|
Maxwell Lord posted: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. Yes. I don't think that the way the scene was turned around on Kirk was completely without value or cleverness, I just don't think it excuses anything.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
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. I'd really really appreciate it if you'd stop calling everyone you disagree with "deluded". I get it, you disagree with me, but sinking to the level of ad hominem isn't adding anything to the discussion, and as far as I can tell you're only doing to try to piss off the 'other side' of this argument (and in my case, you're succeeding admirably). If you're done actually trying to be an adult participant in this debate, then salvage some dignity and bow out rather than flinging insults around like a feces-throwing chimpanzee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Helsing posted: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. Got a copy of that checklist? Every film with a substantial budget is a calculated attempt to get bodies in theater seats and make money. Does that mean we always have to assume the most cynical motivations behind everything in the film? Without that tired old assumption that the most cynical interpretation of a film must always be the correct one nothing you've said here is convincing. We don't actually know the intentions behind the inclusion of that scene or the intentions of everyone involved in making it (which includes Alice Eve) Cingulate posted:Not me. Neither the detractors nor the other detractors are a monolithic block. Or any block, for that matter. Ok, but you asked how important is creator intent to my argument. My answer is that I'm discussing intent because other people, not you, keep bringing it up and assuming that they know exactly what it was. quote:First, I very purposefully didn't say "only", but "mostly". We don't know what percentage of the audience experienced that shot what way, and we never will. But I would rather judge a film by the most comprehensive possible interpretation than what I imagine to be a hypothetical horny juvenile's interpretation. Films should not be reduced to what we assume a hypothetical lowest common denominator demographic would see in them (or merely an expression of the most cynical possible motivations, for that matter). There will always be people who will misinterpret things, that doesn't mean I have to. And I call it a misinterpretation and not simply a different interpretation if it involves ignoring the information that is right there on the screen to be read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted: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. Ok. Well I agree that this film's treatment of its female characters falls short, and I would love to see them do better the next time around. I still think that the scene in question is character development for both characters and that's the focus of the scene more than titillation, so it shouldn't be reduced to an example of pointlessly sexualizing a woman. There can be character development going on without it standing out as particularly strong, just like there can be meaning in the film without it being particularly profound or groundbreaking. And I would separate the "lampshading" aspect from the character development; the scene is character development because it tells us about the characters, simple as that. quote: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) Sorry, that's an unfair characterization of my argument (really, it was more of a basic question) and since you realized that while typing it maybe you shouldn't have clicked "submit reply". Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
I think the trouble we're faced with here is that supporters of the scene approach it with the premise that Eve is a person and portrays one, where detractors approach the scene from the standpoint that Eve is (by default) an exploited victim, Carol Marcus is an object, and both must earn full personhood by displaying a certain level of 'depth' via such factors as screen time, percentage of body covered, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
To me a character is good if I find them memorable and am glad for their presence in the film. By those standards Marcus passes- she's energetic and curious and represents some of the "good" ideals of the UFP. She doesn't have a large part in the story but I think she's a good character because her presence enhances the film beyond there merely being a pretty lady on screen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted: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. So now you're conflating arguments that you previously acknowledged were contradictory?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
