RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,913
Posts: 5,331,119
Members: 24,558
Currently online: 521
Newest member: laurah2215

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 21 2013, 05:03 PM   #496
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
And the award for most ironic post goes to:

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
If the gender roles were completely flipped in Trek so that we have only one black dude and a blond scientist among the main cast I wonder how people would react to the gender balance?
The person who argues vociferously for percentage quotas in background extras and then uses the term "gender roles" to refer to sex.
Thank you! Exactly that. I'd be complaining that the movie was excessively weighted in favour of one gender.
That's not what "gender roles" means. But thanks for playing.

FYI: You would switch "Gender roles" by having the same two characters -- say, Kirk and Rand -- and having them literally swap jobs and socio-political-economic responsibilities. IOW, Rand becomes Captain and Kirk becomes Yeoman; Uhura becomes science officer and Spock becomes communications officer; Uhura supresses her emotions to avoid the pain of separation from life and loved ones and Spock yells at her for it in the K'normian ship.

As it happens, there was already plenty of that going on in STID as is: Spock is in trouble, Uhura beams down to save him; Bones is rendered helpless, Carol has rescue him from the bomb; the ship is nose to nose with a squad of pissed off Klingons, and all of the men hide behind the one female officer on the entire mission. All of these represent the reversal of conventional gender roles inasmuch as western society still recognizes such traditions. Switching those roles can make for interesting turnabouts and character development, but switching them just to be switching them is stupid.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 06:05 PM   #497
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Rand is slightly different ...
Yes, because she's a woman. You'd bend over backwards to accept any justification/explanation how she became a transporter operator. I have no problem with Rand in that position but I hope you complain about how her character was shown as being ineffectual, by Kirk simply taking over her controls.
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
That's a good point - Kirk wouldn't have taken over from Kyle or any other male transporter operator the way he did in that scene.
Right on. I always wince at that. What's Mr. I-don't-know-the phasers-are-channeled-through-the-warp-drive-now going to do better, anyway? Protect her!
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 06:39 PM   #498
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

I would love to Rand in nuTrek. Officer Torres from The Terminal did a great job as Rand. I she available?
__________________
I haven't much to say.
CorporalClegg is online now  
Old June 21 2013, 07:04 PM   #499
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Rand is slightly different ...
Yes, because she's a woman. You'd bend over backwards to accept any justification/explanation how she became a transporter operator. I have no problem with Rand in that position but I hope you complain about how her character was shown as being ineffectual, by Kirk simply taking over her controls.
Lol! Why would I need to? Is there any Starfleet crewman who has been shown as incapable of operating the transporter? Plus Rand is a veteran CPO by the time of TMP (aged about 42 I think) with more than a few years of service under her belt and by the time she's comms officer in TUC she's also retrained as an officer as opposed to senior enlisted crew. She isn't an 18 year old with a year's experience in as different discipline for example.

I view the scene as symptomatic of Kirk 'pushing' as McCoy put it. He barged in and took over from Rand just like he barged in and took over from Decker. I've never really viewed it as a gender thing although I would have liked it if Rand had been given something to do in the second half of the movie as well.

All I'm saying is there is a distinction between being capable of acting as a security guard and being CHIEF of security. There is a distinction between being trained as an engineer and being CHIEF engineer. They are not identical skill sets. Barclay is a good engineer but he'd be a disaster as chief.

The novel Traitor Winds took a stab at explaining why Chekov ended up as security chief and it was pretty well done. The problem with Chekov is that in subsequent movies he went back to being a bit of a dunderhead seemingly with no affinity for security training at all.

TOS Chekov was science trained and I think it's a shame that they couldn't find a way to remain truer to the original character in NuTrek. I can live with him being trained as an engineer instead but my problem is just the rapid rise to chief after only a year as a qualified officer on duty in a different department. I do understand why they wanted to give him more do do but that was a silly way to do it.
__________________
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 Pauln6; June 21 2013 at 07:17 PM.
Pauln6 is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 07:16 PM   #500
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And the award for most ironic post goes to:


The person who argues vociferously for percentage quotas in background extras and then uses the term "gender roles" to refer to sex.
Thank you! Exactly that. I'd be complaining that the movie was excessively weighted in favour of one gender.
That's not what "gender roles" means. But thanks for playing.

