they are reducing the scene, the character, and the actress to only being vehicles for sexiness. Cingulate posted:As far as I can tell, the argument seems to be that these people you are talking about* are objectively wrong when they feel pandered to by this, because while they experience it to be sexy, it actually is not. Am I getting this right? Not sure where you got that from. As I said before, let's say a dude watches a movie and finds one of the female actors' accents to be sexy to him. Does that mean that her accent was added to pander to him, or the male demographic? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:As I said before, let's say a dude watches a movie and finds one of the female actors' accents to be sexy to him. Does that mean that her accent was added to pander to him, or the male demographic? If you're only interested in intent, you and I likely don't have much or any disagreement here. * ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How important is creator intent to your argument? I personally only care so much about intent. I doubt Abrams is more sexist than for example I am, he's likely less sexist than me. That's not what I mean. What I'm interested in is, what do people* see when they see the scene? I'm only talking about intent now because that's what the detractors seem to be assuming here, and intent is implied by the word "pandering".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
The amount of flailing going on in this thread is genuinely funny. I can just imagine what some of you guys think the writing process for this movie must have looked like. I'm trying to visualize it now: JJ Abrams is sitting at his desk with his feet propped up, scratching his chin and scribbling ideas on a legal pad. He thinks drat, this movie does not have a single example of a female talking to another female. In fact, woman do nothing of real consequence in this movie. How can I fix that? Abrams thinks for a couple minutes and then Voila! He's got it! I'll have Carlos Marcus strip to her underwear and then frame the shot like a lingerie ad! I get that some of you guys liked the movie and I guess want to defend it on principle or something, but I just cannot fathom how deluded you'd have to be to seriously think that the inclusion of this scene was motivated by anything other than some producer going "Hey Abrams, we need more tits for the trailer!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Art can (and should) be appropriated through divergent or radical readings in opposition to the author's intent. This is basic stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
I love the recurring "The game is over" line, because in my view, the game is over when apparently no one in Hollywood can manage to prioritize ways to develop women that don't involve bodily displays. It's treated as a game-changer when a woman expresses an uninviting attitude towards a diegetic character while undressed, but the state of undress remains non-negotiable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I'm only talking about intent now because that's what the detractors seem to be assuming here, and intent is implied by the word "pandering".  So the way I read it (not a native speaker here), the movie panders. Doesn't necessarily mean there is any intent from the side of the creators behind it. I assume: - a substantial population amongst the viewers of the movie mostly experienced the scene as sexy. Yay boobs! - Abrams and Lindelof and who else may have not been consciously aware of the likely effect of the scene on a large part of its expected viewers (though they likely could have had) I'm calling it "sexist" solemnly on grounds of #1 here, and that is what I mean by the word. I don't think the camera guy was told, "make it so that guys can jerk off to it", or "can you please film the scene so feminism is thrown back a decade or two?" or anything like that. I think Abrams and the crew were likely mostly concerned with other things when doing the scene. I do think many people, maybe a majority amongst the primary target audience, mostly thought, when viewing the scene: yay boobs. Because that's what they got. I'm not even faulting anybody here, it's all quite ... natural? Well, not natural, but expectable, and congruent with the way our society works. Helsing posted:I just cannot fathom how deluded you'd have to be to seriously think that the inclusion of this scene was motivated by anything other than some producer going "Hey Abrams, we need more tits for the trailer!" I don't think what went on in the studio, in Abrams' head, anywhere, was anything like that. I don't think sexism is actually that overt. I assume that with somebody who likely associates as a liberal, like Abrams, it's all very internalized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
So I've seen the two newest Star Trek movies and other than what these two have told me I don't know anything else about the universe. I guess the movies don't really do a good job at explaining the background and just assume that the people who care already know it from previous movies or newcomers just care about science-fiction-action. I'm only complaining because it's my understanding that the first one (of the two) was suppose to be some kind of pseudo-reboot and it feels like we were just put right into the fold. So the galaxy is set in the future and we can travel faster than light. All of Earth is unified under one government? From Into Darkness there was also one scene with the doctor where he said something along the lines of Starfleet not being a military when he was objecting to the mission. So if Starfleet isn't a military then what is? I'm sure there are other alien threats out there like the Klingons. Why do most of the aliens look like humans?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're the detractor by calling me a detractor People are talking about intent behind the pandering, though. "Hey Abrams, we need more tits for the trailer!", for example, or Space Hamlet's alleged "business executives who are demanding that the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it can be stuck into the trailer." I'm not convinced that the majority saw that shot and thought only "yay boobs". If they did then those viewers missed out on the other things going on in the scene, and that's their problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:So the galaxy is set in the future and we can travel faster than light. All of Earth is unified under one government? Yeah, the Earth and human territories are one part of a governing body called the Federation of Planets, and Starfleet is the human-centered pseudo-military group that explores space and protects the Federation's interests. quote:From Into Darkness there was also one scene with the doctor where he said something along the lines of Starfleet not being a military when he was objecting to the mission. So if Starfleet isn't a military then what is? I'm sure there are other alien threats out there like the Klingons. Well that's a tension that runs through the franchise: Is the Federation a utopian society who believe in peaceful exploration, scientific discovery, diplomacy, and tolerance for other cultures? Or is that a naive cover for what's really an assimilationist military power? Previously the series Deep Space Nine, the third series in the franchise, devoted much of its time to exploring that question. That series is where Section 31 (the antagonists in this film) originated, as a revelation that even this supposed utopian society needs people behind the scenes willing to get their hands dirty in order to protect it. quote:Why do most of the aliens look like humans? I think that was explained in one of the episodes of The Next Generation with some pseudo-scientific techno babble, but the real answer is for the sake of budget, relatability, and allegorical relevance to real world issues. