The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies XI+ (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50)
-   -   Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot) (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=211147)

CrazyHorse89 April 30 2013 10:35 AM

Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technolo...-1226627239282

Here's the new TV spot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0guP...layer_embedded

SonicRanger April 30 2013 10:37 AM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
I fail to see in that article where Abrams says that the film is "sexist."

DarthTom April 30 2013 01:05 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
Quote:

SonicRanger wrote: (Post 8022880)
I fail to see in that article where Abrams says that the film is "sexist."

He doesn't say it but he's agreeing with the reporters premise. And then obviously goes onto say that Zoe has a larger role in the upcoming film.

Bry_Sinclair April 30 2013 01:22 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
A "bit sexist"?

They have a woman standing in her underwear in the trailer, and you know that just screams, 'take me seriously as a character'. I hope there is a really good reason for it, and not just an excuse to get more flesh on screen (granted, had it been Chris Pine in a jockstrap I wouldn't be complaining).

The Festivus Awakens April 30 2013 01:56 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
He said that everyone, male or female, who is not Kirk and Spock is by nature of the large cast more of a supporting player in the film, and that we (general we) should always be conscious of expanding and improving roles for women. Nowhere did he say the film was sexist. He was agreeing with the interviewer's question in the broader sense and saying he hopes to have better and larger parts for women in the films in the future, while saying that any deficit in this or the previous ST film is because of the larger focus on Kirk and Spock, not because of anything against Saldana or Eve.

Also, he correctly pointed out that the Uhura of his ST films has been given a much more prominent and important role in terms of duties, dramatic significance, and screentime than the Uhura of the original series. Wasn't there a thread here not too long ago either complaining or praising (I'm not sure which) that Uhura has essentially bumped McCoy from the "Big Three" and taken his place? I'm not sure how accurate everyone else feels that is, but Saldana surely has as major a role as Urban and has replaced him in serving as the moral compass in situations between Kirk and Spock on some occasions.

Also, while Eve is indeed prominently featured in her underwear in the trailers, so was Kirk in the previous movie's trailers, and he is back in his underwear again in this film, albeit not in the trailers. There's partial nudity for everyone. I will grant that seeing her in her underwear and screaming in the trailer are not great strides for women in film, but that's only what they cut things down to in the trailer to grab your attention. In the film she's a scientist and plays a moderately important role in the plot, so it's more than just screaming and getting undressed.

Solstice April 30 2013 02:12 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
He didn't actually use the word "sexist," but he pretty much said the film affirmed patriarchy. Not exactly a cardinal sin, considering almost all popular media does that. It's a society problem, not a JJ Abrams (or Steven Spielberg or David Fincher or Brian De Palma, et al) problem.

DarthTom April 30 2013 02:33 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
Quote:

Bry_Sinclair wrote: (Post 8023261)
They have a woman standing in her underwear in the trailer, and you know that just screams, 'take me seriously as a character'. I hope there is a really good reason for it, and not just an excuse to get more flesh on screen (granted, had it been Chris Pine in a jockstrap I wouldn't be complaining).

There is - trust me - and you'd scream too. Read the spoiler thread if you want to know why. If not, you'll see why in 2 short weeks.

Bry_Sinclair April 30 2013 04:25 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
Quote:

DarthTom wrote: (Post 8023450)
There is - trust me - and you'd scream too. Read the spoiler thread if you want to know why. If not, you'll see why in 2 short weeks.

Any hint as to where in the Spoiler Thread it is?

indranee April 30 2013 05:18 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
Quote:

Robert Maxwell wrote: (Post 8023366)
He didn't actually use the word "sexist," but he pretty much said the film affirmed patriarchy. Not exactly a cardinal sin, considering almost all popular media does that. It's a society problem, not a JJ Abrams (or Steven Spielberg or David Fincher or Brian De Palma, et al) problem.

lt's a Star Trek problem, as well.

The Festivus Awakens April 30 2013 05:25 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
Quote:

Bry_Sinclair wrote: (Post 8023837)
Quote:

DarthTom wrote: (Post 8023450)
There is - trust me - and you'd scream too. Read the spoiler thread if you want to know why. If not, you'll see why in 2 short weeks.

Any hint as to where in the Spoiler Thread it is?

I'll just tell you. It's a pretty major spoiler though, so read at your own risk.


Ho Ho Homeier April 30 2013 05:36 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
I don't think any director would say his film is sexist, unless he wanted it to tank at the box office.

Well, maybe the Farrelly Brothers would.

DarthTom April 30 2013 06:02 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
Quote:

Locutus of Bored wrote: (Post 8024050)

I'll just tell you. It's a pretty major spoiler though, so read at your own risk.

Now that I think about it, I wonder if that scene was a quasi homage to Blade Runner?

CrazyHorse89 April 30 2013 06:09 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
Quote:

Locutus of Bored wrote: (Post 8023330)
He said that everyone, male or female, who is not Kirk and Spock is by nature of the large cast more of a supporting player in the film, and that we (general we) should always be conscious of expanding and improving roles for women. Nowhere did he say the film was sexist. He was agreeing with the interviewer's question in the broader sense and saying he hopes to have better and larger parts for women in the films in the future, while saying that any deficit in this or the previous ST film is because of the larger focus on Kirk and Spock, not because of anything against Saldana or Eve.

Also, he correctly pointed out that the Uhura of his ST films has been given a much more prominent and important role in terms of duties, dramatic significance, and screentime than the Uhura of the original series. Wasn't there a thread here not too long ago either complaining or praising (I'm not sure which) that Uhura has essentially bumped McCoy from the "Big Three" and taken his place? I'm not sure how accurate everyone else feels that is, but Saldana surely has as major a role as Urban and has replaced him in serving as the moral compass in situations between Kirk and Spock on some occasions.

Also, while Eve is indeed prominently featured in her underwear in the trailers, so was Kirk in the previous movie's trailers, and he is back in his underwear again in this film, albeit not in the trailers. There's partial nudity for everyone. I will grant that seeing her in her underwear and screaming in the trailer are not great strides for women in film, but that's only what they cut things down to in the trailer to grab your attention. In the film she's a scientist and plays a moderately important role in the plot, so it's more than just screaming and getting undressed.

Granted, she might be a well-rounded character in the film. But why would the studio choose to present her as a mere object for the pleasure of the audience? It's obvious that's what they've done here.

The way you present a semi-naked woman and the way you present a semi-naked man is usually very different. This trailer is a clear example of the 'male gaze'. I'm not saying that this is the worst thing in the world, but it is a bit sexist.

Third Nacelle April 30 2013 06:30 PM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
I wouldn't judge that the film is sexist based on the trailers. Have we all forgotten UPN's promotion of Voyager?

greenlight May 1 2013 01:03 AM

Re: Abrams: Into Darkness is a Bit Sexist (plus new 'sexy' TV spot)
 
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I really do see both sides of the issue, but I will point out that the thread directly under this one was about the premier in Berlin, Germany, complete with photos. Ms. Saldana is wearing a very short dress and very high heels. Ms. Eve is wearing a mostly-covering, but still slinky, red dress. Neither one looks like a slut, but the point is: take a look at the actress's photos, not just these actresses, but most of them, when they are dressing themselves and not being told what to wear for their role. You will find, more often than not, that they will choose to wear things that would be called objectionable and sexist if worn in the movies they are promoting. I guess it's not always a bad thing to try and deny human nature but you're still, well, denying human nature.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.