FYI: You would switch "Gender roles" by having the same two characters -- say, Kirk and Rand -- and having them literally swap jobs and socio-political-economic responsibilities. IOW, Rand becomes Captain and Kirk becomes Yeoman; Uhura becomes science officer and Spock becomes communications officer; Uhura supresses her emotions to avoid the pain of separation from life and loved ones and Spock yells at her for it in the K'normian ship.

As it happens, there was already plenty of that going on in STID as is: Spock is in trouble, Uhura beams down to save him; Bones is rendered helpless, Carol has rescue him from the bomb; the ship is nose to nose with a squad of pissed off Klingons, and all of the men hide behind the one female officer on the entire mission. All of these represent the reversal of conventional gender roles inasmuch as western society still recognizes such traditions. Switching those roles can make for interesting turnabouts and character development, but switching them just to be switching them is stupid.
Ah ok - apologies if I used confusing terminology again - I meant swapping gender rather than gender roles, obviously as an interesting mental exercise - NuBSG won me over because Katee Sakhoff was amazing but I wasn't all that well disposed to the notion of recasting characters with a different gender. I'd rather they updated the women they already had.

I suppose I don't really view the main characters in terms of gender roles per se but rather in accordance with their ranks and skill sets so Uhura steps up to face the Klingons because that's what she's qualified to do. It offends me when a qualified character gets bumped to make way for one of the big 3 and it did even in the sixties, when it happened a lot from season 2 onwards. That's why Uhura beaming down to save Spock doesn't sit all that well with me. She isn't really best qualified to do that - but the point about her being best qualified to reign in Spock is a valid counter point.
__________________
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 21 2013, 07:19 PM   #501
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post

TOS Chekov was science trained and I think it's a shame that they couldn't find a way to remain truer to the original character in NuTrek. I can live with him being trained as an engineer instead but my problem is just the rapid rise to chief after only a year as a qualified officer on duty in a different department. I do understand why they wanted to give him more do do but that was a silly way to do it.
Remain truer to what, he wasn't exactly fleshed out in any meaningful way in TOS. The most general audiences remember is that he's the one who talks funny.

I've got a cast of seven main characters, two antagonists and a new science officer that I have to work into the story and I have two hours to do it. Under those storytelling constraints, I have no issue with Chekov being handed the chief engineer duties.

In the real world I still don't have an issue because of familiarity. I hate to say I did exactly what we're discussing here because I promoted a lesser qualified candidate because I had worked with the lesser qualified candidate and was comfortable that person could handle the job better than the more qualified candidate. It's never as black and white as you'd like to make it sound.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 07:24 PM   #502
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Ovation wrote: View Post
As long as new Trek movies are based on the TOS character set, whether it approached as an ensemble piece OR focused on Kirk/Spock, the balance you desire is not really possible (unless a more radical reboot makes some of the main seven female). You can hope for better quality writing for female characters that coincide with your views but parity in numbers is a pipe dream with the TOS character set.
This is a valid point. But it doesn't automatically follow that they can't do a better job than they have so far. Arguing strongly for an 'ideal' outcome doesn't mean it's expected or even remotely realistic. The goal is to raise awareness in the hope that it will lead to improvement. Having both Carol and Uhura is an improvement but there is still room for more. I hope it's an ongoing progression.
__________________
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 21 2013, 07:33 PM   #503
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

BillJ wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post

TOS Chekov was science trained and I think it's a shame that they couldn't find a way to remain truer to the original character in NuTrek. I can live with him being trained as an engineer instead but my problem is just the rapid rise to chief after only a year as a qualified officer on duty in a different department. I do understand why they wanted to give him more do do but that was a silly way to do it.
Remain truer to what, he wasn't exactly fleshed out in any meaningful way in TOS. The most general audiences remember is that he's the one who talks funny.

I've got a cast of seven main characters, two antagonists and a new science officer that I have to work into the story and I have two hours to do it. Under those storytelling constraints, I have no issue with Chekov being handed the chief engineer duties.

