|
JohnnySavs posted:Well the split in the timeline happened like ~30-35 years before Space Seed, right? Maybe a Vulcan refugee ship runs into the Botany Bay on the way somewhere and Khan has a much different introduction to the future. I did like that Simon Pegg made a tweet a while ago when he realized that now we're gonna need to find some whales all over again.
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:At least the British actually have a history in the region. I still find it less racist than a Mexican and [potentially] a Puerto Rican. Both of which are acceptable because, what, all non-whites are interchangeable? Both of which are acceptable because at least a non-white actor is getting a decent sized role. When that playing field is leveled, I'll be more than happy to point out how it sucks that that Puerto Rican actor is taking a role away from an actual Mexican actor or whatever, but when we're still at the stage when a major Puerto Rican role will be filled by a white actor with a tan and a horrible accent playing along a supporting cast of Puerto Rican actors, then it's still a problem and still something worthy of being pointed out and discussed.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
At the end of every New Trek movie, just before the credits roll, we cut to a quick shot of Old Spock singlehandedly taking care of a major event from Star Trek before it becomes a big deal. "Hey, great job on taking care of Khan, by the way, I got these humpback whales. Also, it's the Voyager space probe. Just write that down for now."
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, I'm willing to ignore a little character fudging for the sake of a narrative, but the leap between "They are a sentient species who deserve the right to live" Picard and "They all deserve to die for what they've done" Picard was just too huge for me to go with.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
korusan posted:Probably more not paying attention considering he has the same last name as one of the other main characters (which is pretty important to the plot at one point). You're telling me ANYBODY could remember the name of Alice Eve's character who didn't have it memorized due to her appearance in Shatner-era stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Forgetting her first name is understandable (even though they said it multiple times). Forgetting her last means you just weren't paying attention. Seriously try this. Go up to anybody you know who has seen the movie and ask them what the name of Alice Eve's character was. Just try it. See how many people can pull it off. All most people recall is that Blonde Girl was the daughter of Robocop, but those two characters were really rather boring and just kind of there, it does have to be said. We know McCoy and Spock and Kirk because they're fleshed out characters and we like them and remember details about them because they're interesting. For most of the movie, those two characters are just Blonde Girl and Authority Guy who quickly turns into Bad Authority Guy who quickly turns into Dead Guy. Crappy Jack fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Sure, but since there is nothing inherently bad or insulting about 'sexy' in Star Trek, I don't see why it would have to be done in a way that's "not nearly as sexy". Oh good, because the whole time I was on pins and needles thinking that what I really needed to know about this character was how she reacted to being ogled. Oh, I see, she doesn't like it, she's confident, so it's totally not sexist that the writers dreamed up a scenario in which she's in her underwear. It's not unnecessary and exploitative, it's serious character development.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You don't actually know this. Alice Eve may have had a great deal of input in the construction of that scene. Even if she didn't, she consented to being in the scene, which presumes she was given some sort of character motivation or story explanation. You're version of events is a bit insulting to her actually; it implies that she is shallow or uncritical of her own work as an actress. Or, as has been documented as happening in numerous motion pictures, it was implied to her that if she didn't do the scene they would seek out an actress who would be willing to do it, and then she would be out the exposure and money that goes with appearing in a huge budget blockbuster sci-fi franchise film. But no, the up-and-coming young actress appearing in her largest role to date probably really really wanted to have a scene where she appears in her underwear. I mean, if you're gonna start bringing in hypothetical thought processes, I'm probably gonna side with the one that's been demonstrably true for decades. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/25/magazine/the-pressure-to-take-it-off.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Crappy Jack fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Not that this is actually relevant or whatever, because speculating on her motives is both absurd and meaningless, but she spent approximately all of her screen time in Crossing Over naked so I don't think she's like, super sad about being in her underwear for about 10 seconds in a scene where she's shot from angles that make her look like a Greek goddess. Why would you say that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The film doesn't use the male gaze and then hang a lampshade on it since the shot in question isn't an instance of the male gaze. As far as I can tell the only evidence for it being an instance of the male gaze comes from the fact that it contains a scantily-clad woman, and the idea that "scantily-clad" automatically means "male gaze" is the "game over" that SMG is talking about. If you think there's more to that shot that makes it male-gazey than just Carol Marcus's attire, Alice Eve's attractiveness, and the fact that these are visible I'm curious what that is. Our point of view in that shot is right next to Kirk. Like, the camera's standing maybe three feet to his left. It is quite literally a male's gaze. We are seeing what Kirk is seeing, and the character is reacting to Kirk looking at her. I mean, I guess we're not like watching a Being John Malkovich inspired view through his literal eyes and hearing his thought process, sure, but the camera is straight up from Kirk's vantage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
DFu4ever posted:It hasn't helped the argument that neither side has a unified stance on exactly what they are bitching about or defending. We've had one person or another argue to pretty much every extreme that both sides could possibly represent. It makes responses kind of hard to parse, because you can't always tell quite who the responses are being aimed at. I don't imagine that really anybody's goal has been to have an argument or pick sides. I think some people have a feeling regarding that scene, and sometimes those feelings are strong in some respect and so people are here on the internet in order to discuss them. It's not some internet sports thing where people are trying to accumulate the proper amount of Movie Points for making their belief the One True Argument. People wanna talk about movies, man. Sometimes the way one person reads a scene is different from how other people read the scene, but we're in Cinema Discusso. As in, discussion. People just wanna talk about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 12:23
|
|