Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Shaka Zulu, Jun 6, 2013.
I'll take that chance!
Still, can you think of a better way?
Um, don't go see the movie or don't care.
I suggest the second (latter?) because that's what I do.
Yeah, and I've mentioned it multiple times.
Don't support it financially if it doesn't meet your personal standards on the treatment of women.
But here's my problem, you're trying to fight a battle without a frame of reference. You're not a woman, you haven't been through what women have had to go through and it shows here. Badly. You're trying to fix a problem that all the women I know in the real world and most who are here don't think exists with this particular film.
You seem to be waaaayyyyy off base and don't either seem to realize it or don't care.
Lol - but you haven't proposed a solution to the problem - you are simply saying that I should make it a red line never to watch any TV or movie that I think is sexist? I'd watch about one movie every 3 years. Where would civil rights be if that was the solution that had been proposed? 'Black people I know are happy without the vote and if others don't like it they can leave the country?' Yes it was more extreme situation but the sexism of the Hollywood machine overall is still very evident to me and a lot of other people. There just isn't much of an alternative so we have to improve what we have.
You may know no women who find this to be an issue. I know women who DO find it to be an issue. I've also read several articles recently by other women who find it to be an issue. I've read comments from men who find it to be an issue.
I may be way off base but the position I've taken is after reading several articles that have provided statistics highlighting the problem that I ave myself observed. I have yet to read any article claiming there isn't a problem but I am willing to do so if you can find me one. Just because you don't find it to be an issue that you or your circle cares about doesn't mean it isn't an issue or that it isn't something that we should strive to improve.
I'm not a woman. I'm not part of an 'ethnic minority'. I am gay but does that give me special insight about inequality? Not in my opinion - the issue at hand doesn't discriminate against gay actors because they can play straight characters. Actresses on the other hand will rarely be cast as male characters. If I see women or ethnic minorities or homosexuals voicing a grievance and I think it has merit, I'll stand up for them in the same way that you are standing against them because you feel their grievance has no merit.
It's interesting to debate the two sides though.
Hollywood needs money, like all business. The quickest, most effective way to force change is to hit them in the pocketbook.
In that case: [Marcus Butler]Heeeeeellooo[/Marcus Butler]
No, seriously, I think you are trying too hard to see a problem where none exists.
How has that worked out for Hollywood to date? The number of women in movies has declined in recent years.
And just because a movie isn't sexist doesn't mean it's a good movie and vice versa.
But we shouldn't have to force change. Any right thinking person must know that these movies should be more representative. I don't believe that writers sit around a table and say, 'There are too many women in this script.' I think their default setting for any supporting character is male and making them female is usually an afterthought. We just have to make them more aware of what they're doing.
My heart belongs to Zac Quinto... or maybe Henry Cavill, I'll see how he looks in Spandex.
But my point is, I've read articles that suggest there IS a problem. Show me the articles that say there isn't and I will evaluate the evidence.
If movies are making money, then people don't see the gender gap in movies of being of any real importance. Every time I've went to see Star Trek, there have been just as many women as men. People usually won't buy things that they find offensive.
Hell, as much as I like Superman its my wife insisting we go see Man of Steel this weekend and not wait for the crowds to thin out. Same with Iron Man 3.
But you are projecting an extreme viewpoint. Many people find it irritating but not offensive to the point where they just can't bring themselves to see the movie at all. In my experience most people don't even notice because it's the norm.
Once again, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Objectively there is a gap regardless of our subjective views. Show me the research that says there is no objective issue.
BTW: I'm a lawyer who has studied discrimination law so I do come at this from an objective perspective. In most other professions if you designed jobs so that only 20% women could possibly qualify you could be sued for sex discrimination so I do have more of a legal perspective on the issue.
I'm sure there are also articles that bemoan the lack of gay characters in ST and STID (I'm all for making Chekov gay - but that's because of Anton Yelchin), but that doesn't indicate there is an actual problem of homophobia about Abrams' Star Trek.
There's nothing extreme about my position and the fact that Hollywood movies continue to break records while the buying power of women continues to increase everyday. It wouldn't take but a few major bombs to get the message across.
Women are increasingly in a position to effect the change you talk about, if that's what they truly want.
LOL. That sums up your position for me.
I still don't see any evidence that there is not a problem.
And just to throw that in:
Star Trek Into Darkness
Film Editing by
Mary Jo Markey
Maryellen Aviano .... extras casting coordinator
Kelly Valentine Hendry .... casting search
Victor Jenkins .... casting search
Gumby Kounthong .... extras casting
Carla Lewis .... extras casting
Jessica F. Sherman .... casting assistant
Erica L. Silverman .... casting associate
Leah Woodworth .... extras casting assistant
You're so devoted to your cause that you'd likely reject any evidence to the contrary. Like you continue to ignore that both the buying and political power of women continue to increase.
It wasn't people like Gene Roddenberry who changed the way TV did business in the 1960's, it was advertisers. Advertisers who saw that minorities and women had increased buying power and wanted shows that they would watch so they could insert advertising and get those folks to buy their products.
You continue to blatantly ignore how simple economics plays into the equation and how simple economics can change things.
It all comes down to folks speaking with their wallets.
EDIT: As a by-the-by...
I never have given a shit about gender equality in entertainment. I was more worried about my daughter's education and her SAT/ACT scores. People get hung up on the most unimportant things.
I'm on the fence about the gay issue. Firstly, they make up a relatively small proportion of the population (1 in 16 last review I saw) and there could be lots of gay or bi characters whose sexuality has nothing to do with the plot so their sexuality is irrelevant. Plus gay actors can play straight characters so there is limited real world prejudice.
TV has made some strides with Jinx in Warehouse 13, Game of Thrones, and the sexually ambiguous characters in True Blood and some high profile shows like the New Normal. Overall though you are far more likely to see lesbianism in genre shows (Buffy, Defiance, Lost Girl, Deep Space Nine etc)
I was irritated at the way Russell T Davies went insane in Dr Who and Torchwood, throwing in about a dozen gay and bi characters over the space of 3 years. In some cases, it wasn't enough to imply a relationship, he had to raise a neon sign with bells on even where it had no relevance to the plot.
However, the portrayal of the more mature relationship between Jack and Ianto in Children of Earth was well done as are the more recent appearances by Vastra and Jenny.
I'd have no issue if Noel Clarke's character had been married to another man but it's hard to see other ways to show it on screen without making it a bit jarring. Cupcake and his boyfriend walking hand in hand down a corridor maybe? Still too jarring for me since nobody else walks around hand in hand.
The most appealing gay character I've seen recently was the MI6 character in State of Play. Sadly, in the US version his character was cut completely so the only bi character left was a drug-abusing sleazebag. Left a nasty taste in my mouth because the gay spy was unusual and his omission looked very deliberate.
Please don't pre-judge my opinion - I have a strong view based on the evidence I've seen but I'm not dogmatic for the sake of it. Present me with the evidence and I will compare it to the evidence of the contra position. That's what lawyers do.
And there is nothing simple about economics.
It is here. If people quit buying tickets things would change rather dramatically, quickly. Production companies don't invest in movies for fun, they invest in them to make money.
On a whim generated by this topic I Googled "Hollywood studios owned by women but still release sexist pictures", just to see what would happen.
First result "It's Money (Not Sexism) Keeping Women Down in Hollywood"
Thank you for finding this article, it's very informative.
Separate names with a comma.