My spice on food point was pretty accurate. Adding flavor can be done, and is done in film, in countless different ways.  What some people seem to be stuck on is the idea that there can only be one specific reason for a scene to exist in the form it exists in. They are looking for one true reason when in most creative endeavors there are multiple decisions made for various reasons coming into play for almost everything that you end up seeing on screen (or written, or on canvas, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:We don't know what percentage of the audience experienced that shot what way, and we never will. But I would rather judge a film by the most comprehensive possible interpretation than what I imagine to be a hypothetical horny juvenile's interpretation. Films should not be reduced to what we assume a hypothetical lowest common denominator demographic would see in them (or merely an expression of the most cynical possible motivations, for that matter). There will always be people who will misinterpret things, that doesn't mean I have to. And I call it a misinterpretation and not simply a different interpretation if it involves ignoring the information that is right there on the screen to be read. DFu4ever posted:What some people seem to be stuck on is the idea that there can only be one specific reason for a scene to exist in the form it exists in. They are looking for one true reason when in most creative endeavors there are multiple decisions made for various reasons coming into play for almost everything that you end up seeing on screen (or written, or on canvas, etc). I'm saying, the scene can be seen both in sexist and non-sexist ways (that's fairly trivial); describing one mostly coherent reading of the scene where it's, I don't know, anti-sexist does not somehow unmake the fact that it's also perfectly viable as mostly arousing. I'm very interested in other ways of reading it, but ignoring the fact that the first thought many, if not most people will have here is "boobs" would be missing a large piece of the picture. For a slightly different example: I have heard that American History X is somehow really popular amongst racist skinheads. Now, maybe they're missing the intent, and maybe even the most obvious readings, and maybe their reading is obviously incongruent. But it's still a really important thing that (/if) racist skinheads love American History X. Or, kids who actually go out and make real fight clubs after having seen the movie. Or the guy who dresses up as the Joker and blows up a cinema. Maybe their readings are incongruent. But - far from irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm saying, the scene can be seen both in sexist and non-sexist ways My big problems with this whole argument is the kneejerk application of the sexist label and demand for justification. What really starts to bug me on a creative level is when people ask "Why did they have to make the scene this way?" To me, the obvious answer is clearly "Why not?" But then again I want to see a creative vision put on screen so I can judge it on its own merits. If I end up not liking it, fine. If I end up liking it, great. If it was like this scene, then I remembered the discussion more than the bra and panties moment at the end (at least until this thread decided to enter crazymode and now I'll associate the three seconds of bra with Into Darkness for the rest of my days). I really don't like this scene being chosen as the battlefield for the big Cine Discusso sexism argument because its a tremendously poor battlefield that nobody stands to gain anything from. The scene is ridiculously tame, so having to justify it feels really god drat pointless. And ultimately, if there was any sort of objective moral victory that people who hate the scene could win, where does that leave you? If you don't hold every single scene that has even a few seconds of skin in it to the same critical standards that you are applying to this one, then you're a hypocrite. And if you do actually apply the same standards to everything you watch, then good luck enjoying a lot of genuinely quality movies without having to dose yourself with a serious infusion of self-loathing for realizing that applying the 'sexist' tag in such a broad manner makes enjoying cinema nearly impossible. drat that was a long sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
As Adorno said, there is no right life in the wrong one. Every, or at least very nearly every, big-budget movie, or big-budget anything, will have some sexism to it. Stressing out about it every time is probably gonna give you a heart attack, so don't, but that we have to ignore that doesn't make it go away. The scene is NOT extraordinary. That's the point. That's very much the point. It's not un-Trek. It's the same old, same old. It's nothing scandalous, or at least, it's not an more scandalous than the rest of this life we're living is. It's not anti-suffragettism, it's not rape victim blaming, it's just a bit of TNA. The only thing spectacular about it is the lighting. And? As you said, the scene is tame. I say: tame sexism. Tame, I give you. Sexism, it still is. Do we have to hate the movie, Abrams, ourselves now? Hardly so. Did anybody here say that? Doesn't mean that we should ignore the fact that Abrams went over the final cut of this movie, hopefully a few times, came across this scene a few times, and he never thought, hey, maybe this thing could be too easily seen in an objectifying way, can we maybe go at it from a different angle? Doesn't mean that it's not one more example for a scifi trailer where many young women will roll their eyes, mumble, "nerds", not go watch it (I'm thinking of a real-life person here), and not dream of becoming rocket scientists. Maybe they're objectively wrong and the scene is not actually truly objectively sexist right? Yeah, they're still not becoming rocket scientists. Forgive me, I'm painting a very reduced picture here to get my point across. But I hope you see what I'm about. I also think, and have said so before, that this actually doesn't merit much discussion. There isn't much in here, there are far more interesting things to discuss regarding this movie. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
