RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,621
Posts: 5,426,408
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 434
Newest member: 8 of 9

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 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 19 2013, 04:59 PM   #391
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Locutus of the Bored wrote:
Well, that's not what you said when you were making your sarcastic little comment about surgery, but okay. [Ö]
Within the context of the discussion, thatís exactly what I said. Thatís why I pointed out the context of the discussion.

But, Iím not going to get sidetracked, so moving onÖ
Sidetracked by the rest of the post that further discredits your argument? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to avoid that.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 06:07 PM   #392
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
Star Trek, however, is set in a utopian future, where equality is espoused. I think they should be doing a better job than they are.
By the 24th century, gender equality was seemingly being achieved. But TOS was clearly not there yet. Number One? The numerous yeomen? Janice Lester anyone?
Yeah, I think the issue is that, implementation aside, it was considered progressive to have female officers at all in the sixties. I don't have any issue with the Butterfly Effect hand waving gender divide away. In fact, by the time of TMP, they were trying to equalise the numbers to 50/50.

Ovation wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post

I guess you've never been in a teaching hospital then, because that's precisely how surgical interns/residents learn their specialty, working alongside or under the observation of attending physicians.
And I'm going to guess that last bit means you didn't see where we were talking about an intern being made the acting department head doing major surgeries by himself, and not under anyone's supervision, because that's what essentially happened with Chekov in STID.
If Chekov was a female character, would you or Pauln6 still be complaining? Based on other posts in this thread, I'd bet a week's pay that the complaint would at least be far more muted, if there at all.
I might be complaining less about the number of women in the movie but I would still complain about the story logic. So I guess, on balance my complaint would be more muted overall, just not on this particular issue...

I think part of my problem is as that as an RPG gamer you get used to characters being defined by their skills. Trek's tendency to bounce characters from discipline to discipline gets on my nerves a bit. I don't think O'Brien was ever a science officer or a bartender but he'd done just about everything else in his career.
__________________
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, 06:08 PM   #393
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Still waiting for someone to condemn Voyager for promoting a female over a more qualified male.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now  
Old June 19 2013, 06:17 PM   #394
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Location: BizarroStormy
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Janeway over Tuvok?
__________________
Could I interest you in a soothing spoken-word 32-CD set read by Steve Railsback?
foxhot is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 06:37 PM   #395
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

foxhot wrote: View Post
Janeway over Tuvok?
Torres over Joe Carey.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now  
Old June 19 2013, 06:38 PM   #396
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

BillJ wrote: View Post
Still waiting for someone to condemn Voyager for promoting a female over a more qualified male.
It was affirmative action because Janeway had no women among her senior staff!

However, Belanna was younger than Carey so she had less practical experience but experience alone is not what one needs to be a chief engineer. Remember Tapestry where risk-averse Picard never got above Ensign? I don't recall how many years' experience Belanna had as an engineer but I think it was more than the year Chekov has. Plus Janeway had a limited pool of talent to draw on and in a practical test Carey just perform as well as an engineer. On that basis, it's questionable if he was better qualified at all.

It's arguable that Chekov as an ensign was a better engineer than all the Lt-commanders, Lieutenants, and ensigns from all three engineering shifts on a ship with thre times as many crew as Voyager but it just isn't very realistic.
__________________
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, 06:44 PM   #397
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

So you just wrote a long-post stating that its okay for a lesser qualified woman to be promoted over a man. Janeway, like Kirk, picked the candidate that she was most comfortable with, with experience being secondary.

I didn't have a problem when Janeway picked the person she was comfortable with to do the job. Just like I don't have a problem with Kirk picking the person he was comfortable with to do the job.

Fun watching you tap dance though.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now  
Old June 19 2013, 06:47 PM   #398
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
It's arguable that Chekov as an ensign was a better engineer than all the Lt-commanders, Lieutenants, and ensigns from all three engineering shifts on a ship with thre times as many crew as Voyager but it just isn't very realistic.
Which established character from those two movies would you have used as the replacement for Scott?
beamMe is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 07:11 PM   #399
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Still waiting for someone to condemn Voyager for promoting a female over a more qualified male.
It was affirmative action because Janeway had no women among her senior staff!

However, Belanna was younger than Carey so she had less practical experience but experience alone is not what one needs to be a chief engineer. Remember Tapestry where risk-averse Picard never got above Ensign? I don't recall how many years' experience Belanna had as an engineer but I think it was more than the year Chekov has. Plus Janeway had a limited pool of talent to draw on and in a practical test Carey just perform as well as an engineer. On that basis, it's questionable if he was better qualified at all.

It's arguable that Chekov as an ensign was a better engineer than all the Lt-commanders, Lieutenants, and ensigns from all three engineering shifts on a ship with thre times as many crew as Voyager but it just isn't very realistic.
And therein lies the problem with this complaint. In the real world, of course, this would be quite valid. In Trek, it is an amazingly consistent example of assigning a main character (albeit secondary) to do a task that, in the real world, would be given to someone else. And this is not particular to Trek.

