|
This was a fun movie. I'm glad that it had no pretensions about bullshitting us with the resurrection blood thing. Like, yeah, obviously you can't loving kill off one of the two main characters in film number 2 and have anyone anywhere buy it. So, pretty much no attempt was made to hide from us that they were going to bring Kirk back, and it's like, sure, cool, makes sense. I've seen people go on in disgust about how the presence of a resurrection serum RUINS the UNIVERSE (THE UNIVERSE!!!) and it's just utterly baffling; one of the core premises of Star Trek is that impossibly powerful technology trivializes almost every material problem except in those situations, which happen to be the ones put onscreen, in which some plot device or other forces the technology to stop working. So they can bring people back from the dead now, who gives a poo poo? I'm glad that the Abrams movie are embracing technology as awesome wizard magic rather than quaking in fear of "overpowered" plot devices as though they were balrogs unleashed by digging too deep. I had one major problem with the movie, which was that Khan sort of never graduated beyond physical, mano-a-mano fight scenes. I loved watching his superhuman physicality in action, and I thought the scene in which Kirk tried to physically abused him and just utterly failed was great. That meant that Khan was a villain Kirk couldn't defeat through an action movie in-person confrontation; if you're within arm's reach of that guy, your loss is inevitable, so you have to back off and get back into your ship and outwit him somehow. But, the confrontation between the protagonists and antagonists was only a ship-to-ship maneuvering challenge for like, thirty seconds total - we barely got to see any kind of intellectual or verbal back-and-forth between Khan and the good guys. If I was writing the movie, I'd have had the scene in which Khan crushed the general dude's skull like a grape and took possession of the giant evil Enterprise happen like halfway through the movie, and not blow up the giant evil Enterprise until very near the end. Khan just never seemed to get the chance to stretch his legs and be a large-and-in-charge villain - he was always a vigilante or a fugitive or a prisoner or whatever. Oh, yeah, and as for actual "plot hole" nitpicking I found the sudden appearance of Earth in the final action scene really jarring. They could've done some more work to establish that both ships were hurtling towards earth rather than just sort of hanging out in space somewhere, and I also would've appreciated some sort of quick demonstration of why the two Enterprises were the only two ships in thesky.
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:They kinda address this? When they shot out of warp they're right by our Moon and we get a short shot of Earth in the distance. They even say they're about 200k miles or kilometers (cant remember the unit). I just assumed that since poo poo doesn't magically stop (or does it with these ships?) in space they still had a good amount of momentum from abruptly leaving warp. Oh, yeah? I totally missed the moon in that shot. I don't remember the actual distance some character or other called out, either, so this could be totally on me.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
No Wave posted:I don't understand. What are we talking about. Is this a thing we do now with ______. Check this out, I've discovered that rather than simply not saying anything about the movie, your post effectively doesn't say anything about anything. But why would you deploy that kind of smoke bomb in defense of Hollywood's constant whitewashing? Seems like maybe that should be criticized rather blandly shrugged at...?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
korusan posted:The fact that this argument has come up so many times in the thread and hasn't gotten any farther beyond "sucks that Khan is white/who cares Khan is white" camps says to me it might be time to move on. It's really tiring to come here each time hoping to talk about cool spaceships or how lovely space Skype is and anyways seeing it back at the exact same place in the exact same argument. But there isn't a "sucks Khan is white" consensus. Instead, there's absurd nacelle-counting contortion and other attempts to explain that not only does the narrative either allow or require him to be white, the narrative itself can't even justifiably be criticized for being arranged such that Khan is white.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
