|
The Warszawa posted:Nor does my argument rely upon being privy to it. Results matter, this isn't the Rooney Rule. I realize you've decided that the actual events leading up to the casting decision don't matter at all, but that attitude is exactly what I take issue with. Maybe this is just me, but I think its better to understand a situation before judging it so harshly. You can repeat over and over that a decision to cast a white person in a role once played by a non-white person will always be unacceptable no matter what, period. But simply repeating that is not a convincing argument. quote:Should a character that on the page is not white be played by a white person when people of color are systemically marginalized by Hollywood? At all? If so, should Brad Pitt play Malcolm X? I would propose that, right now, given the institutional racism present in Hollywood, we should not be handing roles of color to white actors and further entrenching this problem. Malcolm X was a real person. Khan is new and very different take on a pre-existing fictional character. Malcolm X was black. How do you know this Khan was "not white" on the page? I would be having an easier time understanding this controversy if the casting decisions behind all the main roles were being equally questioned (excluding Uhura). Instead of this futile attempt to hoard the few "roles of color" "on the page" after the fact I think it would be better if a large amount of people started questioning why can't Kirk be played by someone "of color", and same goes for Batman or James Bond (Idris Elba please) or Lois Lane. People involved in the production of films often make decisions, including casting, from a place of creativity and moment-to-moment inspiration. Trying to cram a social engineering agenda to right systemic wrongs into that process is a bad fit, but if the people making these decisions realized their creative options only get bigger and better when they open up roles for any and all races/ethnicities/nationalities then everyone would be better off for it. For example, on his eponymous show Louis CK recently cast a black actress (Susan Kelechi Watson) in a key role as the mother of his children. He cast her because he liked her acting and he could see her working well in the role. In other words he cast her, not her race. I'd like to see more of that kind of thing, and if we saw more of that then your precious immutable "roles of color" would cease to matter so much. quote:If I'd said "primitives who'd 'barely invented the wheel,'" it'd have the same meaning and would actually literally be a quote from the film. That's how. That line was absolutely not presented neutrally in the film, as well. I mean, do you really think the film wasn't at least inviting the critique of paternalism with the Prime Directive? Which character says that in the film? Are we just talking about this one film or the concept of the Prime Directive in general? I'd say any episode or installment that deals with the Prime Directive is inviting criticism and reflects on real world concerns. However, your characterization still strikes me as completely topsy-turvy. Even if you disagree, can't you see why I'm having trouble with your paradoxical idea that not interfering is "playing God" and not thinking you always know what's best for other civilizations is paternalistic? quote:If the reason you're not doing that is because you think they're too stupid to handle it, then yes. The reason I don't do it is because I realize that sometimes my views are neither wanted or needed by others, and no matter how sure I am of my viewpoint it's subject to human error and not the last word on understanding the world. Which is one of the reasons that the Prime Directive is a sensible idea; maybe the Federation's presence and viewpoints are neither wanted or needed by other groups. Maybe you didn't see it because I edited it in, but I asked earlier whether you have considered that the Prime Directive could come about because the humans of Starfleet are judging humanity's own imperialistic tendencies and temptations, not because they're judging other species as "lowly savages"? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jun 8, 2013 |
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I followed the casting and I understand the situation - and I understand it enough to recognize its tangential relevance to the issue of "was there a whitewashing fuckup". What do you think I don't understand and why is it relevant? You don't seem to understand how creative decisions are made. It's not a rational process, and it often can come down to split second gut decisions made while multitasking. Your expectations are totally alien to the way creative decisions are actually made, as described in this short interview with the casting directors on this film: quote:The first time I met J.J.,” recalls Alyssa Weisberg (left), “he carried on a very detailed conversation while sketching something with one hand and composing music at the same time. I just thought, ‘Wow, this guy’s a Renaissance man.’” I'd like to point out that these two, as part of Bad Robot, have had a relatively good track record when it comes to diverse casting. quote:Do you acknowledge the real, systemic marginalization of people of color in Hollywood? Once we actually secure full equality and equity for people of color, we can maybe get flexible about this, but until then I am always, always going to opt to protect gains we've made from backsliding. I'm not trying to argue that Hollywood, collectively, has anything approaching a good attitude or good track record towards race. That said, your solutions are still useless and counter-productive since you want to approach the issue as a divisive zero-sum game. Good luck using that lovely attitude to protect the Khan role from going to Benedict Cumberbatch, though. Oh what's that, the film is already finished and released? Well drat. quote:Okay, how about Django from Django Unchained? Kunta Kinte from Roots? Pre-existing fictional characters, so by your logic a white guy (or girl) could play both of them. These comparisons are silly and I think you should know why. I didn't argue that race never matters to a character at all, and obviously if the entire story revolves around the character's color nobody is going to cast a white dude in the role. The difference is that Django has to be played by someone black to serve the story, but this new Khan doesn't have to be played by a Mexican Sikh for any in-story reason. quote:But really, "this" Khan? Smoking nacelle theories aside, the idea that "this" Khan is not the Khan of TOS and WOK is pretty much unfounded. Or are we just assuming that a character is white until proven "conclusively" otherwise? And even if they decide to make "this" Khan white on the page when he was a person of color on the page before, that is a political choice. But this Khan - the same Khan we've always dealt with - is not only given a name that identifies him, but is specifically situated as a Sikh North Indian. I don't give even the tiniest poo poo about that kind of continuity between this reboot of Star Trek and the old . Like I said, they could have cast a black man or whatever as Kirk or Spock and should have considered doing so. As far as I'm concerned this Star Trek series is clearly a reboot/remake and all the stuff with old Spock in ST09 was just a fun nod to the old continuity, no matter how many fans seem to misunderstand that. So yes, it is a different Khan. And the new Khan can be written or cast or costumed or acted however they want, just like when they rebooted Battlestar Galactica they made the new Starbuck a woman (a decision not without its own share of controversy). Obviously that's different in important ways, but the point is that reboots have no obligation to stick to the source material, even if the use the same character names. quote:Also, if you think nonwhite Kirk (hell, or even nonwhite Bones, for whom being black makes so much goddamn sense) was actually on the table, I don't think you get how pervasively hosed Hollywood (and America) is on race. See, e.g., "why did Denzel have to be crooked before he took it?"; Donald Glover-as-Spiderman (an interview with him, where he talks about getting called a "friend of the family for taking Peter Parker away from [white comic book fans]" and told "there are no black kids like Peter Parker," was posted in this very thread); recorded history. I know that those options probably were not ever on the table, which