It hasn't helped the argument that neither side has a unified stance on exactly what they are bitching about or defending. We've had one person or another argue to pretty much every extreme that both sides could possibly represent. It makes responses kind of hard to parse, because you can't always tell quite who the responses are being aimed at.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Neither side is a side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
This thread is making me re-evaluate the movie. It's positively refreshing in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:It hasn't helped the argument that neither side has a unified stance on exactly what they are bitching about or defending. We've had one person or another argue to pretty much every extreme that both sides could possibly represent. It makes responses kind of hard to parse, because you can't always tell quite who the responses are being aimed at. I don't imagine that really anybody's goal has been to have an argument or pick sides. I think some people have a feeling regarding that scene, and sometimes those feelings are strong in some respect and so people are here on the internet in order to discuss them. It's not some internet sports thing where people are trying to accumulate the proper amount of Movie Points for making their belief the One True Argument. People wanna talk about movies, man. Sometimes the way one person reads a scene is different from how other people read the scene, but we're in Cinema Discusso. As in, discussion. People just wanna talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted: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. I think I'm wrong to say the scene is "pointless". It's still poorly-conceived. quote: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! Look at you. Look at what you've been reduced to. quote: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. Woah, check this poo poo out! "Traumatic violation", "fragile victim"! Keep it coming, maybe it will distract from the fact that it's actually proponents of the scene we're talking about who invent lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams. I was saddened to see this gambit from SMG, but I guess it's par for the course with you. Technically speaking, of course, Marcus (the fictional character) is a victim in that scene: she was wronged, because Kirk violated her trust. I suppose if nothing else the scene's plotting can be taken as a realistic description of the portrayal of women in movies and other mainstream media: sorry, ladies, but it doesn't actually matter who you are, what you can do, what your ostensible role in the plot is, or even what the actual genre and contents of the movie are. We are gonna be scoping you out whether you want us to or not. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Woah, check this poo poo out! "Traumatic violation", "fragile victim"! Keep it coming, maybe it will distract from the fact that it's actually proponents of the scene we're talking about who invent lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams. I was saddened to see this gambit from SMG, but I guess it's par for the course with you. Actually you originally used the word violated, you said she is a victim, and I think you've been treating her as fragile when that's not how the scene portrays her. The traumatic part was sarcasm; being glanced at is not a traumatic violation, and to me the character treated it as merely a trifling annoyance. The point was you're making a way bigger deal out of it than the character did (or the actress, for that matter). I'll be more careful with the sarcastic snark in the future, I don't want to end up leaning on it as much as you apparently can't help but do. Speaking of which, this thing you do where you constantly retreat into absurdly exaggerating the arguments of other posters was never cute or whatever, but that's become par for the course with you. Now you've stooped to completely fabricating bullshit that has no resemblance at all to anything I've said. Doesn't pulling all these straw-men out of your rear end get painful after a while? EDIT- As far as I can tell, the only post even close to talking about Alice Eve being coerced into stripping down was this one right here: 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 a lurid fantasy, and not from a poster defending the scene, I'm afraid. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Actually you originally used the word violated, you said she is a victim, and I think you've been treating her as fragile when that's not how the scene portrays her. The traumatic part was sarcasm; being glanced at is not a traumatic violation, and to me the character treated it as merely a trifling annoyance. The point was you're making a way bigger deal out of it than the character did (or the actress, for that matter). I'll be more careful with the sarcastic snark in the future, I don't want to end up leaning on it as much as you apparently can't help but do. In fact, that's wrong. There's a post on this very page that pretends that part of the reasoning of people objecting to the scene involves an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion, and, oops, it isn't from me or Supercar or