It's cool how when the issue can't be dismissed as imaginary it's instantly collapsed to being about the ~intent~ of Abrams or you, the goon reading this very post. There's all these aggrieved and outraged responses to accusations of personal, avowed racism that no one has actually made.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:It's unforgivable that Bones didn't discover the tribble was alive by opening a compartment and having dozens spill out. Well now I'm really mad.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It also changes the conversation from "the film is racist and you're probably racist for liking the film" to "here's how the film can be better understood, and appropriated towards the cause of antiracism if you so choose." "(according to you) the film is racist and I, who enjoyed it, must be racist for liking the film" is in fact the rallying cry of those who clap their hands against their ears and screw their eyes up tight upon hearing anyone criticize Cumberbatch's casting at all, though. That's the whole problem - instead of "yeah, that's a shame" we get "What? So you're saying that I, JJ Abrams, and Gene Roddenberry are all racist? How rude of you!" when of course what's being discussed are ongoing societal trends, not the film director's postcount at Stormfront.org. It's a derailing tactic. That's not to say I don't agree with you as to the meaning of Khan's being white within the film, but, like, it's not as though the STID we got was that produced in the best of all possible worlds or something. It could've used a different arrangement of characters to make equally cogent criticisms of western liberalism while simultaneously dodging the totally separate issue of people of color missing out on acting jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
I've noticed that people who don't like this movie's plot tend to complain about the fact that it IS a movie, like, the only reason this scene happened is the writer put it into the screenplay! They just had this event occur to reference an event from another movie! It's like, yeah...?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
The scene would've worked just as well if we got a shot of the staring Kirk over Marcus's shoulder or something. Then we could have even watched him cringe or squirm under Marcus's chastisement!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I'd have to conclude that the scene is simultaneously about admonishing and mocking Kirk for seeking sexual gratification from Marcus [SMG, Danger] while also providing that same gratification to the (assumed to be exclusively male) audience [DFu4Ever], elevating the viewer as possessing a privilege to leer that diegetic characters do not. Why, that would render the scene completely disingenuous, as sincere gratuitousness masquerading as ironic/satirical gratuitousness, as Whedonesque. I think you're exactly right about this. The scene makes an ostensible effort to be above pointless cheesecake and male gaze and so on, but oops! Not quite there! That's a good definition of "Whedonesque".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A Whedon character would never appear in a bra. Instead, she would wear a 'functional' short-sleeved jacket over a tight tank top and tight leather pants. See, doesn't that fit perfectly as sincere gratuitousness masquerading as ironic/satirical gratuitousness, though? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
Hellbunny posted:But ... that's not really it at all. She wants to change her clothes. she asks Kirk to look the other way, lke an adult. 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? 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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:...but we would see that if hygiene were a theme in the film. The movie Hannah, recently, had a prominent tooth-brushing sequence. It definitely makes sense if, while tackling the subject of sexism, you want to make sure to show the audience a breast.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
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. 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!!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok, but does anybody? Because if not then where is the talk of horn-dogs and boners coming from? What? Who am I supposed to be caricaturing here? I think someone's being a little sensitive! I'm echoing Supercar's point from up above. The scene doesn't subvert expectations, it fulfills them - who cares if it also hangs a lampshade on them? SuperMechaGodzilla posted:Manet's Olympia doesn't even wear a bra. How scandalous! Oh, come on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Yes, that's definitely what's going on here - I'm not criticizing a scene in a movie, I'm criticizing women. How dare they, those women!Lord Krangdar posted: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 meant expectations as in predictions, not expectations as in desires or demands.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok, so whose predictions? 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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Pretty much, yes. Your posts have focussed exclusively on there being a breast onscreen. That's stupid, stop it. I'm talking about a movie's presentation of a woman, not women. quote:You've not written anything about the actress' pose, the dynamic of the gaze, how this scene fits into the context of the film, the editing or cinematography (outside the fact that her breast is visible onscreen, not cropped out or obscured behind a pottery). I haven't written anything about the actress's pose because I agree with you about the actress's pose. I mean, it's true, Marcus's expression and bearing serve to rebuff Kirk's gaze, great. Whether or not we're told not to stop gazing at the character, though, we still are made by the movie to gaze at the character. They could've made a giant  face pop up to hover next to Marcus, too, but what's actually being objected to here is the means by which Star Trek decided to rebuff the male gaze, not the fact of Star Trek attempting to rebuff the male gaze.