|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I loved this - functioned as an exorcism of everything I don't like about Star Trek. I hope I end up able to read the film this way too, because this sounds really neat. Thanks for gettin' me hyped
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Grew up with Trek, enjoyed this movie a lot. It wasn't perfect. The women's roles absolutely sucked - literally "bitchy girlfriend/everyone's mom" and "daddy issues," respectively. Yeesh. A good thing: the opening sequence was in five or ten minutes a better prime directive episode than anything TNG ever managed to do with that theme, with really meaningful use of special effects and powerful image-driven storytelling. If that's the kind of thing we can expect from a new series based in this universe, sign me up. Was the super contemporary club music playing in the bar scene with Scotty and his little friend something licensed? I liked it.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Point me in the direction of this classic dub, friend, for I wish to educate myself
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Allowing them to be competent at their jobs is cool, but that doesn't change the fact that their personal motivations were entirely driven by the men in their lives.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
boneration posted:Stoked to see this tonight, is it one of them movies that you should see in 3d if you can, or is it not that big a deal to miss out on the third D? Avoid the D
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
boneration posted:So... 2D is fine? Or is this a dick joke you're making here. It's a dick joke, but also the consensus seems to be that the 3D in this one is slapped-on and an impediment Edit: Except for that guy I guess so YMMV
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Auron posted:Jesus Christ this race bullshit is STILL going on? I'm guessing you clowns scared away the rest of the posters who wanted to discuss a movie for what it actually is; a form of entertainment. I for one am still reading the thread not because I care to read people's generic opinions on whether or not the plot was exciting, but because I find the racial discussion (and surrounding thematic discussions) pretty interesting! Star Trek was conceived as a theater for this sort of thinking - albeit one which has rarely if ever been perfect on screen. (Though Avery Brooks was a real force for good on his show.) Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I like the episode where Sisko said "Actually black people weren't really welcome in the setting of this hologram program" and boycotted it. Genuinely good moment
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Yeah I would say she's the voice of reason there. Sacrificing yourself in a macho display of your toughness and self-destructiveness is dumb and egotistical. You need some very good reasons to make that the right decision. What about rescuing a civilization from destruction? I did get sexist vibes from the scene - Uhura seemed moved into silence by Spock's talk and she didn't really have anything further to do in the film regarding that arc - it was all Spock's, she was just there to bear out the monologue.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Uhura's relationship with Spock is important isn't the same thing as "the film marginalizes her". Kirk's relationship with Spock is important and is as emotionally charged yet the film doesn't marginalize him. Alchenar said that she's marginalized in that her relationship with Spock is set up as important and then left aside. She's pretty much just used as a means to develop her male counterparts - a classic Sexist Way To Write.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
No Wave posted:If the complaint is that none of the female characters have an arc/develop... I'd agree! But if the claim is that it's sexist to portray a male character overcoming a stereotypically male fault... I'd disagree. Cool, because the former is the complaint. Spock's motivation in that scene got brought up to point out the way Uhura is used as a tool to draw it out, rather than as a character who contributes meaningfully to the drama.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:the writers dreamed up a scenario in which she's in her underwear. Bears repeating that they didn't even really go all the way on doing that. There's no discernible reason for her to change clothes or invite Kirk along for it. She's portrayed as cool and intelligent, yes, but that doesn't substitute for being an actual three-dimensional character.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted: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. 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.) Also, surely we already knew that Kirk likes to ogle women? He'd done it at least three times prior that I can remember off the top of my head, one of those times already at Alice Eve. I don't dislike that Marcus is able to call Kirk out on it a little, but as others have said, that has nothing to do with any other scene in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Just because you're too distracted being titillated to pick up on character moments doesn't mean that everyone who watched the film is as well. The only thing you listed here which is actually played as a character motivation of Marcus's which has to do with her character arc, to the extent that she has one, is contingent upon her father. It is not good when a female character's motivations are driven entirely by the men in the movie, and it's double not good when "oh, so she doesn't want to gently caress Kirk" is about half of the development she gets. If he doesn't ever gently caress Kirk in the movie, that would hopefully have been implicit without having to show us her naked body to prove it! This all goes for Uhura, too, whose motivations are pretty much entirely Spock-driven. It would be one thing if the men simply outnumbered the women to the extent they already do, it's quite another that the thing Uhura wants in this movie is literally for Spock to be a better boyfriend - that she's right about Spock's emotional weaknesses is barely a small comfort. Can you think of any male secondary characters who get maybe two or three moments of development in their movie, where one of those moments has to do with whether or not they want to gently caress a girl on the set and another moment has to do with their mother? I think that character would very much be seen as a joke. Here we have a character like that who is being played seriously. I am not on board. Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Sadly her twitter is inactive or we could get this whole nerd debate settled lickety splitjivjov posted:You can't fit every single combination of character traits interacting with every possible circumstance in a single movie. We're a little short on the infinite time that would require. I don't get it, do I need to prove that my opinion is a consensus before you'll consider and address the points I made instead of the possibility of people seeing things my way (people do)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'd say that what makes this image special, what evidently angers so many, is not that the character was a strong, capable woman who is degraded by being shown in her underwear. That happens all the time, without complaint. Yo I actually roll my eyes every time I see something like this in a movie, I'm just kind of bewildered at how much defense this particular one is getting. Edit: I don't agree, not for a second, underwear scene notwithstanding, that Carol Marcus in JJ Arbams' summer sci-fi blockbuster Star Trek Into Darkness was a strong character
