RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,227
Posts: 5,438,218
Members: 24,957
Currently online: 593
Newest member: zanejc

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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, 10:45 PM   #136
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
The main problem regarding gender balance in nuTrek is that they took the characters of a show from the 60s and transported it into the 21st century. That's why you have the black girl in miniskirts still acting basically as the receptionist (and love interest), but nothing more substantial.

Then there's the sexism coming from the writers, because they think the story and script are elevated by threesomes and women dressing down for no reason during a dialogue.

Deep Space Nine had better gender and ethnic balance.
Voyager had better gender and ethnic balance. Heck, Captain and chief engineer were finally women. Only in season 4 they lost the ball when they introduced Sex Object of Nine in skintight catsuits to boobs the ratings, err, boost the ratings.

Let's not talk about Enterprise, because that was silly. Hoshi, the receptionist again, and T'Boob. And then the mirror universe episode where they suddenly run around with bear bellies to sex it up.
I think I agree that DS9 had the best approach to gender but even in DS9 there were twice as many recurring male characters as women.

Voyager suffered a bit too much from the Smurfette principle. Its high profile women were in more senior positions than ever before but none of Janeway's senior staff were women until Chakotay put Torres forward and they didn't give the women below them a whole lot to do. Seska was a great villain though - it's a shame they felt the need to sexualise elements of her character.

The catsuits and mini skirts are so iconic I can't bring myself to hate them but more power to Aisha Hinds as Darwin - she certainly has some meat on her bones. I would have preferred them to re-use Ilia, personally, but I hope they feature Darwin again, and in the comics as well.
__________________
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, 10:45 PM   #137
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
When playing Dungeons & Dragons we use random tables! But you know what, would I think it was cool if Scotty's assistant in engineering was transgender and nobody batted an eyelid? Hell yes.
Considering how little we know about Keenser...

Or, for that matter, the Ensign who took Chekov's post on the bridge.
In the comics Keenser is male. Darwin is female all right.
Doesn't mean they were BORN that way.

I agree that the background characters on the bridge are not too bad. We're generally just missing women in speaking roles and senior positions. They missed numerous opportunities - Marcus, Spock's new commanding officer, Cupcake's assistant, a female deputy chief engineer, leaving out Chapel and Rand again, or flipping the role of the parents so the mother is more active.
Carol was RAISED by her mother, who (I'm only guessing here) didn't turn out to be a crazy megalomaniac. There's also the previous film in which Spock is depicted as being strongly influenced by his mother through most of his childhood, so much so that it is an insult (more likely a history of insults) against his mother's heritage that leads him to turn his back on Vulcan and seek a career in Starfleet. Amanda is, in fact, a far more important figure in Spock's characterization than just about anyone else on the Enterprise.

As for missed opportunities: Carol Marcus disarms a photon torpedo and saves McCoy's life. Uhura stares down a Klingon warrior in his own language and eventually stabs him in the leg when the shit hits the fan; later, she personally beams down with a phaser and helps Spock defeat Khan.

As for Chapel and Rand, let's be honest with ourselves: you cannot and SHOULD not attempt to introduce those characters unless you've got some time to really develop them into something dynamic. Both of these made it through three seasons of TOS and appearances in the movies without getting so much as a background story. In these films, they wouldn't even be ancillary characters, just repeat extras with an unusually large number of lines (sorta like Cupcake).

You're also ignoring one other thing: as far as background characters, the casting directors don't generally think that deeply into who they're giving that particular role to. You put out a casting call for extras and you get thirty eight and ninety two men; what's the ratio gonna look like in the actual film?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 10:49 PM   #138
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

CrazyHorse89 wrote: View Post
But none of us are saying that people who don't give a flying-giraffe about the gender balance in Star Trek or Alice Eve's underwear shouldn't be able to express their annoyance, bemusement, or opposition to those who do.

I think that this is an important issue, and for many women it's symptomatic of a wider one which they don't have the luxury of being able to ignore. In my opinion, the 'gendered construction' of Star Trek hasn't been done to death: at least not any more than the Box Office results, Khan, or the effects of salt water on a fictional starship.
It's been a running theme on this board for the decade plus I've been here.