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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted: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. Man, who does a shot of an actress in her underwear pander to? I just don't know! 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. quote:But then she doesn't actually "comply completely with those expectations", right? Dude. quote:This is your caricaturing thing I was talking about, again. Who am I caricaturing?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is my overall point. You seem to have conflated male gaze (which describes a specific type of power relationship) with literally any time a man looks at a woman - and therefore, effectively, any time a woman appears onscreen at all. I don't think I have, no. I actually can't believe that you would take the tack of claiming that my objection necessarily applies to all instances of women appearing onscreen ever. Why would you resort to a distortion like that? Don't you have anything better? I mean, sure, yeah, the game is over. If a movie criticizes the male gaze by, literally, using the male gaze and hanging a lampshade on it, oops! It's still going to cop criticism for using the male gaze! I can appreciate what the scene is trying to do while thinking it's undercutting itself at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted: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 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. quote: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. 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. quote: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. 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. Whether the speech bubble hanging over that picture of Alice Eve reads "Turn around!" or "Come play now, my lord" doesn't really matter to criticisms of the image.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted: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. 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. quote: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. 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. It's specifically the detail of Marcus being annoyed at and unimpressed by her gawker that's being cited in the scene's defense. But, so what? Like I said, you could put any number of speech bubbles over that shot of her from the trailer, and whether the dialogue and attitude afforded to her were flirty, or cold, or outraged, or whatever, you'd have the same basic problem that STID looked down at its wristwatch and was like "Holy moly, I almost forgot that I had a female character over here! Hang on, I'll throw something together-"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
jivjov posted:You're arguing that context isn't important. That's utterly absurd. Context turns what could have been shameless exploitation of a female character into strong character development for not only her but another character as well. I don't think you read my post. Lord Krangdar posted:Who here was titillated by that briefest of shots in the film? Why are you now conflating being pandered to and being titillated? If a dude watched a film and found a female character's accent sexy you might say he was titillated by that detail, but that doesn't mean the detail was included to pander to him or that the film pointlessly sexualized the actor or her character. See? See? Apparently it's super important who was or wasn't literally turned on by that set of frames and it's now time to set out a comprehensive census. I knew this would happen. quote:I know context isn't the same thing as details, that's why I said "context and details". I never said context didn't matter. In fact, I provided an example of an alternate context in which that scene would've been completely unremarkable. What I'm saying is that the details of that scene - the character's specific attitude about and response to being ogled by Kirk + the camera - isn't relevant to the complaint being made.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:You seem inordinately aghast that someone might ask you to actually back up your claims and explain your positions. If you didn't want to talk about those individuals you didn't have to bring them up. Looks like you want to vaguely reference these people who were supposedly aroused or titillated or pandered to but never actually explain who they are and how you know, let alone why its a problem. This has been made clear for multiple pages. I don't want to get into multiple-pages line by line war in which you point out that Alice Eve shot from below is worth only 76% of the porno points that Alice Eve shot from head on would be indexed against contemporary lingerie advertisements. I think Supercar phrased the actual complaint best and I'm just going to paraphrase him: that scene's a continuation of a trend running through media generally in which women are incessantly evaluated in terms of their sexuality. Carol Marcus in her underwear confidently rejected Kirk's juvenile advances, great! But she still turned up in her underwear to clarify for us in the audience as to how she looked in her underwear and whether or not she wanted to bang someone, as has like every important female character in this series of movies who wasn't someone's mom. You don't have to watch Star Trek Into Darkness to see a scantily-clad babe - but if you watch it, you get a scantily-clad babe as a bonus, even though it's a jarring interruption in what was otherwise a sci fi action thriller!