|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A large part of this debate seems based on it being Memory Alpha canon that Khan (the objective virtual person within the Star Trek simulation-universe) is "probably a Sikh from the north of India". I would argue that canon is no more or less relevant than the current film says it is. But while Trek '09 used Nero to mock fixation upon canon, STID glorifies that same fixation. Old Spock gives the Word of God that this is the Khan of WoK and Space Seed, who is Bad News. This knowledge is given so much credit that Young Spock actually treats it as a substitute for real research and deduction. If the film were more consistent with its predecessor (and with its own opening scene), we might be given evidence that Nimoy was wrong. We might get some indication that his intervention was the sole cause of the enmity between this universe's Khan and Enterprise, and that Nimoy was therefore indirectly responsible for the massive casualties during the film's climax. But we don't get that; the Spocks come out of the situation looking prescient instead of guilty. Regardless, I'm not a fan of canon-dismissal being used as an excuse to give more minority roles to white actors. Citing the mutability of canon just strikes me as one more bit of lawyering to justify a lovely move. Of course Space Seed presented Khan as a hamfisted melange of otherness. That's been agreed upon, I think! But there was a kernel of something valuable in there, and this was an opportunity to patch up that portrayal and make it work, instead of dropping the idea altogether.
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
So did you, like, get so excited to present a rebuttal that you didn't bother to read the next paragraph? I think it would be great if the film emphasized that Nimoy was wrong. I think a better film would show him to be wrong. I don't think this film did. And regardless, I don't think adopting a "the canon was wrong" approach is a reasonable excuse to whitewash a role. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 01:22 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
No Wave posted:It did show that his advice was harmful. You want the film to tell. Saying "Nimoy was wrong! The timelines are misaligned!" would simply present an adjustment to canon. What you're arguing is at best ambiguously presented in the film. It is not shown, let alone told. We see Nimoy describe "Khan Noonien Singh" as the most dangerous opponent the Enterprise has ever faced, and then shortly thereafter Khan Noonien Singh does a loving grinch grin and murders thousands. Neither Spock is shown to have any personal awareness that their communication played a role in this, which means that if they are responsible, Young Spock's character has actually regressed from his conscientiousness at the start of the film.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
It's unforgivable that Bones didn't discover the tribble was alive by opening a compartment and having dozens spill out.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
I don't entirely agree with SMG's breakdown of the casting, but I like it better than most defenses by virtue of not sweeping the matter under the rug or asserting that Indian actors need to go back to Bollywood.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
I didn't feel outrage at the Alice Eve scene, just embarassment on behalf of everyone involved in creating it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
The moral of the story is that boners are king and if someone in the audience gets one then it doesn't matter if it's dumb or alienating to others.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Someone is always going to be offended. If this scene truly...TRULY...offended your sensibilities, then you must have near puritanical views on sex or are taking social justice to quite an absurd extreme. Lets say this scene is truly badwrong. Is nudity ever acceptable? Can it only appear in certain genres? Should we be careful about letting actresses, and actors for that matter, dress too sexy on screen? What criteria makes taking off a shirt acceptable under the new, offend nobody standards of tv and film-making? Should people who want to appreciate beauty on screen be ridiculed? I like how defenses of this kind of thing always involve a caricature of some outraged person screaming about how offended they are. Just to be clear, my reaction to this scene was as follows: I rolled my eyes. It made no sense for the situation. It made no sense for the character. It made no sense for the overall tone of the film. There are contexts where sexy scenes make sense in films, but when you start sticking this kind of scene any old place regardless of how much sense it makes, it normalizes the idea that underwear shots are just what you're supposed to do with female characters in any and all contexts. That's embarrassing and alienating. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
"This scene wasn't hot enough to be stupid."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The scene has in obvious purpose, in that Kirk is pushed to stop objectifying women. Let's say it's true that the scene actually functions in this way. Firstly, that theme is a bit of an odd tangent to explore, and doesn't readily connect to other elements of the film- which makes the scene a fairly transparent contrivance. Secondly, it's a bit have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too, isn't it? Kirk is scolded, but of course the camera is not. As I recall, Paramount actually set the shot of Eve in her undies as the default preview image for trailers on Youtube. The scene may be tame, but its use in marketing has a specific purpose to it that doesn't have a lot to do with incidental Manhattan-style nudity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
"Hey, real women take their clothes off at times" is the funniest defense yet because you never see these movies show characters engaging in other irrelevant daily activities like brushing their teeth or taking a poo poo. But a hot lady changing, yeah, that's essential for verisimilitude. Never change, horndogs.
Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Mainly this:quote:Covering this up with a plot explanation for why women change clothes sometimes would render the scene gratuitous by obfuscating the actual content (Marcus' attack on Kirk's sexism), to make it about dilithium crystals or something (see the ridiculously skeevy decontamination scenes in Enterprise). 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?" Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Fun question: aside from the fact that she's disinterested in Kirk and confident with her body being visible, what are Carol Marcus' most clearly-defined personality traits in this film overall? I don't find that this film has much to say about Marcus at all outside of boner-related contexts. Does she know she can give people boners? Yes. Who gets a boner? Kirk. Does she want the boner in her? No. Terrific. Do we know much else at all? Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Danger posted:This is a deeply anxious moment and not hot and sexy. And yet we've got DFu4Ever talking about how the scene enables the audience to appreciate beauty, and how titillation is like adding spice to food- so I'm going to guess the scene didn't cause him to feel "deeply anxious". I'm not trying to hold you to someone else's words (although it can be a little vexing to have to simultaneously argue against contradictory defenses of the scene), but it's a bit bold to claim that the scene was neither used nor responded to in an erotically-charged manner.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:The fact that people can come up with numerous defenses for the scene is itself an argument in the scene's favor. You say you're not trying to hold him to someone else's words, but you are. You are asking him to reconcile his interpretation with another that he may disagree with Not at all. I'm asking him to reconcile his statement about how people react to the scene with actual viewers' actual reactions to the scene. That's decidedly not the same thing. I don't believe that quantity of defenses should sway the needle one way or the other if those defenses are contradictory and act in opposition to each other. Frankly, it seems like you guys have just as much to argue with each other about as you do with the critics. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:But instead, we have to keep repeating ourselves to you because despite our explanations of why and how we see a point to the scene, you keep saying "nuh uh". This is not an honest post. I don't believe I've at any point dismissed someone's stance without some effort to engage with it (even if my critique was sometimes a flippant summarization). And how can you be "repeating yourselves" if it's someone different coming up with a different contradictory point every time? quote:You can choose to pick one, synthesize some, or disagree with all, but if you choose the latter, you need to develop some actual counterarguments. I don't think it's remotely accurate to say that this has not been done. Don't pull this poo poo. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:'People' and 'actual viewers' are exactly the same thing. There is no difference. The viewers are people, and people all have unique reactions to everything. Unless you are implying that everyone (actual viewers) thinks the scene was terrible, and in that case I'd counter with the fact that I've literally only heard someone bitch about this scene on the internet, and half the time its in the form of a 'not in my Star Treks' argument. Rest assured, I'm treating "people" and "viewers" as synonymous in that post. I'm not sure you read it right. Danger posted about how the scene affects viewers, and I cited you as an example of an actual viewer who (by your own testimony) was not affected in the way that he described. PeterWeller posted:On this page, you misinterpreted SMG, asked me a "fun question" and ignored my response, and then asked people to reconcile interpretations that don't need to be reconciled. It was an especially accurate statement. I was engaging with what I genuinely (if perhaps inaccurately) understood SMG to be saying. I'm sorry that I overlooked your response to my question. However, I will note that of the traits you mentioned, all would be more relevant to present to the audience, and yet all are represented less emphatically than Marcus' complicated relationship with Kirkboner. This is an almost pathological habit in Hollywood; a female character's sexual status and positioning relative to the male protagonist is almost always treated as the most important thing to develop about her character- even if it has no bearing on any other aspect of the film. The scene is a vestigial limb and the "development" goes nowhere, and for that reason it rings false. And again, I did not ask anyone to reconcile their disparate intepretations. At no point did this happen. I expressed frustration at the logistical difficulty of taking on several of these incompatible stances at once, and the dishonesty of pretending that these stances somehow support each other by virtue of their quantity. In fact, you yourself suggested synthesizing some of these separate arguments, and boy, you don't really want me to do that! Because then I really would be holding folks to other people's words. 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. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, you're showing the viewpoint that scantily clad women (or the viewing of such by the audience anyway) are inherently immoral. Comprehensive list of important women's issues, as compiled by internet dudes: -They have a right to be sexy for me, and you're sexist if you criticize objectification - - - - - - - - -
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Not at all! But I do believe that dudes who bring that up as their first, last, and only issue of concern about women are inherently dishonest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Hey look, another dishonest poo poo post that tries to disparage people defending the scene. My heart bleeds for the guys who temporarily transform into champions against sexism if and only if their boners are tangentially involved. jivjov posted:It is a male's gaze, but I wouldn't call it the male gaze. The scene really helps define Carol's character. She gives no fucks about Kirk. He's apparently legendary around starfleet academy for being great in the sack, but she gives no fucks. She's got a job to do, and Kirk ogling her isn't going to phase her. Why is a woman's nuanced relationship with boners always treated as the most important thing to establish about her character? SMG talked about the game being lost because people will sexualize anything, but to me the real rigged game is that sexuality is frequently considered the only relevant avenue of empowerment for women.