Star Trek: Round Spaceships

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Trek: Round Spaceships

«‹›2 »

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Strange Matter posted:

The consequences are that the Nibiruans discarded their old religion and now worship the Enterprise. Kirk irrevocably and overtly changed the course of their cultural evolution. For the most part Star Trek always considers the consequences of interfering with less developed cultures. Sometimes it benefits them, sometimes it screws up their cultural development, and sometimes it's abiguous or unknown because the timeline isn't explicitly shown.

The spaceship carving is depicted as a final 'hah' moment, a necessary alteration to save the planet. And no matter the consequences, it is still an explicit colonialist depiction framed entirely from the moral view of the colonizers with no further regard for the depiction of subaltern populations beyond what important lesson the crew learns from this.

edit: again, this is all personified in the crew's iconic mission:

quote:

Space... the Final Frontier. These are the continuing voyages of the starship Enterprise. Her ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life forms and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Going out west to tame the wild frontier.

edit2: It's incredibly hard to argue that the Star Trek franchise, especially in it's original and iconic form, is not a depiction of liberal imperialism; and my original point wasn't that STID reproduces that exactly (though it recalls it fondly), but ultimately says that it is the more morally just endeavor than post-9/11 overtly militant imperialism ("we're becoming just like the terrorists, which means the terrorists won!"). SMG likened it to Iron Man's message of excising the subjective violence to maintain the objective. I'd suggest that it's more underhanded than Iron Man in that regard.

Danger fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 23, 2013

# ¿ May 23, 2013 20:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 21:29

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Colonel Whitey posted:

In a very general sense maybe but I don't see how any of those things are at all similar to anything portrayed in Star Trek.

KIRK: Bones, do you remember the twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent? Two giant powers involved, much like the Klingons and ourselves. Neither side felt could pull out.
MCCOY: Yes, I remember. It went on bloody year after bloody year.
KIRK: What would you have suggested, that one side arm its friends with an overpowering weapon? Mankind would never have lived to travel space if they had. No. The only solution is what happened back then. Balance of power.
MCCOY: And if the Klingons give their side even more?
KIRK: Then we arm our side with exactly that much more. A balance of power. The trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides.

-Kirk, after arming a native population against a rival tribe to further a conflict with the Klingons; a decidedly not-colonialist thing to do

Cmdr. Chekov: We all agree that every culture is entitled to inalienable human rights...
Azetbur: "In-alien." If you could only hear yourselves...human rights. The very name is racist."

Brig. Gen. Kerla In any case, we know where this is leading: the annihilation of our culture.
Dr. McCoy: That's not true!
Brig. Gen. Kerla: No?
Dr. McCoy: No!
Gen. Chang: "To be or not to be?" That is the question which preoccupies our people, Captain Kirk. We need breathing room.
Capt. James Kirk: Earth. Hitler, 1938.

- Star Trek VI, a movie not at all about colonialism.

Danger fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 23, 2013

# ¿ May 23, 2013 21:30

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Colonel Whitey posted:

You can cherry pick quotes out of context all day but you're starting to veer away from talking about Star Trek and the mission of Starfleet being inherently colonial, which is what began this discussion in the first place. Also, being about colonialism and being pro-colonial are not at all the same thing.

I'm not sure why those are cherry picked just because they reinforce my point, in face I expressly described the context of them. Also they directly discuss the "misson" of Star Fleet (which is inherently colonial, as I have previously noted). I also never said that Star Trek as a whole is "pro-colonial", but certainly about colonialism and it's modern expression. For instance, TNG and DS9 were both at times very aware and critical of these themes from the original:

quote:

"Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis? We've never harmed you and yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join! You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways, you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it."

# ¿ May 24, 2013 00:18

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

I take it as Cumberbatch's Khan representing the film's 'absent center', saying that his "authenticity has to leave traces in the film�s texture" (ala Zizek, as he described the similar character of Bane to another established franchise0. I don't think that Khan is a direct analogue of, or the new Star Trek films are direct returns to, the prior work as they are clearly entrenched in the War on Terror as opposed to the previous works in the franchise; however it is still a pointed comment that the perfectly created Indian warlord is here a Brit.

Or maybe I'm misunderstaning.

# ¿ May 24, 2013 02:20

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

'There was no story' is either real lazy criticism or some form of illiteracy or something.

# ¿ May 24, 2013 22:03

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

yronic heroism posted:

Well, as RLM would say, it shows prioritization of lowest common denominator pablum.