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I can't agree with this because none of that corresponds with my actual experience of watching the film. Sitting in the theater what I took from that scene as it flew by was this Kirk is pretty immature and Carol Marcus's attitude is nothing like most of the women from TOS. It was not a jarring interruption for me because the idea that Kirk is pretty immature, maybe too immature to be commanding the Enterprise, is something that runs throughout the film. The irony here is that you're complaining that women in film are "are incessantly evaluated in terms of their sexuality" yet you're the one choosing to focus on that aspect of the scene above any others. No, that's false. As I've said several times, I agree that the scene is scripted so as to shame Kirk for ogling and demonstrate Marcus's mastery of the situation. I am not criticizing the lines the characters say, I am criticizing the inclusion of the scene at all, for broader reasons involving trends running through media in general rather than this particular movie. For some reason you just can't get over this and are reacting by dissecting the minutiae of the scene itself - even though I'm not talking about them and haven't disagreed with the thread's analysis of them. quote:Did you see the brief shot of a scantily-clad woman as a "bonus"? If not, who are you claiming did? Hmm, interesting. Here's the thing, though, if I showed you this, and cited it as an example of pandering, titillation, or some other word you don't want to confront directly:  , and you were a fan of the game being advertised, I'm sure you'd be keen to ask things like: aren't there places on the internet you could go to see women in even more extreme states of undress? Isn't Evony itself just a bureaucratic kingdom management game? Who would play Evony just to see an image of a sexy woman when google image search is a mere click away? Who is this image supposed to appeal to, anyway? Does it appeal to me, Ferrinus, and that's the only reason I posted it? Why is it there, anyway? Who do I, Ferrinus, think that it's "for"? Does it even really arouse anyone? At the end of the day, if you can't see that a ton of nerdy mass media is shot through with the pointless sexualization of women, then that's your problem, not mine. I'm not going to let you waste my time with this kind of pedantic legalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Here's what strikes me about Marcus's scene, incidentally. It happens lateish in STID, when the movie's already entered high-stakes action thriller mode and everyone's worried about capturing Khan or solving the mystery of section 31 or whatever. It's not a scene early in the movie back on earth when everything's relatively fine and you might expect a bachelor Kirk to be on the prowl, it's not even a scene early in the mission when Marcus has just been introduced to the crew and the Enterprise is still in transit so a bored and antsy Kirk might be willing to try his luck, or whatever. In fact, both characters are in transit and in a rush, off from doing one important thing to do another really important thing, and Marcus is in a hurry to get changed - it's obvious to everyone, Kirk included, that there are not going to be any smoldering makeout sessions on the brief shuttle ride to the bomb disposal zone. Also, thus far Marcus hasn't shown any romantic interest in Kirk at all. So, Marcus tells Kirk not to look, but Kirk looks, and all of us watching the movie look along with him. Obviously there is not going to be a romantic encounter on the shuttle ride, but that doesn't matter - Kirk and the camera want to scope out a hot babe, so they do, and drat the consequences! Marcus reacts really coolly, apparently unfazed by being looked at when she specifically instructed us not to. But, that's what happened - Marcus didn't want us to look at her, and we did anyway. We've violated Marcus's privacy. And whether Marcus were to react by posing bravely and affecting cold disinterest, or by gasping in shock and pulling her clothes up over her body, or by blushing endearingly, or whatever, the point remains that she's been wronged. It's not actually Carol Marcus's responsibility to display steely resolve when ogled against her will, it's Kirk's responsibility to show some basic decency, and by putting the focus on Marcus's breezy reaction the film distracts us from the fact that we shouldn't have looked in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Because the minutiae of the scene are what makes it a worthwhile inclusion. If you weren't disagreeing with the thread's analysis of those elements you wouldn't keep saying the scene is pointless in relation the rest of the film. I think I'm wrong to say the scene is "pointless". It's still poorly-conceived. quote:I don't want to confront those directly? You're the one who has been giving me the run around every time I try and pin down what the gently caress