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Danger posted:Art can (and should) be appropriated through divergent or radical readings in opposition to the author's intent. This is basic stuff. I'm not talking about the role that the scene ultimately plays in the movie, I'm talking about what the specific intent of Abram and/or Lindelof (but presumably Abrams) was in including that scene and framing it the way they did. Cingulate posted:If you've been paying attention, I'm on the side that's arguing the scene is sexist. When we're talking about a business venture with millions of dollars of investor money on the line it really is that overt. Summer blockbusters have a checklist of elements that they are supposed to include, and T&A is high on that list. Its possible that Abrams rationalized the sexism of that scene using the same ridiculous excuses that some people in this thread have used, but you're fooling yourself if you think that the scene wasn't a calculated attempt to put as many bodies into theatre seats as possible. This is a summer blockbuster, not high art. When a beautiful woman strips to her bra and panties for no good reason and they prominently display that scene in the trailer it doesn't take rocket science to conclude what the motivations were. Only a hilarious level of wilful blindness could lead someone to ignore the obvious here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I love the recurring "The game is over" line, because in my view, the game is over when apparently no one in Hollywood can manage to prioritize ways to develop women that don't involve bodily displays. It's treated as a game-changer when a woman expresses an uninviting attitude towards a diegetic character while undressed, but the state of undress remains non-negotiable. There have been plenty of displays by Hollywood of women developing women without revealing clothing. There has rarely if ever been a case where a woman is developed *with* revealing clothing (and I mean legitimate development not "I'm a sexy girl who fights guys twice my weight" stuff) because America's culture is built on prudishness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is a summer blockbuster, not high art. Lord Krangdar posted:People are talking about intent behind the pandering, though. "Hey Abrams, we need more tits for the trailer!", for example, or Space Hamlet's alleged "business executives who are demanding that the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it can be stuck into the trailer." Lord Krangdar posted:I'm not convinced that the majority saw that shot and thought only "yay boobs". If they did then those viewers missed out on the other things going on in the scene, and that's their problem. Second, it's actually not their problem because to them, the world is actually totally fine. They* got their boobs after all. Does it not matter that, or possibly only if, millions of people could digest that scene as objectification? To me, a lot. How much does it matter that you can give them a wholly convincing and congruent argument as for why their subjective experiences when viewing the movie are actually incoherent with the movie? To me, yes, that DOES matter, but it does not change the other fact. I find it very interesting to read multiple ways how that scene could be read (I assume nobody here thinks there's only one way to experience it). I think it's problematic to ignore or explain away one dominant way it was seen by many, many people. Or are you saying that the people who mostly experienced it as sexy are an insignificant minority? * ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The amount of flailing going on in this thread is genuinely funny. I can just imagine what some of you guys think the writing process for this movie must have looked like. Well, yes, if you completely misinterpret how people are interpreting the scene, it is hard to see how it could have been written that way. But in reality, it could have easily involved whoever wrote the scene deciding to make a contrasting scene to the one in the 2009 movie where Kirk spies on Uhura changing - which is actually played with boys-will-be-boys lightness - but changing the tone to chastise Kirk because now that he's in the protector role as the captain of a ship he should know better. Which is to say, it's still sexist. Because, yeah, the movie doesn't do a great job with women, and even the best interpretation of that scene still has Carol Marcus's character only being relevant as she relates to Kirk. But it's not some loving mystery how it could have been written as anything but cheap pandering. Helsing posted:I get that some of you guys liked the movie and I guess want to defend it on principle or something, but I just cannot fathom how deluded you'd have to be to seriously think that the inclusion of this scene was motivated by anything other than some producer going "Hey Abrams, we need more tits for the trailer!" I disliked this movie, found plenty in it to be objectionable from a sexual-politics angle, but the criticisms of that shot are misreading it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
The amount of discussion you guys have gone through on this silly scene both appalling and amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:The amount of discussion you guys have gone through on this silly scene both appalling and amazing. It's a very beautiful woman dressed in skimpy clothes. What better subject since the dawn of time has man spent more time on?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:People are talking about intent behind the pandering, though. "Hey Abrams, we need more tits for the trailer!", for example, or Space Hamlet's alleged "business executives who are demanding that the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it can be stuck into the trailer." For the record I don't particularly care about whether pandering is happening or not. I just think Carol Marcus is a weak character and that it's a shame when weak female characters take their clothes off so drat often, and I think that the claims about the silly little lampshade in the scene being "strong character development" are silly. I chimed in on the note of pandering because I felt like your demand for the names, phone numbers, and addresses of all the pandering targets was kind of an infuriating argument (yes, this is an unfair characterization of your argument, please don't call me out on that as though it defeats mine)
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
It's possible for a scene to be multiple things. I think it is sexist to a degree and gratuitous to a degree, but at the same time I like how Eve played it and the overall tone. I agree with a poster above who said "cheesecake is a sometimes food", but I don't think this one slice was excessive in context. I mean I suppose it's a matter of individual tolerances.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:45
|
|