Locutus of Bored wrote:
I said there were several women serving in diverse roles aboard the Enterprise in ST09 and STiD. You said name six. I named six, added a possible name for a seventh, and gave speculation why Gaila might be aboard as well. Then you start adding a bunch of bullshit qualifiers even though I met your challenge.
Christine Chapel counts because I said ST09 and STiD. She was serving aboard Enterprise in ST09.
You have no idea what ship Gaila was assigned to. It was never mentioned, so you can't rule out Enterprise. But regardless, I didn't add her to the main list because I was just speculating there and had no proof.
So what if if there was a crediting mistake? The actress (Amanda Foreman, an Abrams' regular) was named Hannity in ST09. There was supposed to be a new female bridge officer named Ensign Brackett in STiD. So, I speculated that since they're both operations division officers in red, the confusion might have been there and the white haired officer might be Brackett. It's not as if it's some gotcha moment for you, since I pointed it out myself in the post.
How many times does it have to be spelled out for you that they weren't going to screw with the established crew from TOS? There's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov. That's the main cast and focus. That's always going to be the main cast and focus in a TOS reboot. Deal with it. They can shuffle the characters around in prominence, like they've done with Uhura taking over McCoy's level of attention vs. TOS. They can add a few characters here and there, like Carol, but the more you add the more you take away from the main cast, and that's before you get to adding character development for the villains like Marcus and Khan.
You are right - I apologise that I had overlooked the fact that you had also cited ST09! I believe they do state what ship Gaila is on though. But you missed the point of the test. Of course I knew there were six named female characters with speaking roles on the Enterprise. The point was that four out of those six are basically non-entities.
But you are right, we are re-treading old ground. I think they should try to redress the balance by showing more women overall and more prominent women in the speaking 'guest' cast and you don't.
Game of Thrones has also had thirty+ hours of airtime versus ST09's and STiD's four+ hours. GoT had an established novel series where there were numerous female characters, Star Trek and Into Darkness had TOS from the 60s with a seven member main cast, six of which were men. I bet if you gave them equal time to develop an expanded secondary cast, things would more than balance out in terms of dialogue and activities for female characters, because even in that four hours, the male to female ratio onscreen is (estimating) roughly the same as GoT. Not to mention none of them are prostitutes or get brutally murdered by sadist serial killer child kings, so they have that going for them.
Once again, the setting in GoT dictates a gender imbalance because you have armies, the Wall and so on. But pick any two or four episodes in isolation and see what women you have. There will be more prominent, more interesting, and more diverse characters than STiD. I'm noticing something similar in Defiance.
Not tetchy; calling out your condescending overuse of LOL in multiple posts, which you did again.
Tut tut - are we getting a bit tetchy there? That's still assumption, not evidence. Scotty might have just promoted his mate.
There's nothing in Scotty's character background in either TOS or the new movies that would indicate he would engage in that kind of favoritism of an incompetent engineer, especially when it could endanger the ship and crew. Even his nephew had to start at the bottom and perform better than anyone else on his engineering crew, a fact that cost him his life in TWoK when he bravely stayed behind to help as all the other trainees ran.
Sarcasm and humour don't always travel well on the internet so I use 'lol' it to show I'm not taking the argument too seriously and don't intend my comments to be taken too seriously. It's interesting that you find its use condescending. I guess that's a lose/lose situation for me but oh well, you can't please all of the people all of the time. You should see the bloodbath that is the Wizards of the Coast D&D forums...
The last one was obviously just meant to be a tease but if you want to consider it me calling you on calling me then fair enough.
But my point is, of course we are forced to assume that Keenser is a reasonable senior officer and engineer because he IS there and, given that Chekov had to be promoted to replace him, there is nobody else. Given the absence of any evidence in support on screen, it suggests that the Enterprise crew outside of the big seven, isn't very good at what they do. Chekov also had to run all the way from the bridge to transport moving targets in the first film.
This was an irritating plot device that they used in the tv shows too. Look at how amazing Wesley was compared to fully trained and experienced engineers in season one of TNG. We did later get a few innovative support characters like Lefler but it took a while.
I never found it hard to imagine Nichelle Nichols as an officer because she exuded authority even though they rarely ever used it. TOS Chekov on the other hand didn't have an air of authority even as first officer of the Reliant IMO unlike NuChekov. I just find it hard to visualise Keenser as a senior officer because he doesn't appear to have what it takes based on what his character actually says and does on screen.