you're arguing using those words. You still have utterly failed to answer the simplest of questions about your own position: pandering to who exactly? Confront that directly! Look at you. Look at what you've been reduced to. quote:So is it still just pointless, meaningless juvenile titillation injected in on a whim? Because what you've described here sounds like something a lot more complex than that. Especially when you realize that we the viewers don't have to agree with Kirk's actions in the scene, and I've already argued over and over that the main point of the scene is to develop his flaws. Woah, check this poo poo out! "Traumatic violation", "fragile victim"! Keep it coming, maybe it will distract from the fact that it's actually proponents of the scene we're talking about who invent lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams. I was saddened to see this gambit from SMG, but I guess it's par for the course with you. Technically speaking, of course, Marcus (the fictional character) is a victim in that scene: she was wronged, because Kirk violated her trust. I suppose if nothing else the scene's plotting can be taken as a realistic description of the portrayal of women in movies and other mainstream media: sorry, ladies, but it doesn't actually matter who you are, what you can do, what your ostensible role in the plot is, or even what the actual genre and contents of the movie are. We are gonna be scoping you out whether you want us to or not. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Actually you originally used the word violated, you said she is a victim, and I think you've been treating her as fragile when that's not how the scene portrays her. The traumatic part was sarcasm; being glanced at is not a traumatic violation, and to me the character treated it as merely a trifling annoyance. The point was you're making a way bigger deal out of it than the character did (or the actress, for that matter). I'll be more careful with the sarcastic snark in the future, I don't want to end up leaning on it as much as you apparently can't help but do. In fact, that's wrong. There's a post on this very page that pretends that part of the reasoning of people objecting to the scene involves an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion, and, oops, it isn't from me or Supercar or Cingulate or whomever! I guess you couldn't tell very far at all. I'm not surprised, either, that you would accuse me of absurdly exaggerating the arguments of other posters in the second paragraph of your post after sitting there and typing out the first paragraph of your post. Of course, in doing so you've attempted again to distract again from the main point, which is that the character's portrayed reaction to appearing in the scene makes no difference whatsoever to the criticisms being made of the scene. Abrams is a better director than Whedon, but it doesn't matter which of them is better at framing shots or underlining characterization when it's the situation itself that's under fire, not whether the character in the situation is deftly or clumsily portrayed as tough and cool. To reiterate: as cool, tough, competent, self-confident, fierce, mature, and self-assured as Marcus is, we're still gonna stare at while she's undressing even if she explicitly doesn't want us to. Sorry, toots, but we all know what's important here and it ain't your privacy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Who exactly has been inventing "lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams"? And then, where on this page is "an invented scenario in which Alice Eve herself was the victim of foul coercion"? Maybe read the thread. quote:What you don't seem to understand it that you can choose what part of the scene to focus on. You're choosing to focus on the part where Marcus is a victim instead of the part where she confidently rejects victimization and throws it back in Kirk's face. And if I remember correctly, we don't "stare at her while she's undressing", we only see her rejecting Kirk while already undressed but making no attempt to cover up. At that point, the point we see her, she doesn't care who is looking at her in her underwear she just wants to make her low opinion of them clear. Huh, so although she explicitly asks us not to look at her, but really, she just doesn't care if we're looking at her or not. That's lucky for us, I guess, that the person we're ogling is just so cool and above us that really it doesn't bother them at all so we're really not doing anything wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Maybe back up the accusations you make. Or maybe admit it was another wacky straw-man you invented. Nice try, friend, but we've already demonstrated that your allergy to figurative language and endless stream of clarifying questions are components of a derailing tactic equally suited to defending Evony as to defending this movie. It's not my responsibility to acclimatize you to the rigors of informal communication and if you simply can't grasp why I would link Kirk's perspective to that of the audience or use the world "ogling" to describe a scene in which one character literally ogles another then it might be the case that you just shouldn't be engaging in this conversation at all. Maybe you can find a more