Cingulate or whomever! I guess you couldn't tell very far at all. I'm not surprised, either, that you would accuse me of absurdly exaggerating the arguments of other posters in the second paragraph of your post after sitting there and typing out the first paragraph of your post. Of course, in doing so you've attempted again to distract again from the main point, which is that the character's portrayed reaction to appearing in the scene makes no difference whatsoever to the criticisms being made of the scene. Abrams is a better director than Whedon, but it doesn't matter which of them is better at framing shots or underlining characterization when it's the situation itself that's under fire, not whether the character in the situation is deftly or clumsily portrayed as tough and cool. To reiterate: as cool, tough, competent, self-confident, fierce, mature, and self-assured as Marcus is, we're still gonna stare at while she's undressing even if she explicitly doesn't want us to. Sorry, toots, but we all know what's important here and it ain't your privacy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
If you're interested in watching a film which meaningfully rebuffs the male gaze, may I suggest Audition by Takahashi Miike? Come back after you see that and give me a report on whether STID's scene did anything brave or meaningful at all, or whether it simply gave us a pleasing shot of Eve's bod I'm not outraged, I'm just unimpressed. I'm the opposite of impressed. Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
So I'm interested in seeing where the next movie will go. While a remake of a classic episode would be cool it would also be boring and safe, as would a Klingon War. I think it's clear that all of us want to see a little exploring. Maybe a Pulp Fiction style plot where the characters are divided up and all have things to do that relates back to a single overarching narrative? Or maybe they'll just remake the Trouble with loving Tribbles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
I would really like them to do a 2 hour version of the first 10 minutes of Into Darkness. That's the kind of Star Trek film that hasn't been done since like, forever, and the amount of money and creativity they invested into even a short scene like that gives me great hope for the future of Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I would really like them to do a 2 hour version of the first 10 minutes of Into Darkness. That's the kind of Star Trek film that hasn't been done since like, forever, and the amount of money and creativity they invested into even a short scene like that gives me great hope for the future of Star Trek. korusan posted:While a remake of a classic episode would be cool it would also be boring and safe korusan posted:So I'm interested in seeing where the next movie will go. And a 30-minute introduction of the slightly revamped new Enterprise. Just slow pans and fanfares.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:If you're interested in watching a film which meaningfully rebuffs the male gaze, may I suggest Audition by Takahashi Miike? Come back after you see that and give me a report on whether STID's scene did anything brave or meaningful at all, or whether it simply gave us a pleasing shot of Eve's bod I'm sure if millions of people had seen Audition instead of the $130,000 box office it made then your point might have merit. In terms of movies that people actually see it was pretty meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yes, see how uncontroversial the recasting of Kahn was Which doesn't really have anything to do with the narrative itself? Before we're back to the boring Khan debate for the nth time in this thread though here's an interesting thing I found while looking on Youtube for the full version of the credits. The font matches up from what I remember, and it was posted a while before the US premiere and soundtrack release, so it looks official. Then again Star Trek fans are pretty spergy about detail and would be the type to fabricate such a thing. On the other other hand I wouldn't put it past Abrams to do the Gary Mitchell red herring before the US wide release. The Golden Gael fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
korusan posted:So I'm interested in seeing where the next movie will go. While a remake of a classic episode would be cool it would also be boring and safe, as would a Klingon War. I think it's clear that all of us want to see a little exploring. Maybe a Pulp Fiction style plot where the characters are divided up and all have things to do that relates back to a single overarching narrative? Or maybe they'll just remake the Trouble with loving Tribbles. I hope the writers really do follow up on the five year mission thing. Maybe they could show us a series of different adventures from those five years, but they all relate in a way that the crew doesn't realize at first. Ferrinus posted:In fact, that's wrong. There's a post on this very page that pretends that part of the reasoning of people objecting to the scene involves an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion, and, oops, it isn't from me or Supercar or Cingulate or whomever! I guess you couldn't tell very far at all. Who exactly has been inventing "lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams"? And then, where on this page is "an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion"? quote:Of course, in doing so