Personally, once your buying tickets to the movie, buying comic books, toys, soundtracks... you're a hypocrite. Because your sending a message with your money that what your seeing is acceptable.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now  
Old June 13 2013, 10:56 PM   #139
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Seska was a great villain though
THAT is a matter of opinion.

The catsuits and mini skirts are so iconic I can't bring myself to hate them
I can. Not the miniskirts so much, since that at least passes for standard uniform (plus I got the distinct impression they're wearing shorts under those skirts, which seems like it would be more comfortable) but the Voyager/ENT catsuits are just stupid and never seem to belong anywhere. Seven of Nine looked just fine in a regular uniform, and T'pol had exactly zero reasons NOT to put on a regular Starfleet uniform when she resigned from the Vulcan service.

They essentially became noticeably less-useless versions of Deanna Troi, with the ironic distinction that Troi eventually remembered where her uniform had gone to and finally started wearing it. Seven and T'pol have no excuse.

I would have preferred them to re-use Ilia, personally
This is 2259. Isn't she, like, ten?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 10:57 PM   #140
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
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).
How do you ever cope when watching reruns of TOS episodes?

As an aside, after you remove Uhura and Carol from the mix, do you think there are enough women remaining? And where are they?
Darwin - remember the bald woman of colour who wasn't the typical shape of a catwalk model - was steering the ship. Sitting in the same seat we once saw bald Persis Khambatta, former Miss India, occupying.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 10:57 PM   #141
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Devon wrote: View Post
1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man
The Wrath of Khan...

Saavik & Uhura.

2. Fails, so automatically so does 3.
Old-Trek bashing fail.



They talk in the very first scene of the movie.
Shazam! is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 10:59 PM   #142
CrazyHorse89
Lieutenant
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

BillJ wrote: View Post
CrazyHorse89 wrote: View Post
But none of us are saying that people who don't give a flying-giraffe about the gender balance in Star Trek or Alice Eve's underwear shouldn't be able to express their annoyance, bemusement, or opposition to those who do.

I think that this is an important issue, and for many women it's symptomatic of a wider one which they don't have the luxury of being able to ignore. In my opinion, the 'gendered construction' of Star Trek hasn't been done to death: at least not any more than the Box Office results, Khan, or the effects of salt water on a fictional starship.
It's been a running theme on this board for the decade plus I've been here.

Personally, once your buying tickets to the movie, buying comic books, toys, soundtracks... you're a hypocrite. Because your sending a message with your money that what your seeing is acceptable.
I don't see it that way at all, as I've previously said. The society we live in is patriarchal, capitalistic, ethnically white, and materialistic. Naturally, our culture is an expression of all these modes of organisation. Everybody has to compromise with the world that they live in. I think Star Trek is a damned fine thing to compromise on in a way that, say, Piranha 3D isn't.
CrazyHorse89 is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 11:06 PM   #143
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
I agree that the background characters on the bridge are not too bad. We're generally just missing women in speaking roles and senior positions. They missed numerous opportunities - Marcus, Spock's new commanding officer, Cupcake's assistant, a female deputy chief engineer, leaving out Chapel and Rand again, or flipping the role of the parents so the mother is more active.
Carol was RAISED by her mother, who (I'm only guessing here) didn't turn out to be a crazy megalomaniac. There's also the previous film in which Spock is depicted as being strongly influenced by his mother through most of his childhood, so much so that it is an insult (more likely a history of insults) against his mother's heritage that leads him to turn his back on Vulcan and seek a career in Starfleet. Amanda is, in fact, a far more important figure in Spock's characterization than just about anyone else on the Enterprise.

As for missed opportunities: Carol Marcus disarms a photon torpedo and saves McCoy's life. Uhura stares down a Klingon warrior in his own language and eventually stabs him in the leg when the shit hits the fan; later, she personally beams down with a phaser and helps Spock defeat Khan.