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Stop projecting the shame you felt at your own erection upon others. Yeah, that's how it works. Everyone in the audience for this film got a boner, but only a few brave souls have the courage to revel in it (or, alternately, explain it away as a satirical boner).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You seem certain that the film gave people erections. How come? And why does that upset you so much? A moment ago you seemed certain that the film gave me an erection, so maybe you could answer your own first question. And here we go with the careful word choice of "upset". Like "outraged" and "offended", it's designed to characterize critics as highly emotional and unreasonable, as opposed to the more accurate reality: annoyed, alienated, derisive, bemused. Cheesecake is a sometimes food. When you put it in contexts where it makes sense and the work is up-front about indulging sexual fantasy, everything's fine. When you stick it in any old situation on a whim, it normalizes the ever-present idea that this is just how women are supposed to be presented and defined in media of all kinds. jivjov posted:Another that's given spotlight in the film is that she puts morals before family ties, and a third is that she's willing to break the rules in order to do the right thing. Her not indulging Kirk's lechery is just one character aspect. And yet her sexual perspective is the earliest stand-out development she is given, and she is given that development without prompting by the plot, with its own dedicated scene, and without any relevant connection to what comes before or after in the film. It's absolutely given top priority as part of her character development, and without sensible cause. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:This isn't true. The film focuses on how insulted she feels when Spock questions her purpose and importance. This is inaccurate. In the shuttle scene, the film spends zero time focusing on her reaction to what Spock says, because Kirk cuts him off immediately and she reacts positively to Kirk's acceptance. The next Carol Marcus moment involves Spock confronting her in her lie, but that development is incomplete, since it's only establishing that there's something we don't know about her character/intentions; it does not develop what that might be (the scene is interrupted by a jump scare where the ship gets rocked around). After that: underwear.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What irks is that Marcus/Eve doesn't seem to know she's being exploited. Why is she so confident? Doesn't she know that men control her? Doesn't she understand that her vocal resistance to being exploited is an merely a vestigial annoyed face attached to a breast? Doesn't she know her place, as victim? 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Using a character whose defining trait is her victimhood as a counterpoint shows clearly that you are not really following. How can I clarify? Both are treated at key moments as helpless victims denied agency by male characters (Black Widow being menaced by the Hulk, Marcus being dominated via transporter by her father), and both have scenes in which the camera/audience is invited to appreciate their body while a male character is berated/attacked for doing the same.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:You don't even need to see The Avengers to see that the Marcus and Black Widow images aren't conveying the same thing: Black Widow is in an extremely compliant pose - in fact, it's almost defensive, like she's a shy girl next door tee hee. And yet for all her skivvy-clad "defiance", Marcus' final scenes in the film utterly deny her any agency. She is teleported against her will, injured by Khan, and then screams helplessly as Khan destroys the Admiral. And then she disappears from the movie. The notion that the underwear scene presents her as "strong" is superficial and unsubstantiated by the rest of the film. It's a tactic so transparent I'm astonished that anyone fell for it; it's designed to create the illusion of a credibly-written woman ("this ain't your grandpappy's docile movie woman, no siree") while still letting the audience leer and generally maintaining the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Dude, I really don't want to her a peep from you about who lacks or possesses nuance when earlier you conflated criticisms of the scene with prudery. The interpretation of the scene as anti-objectification is not just superficial (although it is certainly that), but also contradictory, thin, and extraneous. The remainder of the narrative fights your reading. The camera and the lighting fight your reading. The film's marketing fights your reading.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
I'm sorry, when I posted that I must have been thinking of some other thread where titillation in films was compared to spice on food.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
I love the recurring "The game is over" line, because in my view, the game is over when apparently no one in Hollywood can manage to prioritize ways to develop women that don't involve bodily displays. It's treated as a game-changer when a woman expresses an uninviting attitude towards a diegetic character while undressed, but the state of undress remains non-negotiable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Plot isn't theme. A scene can be part of a chain of literal events, while still feeling disconnected as a topic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:JJ Abrams had nothing to do with the last episode of Lost. Pffff, don't you know that the executive producer personally writes and directs every episode of a show?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Personally I feel like Frakes peaked with Clockstoppers (2002).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
What determines whether a writer gets an "AND" credit or an "&" credit?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How did Into Darkness "end spaceships"? Into Darkness had interplanetary teleportation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Yeah, if you look and listen to the plot beats the trailer puts forth, it's got a pretty strong TOS vibe. You've got the basic hook that the crew is stranded, but you've also got the spooky mystery that there's a higher force toying with everyone (who surprise-transported Spock?) and drawing other crews to the same planet, which is all classic Trek. It's even got a scene that looks like it was filmed in a quarry! People mainly seem to have decided the trailer was "generic" or "not Trek" entirely because of the music (as opposed to the totally non-generic trailer for Into Darkness, in which a British villain monologued over cities exploding).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 18:21
|
|