RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,582
Posts: 5,515,088
Members: 25,155
Currently online: 569
Newest member: Sebastian DT

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

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


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 19 2013, 08:15 PM   #406
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
For starters, I thinks it's silly that Keenser is an officer, let alone the assistant chief purely
I don't.
But perhaps you wouldn't think him silly if he were a she.

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
I would probably have used a new female character (or a TOS character like Ann Mulhall, Charlene Masterson, etc) but give her just a few lines of dialogue, leaving her to get on with stuff in the background and assign Chekov to assist her. Chekov can deliver most of the same dialogue but he isn't in charge.
There is no need to bring in a new character - male or female - to take over for Scott.
I think Keenser makes a poor officer because he is basically portrayed as a grease monkey and barely utters more than a handful of words and Scotty treats him like a pet. Gender makes no difference but if he was clearly defined as female it would indeed help the numbers.

I think people keep conflating the issues just to play devil's advocate. I've stated repeatedly that the issue is equality.
__________________
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 19 2013, 08:22 PM   #407
Jack Frost
Commodore
 
Jack Frost's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

So few will miss him after he gives his life to save Scott? (That's a theory I have about his future. )
Jack Frost is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 09:15 PM   #408
KittyDuran
Lieutenant Commander
 
KittyDuran's Avatar
 
Location: Hungry (like the wolf)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

The Keeper wrote: View Post
So few will miss him after he gives his life to save Scott? (That's a theory I have about his future. )
Now, now... I actually like him in STiD, seems to have a purpose (job) and doesn't seem to be an afterthought - lets just throw in a cute alien. We do see him at the end of ST09 in Engineering and in uniform but what's his job? STiD sort of answers that.
KittyDuran is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 09:43 PM   #409
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
Here's the part you oh so conveniently cut from the rest of the post: As it was, that scene acted as a further blow AGAINST Kirk's womanizing attitude. He's made to feel uncomfortable and that discomfort demonstrates A) his attitude is not all that acceptable and B) Marcus is confident enough to order him to "Turn around" rather than meekly stand there to be ogled at length. The scene does NOT suggest Kirk's behaviour deserves a frat boy "high five" or "fist bump". If it did, then I'd be the first to complain. (triple highlight now--in case you simply missed it last time)
If the film tried to send an anti-chauvanism message, it's doing a pretty poor job of it since now it has spawned all these members with Alice Eve avatars.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 09:51 PM   #410
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

I've seen two and one has Janeway's head.

Admittedly, I don't really pay attention to avatars.
__________________
"...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 online now  
Old June 19 2013, 09:53 PM   #411
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Locutus of Bored
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

mos6507 wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
Here's the part you oh so conveniently cut from the rest of the post: As it was, that scene acted as a further blow AGAINST Kirk's womanizing attitude. He's made to feel uncomfortable and that discomfort demonstrates A) his attitude is not all that acceptable and B) Marcus is confident enough to order him to "Turn around" rather than meekly stand there to be ogled at length. The scene does NOT suggest Kirk's behaviour deserves a frat boy "high five" or "fist bump". If it did, then I'd be the first to complain. (triple highlight now--in case you simply missed it last time)
If the film tried to send an anti-chauvanism message, it's doing a pretty poor job of it since now it has spawned all these members with Alice Eve avatars.
"All these members" being the two I've seen so far, one of whom is a woman who copy pasted Janeway's face on to a body (in this case Alice Eve's), as she does with all of her recent avatars. So clearly, a groundswell of chauvinism there.