As for Chapel and Rand, let's be honest with ourselves: you cannot and SHOULD not attempt to introduce those characters unless you've got some time to really develop them into something dynamic. Both of these made it through three seasons of TOS and appearances in the movies without getting so much as a background story. In these films, they wouldn't even be ancillary characters, just repeat extras with an unusually large number of lines (sorta like Cupcake).

You're also ignoring one other thing: as far as background characters, the casting directors don't generally think that deeply into who they're giving that particular role to. You put out a casting call for extras and you get thirty eight and ninety two men; what's the ratio gonna look like in the actual film?
1. Carol could have been raised by her father and her mother could have been the villain without changing either character or the plot. Watch the Manchurian Candidate - mothers can make great villains!

2. Amanda is the personification of Spock's emotional human half rather than just his mother. The TOS version was a lot more fun though - she had a wicked sense of humour and clearly enjoyed duelling with Vulcan logic. NuAmanda felt a bit dull by comparison.

3. If anything, Uhura and Chekov were used imappropriately just to use them. I approved of Uhura on the Klingon mission but she should have been on the Romulan mission in the last movie for the same reasons. This was progress. Carol forgot how transporters work so don't give her too much credit but overall, I thought she was a good addition. They seem to be making use of her in the comics too, which is a good thing.

4. Chapel was a research biologist. She would be more relevant as an exobiologist than a nurse and it's the only way she'd get out of McCoy's shaodw but they keep plugging her as a nurse because the title 'Nurse' Chapel is well known. Yeoman Rand has been used as security support in the comics. As the Captain's yeoman she has every reason to be by his side and as a security trained crewman she could easily have contributed to either movie. These would be third tier characters, similar to Darwin, Keenser, and Cupcake but nonetheless Chapel could have been recruited as a temporary nurse following the crisis with Nero's attack and she'd be qualified to carry out research on a tribble. Rand could have been the second security guard on Qo'nos. It's not that hard.

It's obvious that they don't think much about casting the extras. Making some noise will hopefully think a bit more.

And while we're at it - more Andorians dammit!
__________________
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, 11:09 PM   #144
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
more power to Aisha Hinds as Darwin - she certainly has some meat on her bones. I would have preferred them to re-use Ilia, personally...
Wouldn't that mean replacing a black woman with a white woman? But wait, Persis was an Indian woman, but had pale skin?

The Cumberbatch as Khan argument all over again. Kobayashi Maru.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 11:11 PM   #145
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Seska was a great villain though
THAT is a matter of opinion.

The catsuits and mini skirts are so iconic I can't bring myself to hate them
I can. Not the miniskirts so much, since that at least passes for standard uniform (plus I got the distinct impression they're wearing shorts under those skirts, which seems like it would be more comfortable) but the Voyager/ENT catsuits are just stupid and never seem to belong anywhere. Seven of Nine looked just fine in a regular uniform, and T'pol had exactly zero reasons NOT to put on a regular Starfleet uniform when she resigned from the Vulcan service.

They essentially became noticeably less-useless versions of Deanna Troi, with the ironic distinction that Troi eventually remembered where her uniform had gone to and finally started wearing it. Seven and T'pol have no excuse.

I would have preferred them to re-use Ilia, personally
This is 2259. Isn't she, like, ten?
Ilia's age wasn't stated and if Ilia was the same age as Persis, she'd be about 19 I think. Decker was older than Chekov and Chekov is in this movie. Assuming that they are not born earlier or later, NuDecker and NuIlia would be just right to be working alongside this crew.
__________________
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, 11:14 PM   #146
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
more power to Aisha Hinds as Darwin - she certainly has some meat on her bones. I would have preferred them to re-use Ilia, personally...
Wouldn't that mean replacing a black woman with a white woman? But wait, Persis was an Indian woman, but had pale skin?

The Cumberbatch as Khan argument all over again. Kobayashi Maru.
Yeah - I've seen Persis in a couple of other movies - they must have piled on the make-up to make her look so pale - although she was pale for a south asian woman I think. I'd be quite happy with an Indian wearing Indian make-up this time round.