Do you routinely protest the "lack of realism" in all the entertainment you watch? If you do, it's a wonder you can appreciate any entertainment at all. "Realism" and Star Trek have never been, nor are they likely to ever be, on intimate terms. They're barely in the same galaxy.
Ovation is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 07:12 PM   #400
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

BillJ wrote: View Post
So you just wrote a long-post stating that its okay for a lesser qualified woman to be promoted over a man. Janeway, like Kirk, picked the candidate that she was most comfortable with, with experience being secondary.

I didn't have a problem when Janeway picked the person she was comfortable with to do the job. Just like I don't have a problem with Kirk picking the person he was comfortable with to do the job.

Fun watching you tap dance though.
Au contrere, I said that Belanna had less experience BUT she was better qualified because she possessed desirable skills and innovation that Carey lacked - I can't believe that you didn't get that from the way the episode was framed. Janeway initially picked Carey because HE was the person she was comfortable with but largely because he was an officer with whom she'd worked and Belanna wasn't Starfleet. It was after a performance test that she decided Belanna would be the better candidate because she had a more varied skills set.

All I'm saying is that if an ensign with a years' experience in a different department is the best candidate they have for chief engineer then it doesn't say much about their engineers.

I don't tap dance, I jive.
__________________
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, 07:19 PM   #401
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

She was still the less experienced officer and since Chekov was able to locate and fix the issue with the Enterprise warp core, I'd say he had the skill set he needed to be chief engineer.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now  
Old June 19 2013, 07:26 PM   #402
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
It's arguable that Chekov as an ensign was a better engineer than all the Lt-commanders, Lieutenants, and ensigns from all three engineering shifts on a ship with thre times as many crew as Voyager but it just isn't very realistic.
Which established character from those two movies would you have used as the replacement for Scott?
For starters, I thinks it's silly that Keenser is an officer, let alone the assistant chief purely because of he is portrayed and treated in the movies and comics. I suppose one could argue that he's the same as Morn, who allegedly never shut up off-screen...

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.
__________________
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, 07:27 PM   #403
Spock/Uhura Fan
Captain
 
Spock/Uhura Fan's Avatar
 
Location: Where It's At.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Locutus of the Bored wrote:
Well, that's not what you said when you were making your sarcastic little comment about surgery, but okay. [Ö]
Within the context of the discussion, thatís exactly what I said. Thatís why I pointed out the context of the discussion.

But, Iím not going to get sidetracked, so moving onÖ
Sidetracked by the rest of the post that further discredits your argument? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to avoid that.
Lol. Well aren't you cute. Very wrong, but cute.

-------

Ovation wrote:
Precisely correct and exactly why it works that way--Spock is a much more important character to the story and to Trek in general.
To you.

And this is my main objection. Star Trek CAN be an ensemble. It does not NEED to be (and I prefer it when it is not--clearly not everyone does, but with its strong WOM rating and critical review ratings, I'd argue quite a few people are fine with it that way).
You can argue that, and I can argue that even many of the ďpositiveĒ reviews Iíve read for this film are not that complementary outside of it being an action film, which even Iíd give it a pass as. Their overseas marketing campaign seems to have worked, but domestically? Well, look that the numbers. Adjusting for inflation, this movie is behind the í09 movie by several million, and that only gets worse if you adjust for IMAX 3D. It looks like less people are going to see this film domestically. I wonder why?

Only if you accept the premise that an ensemble approach is superior. That is not inherently the case. I wouldn't even miss any member of the secondary characters if one or two (doesn't matter which) was not in the movie. The idea that they all need equal time is rubbish. They are there in service of the story and in service to the actual main characters. If there is a coherent reason for them to be there for more than their "moment", fine. But if any of the secondary characters gets less "face time" in one movie versus another at the expense of another secondary character or to give more time to the main major characters (Sulu and Chekov get less time this time around, for example, which gives more time and importance to Scotty and more focus on Kirk and Spock away from the ship--at the academy, at the meeting where Khan shows up, and elsewhere), I have zero problem with that. Secondary characters are just that--secondary.
Well, thatís changing it up. First it was we need to see the main cast and now we donít. No one is saying anything about superior vs. inferior, just whatís preferable based on the premise that was laid out in the last film and for what someone might think a somewhat utopian future might entail. Obviously, you think it should be about 2-3 white men and no one else matters as much or perhaps even at all. Iíll have to disagree with that.

They know exactly what they're doing. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they're incompetent. As for "the real reason Eve is there"--errant nonsense. A few second's flash of her in her undies is hardly the only contribution her character makes to the story.
If this was all a part of their plan then Iíll have to give them even less credit. Maybe you think Marcus was used well, but a lot of people donít.