Speaking of "pretty poor," that was a pretty poor attempt at an argument. He lays out a thoughtful analysis of the scene in question and all you can come back with is an exaggeration of the amount of avatars people are displaying? Seriously? How about rebutting his points instead of sidestepping the issue, which seems to be a recurring problem with certain people in this thread. If your argument is so solid and indisputable, why keep avoiding anything that challenges it?
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
The Festivus Awakens is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 09:55 PM   #412
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

Wouldn't be the first time such an attempt was not read as intended (though I turn off the avatars, so I was not aware of this set of avatars). From a much better (IMO) film than any Trek movie, Eastwood's Unforgiven, there is a scene that is intended to convey the effects of aging on a gunslinger. He sets up a target and tries to hit it with his revolver. He misses each time. He then goes into his house (more like a hut) and retrieves a double short-barreled gun and blasts the target (a bottle or can--it's been awhile). The scene is meant to convey a loss of skill and, in context, should not elicit any positive reaction. However, when I saw this at the cinema, a number of people in the audience erupted with shouts of "Yeah!", "Damn straight" and other such hollers. Totally out of sync with the intention.

As for the Eve scene, there is clearly some intentional titillation. But that's not ALL there is to it. If it were, Kirk would not be made to feel uncomfortable about having looked at her. It is the discomfort that redeems the moment. Not all attempts to pass a message succeed and given all the commentary on it, it is clear that this attempt was not an unqualified success. Nevertheless, and this is the point I am trying to make, there is clearly an attempt at criticizing Kirk's attitude in this scene and, as such, it does not deserve to be dismissed as purely gratuitous.
Ovation is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 10:12 PM   #413
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Locutus of Bored
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
As for the Eve scene, there is clearly some intentional titillation. But that's not ALL there is to it. If it were, Kirk would not be made to feel uncomfortable about having looked at her.
Exactly. I had a post that touched on similar points as yours in yet another thread on this subject back when STiD premiered in the US:

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Apart from obviously being there for titillation too, the Carol Marcus underwear scene did serve a purpose. Throughout the preceding parts of the film, we see Kirk being confident to the point of arrogance and extremely flirty with women. He was having a meaningless one night stand with the cat babes, he gave F-Me glances to the women at Starfleet HQ and the bar, and he was making juvenile comments about Carol's appearance when she boarded the shuttle to join the crew on Enterprise. But now he tries the same schtick by glancing at Carol while she changes, and she'll have none of it. She's not intimidated or impressed by his glances, and gives him nothing in return except the sign to quit gawking and an order to turn around.

Kirk is flustered by this and doesn't quite know how to react, except to do what she tells him. This plays into his continuing decline in confidence throughout the film as he is rejected or slapped down by his superiors and peers. He's not able to get by on winging it or impressing people with his overconfidence any more. He has to work to get what he wants and to earn respect.

It also establishes Carol as a strong presence who is not embarrassed about who she is, won't fall for any cheap flirty tricks, and doesn't put up with anyone's BS. This makes Kirk admire her even more and foreshadows their eventual love for each other. Carol is not like the other women Kirk has been attracted to. She's not a cheap date or a one night stand. She's an intelligent, strong, talented individual whom he respects for those qualities, and not just for her looks for a change, though that appeals to him as well.

Kirk hasn't met a woman this formidable and intriguing to him since Uhura rejected him completely in the bar in the first film. Gaela (the Orion) he used to further his own ends in the Kobayashi Maru test and then uncaringly disposed of without a second thought, but Uhura he kept pursuing for three years until he came to understand that she loved Spock, and Spock was someone he came to admire as well.

Oddly enough, the underwear scene is sort of a shorter and more blunt version of Bond and Vesper's witty banter on the train in Casino Royale that established her to be his equal, and that didn't shy away from sexual implications either. It might seem counterintuitive to convey these kinds of ideas through a two-second underwear shot, but IMO it works in film and TV tradition of "show, don't tell."
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
The Festivus Awakens is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 10:24 PM   #414
Jack Frost
Commodore
 
Jack Frost's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Honestly, Ovation's thoughts on the matter should be required reading at the Academy. Spot. On. Accurate. Period.
Jack Frost is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 10:38 PM   #415
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