I remember watching an episode of TNG and my Nan, bless her, complained that she didn't like watching shows full of black people. I realised that I'd been watching an episode that featured Michael Dorn, LeVar Burton, April Grace, and Lanei Chapman. I hadn't really noticed the ethnic mix of that particular episode and that makes me proud of Trek. I want to not notice that there are all races and genders. If I'm noticing, they're not doing it right!

Sadly, a lot of people's threshold for not noticing stuff is lower than mine - lol - hence the debate
__________________
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, 11:27 PM   #147
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
1. Carol could have been raised by her father and her mother could have been the villain without changing either character or the plot. Watch the Manchurian Candidate - mothers can make great villains!
Except the plot then would have been Carol trying to reconnect with her estranged mother, in which case we would have feminists in here complaining about Admiral Marcus abandoning her daughter in favor of her career.

2. Amanda is the personification of Spock's emotional human half rather than just his mother.
Of course she is. And yet she IS a woman, whatever else she also represents.

Carol forgot how transporters work...
So did Kirk, evidently.

4. Chapel was a research biologist.
Who almost never did anything related to biological research in all of TOS and later became an MD.

Also, I think maybe you're being a bit condescending to nurses.

Yeoman Rand has been used as security support in the comics.
And if and when the Enterprise ever has a situation where the Cheif of Security would have a prominent role, this is fertile ground for the characterization of Janice Rand.

Hell, Cupcake's probably dead, so it seems like there'd be an opening for the five-year mission.

As the Captain's yeoman she has every reason to be by his side and as a security trained crewman she could easily have contributed to either movie.
And in either movie she would have been a) immediately killed off at the beginning of the firefight and b) had all of her significant lines edited out for brevity. Especially Into Darkness, which couldn't even find time for the Enterprise to shoot back.

Rand could have been the second security guard on Qo'nos.
I'm sorry, but adding more female redshirts to the Trek bodycount doesn't seem like progress to me. We were talking about SUBSTANCE, right? It ultimately makes no difference whether Cupcake is a man or a woman because he has no lines and is destined to get killed meaninglessly.

Assuming Carol's role becomes as prominent as Uhura, though, we now have a central team that involves three men and two women and McCoy's role isn't nearly as major as it was in TOS. That's two prominent women and two prominent men. You can't do anything meaningful with Janice Rand OR Christine Chapel unless you reduce the role of someone else, and with the pace of these movies it's just not gonna work.

What we really need, IMO, are playable female characters in Trek videogames. They can build on the 2013 release with an Into Darkness followup and Add Sulu, Rand, Uhura and Marcus along with Kirk and Spock as being playable.

It's obvious that they don't think much about casting the extras. Making some noise will hopefully think a bit more.
If you want to get more female extras, you're going to have to get more female actresses to apply for the role. Casting directors aren't going to break their backs looking for them.

And while we're at it - more Andorians dammit!
The andorians make better antagonists than crewmembers, IMO.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 11:42 PM   #148
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
Just reaching again a bit on the subject of sexism a bit. I don't really think the movie was sexist considering that they had the pre-existing gender distribution of TOS (almost all guys). JJ could have done better but the movie is certainly has better gender distribution than a lot of movies around.
However the scene with Carol in her undies makes me (despite my better judgement) think of her less seriously. In TWOK I got the impression that Carol was Spock's peer. I respected her there.
In STID I think she was fiddling around a bit. I think we need to see more hard science out of her. She shouldn't be there IMO just to be Kirk's possible baby mama.
Both movies were very sexist in fact. They suffer from token female syndrome also known as the Smurfette principal where they focus on one or two female characters. Giving Carol more to do will be good, but she'll still be a Smurfette.
If we're going to hammer on tropes, let's be correct about it. Under the Smurfette Principle, there can be only one. For STID, you probably want "Two Girls to a Team" or, maybe, "Affirmative Action Girl". As long as there isn't any antagonism between Uhura and Carol, Carol cannot, by definition, be a Smurfette. (And, even if there were, Uhura already had dibs on being the Smurfette; no way would they invert that trope and have Carol push Uhura off).