you've attempted again to distract again from the main point, which is that the character's portrayed reaction to appearing in the scene makes no difference whatsoever to the criticisms being made of the scene. Abrams is a better director than Whedon, but it doesn't matter which of them is better at framing shots or underlining characterization when it's the situation itself that's under fire, not whether the character in the situation is deftly or clumsily portrayed as tough and cool. What you don't seem to understand it that you can choose what part of the scene to focus on. You're choosing to focus on the part where Marcus is a victim instead of the part where she confidently rejects victimization and throws it back in Kirk's face. And if I remember correctly, we don't "stare at her while she's undressing", we only see her rejecting Kirk while already undressed but making no attempt to cover up. At that point, the point we see her, she doesn't care who is looking at her in her underwear she just wants to make her low opinion of them clear. It's weird to say that the character doesn't want the audience to look at her. As viewers we often see characters in all manner of vulnerable positions that they wouldn't want a diegetic character to see, after all, and I'm betting you don't call all those violations. Most fictional characters on film, female or male, exist to be watched by an audience. Kirk's actions are a betrayal of her trust and reflect poorly on his maturity as a Captain who has power over the people serving under him, but the audience is not necessarily in the same position. If the viewer is identifying with Kirk and leering at Marcus at that point then yes, you could say she is showing disdain for that viewer by showing disdain for Kirk and his leering glance. You may be confusing me with SMG, who has been emphasizing a "nearly breaking the fourth wall" aspect to the scene which doesn't match how I experienced it. If so, let's go back to where he first mentions that: SuperMechagodzilla posted:She behaves believably. Marcus is totally aware of Kirk's reputation, and finds him pathetic and not worthy of her time. She gets naked anyways because she wants to. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Kirk already bedded two scantily-clad women earlier in the film, and nobody cared. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Who exactly has been inventing "lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams"? And then, where on this page is "an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion"? Maybe read the thread. quote:What you don't seem to understand it that you can choose what part of the scene to focus on. You're choosing to focus on the part where Marcus is a victim instead of the part where she confidently rejects victimization and throws it back in Kirk's face. And if I remember correctly, we don't "stare at her while she's undressing", we only see her rejecting Kirk while already undressed but making no attempt to cover up. At that point, the point we see her, she doesn't care who is looking at her in her underwear she just wants to make her low opinion of them clear. Huh, so although she explicitly asks us not to look at her, but really, she just doesn't care if we're looking at her or not. That's lucky for us, I guess, that the person we're ogling is just so cool and above us that really it doesn't bother them at all so we're really not doing anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:she explicitly asks us not to look at her What the gently caress are you talking about? Did I miss some fourth-wall breaking dialog? Even if you think there's an implicit rejection of the audience, that's not an explicit request prior to the shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Maybe read the thread. Maybe back up the accusations you make. Or maybe admit it was another wacky straw-man you invented. So who exactly in this thread has been inventing "lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams"? And then, where on this page is "an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion"? Why is it so easy for you to make accusations but so hard for you to name the subjects of those accusations? I hope this isn't the pandering thing all over again. quote:Huh, so although she explicitly asks us not to look at her, but really, she just doesn't care if we're looking at her or not. That's lucky for us, I guess, that the person we're ogling is just so cool and above us that really it doesn't bother them at all so we're really not doing anything wrong. At what point does the fictional character Carol Marcus explicitly break the fourth wall and ask the audience or viewer not to look at her? I can't speak for him but I doubt that even SMG, who mentioned a "nearly breaking the fourth wall" aspect to the scene, would say it was explicit. The person we're ogling? Speak for yourself. I don't feel that I ogled her when I was sitting in the theater watching the film. Do you feel you ogled her? I don't feel I did anything wrong by watching the film. Do you feel you did something wrong? If her body language is saying that she no longer cares that Kirk is staring at her because it only makes him pathetic and juvenile, which is how I read that scene, who are you to decide otherwise? That's you choosing to put the character in the role of a victim even as she is rejecting that role. As viewers we often see characters in all manner of vulnerable positions that they wouldn't want a diegetic character to see. What makes this one different? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