The Keeper wrote: View Post
Honestly, Ovation's thoughts on the matter should be required reading at the Academy. Spot. On. Accurate. Period.
Quoted for truth.
__________________
"...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 online now  
Old June 19 2013, 11:16 PM   #416
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
Wouldn't be the first time such an attempt was not read as intended (though I turn off the avatars, so I was not aware of this set of avatars). From a much better (IMO) film than any Trek movie, Eastwood's Unforgiven, there is a scene that is intended to convey the effects of aging on a gunslinger. He sets up a target and tries to hit it with his revolver. He misses each time. He then goes into his house (more like a hut) and retrieves a double short-barreled gun and blasts the target (a bottle or can--it's been awhile). The scene is meant to convey a loss of skill and, in context, should not elicit any positive reaction. However, when I saw this at the cinema, a number of people in the audience erupted with shouts of "Yeah!", "Damn straight" and other such hollers. Totally out of sync with the intention.

As for the Eve scene, there is clearly some intentional titillation. But that's not ALL there is to it. If it were, Kirk would not be made to feel uncomfortable about having looked at her. It is the discomfort that redeems the moment. Not all attempts to pass a message succeed and given all the commentary on it, it is clear that this attempt was not an unqualified success. Nevertheless, and this is the point I am trying to make, there is clearly an attempt at criticizing Kirk's attitude in this scene and, as such, it does not deserve to be dismissed as purely gratuitous.
I think it's a valid point that the most popular movies work on multiple levels. Unforgiven was a masterpiece but I do think that the deeper message might have been lost on those who just liked all the shooting. But if they enjoy the movie on a much more superficial level, good for them. Movies are there to entertain after all.

The most infamous scene n Basic Instinct is important to establish how Catherine Tremmell blatantly manipulates people by targeting their weaknesses. We know from the earlier scene that she is wearing no underwear, we know from the other characters' reactions that they can see up her skirt. The full frontal was not necessary to the scene, it was there to shock and titillate and I have no doubt that the movie's takings went up because people wanted to see THAT scene.

FYI - it's a scene where the genders of the characters were necessary. If she'd been interviewed by Scott & Bailley or if Tremmell had been a man flashing his junk through his shorts, the scene would have been very different.

The core of the underwear scene may have been to sow the seed of attraction for Kirk and show that Carol might be his match. The full frontal of Carol in her undies was there purely to titillate.

I'm not overly bothered by it. It was obviously gratuitous but so are many other scenes in other shows and movies that are equally so. It was a running joke in Merlin that the male characters were running around topless every week for no particularly good reason. I'm fine with a bit of gratuitous nudity personally as long as that isn't all the characters are good for and indeed, for Carol, it isn't.
__________________
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 19 2013, 11:27 PM   #417
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Locutus of Bored
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
The full frontal of Carol in her undies was there purely to titillate.

It was obviously gratuitous but so are many other scenes in other shows and movies that are equally so.
So, everything that was said about multiple levels to the scene was obviously wasted on you then.
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
The Festivus Awakens is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 11:54 PM   #418
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
For starters, I thinks it's silly that Keenser is an officer, let alone the assistant chief purely
I don't. But perhaps you wouldn't think him silly if he were a she.

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
I would probably have used a new female character (or a TOS character like Ann Mulhall, Charlene Masterson, etc) but give her just a few lines of dialogue, leaving her to get on with stuff in the background and assign Chekov to assist her. Chekov can deliver most of the same dialogue but he isn't in charge.
There is no need to bring in a new character - male or female - to take over for Scott.
There was no need to age Chekov to shoe-horn him into the franchise early either. They made the choice to do so. I'm simply saying my preferred choice would have been for them to use a supporting character to avoid the sheer stupidity of promoting a junior, newly qualified officer to be chief engineer on a ship with over 400 crew.

For what it's worth, I also think that using Bones in place of a weapons expert was stupid in STVI and it was stupid in STiD. My preference would have been to put together a proper landing party of qualified individuals: Carol the physicist, Chekov, the weapons technician (based on his background from TMP), Cupcake the weapons disposal expert, and McCoy in case they were biological weapons. Much of the scene can be engineered the same but the decision to spotlight lead actors feels less silly if they are not doing somebody else's job for no plausible reason. Cupcake could have been injured while opening the casing forcing McCoy to step up into a fish out of water scenario. It would feel better than sending the ship's surgeon down because of his steady hands when a bomb disposal expert has steady hands AND expertise.