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
jivjov posted:You're asking us to consider a hypothetical counter example instead of examining the actual scene we have from this movie. What good does it do to stand here and say "oh if the genders were reversed the character would be seen as a joke"? How do you know that? Because I see this character a joke due to the reasons which were the rest of my post Edit: The reason I'm asking whether anyone can name a male character like that is because there are billions of female characters like that. I'm struggling to think of a Male example but I bet one does exist somewhere Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Ostensibly being an expert in something doesn't make her a strong character, taking steps to drive the plot forward doesn't make her a strong character, not wanting the bad thing to happen in the movie doesn't make her a strong character, not liking the movie's cartoon villain doesn't make her a strong character, having melodramatic scenes which display how upset she is that her father is a cartoon villain actively makes her less of a strong character, and I think I'm all out of traits that Carol Marcus has outside of the underwear scene SMG I would tell you that your window into my psyche is made up and that I feel identically about this scene as I do other gratuitous sexy shots in other films, but, you know, death of the author and all that
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
jivjov posted:So what exactly does make for a "strong character" if all the things Carol accomplishes don't count? Interesting and nuanced motivations. An arc which doesn't simply piggyback that of the plot. Idiosyncratic traits which are not rote, especially if they aren't related to the men in the film. Edit: I'm not just stopping with Marcus here, this isn't really a film which makes room for that many Strong Characters outside of Kirk and Spock and maybe Khan. Which isn't so bad for an exciting, plot-driven action movie!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
To talk about those superficial qualities which are the content, then, I'd like to draw your attention back to this excellent post from the previous page:Bugblatter posted:I have no issue with the action of the scene. Eve changing, Kirk peaking, but Eve just coolly telling him to turn around works well as development for the characters and, as written, does have all the themes that SMG and others were detailing. I'm all for empowering the reader (how the hell else did Alfred "Torture the Women" Hitchcock become a fixture in feminist film study) but this film in particular gives very little, textually, which can be used to substantiate Carol Marcus as a character at all, much less a gender hero. Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I don't want to confront those directly? You're the one who has been giving me the run around every time I try and pin down what the gently caress you're arguing using those words. You still have utterly failed to answer the simplest of questions about your own position: pandering to who exactly? Confront that directly! Maybe it would help us understand what the gently caress you are trying to ask here if you could show us some example of pandering from some other film and give us a satisfactory rundown of "who" that's pandering to, because that just looks like it's either an impossible question to answer or an impossibly thick question to ask at all. It's pandering to the young male demographic the movie is built for, a demographic which responds positively in focus groups to seeing naked ladies. It's pandering to the business executives who are demanding that the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it can be stuck into the trailer. It's pandering to forums user Ho Chi Mint, whose post I would quote but then I'd just be quoting the darned image again Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
They're not wrong if they feel pandered to? They are wrong if they think the scene escapes being problematic. Those are different things Edit: maybe you weren't addressing me or my camp there
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:People are talking about intent behind the pandering, though. "Hey Abrams, we need more tits for the trailer!", for example, or Space Hamlet's alleged "business executives who are demanding that the movie include a revealing shot of an actress so that it can be stuck into the trailer." For the record I don't particularly care about whether pandering is happening or not. I just think Carol Marcus is a weak character and that it's a shame when weak female characters take their clothes off so drat often, and I think that the claims about the silly little lampshade in the scene being "strong character development" are silly. I chimed in on the note of pandering because I felt like your demand for the names, phone numbers, and addresses of all the pandering targets was kind of an infuriating argument (yes, this is an unfair characterization of your argument, please don't call me out on that as though it defeats mine)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Holy poo poo dude it's called exaggeration and it's not some grave rhetorical fallacy
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Having breaking the prime directive be the reason Kirk loses the Enterprise is yet another Star Trek Thing they had Kirk do without any heed for why it exists or doing it justice in the context of the story. Also, if you violated the Prime Directive (which I would assume is really important - it's literally Order Number One) wouldn't you lose a little more than your ship? You would think so but in a good episode of TNG Picard is giving testimony in a Federation court and it's insinuated (accurately) by an admiral that he's violated the prime directive a number of times. So yeah, it's not unusual for prime-directive-violations to be judged on exactly the sliding scale of ethics that you see in STID. "Kirk broke the rules in a strictly textbook way" is not the central theme of STID, nor should it have been Edit: This is one of many examples of exactly why I don't feel like the Star Trek trappings were lazily applied by cynical producers to STID, like you imply - if anything the writers knew their Star Trek all too well, including the lazy parts, and made the film less appealing to general audiences as a result of taking all the same shortcuts. And Star Trek nerds are prone to be more critical of those shortcuts when it's a new regime executing them, because well, Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
YO when odo shapeshifts into his uniform is he also making his comm badge out of himself? does that mean he can create other types of sophisticated machinery? could he become a working photon torpedo? a warp core? a starship? a borg, complete with nanomachines? edit: well, wrong trek thread, but please feel free to discuss
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 03:29
|
|