Another way to look at it is to say, remove Kirk and Spock and look at all the male characters you have left. Remove Uhura and Carol and look at all the female characters you have left. Go one step further and remove the Big 7 and see how many men and women you have left. There is no comparison.
Remove Kirk and Spock and there's no one left to carry the show period, male or female. For that reason, the pair of Uhura and Carol isn't really parallel to the pair of Kirk and Spock. You're comparing apples and oranges, there.

What you need to do, there, is see what the cast looks like, besides Kirk and Spock. The main cast might benefit from at least one more female. Rand as security chief could work (was that you who suggested that, months back?).

However, this isn't a dog and pony show. There has to be sufficient reason for the characters to be on screen, or it will just come off as contrived, and take us back to Yawnersville.

Whether you have two male leads or not, the supporting cast is in no way balanced and the women they do have are mostly women because they have to be (mothers, girlfriends etc). The notable exception is in the stereotypical sick bay, where there are lots of women but apart from that we've had no female security guards,
Since "in no way balanced" sounds pretty extreme, if not hyperbolic, I'd like a tally, please. There's some space in between "totally balanced" and "in no way balanced", namely "somewhat balanced".

I also think you're being disingenuous about mothers and girlfriends. They didn't "have" to be on screen at all! Strike any one of Winona, Amanda, Gaila, or even Hannity, and STXI is a noticeably lesser film, but it's still perfectly doable. (ETA: Are women only legitimately on screen if they come stag and childless? I'm probably missing something here, but the main characters are already set in stone: Kirk and Spock and they're male. Is Carol not legitimately on screen because she's Admiral Marcus's daughter?)

By the way, for all we know, maybe Hannity is Number One.

IIRC, wasn't there an alien female security guard at one of the consoles in the brig in STID? I'd have to see the film again to be sure.

very few (maybe 10%) female senior officers,
In Starfleet? Post proof please.

no female captains or first officers
This has already been debunked on the BBS. Who are the women shown here in the Daystrom Conference Room?

They wrote out Chapel and Rand and introduced Keenser and Cupcake.
While I wasn't necessarily happy about that, the purpose of Abrams's films isn't to replay TOS beat for beat. That applies to Number One also, whom I might have also liked to have seen (unless we already saw her). This relates to my point about there having to be sufficient reason for characters to be on screen in the first place.

Their errors are many and varied
Choices are not in and of themselves errors.

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?
Just how big does the set of main characters have to get? The big ten? Even The Big Chill stopped at eight main characters.

There's a difference between the universe overall being reasonably balanced and the characters shown on screen being more males than females. What the camera focuses on is just a cross section of the larger whole. It's always going to be an uphill battle, in terms of gender balance in the characters shown on screen, because of the source material. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the universe itself is "in no way balanced". (I think these last two points have been made on the BBS before.)
__________________
CorporalCaptain

Last edited by Creepy Critter; June 13 2013 at 11:57 PM.
Creepy Critter is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 11:58 PM   #149
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Except the plot then would have been Carol trying to reconnect with her estranged mother, in which case we would have feminists in here complaining about Admiral Marcus abandoning her daughter in favor of her career.
Actually, it was Winona's absence FROM THE MOVIE after giving birth that led to that criticism. It was the absence of her as a discernible influence compared to her dead husband i.e. the lack of respect to her as a character.

2. Amanda is the personification of Spock's emotional human half rather than just his mother.
Of course she is. And yet she IS a woman, whatever else she also represents.
Paired with her husband, they sort of cancel each other out and he's a more prominent character.

Who almost never did anything related to biological research in all of TOS and later became an MD. Also, I think maybe you're being a bit condescending to nurses.
This was in the context of whether the modern version could be made relevant. She has a skill set that could be used. I know both doctors and nurses. I merely point out that as a nurse in a Trek movie there is almost no way that Chapel can come out of McCoy's shadow. As an exobiologist, she has a niche.

And if and when the Enterprise ever has a situation where the Cheif of Security would have a prominent role, this is fertile ground for the characterization of Janice Rand.
I'm not overly obsessed with department heads. I'm happy for Rand to remain a petty officer and Kirk's yeoman. I'd be more annoyed if they made her a senior officer actually. I like her as an everyman like Chief O'Brien.