RLM continues to sounds like the worst.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 20:11

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Strange Matter posted:

I think there's also much more to examine as far as the prequels are concerned than just the failure of the film's text and cinematography. A big portion of the RLM reviews, which I sincerely enjoy and which made me appreciate the OT even more, show the behind the scenes process of how the films got that way. The "shot/reverse shot" analysis gets its impact from showing Lucas sitting in his director's chair gloating about his sophisticated film-making process. I don't think that same level of behind the scenes documentation exists for other films that RLM targets, which drains a lot of their punch.

Lucas 'gets' Star Wars though in a way that RLM certainly completely missed, as evidenced by the prequels.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 20:36

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

That Star Trek lacks historical accuracy is not a plot hole or lack of foresight. Geez.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 21:53

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Alchenar posted:

Ok fine, lets talk about themes.

They're a total mess. Kirk doesn't actually learn the things he says he's learnt at the end of the film.

Why not engage with this as the substance of the theme you are discussing and not as some technical or creative error. Like, I don't really agree with your assessment but Kirk demonstrably not learning what he says he learned or not behaving in reality how he says he behaves is a pretty significant message on it's own regarding Star Trek's whole liberal humanist schtick.

# ¿ May 31, 2013 19:24

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

sebmojo posted:

Phalluses, of course.

As for the Jupiter installation, wasn't an obvious Borg cube fakeout?

The movie used the Borg imagery as a direct comparison to and criticism of the Federation, which is pretty much the reason the Borg were created in the first place.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2013 14:28

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

yronic heroism posted:

In the 60s Roddenberry imagined some post racial utopia where of course people of the late 20th century wouldn't care about race for their genetically modified superman. With the benefit of hindsight of course Khan's genes would be tweaked to make him a white guy, regardless of the race of his birth parents.

This assumes white political elites are the ones who control the technology behind Khan and his compatriots, not a stretch given the wealth such a project would require. Wouldn't Mitt Romney want to fund a perfect being that looked like him? Imagine the freak-outs on Fox News if our new genetic overlords did not resemble "traditional America."

Which is a lot of words to explain away a casting decision that had nothing to do with the above

To me, the more interesting question is this: if Khan doesn't have to be a person of color, do Kirk and McCoy need to be white? Does Spock?

Of course not, why would they need to be. It's important to further distinguish Roddenberry's 'post-racial utopia' as a decidedly acultural and assimilated one. It's "progress" lies not in an authentic acceptance of the other, but a purge of otherness from the Federation's liberal democracy.

Danger fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jun 5, 2013

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 17:03

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

This is so thoroughly abstracted from the film's actual and specific treatment of race that it's ~~pretty much~~ a GBS affirmative action debate with the word 'Khan' pasted in intermittently.

khhhhhhhhaaaAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!

# ¿ Jun 6, 2013 20:25

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

In my heart of hearts I truly know that this is a work of reporting and not fiction: http://zizekpress.com/2012/05/22/an-interview-with-slavoj-zizek-star-trek-and-the-interpretativism-of-race/

# ¿ Jun 7, 2013 16:54

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Quibbling about 'whiteness' and even the very notion of being 'white' in America was pretty much conceived as a bourgeoisie tool of class warfare.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2013 20:41

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

The Warszawa posted:

Because those oppressions operate independently of class - and across classes. They may have economic consequences, and racism of course interacts with and impedes class solidarity, but reducing it to "it's just a mask for class" either overbroadens class (which I don't think you're doing) or grossly misunderstands how racism (and sexism etc.) actually operate.

If it helps, Tim Wise summed up the problem with class-reductionism pretty well, albeit in a policy context. It's pretty basic stuff, and I'm sure you can dig up six or seven books that talk about it in more detail and depth (I recommend Guinier & Torres's The Miner's Canary):

http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/

If there is some Guinness award for living in the largest blind spot, Tim Wise would be up there for contenders. His article just drips with irony, asserting in a completely reductive understanding of class and race relations as critiqued by Marxists that it is they, the (white) left that lack nuance:

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor posted:

Here, Wise accuses Marxism of: "extreme class reductionism," meaning that Marxists allegedly think that class is more important than race; reducing struggles against racism to "mere identity politics"; and requiring that struggles against racism should "take a back seat" to struggles over economic issues. Wise also accuses so-called "left activists" of reinforcing "white denial" and "dismiss[ing] the lived reality of people of color"--which, of course, presumes Left activists and Marxists to all be white.

....