In the real world I still don't have an issue because of familiarity. I hate to say I did exactly what we're discussing here because I promoted a lesser qualified candidate because I had worked with the lesser qualified candidate and was comfortable that person could handle the job better than the more qualified candidate. It's never as black and white as you'd like to make it sound.
I meant in terms of him being an engineer rather than a scientist rather than promotion to chief. The engineering department probably has about twenty better qualified more senior candidates (not all whom might make good chiefs) - mind you, Spock did the same thing when he left Chekov in charge of the bridge during a crisis in Trek09 and he'd only been on the job for a day then! I don't imagine the Enterprise would be a very harmonious place to work when Kirk leap-frogged over more experienced candidates and then started promoting newly qualified junior officers himself.
__________________
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 21 2013, 07:41 PM   #504
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

There is no "original character" for Chekov in TOS, only a bundle of cliches and a bad accent.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 07:54 PM   #505
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Rand is slightly different ...
Yes, because she's a woman. You'd bend over backwards to accept any justification/explanation how she became a transporter operator. I have no problem with Rand in that position but I hope you complain about how her character was shown as being ineffectual, by Kirk simply taking over her controls.
Lol! Why would I need to? Is there any Starfleet crewman who has been shown as incapable of operating the transporter? Plus Rand is a veteran CPO by the time of TMP (aged about 42 I think) with more than a few years of service under her belt and by the time she's comms officer in TUC she's also retrained as an officer as opposed to senior enlisted crew. She isn't an 18 year old with a year's experience in as different discipline for example.

I view the scene as symptomatic of Kirk 'pushing' as McCoy put it. He barged in and took over from Rand just like he barged in and took over from Decker. I've never really viewed it as a gender thing although I would have liked it if Rand had been given something to do in the second half of the movie as well.
Oh, come on. Rand even had to turn away to avoid the horror.



It's a powerful scene, but it's also undercut by a pretty blatant display of expected gender roles. Man takes charge; woman gasps.

Just for reference, earlier the same year, Ripley pwned the xenomorph.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 08:35 PM   #506
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Oh, come on. Rand even had to turn away to avoid the horror.

It's a powerful scene, but it's also undercut by a pretty blatant display of expected gender roles. Man takes charge; woman gasps.

Just for reference, earlier the same year, Ripley owned the xenomorph.
Thanks for reposting the scene. I'd forgotten that Scotty was there too. I don't think Rand stepping back to allow Scotty to take charge is so unrealistic since his skill with the transporter is legendary. Letting Kirk take charge would also be second nature for her. For my part I think she knew they were already toast (or rather sludge) so stepping back to let someone else try was more a case of why the hell not.

The thing I like about the scene the most is that it reminds us that something as 'simple' as transporting can be dangerous.

But as far as Rand being girly goes, I don't have strong objections to some girls being girly. If we get enough characters we can have Ro Laren alongside Troi and it's fine. Well, let me qualify that - I think it's fine as long as we have a baseline for officer/crew qualification so everybody should be able to fight and shoot, fly the ship, operate transporters and effect basic repairs.

I think rumours of Ripley's heroics may be exaggerated. She was just an officer doing what had to be done and in the same movie poor Veronica Cartwright had to be hysterical, despite her objections, because her character was supposed to personify the audience's fears. Ripley in 1 & 2 was one of the greatest movie heroines of all time but later on, much like Kirk, she became a bit of a caricature of the original.

I've always rather enjoyed the fact that Rand is a bit crap. It's part of her charm. She's the everyman who can ask dumb questions so that Kirk and Spock can explain to the audience. Not that I would want her to be wholly defined by that role in the reboot, which is why I think making her more of a security trained character in the comics is a good compromise.
__________________
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 Pauln6; June 21 2013 at 09:27 PM.
Pauln6 is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 08:40 PM   #507
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
Which is the exact premise of my Fem Trekz show, which is to some degree a reaction against the unprofessional animal-house atmosphere established in JJ Trek.
Yeah, I took a look at that.

I'll bet J.J. is shakin'.
BillJ wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
Which is the exact premise of my Fem Trekz show, which is to some degree a reaction against the unprofessional animal-house atmosphere established in JJ Trek.
Yeah, I took a look at that.