Hell, Cupcake's probably dead, so it seems like there'd be an opening for the five-year mission.
Apparently rumours of his death may be exaggerated.

And in either movie she would have been a) immediately killed off at the beginning of the firefight and b) had all of her significant lines edited out for brevity. Especially Into Darkness, which couldn't even find time for the Enterprise to shoot back.
I'd still be happy if she appeared. I don't mind them killing her. I'd mind them killing her without first establishing her as a character we care about. Appearing in the first two and dying in the third would be fine. Only appearing and dying in the third film would now annoy me.

I'm sorry, but adding more female redshirts to the Trek body count doesn't seem like progress to me. We were talking about SUBSTANCE, right? It ultimately makes no difference whether Cupcake is a man or a woman because he has no lines and is destined to get killed meaninglessly.
Adding more female redshirts? Did you spot one? Yes, a female in a security role WOULD be progress whether they kill her or not. Oh re above post - I do think the alien in the brig might have been a woman. Admin duty but it's a start.

You can't do anything meaningful with Janice Rand OR Christine Chapel unless you reduce the role of someone else, and with the pace of these movies it's just not gonna work.
Nonsense. There are quite a few supporting male cast members. Just use the women instead. Simples.

What we really need, IMO, are playable female characters in Trek videogames. They can build on the 2013 release with an Into Darkness followup and Add Sulu, Rand, Uhura and Marcus along with Kirk and Spock as being playable.
Agreed but I expect that creating separate female meshes might scale up the costs.

If you want to get more female extras, you're going to have to get more female actresses to apply for the role. Casting directors aren't going to break their backs looking for them.
Lol - I'm willing to bet that they had more than enough actresses auditioning, just not that many role for them to fill.

And while we're at it - more Andorians dammit!
The andorians make better antagonists than crewmembers, IMO.
Lies! But then that's how I feel about the Orions so I can't be too critical. Let's have both as crewmen AND villains.
__________________
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 14 2013, 12:23 AM   #150
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
There has to be sufficient reason for the characters to be on screen, or it will just come off as contrived, and take us back to Yawnersville.

Since "in no way balanced" sounds pretty extreme, if not hyperbolic, I'd like a tally, please. There's some space in between "totally balanced" and "in no way balanced", namely "somewhat balanced".

I also think you're being disingenuous about mothers and girlfriends. They didn't "have" to be on screen at all! Strike any one of Winona, Amanda, Gaila, or even Hannity, and STXI is a noticeably lesser film, but it's still perfectly doable. (ETA: Are women only legitimately on screen if they come stag and childless? I'm probably missing something here, but the main characters are already set in stone: Kirk and Spock and they're male. Is Carol not legitimately on screen because she's Admiral Marcus's daughter?)

Just how big does the set of main characters have to get? The big ten? Even The Big Chill stopped at eight main characters.

There's a difference between the universe overall being reasonably balanced and the characters shown on screen being more males than females. What the camera focuses on is just a cross section of the larger whole. It's always going to be an uphill battle, in terms of gender balance in the characters shown on screen, because of the source material. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the universe itself is "in no way balanced". (I think these last two points have been made on the BBS before.)
Yeah, I felt that Chekov was totally superfluous in both movies. I would have been far happier if they had stuck with one of the women and then introduced Chekov further down the line at a more age-appropriate point. Anton is great fun but it looks like they really struggled to use him in any way that was recognisable for his character.

I'm not down on wives, mothers, & girlfriends any more than I'm down on nurses. I just raise my voice at the lack of imagination when such a high proportion of the women are defined primarily in that role. I do give Amanda a pass as I think she signified more than that though.

In Trek 09 I had a quick glance at the cast list and ignoring the big 7, we had 50 men and 21 women. The men include an actress playing a male alien. The women include 4 wives/mothers/girlfriends, 2 medical staff, 2 silent Vulcan women among a larger number of Vulcan men, a stenographer, and a Romulan comms officer - even Romulans like lady secretaries! The women are not used imaginatively at all!
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631

Last edited by M'Sharak; June 14 2013 at 01:21 AM. Reason: to correct quote attribution
Pauln6 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 07:40 PM.

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