is why I brought it up. That automatic exclusion and the unfortunate Spider-Man thing are real problems, whereas your precious immutable "roles of color" exist only in your mind. You can be upset about both simultaneously if you want, but you're going to have a hard time convincing many others to give a poo poo about your pet cause that really doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. quote:Yes, as we've even discussed in this very thread, there is nothing mandating that certain characters be white. And yet, they are. The problem with "colorblind" casting is that when it occurs against the backdrop of institutional racism, it skews way towards "colorblind" meaning "blind to color," as in "can't see actors of color." I didn't use the term "colorblind". I said creative people should realize their creative options can only be expanded when they consider "people of color" for any and all roles. Sure, that's a pipe dream but no more than you expecting Bad Robot's gut decisions to have taken your pet social justice cause into account when making their films. quote:Do you think "creativity" and "moment-to-moment inspiration" is divorced from social context? JJ Abrams' gut hasn't read any of your links to essays about systemic racism in Hollywood. Guts can't read, and they don't make intellectual decisions. So in that sense, yes. Imagine JJ Abrams is sitting at home watching television, and in the back of his mind he's wondering who they can cast as Khan now that Benicio Del Toro isn't taking the role. The show Sherlock comes on, and he has a eureka moment where he can imagine how Cumberbatch would play the role. He get's excited imagining the film with Cumberbatch, so he calls his casting directors to get in touch with Cumberbatch's agent. Does he stop and second guess that moment of inspiration because somebody on the internet might later see his decision as setting back social progress for people of color in some abstract way? I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Of course, I don't have any way of knowing how it actually happened. Because again, neither of us were privy to the decision. quote:C.K. talks about hiring Watson in part because of her race). See: I saw that same quote yesterday, but it has another half to it. In context I think it means the opposite of what you're thinking, but of course its hard to interpret the shades of meaning in text. quote:Pike. I'm mostly talking about the Prime Directive as its presented in STID, but with Q-chat I can see how that gets confusing. Ok, that's why I was getting confused. I also don't remember that line. quote:Think about it this way: in this case, "not interfering" involves bombarding the civilization with radiation from the ship's sensors. Ex ante the Enterprise cannot know how that will affect them, because to know they have to scan. The decision to observe can therefore be argued to be a decision to interfere - even to fundamentally alter. Except that technological issue is not part of the fictional scenario in question as far as I know, and if it was that would be a reason to expand the scope of the Prime Directive. That would have made a good episode, though. That's also not really an answer to the part of my last post that you quoted. quote:Only this isn't how they justify the Prime Directive, because that would create a uniform statement on all non-Federation civilizations regardless of whether they had warp technology. I see the warp technology requirement as analogous to the specific age of consent- it is somewhat arbitrary but still necessary to draw a clear line. A group coming to posses the technology for interstellar travel means they're on the threshold of some form of "first contact" anyway, so it might as well be done right. quote:Let's say you actually knew there was no God. Would this change your conduct? Not really, that knowledge, along with my presence or whatever methods I might choose to spread what I know, still may not be wanted or needed by others at any given moment. quote:I didn't, thanks - I don't think that alters the fundamental paternalism, and I don't think that's supported by subsequent generations' interpretation of the Prime Directive (Pike's derisive "wheel" comment). Think of it like this - the first guy to take a cultural artifact from Machu Picchu and give it to Yale probably intended it in the "preserve and protect" sense (may not be true, of course, but take it as a hypothetical), but that doesn't actually change that it was an imperialist act of theft. Ok whatever, the point was the Prime Directive can make sense as a principle without necessarily looking down on the groups it covers. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'm working on it. It's the best film of the year. SMG, given that you tend to appreciate and highly praise films that have been generally written off or derided by what seems like the majority of critics and commenters, how do you actually decide what movies to watch (especially in theaters)?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Why are they silly? Because your contention was "I do not believe that immutable roles of color exist." Why does Django have to be played by someone black (I mean, can't they put Brad Pitt in makeup? Surely that's never gone wrong before.) You misunderstand what I meant about "immutable roles of color". Immutable is the key word. I didn't mean that there are no roles where race matters (such as Django). What I meant is that you seem to have convinced yourself that once a role has been played by someone "of color" any future take on that character must always be played by someone of color otherwise a grave injustice has been done. I haven't been convinced to accept this idiosyncratic rule of yours, and I don't see how you can expect Bad Robot to have come up with the same rule. Would you say that any future takes on Kingpin must always be black from now on, because of 2003's Daredevil? What about Nick Fury (Avengers)? quote:What "in-story reason" was there for Khan to be white? Khan's race is not a part of the story, so the actor playing the role could have been any race without affecting the story. Unlike Django. Clearly nobody thought he had to be white, since they considered Benicio Del Toro for the role. quote:But here, we're dealing with a franchise that sticks assiduously to past racial depictions except when it comes to a character of color, and that's sketchy as poo poo. Not really. The main characters are the same colors as in TOS, for lack of a better term, but the actors are not really all the same ethnicities as before. quote:My issue is not and has never been "this violates canon," it has been "this is a step backward for people of color in this franchise and that is loving bad." You took issue with me calling the Khan in this film a new Khan, meaning a new take on the character free from previous canon. quote:Oh, do tell me what constitutes a "real problem" for people of color in Hollywood. I get that this is just my "pet cause that doesn't really matter," but patronizing and dismissive bullshit aside, there are roles of color and you've as much as said so. We only differ on where that line is drawn (mine is "when the character on the page is indicated as being a person of color" and yours appears to be "when it hasn't yet been whitewashed"). What makes you think that the Star Trek Into Darkness script indicated Khan as being a person of color? This is why I've said the issue is only in your head, because you seem to have decided that without any evidence (that I've seen, at least). Also you just said the issue is not about canon, but canon is the only thing I know of that would make you conclude that. quote:Tangential question: would you defend Ryan Gosling playing Lando Calrissian? Assuming they kept every other role to past depictions. That decision wouldn't make sense because the new Star Wars movie is supposed to be a sequel to the others. If that happened I would understand the controversy. If Bad Robot was rebooting Star Wars they could do new takes on any character in any way they wanted as far as I'm concerned. They could make Lando a black woman, white, or a droid. quote:Well, not anymore, really. Plus, fighting structural racism isn't like a frequent flyer program - you don't get to accumulate "good casting points" and then cash them in for lovely whitewashing. Ok, but it shows that they're not necessarily biased in general against people of color or roles of color. quote:This, of course, is leaving aside that if we