RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,737
Posts: 5,215,309
Members: 24,211
Currently online: 1117
Newest member: DeimosAnimus


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 13 2013, 08:36 PM   #91
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Saying the movie series needs more women isn't a bad thing, IMHO. Add a female Admiral or two for the next one and Doctor Chapel. I also hope Carol Marcus plays an actual role in the third film.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 08:47 PM   #92
CrazyHorse89
Lieutenant
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
Besides, it's not like the camera lingers on Alice Eve for several minutes. It's a brief glimpse that also manages to belittle "Kirk's reputation" by Marcus' "Turn around." The supposedly irresistible womanizer, in Abrams Trek, is shot down quite efficiently by the two most prominent female characters. Did it have to include a shot of Eve in her undies? No. Uhura was fully clothed in the bar in the 09 version. But the undies did underscore the awkwardness of Kirk's glance (making it another lesson on the road from youthfulness to maturity) while also engaging in a rather mild form of brief titillation--something that no other film (including no other Trek) has ever done, of course.

Just because it is a Trek movie doesn't mean it will be devoid of titillation (no matter what the committee for the way things ought to be would like). It is entertainment, first and foremost, not a training film on how to completely avoid the objectification of people (and I mean people--not just women).
The problem is that the Carol Marcus underwear scene served no purpose other than to titillate. She's wearing a push-up bra for God's sake.

The same goes for the Uhura/Kirk bedroom scene in ST09. The camera does linger on Saldana's body in a voyeuristic way-a way that it does not when it focuses on Kirk.
CrazyHorse89 is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 08:55 PM   #93
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

CrazyHorse89 wrote: View Post
The problem is that the Carol Marcus underwear scene served no purpose other than to titillate. She's wearing a push-up bra for God's sake.

The same goes for the Uhura/Kirk bedroom scene in ST09. The camera does linger on Saldana's body in a voyeuristic way-a way that it does not when it focuses on Kirk.
I just want to know when people stopped going to the movies to be entertained? It seems like many of you have a checklist of what makes a good film that is really narrow.

Me and the wife are going to see Man of Steel Saturday and she wants some shirtless dude action and really doesn't care if it has anything to do with the story or not.

OMG!
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 08:59 PM   #94
The Keeper
Commodore
 
The Keeper's Avatar
 
Location: Where reality ends and illusion begins
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

I know women, including lesbians btw, who've seen STID and do not have a problem with any maladjusted men/women ratio so this must not be a real thing.
The Keeper is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:01 PM   #95
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

The Keeper wrote: View Post
I know women, including lesbians btw, who've seen STID and do not have a problem with any maladjusted men/women ratio so this must not be a real thing.
I don't think the movie is sexist but there's a .5 between 0 (No problems whatsoever) and 1 (Sexist) which is a holdover from the original show. On my end, I'd have liked to have seen more women on screen.

It felt a little crowded testosterone-wise is all I'm saying and that's ADDING a woman.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:14 PM   #96
FormerLurker
Captain
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Carol Marcus in her underwear was staged to be titillating, and both JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof have admitted this. But any claim that there was no purpose for her to strip down to her underwear wasn't paying attention. She was changing clothes.

The camera was just following Kirk's lead in staring inappropriately while she was between outfits.
FormerLurker is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:14 PM   #97
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post

Both movies were very sexist in fact.

...

both movies are definitely sexist.
No.
Concise! But I'll rephrase. In failing to show on screen an equivalent mix of male and female characters in equal numbers, both movies fail to demonstrate a reasonable level of gender equality in the 23rd century (or the 21st century).

As an aside, after you remove Uhura and Carol from the mix, do you think there are enough women remaining? And where are they?
I think there are exactly as many women as the filmmakers intended to have and I have zero problem with that (meaning I have zero problem with the filmmakers producing a film that reflects what they, rather than anyone else, wants). I would have zero problem with that if the ratio of men to women in the film was reversed, if that is what the filmmakers wanted. What I don't want is for any artistic production to decide that it is more important to meet the requirements laid down by the Committee of the Way Things Ought to Be than to put out what they want.