charitable poster than me to explain things to you. It still just strikes me as incredibly pernicious that all these defenses of the scene revolve around Marcus's strengths of character. Like, if instead of posing helpfully for the camera and going "Heh," Marcus had gasped and clutched at her clothes, or reddened and stormed away, or refused to continue working on Kirk's ship and left his service at the first opportunity, the scene suddenly would become objectionable - because it's somehow her responsibility, not Kirk's or ours, to handle the situation properly. Of course, being that the whole Khan thing was going on and there were dangerous missiles and her dad was involved, etc, Marcus realistically couldn't have quit service on the Enterprise then and there and told Kirk to go to hell and so on. She would've had to grit her teeth and bear it no matter how she actually felt.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Yeah, dude, I've seen what you do when people treat your trivial questions as though they were sincere attempts at understanding rather than deliberate time wasting. I have no intention whatsoever of holding your hand and guiding you through your adjective phobia. I get that you've built up some sort of internal narrative where you've really got me squirming on the ropes but it seems weird that you'd expect me to play along. Please keep it to yourself. In the scene, we look at Marcus when Kirk looks at Marcus. We don't see her directly through his eyes, but she shows up undressed on camera when Kirk decides to spy on her and stops being undressed on camera after she yells at Kirk to turn around and he finally complies. The scene easily could've been shot so as to make it clear to us that Kirk was violating Marcus's privacy without actually given us, the viewers, Kirk's payoff for violating Marcus's privacy, and as others have correctly pointed out the viewer is positioned so that they catch at least the backwash of the blast of scornful invincibility that Marcus hurls at Kirk. In fact it appears to be SuperMechaGodzilla's theory that the only reason this scene is drawing ire at all is because Marcus's steely resolve made objectors uncomfortable! None of this has to do with anyone "identifying" with Kirk on a personal, emotional level - after all, wouldn't plenty of viewers have identified, instead, with Marcus? As I've stated repeatedly, the issue is the situation this film puts its primary female character in, not whether the audience is given to identify with that character or whether the character herself is brave versus cowardly, proud versus ashamed, assertive versus timid, etc. Space Hamlet posted:I don't disagree that all of those would have been worse I feel like they would've been worse in a general sense, but, crucially, totally irrelevant to the actual criticism I and other people have been making. PeterWeller posted:See, I don't think the film does a great job of this. I never felt linked with Kirk in that scene. I maintained the part of detached observing third party. I think that's the root problem with the scene. If it did connect me with Kirk, it might have actually made me feel a sense of shame as I withered under Marcus's indifference to my gaze. But as it stands, I just saw noted horndog Kirk suffer some deserved comeuppance while I chomped popcorn and got to see everything. I've been inclined to be charitable to the "the viewers feel a sense of shame as they wither under Marcus's indifferent gaze" interpretation, but whether or not it's actually correct doesn't actually defuse the complaint being made. The problem is that the movie was arranged such that the situation occurred at all. In some ways, it's actually a pretty apt and penetrating criticism of of the problem it represents - the very inappropriateness of the situation both to the ongoing plot and to Marcus's character underscores the fact that lots of female characters just get sexualized no matter who, what, or where they are - but it seems to me that the more revolutionary act would've been not to do it in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with SMG's interpretation is that it isn't actually the scene itself that's uncomfortable. It's the scene instantly after that where Kirk is suddenly now on the bridge. You spend a few seconds trying to work out what the narrative reason for Marcus to lead him onto the shuttle and get changed in front of him when it turns out that he was going to get straight back off the shuttle oh and they're also talking over the radio so really the only reason that scene happened was for boobs. I'm not sure that undermines SMG's interpretation. The fact of Marcus's disrobing not actually making any sense or having to do with anything else going on whatsoever only serves to put more immediate weight on it, right? Kind of an "oh, by the way, this is a REALLY Strong Female Character we've got ourselves here, yes sir." It really underlines the fact that in a popular action blockbuster you're getting T&A no matter what so you may as well grit your teeth and wait it out. Lord Krangdar posted:Your explanation of what you meant by identifying with Kirk is appreciated, but its still not the way I actually experienced the scene and it still doesn't make Marcus' dialogue to Kirk into explicit requests to the