agitated for roles of color to be played by people of color before casting, you'd be right out here telling us that assuming they were going to whitewash is "divisive" and "counter-productive." How could you possibly know that? quote:Well, what's "done right" here? To protect the Federation and its interests? Sure, that's valid, but certainly not the altruism with which it's been portrayed. What I mean is that it seems preferable for a species' first contact with the rest of the galaxy to be with the Federation rather than, for example, a situation like the occupation of Bajor as seen in DS9. Anyway, I'm not interested in defending the Prime Directive concept as perfect. Most of the episodes that deal with it are about how its not perfect, after all. I just think your earlier characterization was way off-base. quote:I took it from the HuffPost recap linked by the Racialicious article I linked, but please point me to the other half. quote:C.K. conceded that his TV daughters are "extremely white," but said that race didn't really factor into his decision to cast Watson in the role of their mom. Considering that he just finished saying that her race didn't factor into the casting decision I think we can take that last part as a joke poking fun at that whole idea ("he explained with a laugh"). Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
quote:Here's the thing: even if STID's Khan is textually white, we view this in context because obviously this film did not come to being in a vacuum. Why was Khan made white, when before he wasn't? Even if you do have "new Khan" here, why is he white now? Because the people making the movie decided they wanted Benedict Cumberbatch to play the role. quote:If something clearly and explicitly (through Old Spock, the constant callbacks, etc.) relies upon past-established things, it's fair to say those things have been incorporated by reference. How do we know that Jim Kirk's dad died on the Kelvin in STID? Where is that indicated in this film? This is part of a franchise. Don't say its not an issue of violating canon and then bring canon into it. This film is part of a franchise, but the two Abrams films are a reboot in many ways irregardless of their nods to past continuity. That's why there are more changes to the setting and continuity than can be explained by Nero's time-travel in ST09, yet the same main crew-members from TOS just happen to get together anyway. It's a reboot. quote:Django textually has to be black, like Khan textually is Indian (see below - incorporation by reference is a thing). Why does that mean the actor has to be black, in your framework, which holds that no role is immutably a role of color, so long as the film is done so as to make that actor convey the appropriate identity of the character to the audience? I'm really curious where this line is drawn as to when identity becomes integral to a character, and I think emphasizing the effect of identity on the plot (as oppose to the significance, the message, etc.) is foolish. The distinction is that when the character's specific race is important to the film its important to the casting, when its not its not. Casting a white person as Django would have been needlessly confusing and would have weakened the film, but so would casting Jason Momoa. I doubt Tarantino cast Jamie Foxx as Django as part of a fight against systemic racism in Hollywood. EDIT - And who said it matters to plot only? SMG has a reading, which I don't necessarily agree with, where Khan being white is significant to the film's themes. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Why? And why should the politics and effect of that decision in this context be immune from consideration? Ok so now you're suddenly interested in the why part? Well we don't know exactly. Why is anyone cast in anything? It could be as simple as they liked his sneer, or he's a friend of a friend of Abrams, or whatever. Once again, we don't know beyond that quote from those two women who do casting for Bad Robot productions. The point was that I don't think anybody involved in the film said to themselves "this Khan will be white now", and I know you probably wouldn't claim that either but you don't seem to have fully understood that importan distinction. They liked a specific actor for the role and he happens to be a white person, that's all. quote:It's not an issue of violating canon, but the tension the film has with what's come before means that we look where the changes are made. Canon is the only reason you have to think this Khan was a role of color "on the page", which was where you claimed to draw the line. I feel like they changed a whole lot. The ship's engineering section is now a brewery, for example, and the ship looks more like an Apple Store than a 60s diner. Then there's the changes in technology and the distance between planets, details like that. Someone more familiar with TOS could probably list all the changes (and which ones can't be explained solely by Nero's time meddling), but I'm not that guy. You can keep repeating this term "whitewashing" but an ominous label alone will not convince me; I'd have to be a chump to fall for that kind of argument. "What, you're defending whitewashing!?" is the same kind of terminology game argument as "What, you're against the Patriot Act!? You hate America!?" or "So you do want children left behind!?". quote:What's the line for "when it's important to the casting"? The distinction is that Django Unchained is a film about a black person facing racial discrimination because he is black. Therefore the role and the actor playing that role had to be black, and they were. Nothing about this film requires this new Khan to be a person of color, except for canon and your personal feelings on the matter (both outside of the film). Nothing requires him to white either, but the filmmakers wanted Benedict Cumberbatch in the role so now this Khan is white. Even if you disagree, why is that distinction so hard to understand? This discussion is really going in circles, so maybe we should wrap it up. Even though I may seem like I haven't conceded any of your points, this has made me think differently about Hollywood's racial problems and question some of my own assumptions. I just maintain that this whole Khan issue is a dumb example of a real problem. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:None of the main crew need to be white, yet despite the fact that it's not the 60's anymore only one of them is black. I already said earlier in the thread that it would make more sense to me if that was the controversy here, rather than the specific focus on the racial canon of one role and this weird rule about roles of color being immutable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The "why" doesn't matter insofar as good intent does not absolve a bad act. It does matter insofar as it will help you understand that people's "moment of inspiration flashes of brilliance" aren't immune from social influences like systemic racism. I never said that people's "moment of inspiration flashes of brilliance" are immune from social influences like systemic racism. Especially since you take this "if you're not for us, you're against us" attitude to that issue. It's more that its not realistic to expect creative people to constantly be second guessing their gut decisions, even if that means Hollywood's attitudes will be slower to progress than would be ideal to you or I. Filmmakers are trying to make films, which is a long, arduous, frustrating, often irrational process. They can't afford to second guess every single decision in the moment in order to meet your own idiosyncratic standards, since their primary goal must be to make a film and not to solve Hollywood's systemic problems. You're bringing in a lot of baggage here which I don't think is warranted. Sure after the fact you can fit this one casting decision, which again you really know nothing about, into that larger pattern but that's because of the lens with which you're choosing to view the situation and not necessarily anything grounded in the reality of that decision. quote:Yes, when a role is written in reliance in previous material, that previous material becomes part of "on the page," like how the script Hook probably didn't explicitly lay out the total origin of Peter Pan's adventures with Wendy in Neverland and yet still relied on them. When making an adaptation or new entry in a franchise filmmakers can choose to rely on or reference past material but they can also choose