Moreover, Marcus does a lot more that is deserving of admiration. Despite the inelegance of it, she still saves McCoy from the torpedo (would she even known where to begin to look if all she was was an undies model?), she has the courage to risk her career to look into something her father is doing that she suspects is illegal and immoral, she stands with her shipmates against her father.
She put McCoy in that situation when she told him to stick his hand in there, so , being a ďweaponís expert,Ē she owed it to him to not get them blown up. You could argue that as an ďexpertĒ that had unlimited access to these weapons and their designs, she should not have faced any problems at all. Her courage didnít really amount to much, same with Uhura at the end of the day in my book, and she stood against her father for a few seconds until he quite easily beamed her over to his ship and moved along in facing ďthe real threat.Ē

Ultimately, as I posted in another thread, the basic issue that seems to fuel many of the disputes is centred on the ensemble vs. Kirk/Spock focus. There are more things involved, of course, but many complaints seem to stem from the idea that the secondary characters didn't have enough to do. The other complaints are often a lack of more thorough examinations of ideas and the absence of other characters (female for some, alien for others)--something a TV series would be far more well-equipped to cover. But we don't have a TV series and this creative team has not embraced the kind of ensemble approach that some viewers would have liked. That's not an error or mistake, it's an artistic choice.
Like I said before, you wonít get me to disagree with you on the fact that they made choices. They definitely did that. Iím not sure that Iíd call it art, though. But, thatís just me.

You can have the last word on this part of this discussion because I think it has gone around in circles a few times.
__________________
MA'AM. Hot damn, I can dig it.

ďThe history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.Ē - Virginia Woolf
Spock/Uhura Fan is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 07:45 PM   #404
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

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.
beamMe is offline  
Old June 19 2013, 07:55 PM   #405
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

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post

Within the context of the discussion, thatís exactly what I said. Thatís why I pointed out the context of the discussion.

But, Iím not going to get sidetracked, so moving onÖ
Sidetracked by the rest of the post that further discredits your argument? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to avoid that.
Lol. Well aren't you cute. Very wrong, but cute.

-------
Seeing how you conveniently edited out the one portion of my post (in bold, so it would be easy to notice) that also discredits your argument--can't see how he's wrong here.


To you.
Wrong. To Trek. Kirk and Spock are by far the most important characters in all of Trek. That isn't opinion. It's fact.



Well, thatís changing it up. First it was we need to see the main cast and now we donít.
No change at all. Secondary characters are secondary and if they have little or no screen time, that's fine. But they are more important than tertiary characters (which is what a hypothetical character in engineering (female or male), to whom Chekov should report for the sake of "realism" , would represent). IF there is a choice between a secondary or a tertiary character getting the limelight, secondary always wins. That is standard filmmaking.

No one is saying anything about superior vs. inferior, just whatís preferable based on the premise that was laid out in the last film and for what someone might think a somewhat utopian future might entail. Obviously, you think it should be about 2-3 white men and no one else matters as much or perhaps even at all. Iíll have to disagree with that.
Even in an ensemble approach, Kirk and Spock would be the most important characters. Nice crack about "white men", by the way. If Kirk and Spock were Latino and Asian women, respectively, I'd make the same argument. What matters most are the actual main characters. In Trek, that's Kirk and Spock. Tough shit for the other characters, but that's the way it is.

If this was all a part of their plan then Iíll have to give them even less credit. Maybe you think Marcus was used well, but a lot of people donít.
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)

Moreover, Marcus does a lot more that is deserving of admiration. Despite the inelegance of it, she still saves McCoy from the torpedo (would she even known where to begin to look if all she was was an undies model?), she has the courage to risk her career to look into something her father is doing that she suspects is illegal and immoral, she stands with her shipmates against her father.
She put McCoy in that situation when she told him to stick his hand in there, so , being a ďweaponís expert,Ē she owed it to him to not get them blown up. You could argue that as an ďexpertĒ that had unlimited access to these weapons and their designs, she should not have faced any problems at all. Her courage didnít really amount to much, same with Uhura at the end of the day in my book, and she stood against her father for a few seconds until he quite easily beamed her over to his ship and moved along in facing ďthe real threat.Ē
Except Marcus had already said earlier that these weapons were something to which she was DENIED ACCESS, which is why she snuck on board in the first place. As for Uhura's courage, what did she have to do? Take out the Klingon in single-handed combat? Only Khan managed that. Or are you still clinging to the ludicrous notion the filmmakers deliberately saddled her with an ineffectual weapon so she could just be a damsel in distress? Quite the compelling critique, that one.

Ultimately, as I posted in another thread, the basic issue that seems to fuel many of the disputes is centred on the ensemble vs. Kirk/Spock focus. There are more things involved, of course, but many complaints seem to stem from the idea that the secondary characters didn't have enough to do. The other complaints are often a lack of more thorough examinations of ideas and the absence of other characters (female for some, alien for others)--something a TV series would be far more well-equipped to cover. But we don't have a TV series and this creative team has not embraced the kind of ensemble approach that some viewers would have liked. That's not an error or mistake, it's an artistic choice.
Like I said before, you wonít get me to disagree with you on the fact that they made choices. They definitely did that. Iím not sure that Iíd call it art, though. But, thatís just me.

You can have the last word on this part of this discussion because I think it has gone around in circles a few times.
It's a film? It's art. The quality of a thing does not alter the existence of a thing.
Ovation 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 01:14 PM.

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