viewer, like you were arguing earlier. You've explained how you see the scene, but not why I or anyone else should see it that way. Haha, see? Yeah, you pretend to be asking questions in good faith and in the same breath demand me to source my claims that Abrams has a forked tongue and dry, scaly skin. That's really rich. I repeat: I am not the kind benefactor who is going to guide you as you work through your affected(?) helplessness and ignorance in the face of written English. Seek help elsewhere. In fact, you're also pretending that anything I've said pivots on whether Carol Marcus was literally breaking the fourth wall and directly and explicitly asking the camera itself to turn around, when I've said repeatedly that the actual content of her reaction has no bearing whatsoever on my criticism. I've explained this several times but each and every time you tragically trip over an adjective and then forget, whilst puffing on your bubble pipe and asking terribly insightful questions, what it was that anyone is actually saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
No Wave posted:I'm trying to get to the core of your objection and it seems like it's that people had the opportunity to get aroused by Alice Eve's body - as if their arousal is somehow harming her. Neither of these are correct, no. Defenders of the scene have repeatedly claimed attackers of the scene are treating the actress involved as a victim and/or attempting to shame the actress but this isn't actually the case. The problem with the scene is that it continues a lovely pattern of portrayal of women in mass media. This is actually pretty similar to the earlier argument about Khan's whitewashing. "They shouldn't have gotten a white guy to play Khan" isn't the same statement as "The white guy who played Khan did it badly" or "The movie was worse because a white guy was playing Khan" or "It didn't make sense in the movie that Khan was white". Lord Krangdar posted:Which proponents of the scene were you talking about in the above quote, and which posts? I can't make this question any clearer, if you still are unable to respond directly then remove the plank from your own eye before criticizing my supposed "affected(?) helplessness and ignorance in the face of written English". I told you where you could find this. Maybe stop being lazy. quote:I know that you keep saying that stuff doesn't matter to you, but that attitude is a a big part of what I've been objecting to. I don't care whatsoever how you felt, though. You'll note that I haven't attempted to play twenty questions with you as to whether you were aroused by the scantily-clad Marcus, and if so whether you think anyone else was aroused, and if so what you think would've had to change in order to make the scene arousing, etc, as you keep trying to do with me in reverse. The actual emotional reaction of the audience doesn't matter here because we're talking about the scene, not the audience watching the scene.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:No seriously quote the post or posts cause I don't know what you are referring to at all and I have looked. Here's one from the top of page 150: quote:I think the trouble we're faced with here is that supporters of the scene approach it with the premise that Eve is a person and portrays one, where detractors approach the scene from the standpoint that Eve is (by default) an exploited victim, Carol Marcus is an object, and both must earn full personhood by displaying a certain level of 'depth' via such factors as screen time, percentage of body covered, etc. But of course neither I nor Supercar nor whomever else have ever claimed that the actual irl actress is an exploited victim or something. It's like, what, if we got a signed note here from Alice Eve herself explaining that the whole thing was her idea the argument's off because that's all anyone was actually concerned about?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:This: Ohhhhh poo poo, this is totally not the exact response I expected you to have given the fact that you're terrified of figurative language and have repeatedly resorted to pedantry instead of actual responses over the last several pages of this thread. This is especially rich because the thing to which I actually responded with "a hissing, malefic Abrams" was this: Lord Krangdar posted: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 In response to which, you'll notice, I didn't start rolling around helplessly on the ground while demanding that someone source and cite the adjectives "terrible", "traumatic", and "briefest". What's really clever, though, is how your faux(?) confusion shading into outrage has given you an excuse to not answer the actual point, which is of course that the real life actress Alice Eve's supposed victimization has only ever been mentioned by proponents, not critics, of the scene we're talking about. quote:When you say things like "all of us watching the movie look along with him" or "Marcus didn't want us to look at her, and we did anyway" or "we've violated Marcus's privacy" you are talking about the audience watching the scene. No...? If you're talking about a movie and say something like "We see Spock scream in rage" you are not making a claim which somehow depends on the irl audience sitting in the theater also getting angry or something. Here, again, you are trying to dive into a pedantic fog rather than actually answer anything being said. After all, I just told you I'm not talking about the audience's emotional reaction, and instead of nodding and proceeding having been offered clarification (I personally don't think it was necessary clarification, but hey, maybe I'm a bad writer or you were low on sleep when you read my last post or what have you) you immediately whirl around going "but, but, but...!" and pointing in outrage at the specifics of my prior wording. In this way you ensure that you never actually have to do anything but ask for semantic clarification, repeatedly, forever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