Marxists argue that capitalism is a system that is based on the exploitation of the many by the few. Because it is a system based on gross inequality, it requires various tools to divide the majority--racism and all oppressions under capitalism serve this purpose. Moreover, oppression is used to justify and "explain" unequal relationships in society that enrich the minority that live off the majority's labor. Thus, racism developed initially to explain and justify the enslavement of Africans--because they were less than human and undeserving of liberty and freedom.

Everyone accepts the idea that the oppression of slaves was rooted in the class relations of exploitation under that system. Fewer recognize that under capitalism, wage slavery is the pivot around which all other inequalities and oppressions turn. Capitalism used racism to justify plunder, conquest and slavery, but as Karl Marx pointed out, it also used racism to divide and rule--to pit one section of the working class against another and thereby blunt class consciousness.

To claim, as Marxists do, that racism is a product of capitalism is not to deny or diminish its importance or impact in American society. It is simply to explain its origins and the reasons for its perpetuation. Many on the left today talk about class as if it is one of many oppressions, often describing it as "classism." What people are really referring to as "classism" is elitism or snobbery, and not the fundamental organization of society under capitalism.

Moreover, it is popular today to talk about various oppressions, including class, as intersecting. While it is true that oppressions can reinforce and compound each other, they are born out of the material relations shaped by capitalism and the economic exploitation that is at the heart of capitalist society. In other words, it is the material and economic structure of society that gave rise to a range of ideas and ideologies to justify, explain and help perpetuate that order. In the United States, racism is the most important of those ideologies.

http://socialistworker.org/2011/01/04/race-class-and-marxism

# ¿ Jun 13, 2013 14:23

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

You could always, like, introduce something else or whatever.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2013 18:14

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Supercar Gautier posted:

Mainly this:

SMG appears to be saying that since "women changing clothes" is a normal mundane activity, it doesn't need justification, as that would put it on the level of sci-fi canon-wank.

Here's the thing: films normally cut out scenes of characters changing, taking shits, napping, and so forth, because they're not normally relevant. It goes without saying that you want to cut the narrative down exclusively to what's valuable to show.

The question isn't "What's the wookieepedia plot reason for the character doing this?" The question is "What's the artistic reason for this not being cut like the rest of the implicit changing/making GBS threads/napping scenes?"

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.

Danger fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jun 26, 2013

# ¿ Jun 26, 2013 00:16

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Abrams or Lindelhof's interpretations aren't exactly relevant to what visual metaphor the film is presenting. Discussion of whether they hit their mark or edited it incorrectly or whatever is tangential at best. Discussing the 'text' of the film inherently includes a discussion (whether acknowledged or not) of the subtext. They aren't separate or on different levels; subtext isn't ever hidden. The discussion here on sexism, couched as male gaze, is exactly opposite of what is actually occurring in the film.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2013 01:59

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Art can (and should) be appropriated through divergent or radical readings in opposition to the author's intent. This is basic stuff.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2013 17:08

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

JediTalentAgent posted:

Trek isn't all that married to constant internal consistency of time, space and technology all the time, but the JJTreks come out sort of slapdash and random in that regard.

It's an element that's always sort of frustrating to argue because it almost comes off like I'm stubbornly refusing to accept JJTrek's creative decisions to tell a story while I was more accepting of previous Trek films/TV using similar tactics to tell their stories. The plot to STID feels like a series of happy accidents and contrivances, a steady stream of , "It just so happens..." sort of moments all throughout.

I know Trek will not be consistent with itself all the time, every time, but the film seems to be more concerned about huge set pieces and the crafting together of a story to make all that work came second.

The original Star Trek was very much in the context of Cold War tension and hysteria, whereas the Abrams films have overtly (and necessarily) been post-9/11 responses. A typical criticism from the Trekkie population is that the newer films lost the submarine-naval battle feel of the older shows.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 14:21

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Lens flare supremacy.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2013 17:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 21:29

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

DrNutt posted:

I don't really think there's anything about Khan's race in particular that was essential to the character, but it does seem silly for the whitest dude in Britain to play a guy named Khan Noonian Singh.

The Indian super-warlord resolving into the whitest nerdly Brit possible is a political statement. The film, like it's counterpart "" Wars, is about colonialism in the wake of a neo-liberal global Empire (read here as the federation and there as the Republic and Empire), the "new order that envelops the entire space of... civilization".

Danger fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jul 9, 2014

# ¿ Jul 9, 2014 16:44

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Trek: Round Spaceships

«‹›2 »