RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,411
Posts: 5,506,238
Members: 25,128
Currently online: 441
Newest member: Deidesheim

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 18 2013, 06:17 PM   #331
KittyDuran
Lieutenant Commander
 
KittyDuran's Avatar
 
Location: Hungry (like the wolf)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
If your audience has to do your work for you, then you’ve already failed as a writer/producer.
There is a short scene where Kirk ask Chekov about him following Scotty like a puppy for the last months.
There, mission accomplished.
The audience learned everything they need to know to accept Chekov in engineering.
Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).
Absolutely... the exchange (IIRC)

Kirk: Mr. Chekov, you've been shadowing Mr. Scott in Engineering (for the last few months?)?
Chekov: Affirmative, Captain.
Kirk: Good, you're my new chief. Now go put on a red shirt.
Chekov: Aye, Captain.
KittyDuran is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 06:38 PM   #332
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
Does everything have to be explicitly presented? That would make for a seriously dull film (in any case, not just Trek).
There are a series of Youtube clips that compress the plot of entire movies down to a minute or two. Here is the entire Godfather saga in three minutes. Is that your idea of a good time? I mean, is any amount of plot-compression too much? Just show a series of nonsensical explosions and call it a day?

Into Darkness had an incredibly fast-moving plot as it is. An extra few minutes of character moments would only have helped.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 06:42 PM   #333
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

BillJ wrote: View Post
Of course it's the God-damned Kirk and Spock show, they are culturally relevant to the main-stream crowd. It's like bitching about a Batman movie because it focuses too much on Batman.
Then where do these pop-culture catch-phrases come from?

"I'm a doctor, not a _fill_in_the_blanks_"

"Beam me up Scotty"

"Hailing frequencies open"

"Nuclear wessels"

Let alone the fact that George Takei is now the king of Facebook.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 06:51 PM   #334
KittyDuran
Lieutenant Commander
 
KittyDuran's Avatar
 
Location: Hungry (like the wolf)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

mos6507 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Of course it's the God-damned Kirk and Spock show, they are culturally relevant to the main-stream crowd. It's like bitching about a Batman movie because it focuses too much on Batman.
Then where do these pop-culture catch-phrases come from?

"I'm a doctor, not a _fill_in_the_blanks_" (McCoy)

"Beam me up Scotty" (Kirk)

"Hailing frequencies open" (Uhura)

"Nuclear wessels" (Chekov)

Let alone the fact that George Takei is now the king of Facebook.
What prize do I get?
KittyDuran is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 07:11 PM   #335
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

mos6507 wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
Does everything have to be explicitly presented? That would make for a seriously dull film (in any case, not just Trek).
There are a series of Youtube clips that compress the plot of entire movies down to a minute or two. Here is the entire Godfather saga in three minutes. Is that your idea of a good time? I mean, is any amount of plot-compression too much? Just show a series of nonsensical explosions and call it a day?

Into Darkness had an incredibly fast-moving plot as it is. An extra few minutes of character moments would only have helped.
Considering that among my five favourite films is Lawrence of Arabia, I have very little problem with the length of a movie. But even Lawrence (a cinematic masterpiece) does not explicitly show everything required to advance the story. There are moments when the viewer is expected to make the appropriate inferences to keep up. I prefer to let the director decide what is explicit and what is implicit. If I have trouble "keeping up" with the plot because I cannot logically infer what has not been explicitly presented, I complain about it. No iteration of Star Trek has ever been too difficult for me to "keep up". They aren't perfect (far from it) but they hardly present unresolvable puzzles that leave the audience completely confused for huge stretches.