I'll bet J.J. is shakin'.
Did you notice how 'Trekz' is spelled with a 'Z'? That's how we know its serious and hip all at the same time.
Actually, I saw it yesterday and I get it, now, and think that it's funny, so whatever objection I had to it, I don't now. Keep on keepin' on with it.
Shaka Zulu is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 10:27 PM   #508
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Rand is slightly different ...
Yes, because she's a woman. You'd bend over backwards to accept any justification/explanation how she became a transporter operator. I have no problem with Rand in that position but I hope you complain about how her character was shown as being ineffectual, by Kirk simply taking over her controls.
Lol! Why would I need to? Is there any Starfleet crewman who has been shown as incapable of operating the transporter? Plus Rand is a veteran CPO by the time of TMP (aged about 42 I think) with more than a few years of service under her belt and by the time she's comms officer in TUC she's also retrained as an officer as opposed to senior enlisted crew. She isn't an 18 year old with a year's experience in as different discipline for example.

I view the scene as symptomatic of Kirk 'pushing' as McCoy put it. He barged in and took over from Rand just like he barged in and took over from Decker. I've never really viewed it as a gender thing although I would have liked it if Rand had been given something to do in the second half of the movie as well.

All I'm saying is there is a distinction between being capable of acting as a security guard and being CHIEF of security. There is a distinction between being trained as an engineer and being CHIEF engineer. They are not identical skill sets. Barclay is a good engineer but he'd be a disaster as chief.

The novel Traitor Winds took a stab at explaining why Chekov ended up as security chief and it was pretty well done. The problem with Chekov is that in subsequent movies he went back to being a bit of a dunderhead seemingly with no affinity for security training at all.

TOS Chekov was science trained and I think it's a shame that they couldn't find a way to remain truer to the original character in NuTrek. I can live with him being trained as an engineer instead but my problem is just the rapid rise to chief after only a year as a qualified officer on duty in a different department. I do understand why they wanted to give him more do do but that was a silly way to do it.
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Oh, come on. Rand even had to turn away to avoid the horror.

It's a powerful scene, but it's also undercut by a pretty blatant display of expected gender roles. Man takes charge; woman gasps.

Just for reference, earlier the same year, Ripley owned the xenomorph.
Thanks for reposting the scene. I'd forgotten that Scotty was there too. I don't think Rand stepping back to allow Scotty to take charge is so unrealistic since his skill with the transporter is legendary. Letting Kirk take charge would also be second nature for her. For my part I think she knew they were already toast (or rather sludge) so stepping back to let someone else try was more a case of why the hell not.

The thing I like about the scene the most is that it reminds us that something as 'simple' as transporting can be dangerous.

But as far as Rand being girly goes, I don't have strong objections to some girls being girly. If we get enough characters we can have Ro Laren alongside Troi and it's fine. Well, let me qualify that - I think it's fine as long as we have a baseline for officer/crew qualification so everybody should be able to fight and shoot, fly the ship, operate transporters and effect basic repairs.

I think rumours of Ripley's heroics may be exaggerated. She was just an officer doing what had to be done and in the same movie poor Veronica Cartwright had to be hysterical, despite her objections, because her character was supposed to personify the audience's fears. Ripley in 1 & 2 was one of the greatest movie heroines of all time but later on, much like Kirk, she became a bit of a caricature of the original.

I've always rather enjoyed the fact that Rand is a bit crap. It's part of her charm. She's the everyman who can ask dumb questions so that Kirk and Spock can explain to the audience. Not that I would want her to be wholly defined by that role in the reboot, which is why I think making her more of a security trained character in the comics is a good compromise.
These two posts of yours are so full of crap.

You really shouldn't lecture anyone about the supposed sexism you see in STID when you completely ignore the blatant sexism pictured in that scene in TMP.

How's the back?
beamMe is offline  
Old June 21 2013, 11:16 PM   #509
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

beamMe wrote: View Post
These two posts of yours are so full of crap.

You really shouldn't lecture anyone about the supposed sexism you see in STID when you completely ignore the blatant sexism pictured in that scene in TMP.
Possibly - I think I just don't understand the nature of your comparison. I certainly wouldn't say it was 'blatant' compared to, say, Ilia's bath robe, because Scotty has a history of being better than any other crewman with transporters and Kirk is shown to be barging his way in on everybody's turf (including Scotty's) throughout the first half of the movie. It's consistent with the established skill sets and motivations of the characters.