Art of any type--commercial, fine, big-budget, tiny budget, (fill in the blank)--should always reflect the desires of the artist (in the broad sense of "makers of the art"). Artist wants to make a Tarantino-esque bloodbath in the Trek universe? That's ok. Wants to make a version with an explicitly pro-feminist message and theme? That's ok. Wants to make an action-adventure movie just like the one that came out last month in the cinema? That's ok. Do I have to like each option equally? Nope. It is entirely my choice whether to like, dislike, love, hate, viscerally loathe, adore…the film (or other artwork) in question. BUT, I have no right to expect satisfaction on my terms. I have the right to partake of the artistic endeavour and judge it according to my views. The artist has the right (one I will vociferously defend) to put out exactly what he or she wants--subject to whatever praise or criticism it engenders once in the public space. What I will NEVER countenance is the idea that an artist has an obligation to satisfy an arbitrary set of criteria to meet the expectations of the self-appointed guardians of The Way Things Ought to Be. When that becomes a requirement, it stops being art (good, bad or other) and becomes propaganda. The world has enough propaganda already, thanks.
Ovation is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:17 PM   #98
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post

I think there are exactly as many women as the filmmakers intended to have and I have zero problem with that (meaning I have zero problem with the filmmakers producing a film that reflects what they, rather than anyone else, wants). I would have zero problem with that if the ratio of men to women in the film was reversed, if that is what the filmmakers wanted. What I don't want is for any artistic production to decide that it is more important to meet the requirements laid down by the Committee of the Way Things Ought to Be than to put out what they want.

Art of any type--commercial, fine, big-budget, tiny budget, (fill in the blank)--should always reflect the desires of the artist (in the broad sense of "makers of the art"). Artist wants to make a Tarantino-esque bloodbath in the Trek universe? That's ok. Wants to make a version with an explicitly pro-feminist message and theme? That's ok. Wants to make an action-adventure movie just like the one that came out last month in the cinema? That's ok. Do I have to like each option equally? Nope. It is entirely my choice whether to like, dislike, love, hate, viscerally loathe, adore…the film (or other artwork) in question. BUT, I have no right to expect satisfaction on my terms. I have the right to partake of the artistic endeavour and judge it according to my views. The artist has the right (one I will vociferously defend) to put out exactly what he or she wants--subject to whatever praise or criticism it engenders once in the public space. What I will NEVER countenance is the idea that an artist has an obligation to satisfy an arbitrary set of criteria to meet the expectations of the self-appointed guardians of The Way Things Ought to Be. When that becomes a requirement, it stops being art (good, bad or other) and becomes propaganda. The world has enough propaganda already, thanks.
God damn, this is a beautiful post.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:18 PM   #99
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

FormerLurker wrote: View Post
Carol Marcus in her underwear was staged to be titillating, and both JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof have admitted this. But any claim that there was no purpose for her to strip down to her underwear wasn't paying attention. She was changing clothes.

The camera was just following Kirk's lead in staring inappropriately while she was between outfits.
And the scene successfully conveys the inappropriateness of his actions--thus criticizing the actions in question. And titillation is not evil in and of itself. Nor is it going to disappear anytime soon.
Ovation is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:23 PM   #100
CrazyHorse89
Lieutenant
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

The difference is that Star Trek has always had some kind of agenda at its heart: feminist, liberal, egalitarian, whatever. If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.

Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek 2009 are not overtly sexist, but they certainly contain problematic gender dynamics. I don't think modern-Trek should treat one half of the population as window dressing or (God knows the old versions certainly did). It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.
CrazyHorse89 is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:28 PM   #101
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

CrazyHorse89 wrote: View Post
If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.
The only one who ever did that was Roddenberry and it was used as a sales tool. I quit buying his 'progressive vision of the future' schtick when I read that he dumped the female first officer character because he'd rather lie to his fiance than tell her the truth on why she was being replaced.


It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.
I don't want my kids getting there values from entertainment, that's what parents are for.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:36 PM   #102
CrazyHorse89
Lieutenant
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

BillJ wrote: View Post
CrazyHorse89 wrote: View Post
If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.
The only one who ever did that was Roddenberry and it was used as a sales tool. I quit buying his 'progressive vision of the future' schtick when I read that he dumped the female first officer character because he'd rather lie to his fiance than tell her the truth on why she was being replaced.


It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.
I don't want my kids getting there values from entertainment, that's what parents are for.
But like it or not, they will get some of their values-their self-perception and perception of others-from entertainment. And even if they don't, then everyone else's kids will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJqspNwGGE

27:06
CrazyHorse89 is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:39 PM   #103
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

CrazyHorse89 wrote: View Post
The difference is that Star Trek has always had some kind of agenda at its heart: feminist, liberal, egalitarian, whatever. If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.

Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek 2009 are not overtly sexist, but they certainly contain problematic gender dynamics. I don't think modern-Trek should treat one half of the population as window dressing or (God knows the old versions certainly did). It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.
Not really. What would really be "letting down young boys and girls" are parents who allow entertainment to substitute for the hard work of teaching values to their children. If any parent feels strongly enough about a particular value, they will take time to pass that value on to their children and ensure they've understood it. If that is done, then the children should not be so easily swayed away from that value by a 2 hour bit of entertainment. Indeed, if the lesson is well-learned, the children will raise the value conflict on their own (if they're too young, the parents are free to point out the conflict). However, the filmmakers have NO OBLIGATION to produce something that won't "let down" any particular "young boy or girl". No obligation whatsoever. We, as the audience, are NOT entitled to be satisfied on that score--ever. We merely have the right to agree or disagree with what we see and say so.
Ovation is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:45 PM   #104
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

BillJ wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post

I think there are exactly as many women as the filmmakers intended to have and I have zero problem with that (meaning I have zero problem with the filmmakers producing a film that reflects what they, rather than anyone else, wants). I would have zero problem with that if the ratio of men to women in the film was reversed, if that is what the filmmakers wanted. What I don't want is for any artistic production to decide that it is more important to meet the requirements laid down by the Committee of the Way Things Ought to Be than to put out what they want.

Art of any type--commercial, fine, big-budget, tiny budget, (fill in the blank)--should always reflect the desires of the artist (in the broad sense of "makers of the art"). Artist wants to make a Tarantino-esque bloodbath in the Trek universe? That's ok. Wants to make a version with an explicitly pro-feminist message and theme? That's ok. Wants to make an action-adventure movie just like the one that came out last month in the cinema? That's ok. Do I have to like each option equally? Nope. It is entirely my choice whether to like, dislike, love, hate, viscerally loathe, adore…the film (or other artwork) in question. BUT, I have no right to expect satisfaction on my terms. I have the right to partake of the artistic endeavour and judge it according to my views. The artist has the right (one I will vociferously defend) to put out exactly what he or she wants--subject to whatever praise or criticism it engenders once in the public space. What I will NEVER countenance is the idea that an artist has an obligation to satisfy an arbitrary set of criteria to meet the expectations of the self-appointed guardians of The Way Things Ought to Be. When that becomes a requirement, it stops being art (good, bad or other) and becomes propaganda. The world has enough propaganda already, thanks.
God damn, this is a beautiful post.
And it's in the true spirit of Star Trek! Prejudice should be fought in all its forms... oh no, wait... It's also crap. The producers aren't deliberately choosing to use male characters for artistic reasons, they're simply tone deaf to gender balance.

The post is advocating the worst type of status quo - it's ok to make a movie with all the black folks are downtrodden menials if that's your artistic intent? Thank the stars Uhura survived that kind of crap.

But more to the point, since when has gender equality been arbitrary? It's one of the most fundamental things that should have been rectified in Star Trek's utopian future decades ago. TMP probably came the closest but even there all the security guards were male.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 09:46 PM   #105
CrazyHorse89
Lieutenant
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
CrazyHorse89 wrote: View Post
The difference is that Star Trek has always had some kind of agenda at its heart: feminist, liberal, egalitarian, whatever. If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.

Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek 2009 are not overtly sexist, but they certainly contain problematic gender dynamics. I don't think modern-Trek should treat one half of the population as window dressing or (God knows the old versions certainly did). It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.
Not really. What would really be "letting down young boys and girls" are parents who allow entertainment to substitute for the hard work of teaching values to their children. If any parent feels strongly enough about a particular value, they will take time to pass that value on to their children and ensure they've understood it. If that is done, then the children should not be so easily swayed away from that value by a 2 hour bit of entertainment. Indeed, if the lesson is well-learned, the children will raise the value conflict on their own (if they're too young, the parents are free to point out the conflict). However, the filmmakers have NO OBLIGATION to produce something that won't "let down" any particular "young boy or girl". No obligation whatsoever. We, as the audience, are NOT entitled to be satisfied on that score--ever. We merely have the right to agree or disagree with what we see and say so.
Who said anything about obligations?

Unfortunately, children and adolescents are very impressionable and live in a world of 24-hour media which presents masculinity and femininity, men and women, and sexuality in a very specific way. Even with the best parenting and the strongest will, children cannot help but internalise and externalise the culture around them. Wouldn't it be brilliant if Star Trek, a show about the future, and a semi-utopian future at that, actually had a place for women who were not glorified mannequins?

Now, that's just my humble opinion. I'm not suggesting that all movies should do this or that because it's politically correct. What I'm saying is that I think certain films could deconstruct traditional gender roles in a bold, fresh, and innovative way. A way, coincidentally, that gives young people a positive alternative to the status-quo.
CrazyHorse89 is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 PM.

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