There's a lot of words for another terrible awkward scene where a woman has to get her tits out in a summer blockbuster. They're always going to happen and they're always going to be badly written because they're entirely artificial to whatever narrative they get injected into. The weirdest thing to me is that movie T&A actually means anything in the age of the internet. People do know there's infinite T&A on there right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:There's a lot of words for another terrible awkward scene where a woman has to get her tits out in a summer blockbuster. This is CineD. A lot of words is sort of our thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm sure if millions of people had seen Audition instead of the $130,000 box office it made then your point might have merit. By blockbuster standards, I think it would have been more meaningful for it to not do this thing at all. This is pretty much the crux, for me. It's ultimately regressive, not progressive. Edit: But I sense that I'm starting to get a little repetitive, so I'll bow out now Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Maybe back up the accusations you make. Or maybe admit it was another wacky straw-man you invented. Nice try, friend, but we've already demonstrated that your allergy to figurative language and endless stream of clarifying questions are components of a derailing tactic equally suited to defending Evony as to defending this movie. It's not my responsibility to acclimatize you to the rigors of informal communication and if you simply can't grasp why I would link Kirk's perspective to that of the audience or use the world "ogling" to describe a scene in which one character literally ogles another then it might be the case that you just shouldn't be engaging in this conversation at all. Maybe you can find a more charitable poster than me to explain things to you. It still just strikes me as incredibly pernicious that all these defenses of the scene revolve around Marcus's strengths of character. Like, if instead of posing helpfully for the camera and going "Heh," Marcus had gasped and clutched at her clothes, or reddened and stormed away, or refused to continue working on Kirk's ship and left his service at the first opportunity, the scene suddenly would become objectionable - because it's somehow her responsibility, not Kirk's or ours, to handle the situation properly. Of course, being that the whole Khan thing was going on and there were dangerous missiles and her dad was involved, etc, Marcus realistically couldn't have quit service on the Enterprise then and there and told Kirk to go to hell and so on. She would've had to grit her teeth and bear it no matter how she actually felt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It still just strikes me as incredibly pernicious that all these defenses of the scene revolve around Marcus's strengths of character. Like, if instead of posing helpfully for the camera and going "Heh," Marcus had gasped and clutched at her clothes, or reddened and stormed away, or refused to continue working on Kirk's ship and left his service at the first opportunity, the scene suddenly would become objectionable - because it's somehow her responsibility, not Kirk's or ours, to handle the situation properly. I don't disagree that all of those would have been worse
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I would link Kirk's perspective to that of the audience See, I don't think the film does a great job of this. I never felt linked with Kirk in that scene. I maintained the part of detached observing third party. I think that's the root problem with the scene. If it did connect me with Kirk, it might have actually made me feel a sense of shame as I withered under Marcus's indifference to my gaze. But as it stands, I just saw noted horndog Kirk suffer some deserved comeuppance while I chomped popcorn and got to see everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Nice try, friend, but we've already demonstrated that your allergy to figurative language and endless stream of clarifying questions are components of a derailing tactic equally suited to defending Evony as to defending this movie. It's not my responsibility to acclimatize you to the rigors of informal communication and if you simply can't grasp why I would link Kirk's perspective to that of the audience or use the world "ogling" to describe a scene in which one character literally ogles another then it might be the case that you just shouldn't be engaging in this conversation at all. Maybe you can find a more charitable poster than me to explain things to you. Very little of this is answering anything I said or asked in my post its ostensibly a reply to. That habit of yours is becoming its own derailing tactic. Also if those are meant as your excuses for constantly inventing transparent straw-men you should know that's not the same thing as using figurative language, nor is it required for informal communication. In fact it is pretty detrimental to discussion. When I watched the film I didn't feel my perspective was linked to Kirks, in that scene or in general. Did you feel that way? I also don't feel that I ogled Carol Marcus or Alice Eve while viewing the film. Did you feel that way? I don't generally feel that I have to agree with or identify with the protagonists of the films I watch, whereas when my roommate watches films that's primarily how he experiences them. So maybe this is a fundamental difference in our approach to films. I never defended Evony, I said that a worthwhile discussion could be had about it beyond simply labeling it pandering and leaving it at that. You have given no reason to link the group of people who would click on Evony ads to the viewers of this film. (So who exactly in this thread has been inventing "lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams"? And then, where on this page is "an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion"?) Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Yeah, dude, I've seen what you do when people treat your trivial questions as though they were sincere attempts at understanding rather than deliberate time wasting. I have no intention whatsoever of holding your hand and guiding you through your adjective phobia. I get that you've built up some sort of internal narrative where you've really got me squirming on the ropes but it seems weird that you'd expect me to play along. Please keep it to yourself. In the scene, we look at Marcus when Kirk looks at Marcus. We don't see her directly through his eyes, but she shows up undressed on camera when Kirk decides to spy on her and stops being undressed on camera after she yells at Kirk to turn around and he finally complies. The scene easily could've been shot so as to make it clear to us that Kirk was violating Marcus's privacy without actually given us, the viewers, Kirk's payoff for violating Marcus's privacy, and as others have correctly pointed out the viewer is positioned so that they catch at least the backwash of the blast of scornful invincibility that Marcus hurls at Kirk. In fact it appears to be SuperMechaGodzilla's theory that the only reason this scene is drawing ire at all is because Marcus's steely resolve made objectors uncomfortable! None of this has to do with anyone "identifying" with Kirk on a personal, emotional level - after all, wouldn't plenty of viewers have identified, instead, with Marcus? As I've stated repeatedly, the issue is the situation this film puts its primary female character in, not whether the audience is given to identify with that character or whether the character herself is brave versus cowardly, proud versus ashamed, assertive versus timid, etc. Space Hamlet posted:I don't disagree that all of those would have been worse I feel like they would've been worse in a general sense, but, crucially, totally irrelevant to the actual criticism I and other people have been making. PeterWeller posted:See, I don't think the film does a great job of this. I never felt linked with Kirk in that scene. I maintained the part of detached observing third party. I think that's the root problem with the scene. If it did connect me with Kirk, it might have actually made me feel a sense of shame as I withered under Marcus's indifference to my gaze. But as it stands, I just saw noted horndog Kirk suffer some deserved comeuppance while I chomped popcorn and got to see everything. I've been inclined to be charitable to the "the viewers feel a sense of shame as they wither under Marcus's indifferent gaze" interpretation, but whether or not it's actually correct doesn't actually defuse the complaint being made. The problem is that the movie was arranged such that the situation occurred at all. In some ways, it's actually a pretty apt and penetrating criticism of of the problem it represents - the very inappropriateness of the situation both to the ongoing plot and to Marcus's character underscores the fact that lots of female characters just get sexualized no matter who, what, or where they are - but it seems to me that the more revolutionary act would've been not to do it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yeah, dude, I've seen what you do when people treat your trivial questions as though they were sincere attempts at understanding rather than deliberate time wasting. I have no intention whatsoever of holding your hand and guiding you through your adjective phobia. I get that you've built up some sort of internal narrative where you've really got me squirming on the ropes but it seems weird that you'd expect me to play along. Please keep it to yourself. The problem with SMG's interpretation is that it isn't actually the scene itself that's uncomfortable. It's the scene instantly after that where Kirk is suddenly now on the bridge. You spend a few seconds trying to work out what the narrative reason for Marcus to lead him onto the shuttle and get changed in front of him when it turns out that he was going to get straight back off the shuttle oh and they're also talking over the radio so really the only reason that scene happened was for boobs. Again, it's also the complaint that this is a dumb film where instead of a coherent narrative there's just a series of scenes they wanted one after the other. Does it make any sense for Kirk to get into the shuttle when he's going to get straight back out? No. Does Marcus actually have a reason to get undressed in front of him when it turns out she has plenty of time because McCoy has to come down and then they have to fly to the planet? No. The scene itself has no reason to happen other than because the producers wanted a shot of Alice Eve in her underwear and it's shoehorned in so badly that I can't help but notice that the film is awkwardly fumbling its pace in order to show me boobs and it's insulting because the message there is that it thinks I'm the kind of person who's okay with a female actor being blatantly objectified in that manner. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted: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. Great, thanks. Now who are the Klingons and why do they hate humans/humans hate them? Up to this point in the "new timeline" has either side done anything to piss off the other or is it just "humans and Klingons have always hated each other and every Star Trek fan knows that"? Are there only three intelligent (by that I mean space faring) species out there: the humans, Vulcans, and Klingons? In terms of technological level, how do these three rank? I'm going to assume the humans being the newest(?) space faring species are the lowest of them all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Great, thanks. Now who are the Klingons and why do they hate humans/humans hate them? Up to this point in the "new timeline" has either side done anything to piss off the other or is it just "humans and Klingons have always hated each other and every Star Trek fan knows that"? Are there only three intelligent (by that I mean space faring) species out there: the humans, Vulcans, and Klingons? In terms of technological level, how do these three rank? I'm going to assume the humans being the newest(?) space faring species are the lowest of them all. Klingons are space Russians, the Vulcans are space Brits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yeah, dude, I've seen what you do when people treat your trivial questions as though they were sincere attempts at understanding rather than deliberate time wasting. I have no intention whatsoever of holding your hand and guiding you through your adjective phobia. I get that you've built up some sort of internal narrative where you've really got me squirming on the ropes but it seems weird that you'd expect me to play along. Please keep it to yourself. Your explanation of what you meant by identifying with Kirk is appreciated, but its still not the way I actually experienced the scene and it still doesn't make Marcus' dialogue to Kirk into explicit requests to the viewer, like you were arguing earlier. You've explained how you see the scene, but not why I or anyone else should see it that way. You're not squirming on the ropes, but if you were more confident about your views and declaration I'd expect that tou wouldn't mind backing them up or clarifying them. Instead you've taken the cowardly way out of simply refusing to engage with most of what I say or ask you. Sure I've asked a lot of questions but that's never been a trick; I wanted you to put your own positions in your own words rather than me putting words in your mouth, I wanted you to question your detrimental methods of discussion, and I wanted you to question your own view of the scene and why you've arrived at that view, which I see as overly reductive and simplistic. You didn't have to treat my questions as tricks, rather than points for discussion, and by doing so you made this a lot more hostile than it had to be. Anyway, I think we're pretty much done here unless we want to go around in the same circles again. Before we end this, though, who exactly has been inventing "lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams"? And then, where on this page is "an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion"? Boris Galerkin posted:Great, thanks. Now who are the Klingons and why do they hate humans/humans hate them? Up to this point in the "new timeline" has either side done anything to piss off the other or is it just "humans and Klingons have always hated each other and every Star Trek fan knows that"? Are there only three intelligent (by that I mean space faring) species out there: the humans, Vulcans, and Klingons? In terms of technological level, how do these three rank? I'm going to assume the humans being the newest(?) space faring species are the lowest of them all. I'm not super familiar with the original series (TOS) that these new films are rebooting, but I don't think humans and Klingons really hate each other. Klingons are a much more aggressive race bound by their own idiosyncratic codes of honor in battle, and at this point it seems like not much if any diplomacy has happened between them and the Federation. That makes the Federation and Starfleet nervous around them, because they're an unknown wild card from that point of view. There a lot more than just those three space-faring species but most of them are bit players or they only show up for one episode. Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, and Romulans are the major powers in the quadrant (this quarter of the galaxy) at this point. Romulans are related to Vulcans but they're generally much more paranoid, devious,and hostile (in Star Trek each species tends to be defined by several dominant traits). I wouldn't know how to rank these powers. Here is the other Star Trek thread for general chat about the franchise, people there know much more: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3550753&pagenumber=109#lastpost computer parts posted:Klingons are space Russians, the Vulcans are space Brits. Weren't the Romulans originally space Russians? Klingons are more like space Vikings. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 14:08
|
|