not to. quote:You're failing to make the distinction between "the problem is they changed canon" and "we can look at the implications of where they've deviated from the past of the franchise." The decision to deviate is a choice, and looking at the consequences of those choices in context - not some fake-rear end "we can't ever look at anything that's come before" line. Hey, it's always possible that this isn't a problem because in the film itself, they haven't explicitly states that Hollywood has a problem with systemic racism! Would you equally defend white Uhura or Sulu? Casting a white Uhura or Sulu wouldn't have made much sense and would have needlessly confused the story of ST09, which was still playing on the line between reboot and continuation (which is probably why the main crew were all cast as the same colors as they were in TOS). So if that happened I might suspect it was motivated by bad attitudes towards race. Also it would be a shame because Zoe Saldana is really good as Uhura, even though the writers haven't given her as much material to work with as I would like. On the other hand, except for the (out of place, to me) cameo by Nemoy STID didn't seem to concerned with past canon at all. quote:It's what pretty much everyone uses to describe this phenomenon, if it's "ominous" it's because it describes a really pervasive and lovely thing. I was emphasizing that the "reboot" aspect doesn't actually wipe the slate clean. Ok, but a term is not an argument. Are you familiar with the expression "the map is not the territory?". quote:Laurence Olivier played Othello in Othello, which is about a black person facing discrimination because he is black (obviously this is a gross oversimplification). I'm not familiar with that particular adaptation but I don't see why its really relevant here, since I never argued that nobody has ever innapropriately "whitewashed" a role ever before. That sounds like a counter-productive and dumb decision but I haven't seen it, so who knows. quote:Is it just that your definition of "has to be a person of color" involves Old Spock saying "he's the Sikhest Sikh that ever did Sikh"? Do you get that identity can inform characters, themes, and even plot even without it being central to the story? Nothing at all in this specific film suggests that Khan should have been a "role of color on the page". This Khan's race is neither central to the story nor really important at all in my mind. quote:If they make a Black Panther movie, can a white person play T'Challa? Why or why not? I'm not too familiar with that character, but from the few comics with him I've read his ethnicity and heritage seem pretty important to the character and his storylines so making him white would be hard to justify. quote:This is the controversy because if they're not casting people of color for roles that have previously been and were presented as people of color to begin with, they sure as poo poo aren't casting us for roles that were originated as white people. Except sometimes they do. And I didn't say I expect Hollywood to have better attitudes in that way, just that would be a better direction to agitate (to use your term) for. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I mean, I think that fighting systemic racism is more important than giving institutions and individuals a free pass to do whatever the hell they want without criticism. You do know that no one's talking about banning, right? Just saying that doing it is a bad thing. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect "creative people" to review and revise their works - that's why we have reshoots, recasting, second auditions, second drafts, deleted scenes, etc. etc. For someone who got condescending about me not understanding the creative process, you're sure demonstrating a blistering ignorance here. The whole goddamn process involves constantly second-guessing decisions, why should this be exempted? I know that filmmakers have lots of things constricting their creative freedom, for better and worse. An amount that would overwhelm anybody. That's why I don't expect them to add your rules on top of all that. Are you actively working against all injustices in the world all the time? Which ones did you support, entrench, or uphold today? quote:You know, you keep saying my "idiosyncratic" standards like writers of color aren't talking about this as a bad thing, when they are (and they've been linked!), and it's not like it's some obscure and byzantine idea to cast people of color when the role is a person of color. That other people have had the same idea before, which goes without saying, still doesn't obligate anyone to have heard of it or follow it. I think that's one role of art, but not necessarily the only worthwhile one. quote:What "baggage" do you see me bringing in, besides "hey systemic racism that's bad!" I think I misunderstood what you were implying by "there was just something about him,". quote:I've bolded a serious problem here: no one is talking about the motives for whitewashing Khan as the reason why whitewashing is a problem. It does not matter why JJ Abrams personally felt that Cumberbatch was white for the role, because it had the effect of further marginalizing people of color. Before you go "oh, so now the why doesn't matter," you should note that the point of bringing up systemic racism's influence on the individual whys is a way of illustrating that even people without racist intentions can further racism. The motivation matters to me. And I didn't say that creative people should never second guess any decision ever. I'm not convinced that either of us can hold anyone powerful in Hollywood accountable for anything in any real way. But if by "hold accountable" you mean "criticize on the internet" I would say motivation is a good line to separate out the "baldly pernicious poo poo". When casting calls go out that explicitly exclude people of color, for example, I think its safe to conclude that the people involved specifically want to exclude people of color. quote:And yet, there it is, right there in the film. (Also, Section 31, KHAAAAAAAAN, the warp core repair, Ketha Province, and etc. assorted winks, nods, and references all show a deep concern with past canon). I meant it doesn't seem that this film is concerned with keeping canon, or strictly adhering to the franchise's previous continuity. The filmmakers treated the element's you've listed the same way they treated Khan: they took a few parts that they wanted from the previous installments and did something new with them, sometimes in a winking way. For example, the redo of the "KHAAAAN" scream functions more as a meta-wink in this film than a logical extension of past continuity; otherwise we have to swallow the idea that such a similar scenario would just happen to take place in both timelines but with the roles reversed. I don't think that kind of approach works for this film, nor is it meant to. quote:Your centrality point is still vague. Basically, I'm reading that a character can be any race (read: white), despite any indications to the contrary, unless the plot of the movie is explicitly about that character's racial identity. That's pretty dumb, and basically confines people of color to the least subtle portrayals of their identity. Khan being nonwhite in STID would've lent power to themes about subjugation, control, collective vengeance, and other narratives of race and racism, all without making his racial identity "central." But of course you don't think his racial identity is central in this film, they made him white! Again, the ability to erase poo poo doesn't cure the implications of that erasure Except that any race doesn't have to mean white. Nick Fury's race is not central to his identity or role in the film Avengers, so he could have been cast as any race. They decided to cast Samuel L. Jackson, who is black. Would you place that version of Nick Fury among the least subtle portrayals of racial identity? I'd like to see more of that, but we've already been over this. quote:Based on what? His name? His stated origin in "canon" that would be freely disregarded to cast white in your framework? What makes T'Challa different from Khan?Based on what? His name? His stated origin in "canon" that would be freely disregarded to cast white in your framework? What makes T'Challa different from Khan? What makes it different is it's a hypothetical version of a new character, the original of which I'm not that that familiar with in the first place. If they wanted to reboot the character entirely and ignore all previous comic book canons, making him Black Panther in name only, then they could do whatever they wanted with him. I never really understand the point of Hollywood doing that (the Aeon Flux film still irks me), but then I might just choose not to see the film. I only know the role from the current run of New Avengers, where his role as leader of a fictional African nation is pretty important. quote:On the one hand, protecting what we've done so far is pretty essential to progressing further. On the other, if we want to appease you, we need to give up our current gains for some other goal that you deem more legitimate. Hm. A new version of a past role played by a currently dead man 46 and 31 years ago and now rebooted and played by Benedict Cumberbatch is not one of your current gains, and you can't exercise any control over that version of the role because the film has already been made and released. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Wow. Really? In my profession, I actually do work towards racial justice and racial advocacy, because those are the tools I've got. Ok but are you actively working against all injustices in the world all the time? I don't agree that not always acting to fix an injustice (or a pattern of injustice) is always the same as supporting that injustice. If that's what you think then go ahead and try to fix every injustice ever or admit to supporting the ones you haven't. Or stop seeing these issues as so clear cut, since in practice they are not whether for JJ Abrams, for you, or for I. quote:Well, when art actively harms - by entrenching systemic racism - we run into problems. Birth of a Nation is a technical masterpiece, but it's still loving racist and that impacts its value. It's the same principle. I have yet to see it but I'm told it still has value as an important part of film history and as a technical masterpiece. (From what I know) that seems like a perfect example of why films can have merit beyond the political aspects, not the opposite. quote:I mean, given that it's like pulling loving teeth to get people to stop trying to concoct "canon" explanations for whitewashing. I haven't, though. I've been saying filmmakers are not obligated to honor canon when making a reboot. quote:Right, but I'm not talking about a strict adherence to canon, I'm talking about being concerned with canon - aware of it and aware of its deviations. The creators of STID know or should be expected to know that Khan is a character of color, and the decision to change that is an active choice that should be second-guessed - if not by Abrams & co., then by us. No, a different Khan was a character of color. They didn't change that Khan, they made a new take on the character. quote:You do get how exceptional the Fury casting is, don't you? Not to mention that it wouldn't have happened without Fury being black in the Ultimate comics, which is the actually inspired decision. We've already been over this a couple of times. I also didn't say that decision was inspired, just that it happened. quote:So you don't think it'd be politically hosed up at all? You don't think it'd be justified to say "that's hosed up and emblematic of systemic racism"? Motivation matters to me, and I can't comment on the motivations of non-existent people in a vague hypothetical scenario, especially since even if they existed I would not be privy to their decision making processes. I also don't think that's in danger of happening in real life, but who knows. quote:Having an iconic nonwhite role like Khan was one of our gains, and now it's been lost. Your proposition is that we should just take it lying down, and that's bullshit. First of all, where is the "we" coming from? Speak for yourself. It hasn't been lost, Montalban's Khan is still there in Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan. It's not like anyone is George-Lucasing Cumberbatch into those roles, and I'm betting that Montalban's take on the character will far outlast the new version seen in STID. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:You've also mistaken "do not get a free pass for the political implications of changes" for "must honor canon." As far as I can tell canon is the only reason you consider it a change in the first place. quote:Should the decision to make this "new Khan" yet another white guy be free from criticism or "second-guessing"? Like, it seems that you're just stating the problem as an argument that there is no problem. As far as I remember I only used the phrase "second-guessing" in the discussion on how creativity works on a gut level, not to refer to what you have been doing in this thread. I've been restating the situation because you like to rely on the way you phrase a situation to make it sound bad. To me there's a difference between changing something and making a new take on something. Should a white person not cover a song originally written or performed by someone not white? quote:It's great that motive matters to you, but I see no reason why it should mitigate, let alone absolve, lovely effect. Because people hope to, nor be reasonably expected to, control the infinite chains of effects that result from every one of their constant choices to act or not to act. For example Abrams could have cast a young unknown actor of color in the role and that man's life could have been negatively impacted by the subsequent sudden rise to fame. Would you hold Abrams responsible for that lovely chain of events? You're a lawyer so you must be way more familiar with the concept of mens rea than I, and why it's important. Why don't you explain it to me. quote:It depends on your definition of "merit." You just called it a technical masterpiece. quote:But I guess getting one role twice is good enough. Except I didn't say that. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:So you're using "canon" as a synonym for "context," then? Because at some level, we do depend on things not explicitly laid out in the text, which is how we develop things like "thematic insight." I'm using the word "canon" to refer to the established diegetic parameters and history (aka continuity) of the franchise's fictional universe. Khan's racial identity and religion are details from a previous incarnation of the Star Trek franchise's canon. quote:How creativity works on a "gut level" is inextricable from social biases, and we should work to fight those! If they're truly inextricable then that makes you an enemy of creativity. quote:I'm sorry if the words that accurately describe this issue make you uncomfortable, but there isn't a difference when it comes to taking a role that relies heavily on the previous incarnation of that role and changing one thing - the race of the actor to white. See, here you're playing the same games again. That is not an accurate description of what took place. Of course they didn't change the race of the actor (Montalbán) to white. They made a new version of the Khan character and cast a different actor to play the new take. That new actor is white, but that's not the only difference he has from the previous actor; he is a totally different human being! And his take on the character seems very different from the previous one to me, along with the way this incarnation was written, although I admit its been a while since I watched WoK or Space Seed. quote:You can't be serious - I know you don't intend to try to wave this off with "well really, it's for your own good," but Jesus. If you really think "hey, the action I'm taking has immediate and proximate consequences and I should be aware of those" is the same as "oh god, anything could happen," you've basically spun right off the globe. But I think you understand how ridiculous this is. You're getting pretty close to putting words in my mouth again here, and missing the point in the process. It was a hypothetical example to illustrate that people cannot hope to, nor be reasonably expected to, control the infinite chains of effects that result from every one of their constant choices to act or not to act. Since you're talking about the abstract impact of the casting decision on a larger pattern (systemic racism in Hollywood) you aren't talking about the immediate consequences, you're talking about (assumed) cumulative consequences. Unless you would like to explain the immediate negative consequences involved in that one specific casting decision.