I love it! Your parting shot is just one last dose of using semantics to deliberately and dishonestly miss the point. As you yourself pointed out, Crappy Jack made that post on page 145 and hasn't otherwise actually been quoting or responding to you, me, Supercar, Cingulate, or anyone else in the main thrust of this argument for the past six pages. You know who, in that conversation, has been trying to make the conversation about whether Alice Eve the actress is being cruelly exploited? Well, SMG, you (in your literal exact post that I quoted and responded to with the remark that so completely confounded you) and, most recently, No Wave. How on earth have you not understood by now that this poo poo doesn't actually work? Peter Weller posted:You can't separate the meaning, significance or lack thereof of the scene from the audience's emotional reaction. The scene isn't some pure artifact; it exists as something whose very existence is predicated on an audience seeing it and reacting to it. Indeed, your very disapproval of the scene is rooted in your emotional reaction to it. You are inclined to disapprove of the seemingly exploitative exhibition of a woman in a state of undress, so you are upset by the scene, and I mean upset in the broadest sense. I don't know if you are angered, bothered, irritated, or just mildly annoyed by it, but however it makes you feel, that feeling is your emotional response to the scene and leads to your judgment of the scene. When I first saw the scene in theaters, I actually just found it funny. I really like the exasperated, talking-to-a-goddamn-child voice and bearing that Marcus used and it was funny to me that what had appeared at first blush to be a more straightforwardly indulgent scene had been so rudely cut off. I didn't give it much more thought til the last few pages of this thread. My criticism of the scene is retrospective - I liked it straight off, but in the final estimation it seems like a shame that they felt the need to do it at all. quote:This goes back to what I was trying to get at in my last post, that the scene is fundamentally flawed, and that's what's driving this argument. The scene fails to establish the emotional connection that supports its point--Alice Eve/Carol Marcus doesn't give two shits about your male gaze. Defenders of the scene see the attempt to make that point reason enough to include the scene. Detractors see the failure to hammer home that point reason enough to cut the scene. Essentially, it's a rhetorical problem. Everyone can see the logos of the scene--Carol is at best slightly annoyed by Kirk's ogling, but the scene is framed and presented in such a way that it fails to connect the audience with Kirk and achieve the proper pathos to get the audience to really give a poo poo. So it comes down to ethos: if you are willing to give a mainstream blockbuster credit for trying to comment on male gaze, you're inclined to give the scene a pass; but if you see it as just a continuation of a detestable trend in mainstream blockbusters, you're going to be upset (again, in the most general sense of the term). I've always agreed that the immediate effect of the scene is to castigate rather than further the male gaze. I think the actual problem is a bit more insidious: that the male gaze has got to be included, even if our Cool Tough Strong Character is able to soundly defeat it rather than crumble beneath its awful force. I feel like it's to the scene's credit that the scene becomes more and more skeevy the more you think it through. Like I mentioned a page or two ago, given the hierarchical relationship Kirk and Marcus are in, Marcus is empowered to give Kirk poo poo over his behavior but she isn't actually empowered to stop him from violating her privacy in the first place, to impose some kind of official sanctions on him for his behavior, or to remove herself from his power - the actual action plot of the movie is too big a deal. So, in the same way that Khan's whiteness is an implicit commentary on the ideal of whiteness that lurks at the heart of starfleet's military ethos, Marcus's harassment is a commentary on the problems our military has with sexual harassment, mistreatment of female officers, etc. It's arguably quite realistic that she has to put up with this bullshit. On the other hand, "realism" of this kind tends, itself, to be really indulgent - when you get people writing gritty, dark, "realistic" fantasy, for instance, you sure do see a lot more rape than dysentery.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 03:34
|
|