Do you think it was sexist because Rand was emotional? Because Uhura, Carol, Kirk, and even Spock are very emotional in NuTrek. Or is it because male characters barged in and took over - because NuChekov does exactly the same thing in ST09 and I don't think I called that as sexist either - I just said it was a bit forced because Chekov hadn't traditionally been a transporter expert and I would have preferred Rand to be featured at the transporter so that her character could have been used somewhere.

I view the role of transporter operator as being a pretty basic role compared to chief of security or chief engineer. Maybe if you can explain to me how you think the scene should have gone to avoid it being sexist in your eyes?

Don't get me wrong, I accept that the general tone of Trek was reasonably sexist back then but I try to view it through the prism of the era in which the movie was made. Modern Trek doesn't get the same pass in my eyes because we should know better by now. TMP had three prominent supporting females (Uhura, Ilia, Chapel) plus three minor roles (Difalco, Rand, Momo Yoshima) and one or two cameos. It lacked higher ranking women (although in the novelisation it was a vice-admiral who was turned to sludge on the transporter so your mileage may vary there) and it lacked a prominent heroine but it lacked a lot of other stuff as well!

I like the movie tremendously but I think that Uhura and Carol's characterisations are superior in NuTrek because the writers clearly want to write for their characters rather than just for the Big 3.
__________________
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 21 2013, 11:34 PM   #510
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Oh, come on. Rand even had to turn away to avoid the horror.

It's a powerful scene, but it's also undercut by a pretty blatant display of expected gender roles. Man takes charge; woman gasps.

Just for reference, earlier the same year, Ripley owned the xenomorph.
Thanks for reposting the scene. I'd forgotten that Scotty was there too. I don't think Rand stepping back to allow Scotty to take charge is so unrealistic since his skill with the transporter is legendary. Letting Kirk take charge would also be second nature for her. For my part I think she knew they were already toast (or rather sludge) so stepping back to let someone else try was more a case of why the hell not.

The thing I like about the scene the most is that it reminds us that something as 'simple' as transporting can be dangerous.

But as far as Rand being girly goes, I don't have strong objections to some girls being girly. If we get enough characters we can have Ro Laren alongside Troi and it's fine. Well, let me qualify that - I think it's fine as long as we have a baseline for officer/crew qualification so everybody should be able to fight and shoot, fly the ship, operate transporters and effect basic repairs.

I think rumours of Ripley's heroics may be exaggerated. She was just an officer doing what had to be done and in the same movie poor Veronica Cartwright had to be hysterical, despite her objections, because her character was supposed to personify the audience's fears. Ripley in 1 & 2 was one of the greatest movie heroines of all time but later on, much like Kirk, she became a bit of a caricature of the original.

I've always rather enjoyed the fact that Rand is a bit crap. It's part of her charm. She's the everyman who can ask dumb questions so that Kirk and Spock can explain to the audience. Not that I would want her to be wholly defined by that role in the reboot, which is why I think making her more of a security trained character in the comics is a good compromise.
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
I think rumours of Ripley's heroics may be exaggerated. She was just an officer doing what had to be done and in the same movie poor Veronica Cartwright had to be hysterical
Yeah, that's the point. Actually, doing what has to be done is pretty much the definition of hero in the real world. What Arnold did in Commando was not heroic. It was beyond comic book in its absurd implausibility, so it wasn't superheroic, either. Ditto for Rambo.

Ripley was plenty girly. She screamed. But she also braved danger, hit the airlock button, and otherwise did what had to be done, even though she was scared. Heck, the audience was scared. I assume they made Lambert that way, to make the point by contrast. Screaming is OK, as is being emotional, but freezing isn't.

(P.S. You hacked up my post. The word is "pwned". I meant that. )

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Do you think it was sexist because Rand was emotional?
Speaking for myself, no. Being emotional is fine; it's a good thing. I answered the question in the context of Alien, but I'll repeat it here.

"Screaming is OK, as is being emotional, but freezing isn't."

Why couldn't they just let her do her job?

Anyone who thinks men don't get emotional is living in a dream world.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain 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 06:30 AM.

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