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:How so? Do you think that these social biases are inherently worthy of preservation? Social biases are inextricable from creative work, you said so yourself. No work of art will ever perfectly reflect an unassailable progressive ideal. Star Trek is a perfect example, because in many ways (both diegetically and as a real world endeavor) it was a reflection of Rodenberry's utopian idealism yet in retrospect its easy to see how much it falls short of being a paragon of progressive politics. Art will always fall short, because its a fallible reflection of fallible humans. The plus side is that the flaws and lapses can be as meaningful as the high points; we wouldn't be having this conversation if they hadn't cast Cumberbatch as Khan! I think its a shame that, maybe as a kind of overcompensation to ignorance of the past and presence, so many discussions of art of the internet now focus exclusively on analyzing creative output in relation to social justice. To me treating a film primarily as an occasion to enumerate and catalog problematic elements is as unfortunately narrow as treating a film as an primarily occasion to update Wookiepedia (or Memory Alpha) and whine about plot-holes. Of course all art is political, and to deny that would be to miss out on a key role of creativity, but its also much more than that. William Burroughs is my favorite author, but if I focused solely on sussing out all the "problematic" aspects of his work I wouldn't get past page ten pages. Here are books written by a somewhat spoiled killer perverted pedophile, and when it comes to creating from the gut he might be the most extreme example we can find; nothing is held back no matter how vile or uncomfortable. Yet somehow there's an abject beauty and truth amidst the honest ugliness he spews forth for page after page, which is why I keep reading. And speaking of Burroughs, if you want to understand more what I was trying to get at earlier about the nature of creativity (which I admittedly did not explain well at all) you could try watching Cronenberg's Naked Lunch, which explains the gist of my point much better than I ever could. I've digressed from Star Trek Into Darkness and Khan, of course, but the point is that valuing art and creativity means taking the good with the bad. It will always mean taking the good with the bad. That's not to say we should try and erase or ignore the political impacts and consequences of art, just that we can see them in a broader context. One that is less narrow and manichean than your zero-sum approach. As for the rest, the constant circling around of our conversation has become tiresome and I'd rather not go over your irksome use of the word "changed" one more time, so this is it from me for now. Maxwell Lord posted:I wonder how Bill Hader ended up doing one of the computer voices. Wow I tried to look that up and found out Majel Barrett had died, I had no idea. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Maybe the name Section 31 is mentioned only once, but they're represented later on by the USS Vengeance and its minimal crew of thugs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
I thought that scene told us a lot about what kind of man Kirk is at this point without resorting to exposition, especially compared to the other Kirk from TOS, and it wasn't particularly gratuitous or even really titillating so I don't know what the fuss is about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Using female characters to develop male characters without really bothering to develop the female character is gross. It's grosser when she doesn't even behave believably in order to make it happen. It's grossest when her contrived behavior is such that it gratuitously lets us scope out her bod. (Of course it was gratuitous. She gets naked for no discernible reason.) Well if you're disappointed that neither film in the reboot has developed or utilized the female characters as much as they could have then I fully agree. It's just that the critical focus on that one scene is baffling to me, especially since it is a bit of characterization for a woman and about how women are viewed by Kirk. We already know that Kirk is a bit of a womanizer, but that scene shows that a) he's not particularly good at it, b) he's not always respectful about it, and c) he doesn't handle himself around women like TOS's Kirk would. It develops her by showing that she has no interest in being another one of TOS's softly-focused conquests for the Captain to bed and then forget by the next episode. If you want to call the scene "gross" you're not even out of line with its meaning. It has to do with the rest of the movie because one of the main points throughout the film is that this Kirk is still quite young and immature, and not quite the same person as TOS's Kirk. quote:The problem is that the character is not a real person. That's the major divide there. If she were a real life person and this were a documentary about the real exploits of the actual crew of the real Enterprise, then we'd have an argument for it being a display of her confidence or whatever, but it's also super important to remember that Alice Eve the real live person didn't take off her clothes because she thought it would be a really cool way to showcase her character's personality, but because a screenwriter and production team thought "Now would be a good time for this character to take their clothes off for some reason". The people who take issue with the scene aren't necessarily approaching it from a diegetic standpoint, but rather as a view of an endemic problem that shows up in movies. If the scene has a role to play in the film, which SMG and I say it does, then it doesn't belong lumped in with an endemic pattern of women actors being made to show skin for contrived reasons or questionable excuses. Also scenes like that usually have an element of the camera leering or slowly panning over the woman, and the scene in question couldn't be more opposite in terms of the way it was filmed. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
The filmmakers' intentions behind that short scene is a different question from whether the scene ends up working in a way that is meaningful to the film's themes or characterization. Also you're unlikely to find a mainstream director explaining or defending the subtext of their film in an interview, let alone on a talk show, but that doesn't mean they're not aware of any subtext or that we can't find subtext there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not talking about their (Abrams & Lindelof) intent, but about their interpretation/impression. I didn't highlight what he wanted to do with the scene, but what it looks like to him now. I didn't say anything about him being "a great social commentator hiding incredible subtext", not sure where you got that from. We could get into a whole thing about the value of the "death of the author" approach here, but for now let's just say that: a) a director's intended outcome for a film and b) the end result of everyone's work (not just the directors) being watched and "read" or interpreted by a viewer are two different things. I'm concerned with the latter, and so are the explanations for the scene's role in the film that have been given by myself and other posters in this thread. Now, when interpreting Abrams' and Lindelof's statements about that scene remember to keep the context in mind, especially their audiences at the time. One was addressing a talk show audience, the other a mob of angry commenters on Twitter. Neither situation is preferable for launching into a discussion about the subtext of the scene, "great social commentary incredible subtext" or otherwise. quote:Also, man, can't we have this discussion without accusing each other of being stupid or blind or sexist (or racist) every step? That's not directed at me, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Now, this may sound incredibly naive, but what is the subtext of the scene? It seems to me all we've been talking about so far is the text. Distinction between subtext and text would be a fruitless discussion so I'm going to dodge that, but here are a few previous posts defending the value of the scene to the film: Lord Krangdar posted:We already know that Kirk is a bit of a womanizer, but that scene shows that a) he's not particularly good at it, b) he's not always respectful about it, and c) he doesn't handle himself around women like TOS's Kirk would. It develops her by showing that she has no interest in being another one of TOS's softly-focused conquests for the Captain to bed and then forget by the next episode. SuperMechagodzilla posted:The scene has in obvious purpose, in that Kirk is pushed to stop objectifying women. 