In ST09, I would have preferred a full landing party to go the Narada consisting of Kirk, Spock (mind meld, understands some Romulan), Uhura (fluent in Romulan), McCoy (Pike may need medical attention) and two security guards. It seemed stupid to send only 2 people when they had no idea what they were beaming into.

In ST09 I would have tried to use Chekov's planetary science credentials (TWoK) to reveal more information about the destruction of Vulcan or big up his navigation skills to warp in close to the planet.

I would probably have used Janice Rand in the transporter scene (TMP) and I'd have sent her as a security escort to Delta Vega, instead of wasting an escape pod, to test her loyalty to Pike or Kirk when Spock Prime reveals his story. In STiD I would have included her in the security team sent to Qo'Nos.

In Trek09 I would have recruited Chapel from Life Sciences when the medical team is injured. In STiD I would have featured Chapel carrying out the research on Harrison's blood.

Sulu is the character that they seem to be using organically so far, albeit his role is still quite small.

I personally like to see them use the skills the characters have traditionally displayed. If you are going to give them the same name but with different skill sets and different personalities, it isn't really the same character. In Chekov's case, this is literally true, obviously.

I deliberately look only to tweak the scenes that we already got (although I would have used a shape-shifting Garth instead of Khan, personally and I would have featured Kirk sending one of the main characters to their death instead of going himself - it was a lesson Troi had to learn and I think it would have been a good lesson for him at this point in his career. Bye bye Keenser...). No, my choices were not 'necessary' but they are little tweaks that that would have increased my enjoyment. Other people are perfectly entitled to say that they enjoyed the movies exactly as they were and both opinions are valid but it's nice to debate views on what changes people would have liked to see to improve the movie in their eyes.
__________________
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 19 2013, 11:55 PM   #419
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
The full frontal of Carol in her undies was there purely to titillate.

It was obviously gratuitous but so are many other scenes in other shows and movies that are equally so.
So, everything that was said about multiple levels to the scene was obviously wasted on you then.
Sort of. I have no particular interest in seeing Alice Eve in her undies. The other levels I got just fine.

But I digress - I apologise if I wasn't clear - they didn't have to show her body fully on screen to achieve the same effect. The scene with Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark is constructed similarly, but Karen Allen didn't flash her boobs because it wasn't actually needed to make the scene work. Subtlelty would have worked, it just would not have titillated as much.
__________________
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 20 2013, 12:08 AM   #420
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
Here's the part you oh so conveniently cut from the rest of the post: As it was, that scene acted as a further blow AGAINST Kirk's womanizing attitude. He's made to feel uncomfortable and that discomfort demonstrates A) his attitude is not all that acceptable and B) Marcus is confident enough to order him to "Turn around" rather than meekly stand there to be ogled at length. The scene does NOT suggest Kirk's behaviour deserves a frat boy "high five" or "fist bump". If it did, then I'd be the first to complain. (triple highlight now--in case you simply missed it last time)
If the film tried to send an anti-chauvanism message, it's doing a pretty poor job of it since now it has spawned all these members with Alice Eve avatars.
"All these members" being the two I've seen so far, one of whom is a woman who copy pasted Janeway's face on to a body (in this case Alice Eve's), as she does with all of her recent avatars. So clearly, a groundswell of chauvinism there.
There might have been another. I recall two Alice Eve/bikini underwear avs appearing promptly after that trailer was released. The Janeway version went up a bit later, and both of the "originals" have since been replaced with different images.

If there were ever more than those three avs, they must have belonged to people who don't post here much. (There was, however, a non-av image which had been rendered wholly inoffensive by way of depicting Carol covered head-to-toe in a black burqa.)
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak 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 03:56 AM.

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