If you want an example of a movie that needed more explicit presentation of various plot points, watch the theatrical cut of Highlander 2. THAT is a movie with too much plot compression.
Ovation is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 07:14 PM   #336
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
If your audience has to do your work for you, then you’ve already failed as a writer/producer.
There is a short scene where Kirk ask Chekov about him following Scotty like a puppy for the last months.
There, mission accomplished.
The audience learned everything they need to know to accept Chekov in engineering.
Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).
An argument could probably be made that the potential for Chekov to take over at least temporarily for Scotty was being set up even during the first movie. Not all of the mirroring/symmetry going on there involved Kirk and Spock.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 07:37 PM   #337
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

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post

There is a short scene where Kirk ask Chekov about him following Scotty like a puppy for the last months.
There, mission accomplished.
The audience learned everything they need to know to accept Chekov in engineering.
Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).
An argument could probably be made that the potential for Chekov to take over at least temporarily for Scotty was being set up even during the first movie. Not all of the mirroring/symmetry going on there involved Kirk and Spock.
True enough. But then, that would require people to carry over something from the previous film in order to better understand the new one. Can't be having that kind of nonsense.
Ovation is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 08:01 PM   #338
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
Captain
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

I'd bet there was one reason and one reason only why Chekov was written to take over for Scotty in this movie: it was a nod to the old fandom explanation for why Khan recognized Chekov in TWOK even though he wasn't on the show at the time of "Space Seed," namely that he was a member of the crew but was working in engineering at the time and thus not seen on the bridge. Nudge nudge, wink wink.
__________________
Watch out, or I'll get you with my Andorian ice powers.
The Mighty Monkey of Mim is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 08:03 PM   #339
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post

Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).
An argument could probably be made that the potential for Chekov to take over at least temporarily for Scotty was being set up even during the first movie. Not all of the mirroring/symmetry going on there involved Kirk and Spock.
True enough. But then, that would require people to carry over something from the previous film in order to better understand the new one. Can't be having that kind of nonsense.
Ooo, sorry - you're right, of course. Just forget I ever mentioned it.

[anncr]
We apologize for the interruption, and now return you to our regularly-scheduled showing of "Star Trek Into Darkness Meets The Bechdel Test".
[/anncr]
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 08:46 PM   #340
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: The corner of San Antonio and a bottle of Fireball
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

May I ask a question? Why should they pander to anybody? Why make it seem like they HAVE to put women into the movie because they HAVE to? When did telling a story with good characters and going on an adventure take a backseat to bureaucratic number crunching? Because as a minority that is more important to me, no, don't put "me" in there because you can or you have to, but because I fit in there. If I am truly equal, then it shouldn't matter if I am "represented" in a movie. Just take me away for a couple hours. Don't degrade me by making me a statistic that has to be put in.
__________________
I'm not saying it's cold, but I just keyed two cars with my nipples.
Kruezerman is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 08:48 PM   #341
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
The Committee for the Way Things Ought to Be.
Goddamn I wish one could make a decent acronym from this.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 09:31 PM   #342
YellowSubmarine
Rear Admiral
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
The Committee for the Way Things Ought to Be.
Goddamn I wish one could make a decent acronym from this.
I prefer the Council Of Canon Affairs: Contemporary Obsessions Letdown Agency, they come with free soft drinks.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 09:32 PM   #343
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
May I ask a question? Why should they pander to anybody? Why make it seem like they HAVE to put women into the movie because they HAVE to? When did telling a story with good characters and going on an adventure take a backseat to bureaucratic number crunching? Because as a minority that is more important to me, no, don't put "me" in there because you can or you have to, but because I fit in there. If I am truly equal, then it shouldn't matter if I am "represented" in a movie. Just take me away for a couple hours. Don't degrade me by making me a statistic that has to be put in.
Because other people always know what's best for you.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 09:55 PM   #344
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
May I ask a question? Why should they pander to anybody?
How do you think people first reacted to the casting in TOS? Gene certainly wanted to see both gender and racial diversity in TOS, and it did make a positive cultural impact to see that. Was that merely "pandering" or making a statement? Why do so many Trek fans now put a negative slant on this sort of thing?

Was Avery Brooks not "pandering"? Was Kate Mulgrew not "pandering"? Diversity is baked into the DNA of Trek.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline  
Old June 18 2013, 09:58 PM   #345
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

It wasn't Gene, it was advertisers and the studio. Look at how male and white The Cage was.

I like to think that Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew were the best actors for the respective jobs. Man or woman, black or white.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ 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 03:48 AM.

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