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. Danger posted:SMG (or at least how I'm reading him) isn't talking about why it wasn't cut as some executive decision, but acknowledging that it is there and offering an explanation for what it means in the context of the film. It is an inverse of a depiction of male gaze, as the gaze itself is on the side of the object (as opposed to representing Kirk/the audience's subjective view), Kirk is not able to see the way in which Marcus sees him and an unavoidable schism in his ego is encountered.. This is a deeply anxious moment and not hot and sexy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Value ≠ subtext though. Especially your quote therein just looks like "text" to me. Which is not bad, I was just surprised at other people bringing up the "sub" thing. Ok, well maybe that was a poor choice of words on my part. It's sorta besides the point, though. quote:Intent whatever, I'm mostly interested in two things: 1. what does this scene do with "people"? How do, for example, majorities ("people") perceive it? 2. how does it unfold to a critical, reflected, even informed analysis? I don't think there is much overlap between these two, either. Instead of trying to suss out what other people ("majorities", "most people", "the viewer") think maybe just tell us what you think, and why. You've described the scene here, but not what makes it both sexy and sexist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What Kirk expects is for the woman in underwear to pander to him by acting flirtatious or sleeping with him or whatever. But I'm the viewer; what I expect (either due to a sense of entitlement or just weary resignation) is to be pandered to by being shown a woman in her underwear. And Star Trek delivers, booya! I mean, what, I guess it can be applauded for not having Marcus posing in a sultry fashion on top of that? That wasn't my experience as a viewer, at all, though. Of course I see the need to, at times, speak of a hypothetical generic viewer (though I'm not sure why he apparently must be a straight dude). But let's not let this hypothetical person's reactions overshadow actual posters accounts of how they experienced the scene. quote:Here's how you do the scene: when Kirk looks, we either get a shot of Marcus's face or we get a shot of Kirk over Marcus's shoulder. They have the exact same exchange with the exact same connotations. The movie proceeds. But then we would lose her body language, which helps the scene develop her characterization (not just Kirk's). It's one of those "a picture is worth a thousand words" situations. quote:Also, gently caress's sake. Toothpaste also exists - even in space !! - but we don't follow the characters as they see to their morning and nightly hygiene. Sometimes we do, if there is another purpose to the scene. Also this isn't a good comparison because if there was a scene involving tooth-brushing nobody would be demanding that the tooth-brushing be implied but not shown.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It definitely makes sense if, while tackling the subject of sexism, you want to make sure to show the audience a breast. It's bizarre to me that people here are talking as if seeing a split-second shot of a woman in her underwear is really arousing or particularly desirable at all in our current cultural context (see: talk of "horn-dogs" and boners). We've come a long way since the Beavises and Buttheads of the world would rent a movie just to freeze-frame on a shot of a naked woman, and even then there was the Sears catalog with racier imagery (not really racy at all) than this film on page after page. Now we live in the age of Google, if somebody really wanted to see a woman in a bra they could stay home and use Google image search (or even just pause the trailer), save themselves a chunk of time and money. I doubt that anyone in the theater was particularly turned on by that short shot and certainly nobody went to see this film primarily because they thought it would be sexy. The posters who seem to be assuming otherwise are just projecting that attitude on vague hypothetical viewers or out-dated stereotype caricatures (the horn-dog sci-fi nerd who only interacts with fictional women, or the "gently caress YEAH BOOBIES" frat boy). It's kinda like that old "but what about other people's children" argument, only now it's "but what about those other nerds". I realize that the issues of objectification and "male gaze" are bigger than that, but my point is Alice Eve was not reduced to a sex object here because the scene is barely sexual and the focus is on her character's personality, not her breasts (even though, yes, they appear on-screen under clothing for a split second). Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Well, it's not particularly arousing or desirable. It's just, popular media keeps doing it, in every possible context, forever. I don't generally watch sci fi action movies to scope out hot babes in their underwear, but, well, there they are regardless. Ok, but does anybody? Because if not then where is the talk of horn-dogs and boners coming from? quote:I tell you what, though, I really love "this doesn't merit any criticism because you can just Google up some porn at home". Everything else around you is already attempting to arouse and titillate you, this shouldn't even be on your radar!! I had edited another bit to the end of my previous post, maybe you missed the edit. But anyway, this looks like a willful attempt to misunderstand what I'm trying to say so maybe cut that out if you're interested in discussion beyond your own made up caricatures. Like this: Ferrinus posted:Haha, yeah, this woman's totally tough and strong and way too cool for me! As she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions. Man, I am totally reacting maturely to this smokin' babe in her underwear that Star Trek has provided for me - exam passed. This is an obvious straw-man caricature, it doesn't represent the views of anybody in the discussion or anyone else. Can we get past that poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Getting gazey on the Enterprise is what I watch these movies for! I particularly liked the look of the planet at the beginning; it was a nice nod to the low-budget surrealism set designs from TOS. Another memorable image to me is the look on Cumberbatch's face after Kirk exhausted himself punching him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's the line in Fight Club again, something like, "whom would you like to get into a fight with? - William Shattner"? I only remember them mentioning Ghandi. Sir Kodiak posted:The sequence itself was a neat throwback, and Spock's graceful acceptance of his impending death was my favorite character moment in the film, but I thought the planet itself was sort of ugly. Well, yeah. But it was ugly in the same way the old TOS sets were but brought to life in a way they couldn't do back then, which I appreciated.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's neat that they were able to nail that in a way which worked for you, but I'm not such a huge fan of the original series that I want to look at something ugly just for the sake of the reference. Hahah, I'm not actually either so I'm not sure why I liked that so much. I guess it reads as a clever visual joke to me; like you would expect that in updating elements of TOS in a different era with a bigger budget they would make them better looking, so its funny to see the same kinda tacky ugly look in the new, high-budget, polished context.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What? Who am I supposed to be caricaturing here? I think someone's being a little sensitive! Whose expectations, though? Yours? Mine? A vague hypothetical person's? When you said "she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions" who were you presuming to speak for? I know there was an element of sarcasm there, but then you appear to think that's an accurate assessment of someone's (whose?) experiences. I haven't said anything about "lamp-shading" tropes, I have personally been arguing that the scene in question is a bit of characterization for both Kirk and Marcus and because its barely sexy or sexual I'm unable to accept that the scene exists to sexually objectify Alice Eve. Whether the scene subverts expectations depends on what the expectations actually are, like if a viewer expected Kirk to have his way with her just because he's Kirk and he's the hero then they would be surprised when his immature advances were rebuffed with such disdain. If a viewer is identifying with Kirk at that point, then SMG is right that in effect she is showing her disdain for both Kirk and that viewer. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Ok, so whose predictions? EDIT- Saying "complies completely with my expectations" implies more than predictions, it implies demands.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Hey, could you maybe skip to the punchline here? I don't understand what you're getting at - do you think it's unreasonable to claim that there's a thread of juvenile titillation running through films like these, such that it's actually more surprising when a given movie or comic or game doesn't feature chitinous high heels or cyber bikinis or whatever? Like, I agree in full that Carol Marcus's attitude and bearing in the scene are a direct attack on that kind of content, but the only reason that attack makes sense in the first place is because that kind of content is common enough that you, I'm talking about the general you here, me and you, who are film viewers and are capable of making educated guesses about the future by using our knowledge of the past, """expect""" to see. I'm trying to get you to nail down who you're talking about and thereby ground what you're talking about- Who is being pandered to, who is being titillated, whose expectations are being completely complied with? Who "expects (either due to a sense of entitlement or just weary resignation) to be pandered to by being shown a woman in her underwear"? The problem is you want to accuse the scene of being pandering "juvenile titillation" but you refuse to say who it's pandering to, and as I already pointed out no actually existing person needs to pay to see this film to see a woman in underwear. I don't think that the scene in question is part of a pattern of juvenile titillation in film because it is neither juvenile nor titillating. If you want to relate it to that pattern then its going against the expectations of anybody who desires juvenile titillation, not fulfilling them. But even without that the scene makes sense as part of the film because it tells us about two of the characters in the film. quote:Indeed, if the expectation didn't exist that the female lead would be getting naked and swooning in Kirk's arms, the scene wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. But then she doesn't actually "comply completely with those expectations", right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:These sci fi flicks sure do have the camera stare at scantily-dressed women a lot, eh? All right, here's my idea - we'll point the camera at a scantily-dressed woman, but the woman's going to be, like, totally annoyed about it. This is your caricaturing thing I was talking about, again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Man, who does a shot of an actress in her underwear pander to? I just don't know! That's not an answer. Why is it so hard for you to give a straight answer to this simple question? I don't want to put words in your mouth, I want you to put them there. quote:I disagree with you that it's neither juvenile nor titillating. In fact, it has to be in order for for Marcus's actual dialogue/stance/expression/etc to subvert the basic setup. If, for instance, we'd instead had a scene where Marcus was about to change, noticed that Kirk was watching, and told him off in the exact same words before just going into another room the scene wouldn't work the same way. I already explained why I don't see the scene as arousing or titillating when taking into account the cultural context, but you missed the point and decided I was arguing that "everything else around you is already attempting to arouse and titillate you, this shouldn't even be on your radar!!" I was not. Kirk is being juvenile in the scene, yes, and sure that's part of the setup. But you haven't explained what makes the scene itself juvenile. You're right that the scene wouldn't work the same way if it was changed, and that's exactly why I don't think it should have been changed. quote:Dude. That's not a very good answer. I'll answer for you: No, she does not comply with those expectations since at no point does she get naked and swoon in Kirk's arms. So then I hope you can see why I disagree with you saying that "she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions". quote:Who am I caricaturing? Well, there you appear to have constructed a sarcastic strawman caricature of a filmmaker and his dumb thought process behind the scene. It's easy to make something sound dumb that way; too easy for me to take that seriously as a compelling form of argument. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I don't want to deal with you triumphantly activating your trap card because whatever answer I give you is overly broad or overly specific - you've already proven that you aren't above digging at pointless semantics. If you want to make a point, make it. I had guessed that you keep avoiding the answer because whatever you say might be overly broad or overly specific. See, I have no particular trap in mind here, I honestly am not sure what exactly you were getting at with the pandering accusations. It wouldn't be a trick question except that you're trying to avoid exposing your own trick: you want me to just ignore the big hole at the center of your argument by continually dodging my poking at it. The point is that the scene is only pandering to a vague hypothetical group of people who may or may not exist until you form a compelling argument otherwise. I'm trying to get you to nail down who you're talking about and thereby ground what you're talking about- Who is being pandered to, who is being titillated, whose expectations are being completely complied with? Who "expects (either due to a sense of entitlement or just weary resignation) to be pandered to by being shown a woman in her underwear"? The problem is you want to accuse the scene of being pandering "juvenile titillation" but you refuse to say who it's pandering to, and as I already pointed out no actually existing person needs to pay to see this film to see a woman in underwear. quote:A lot of what you're saying seems to boil down to "this wasn't sexy enough to be objectionable". Actually though she does comply with the expectation that a female character's sexiness or lack thereof is zeroed in on and established in exacting detail. I don't actually care to haggle with you over how modest her bra was in comparison to the outfit displayed in the typical Victoria's Secret photoshoot or whatever. The scene is premised on Marcus being thrust into a sexy situation, and while the reaction she's scripted to have is admirable but, taking a step back, the injection of the scene into the narrative is not. It's not that it wasn't sexy enough to be objectionable, its that it wasn't sexual enough to be an example of sexual objectification. The relative modesty of her bra does matter here, because women wear similar outfits in contexts that are not necessarily sexual, such as going to the beach. Obviously in the film Kirk is sexually attracted to Marcus, but for the audience to briefly see a woman in such an outfit is not necessarily sexual. You've changed which expectations we're talking about here, and I'm not sure what "exacting detail" you're referring to. Again, the scene works with the rest of the film because it develops both characters. quote:I wasn't being sarcastic. That is an honest attempt by me to summarize the point. The difference between this and a kung fu werewolf in a tiny jacket who beats Kirk up over his impropriety is one of degree. That wasn't a good summary because nobody has really been saying what you said, and not in the dumb way you put it either. People have been arguing that the context and details should matter when interpreting the scene, not that its simply better to sexually objectify a woman/female character if you make her "like, totally annoyed about it". Context changes how I interpret an image. If a similar brief shot of the same actress occurred in a different movie instead, but this time she was standing on a beach would you still have the same criticisms? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
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
|
|