Have the new Star Treks lost the progressive edge?

[fireproof78]

A rather silly argument. Women are objectified in a completely different way men are simply because we live in a traditionally patriarchal society. Don't take my word for it. Turn off you Star Trek episodes and read a book (or several) on the subject.

What's silly about it? No one is saying that women are not objectified in film, or that it is worse for women than for men. It is less common, and less impacting upon women in film, but that does not mean it does not occur or is a reality for some fans.

Also, the reasons they occur are long and varied based upon cultural impact, so it may be helpful for us to understand this point of view with some recommended reading you found helpful. Thank you

 

[JeffinOakland]

A rather silly argument. Women are objectified in a completely different way men are simply because we live in a traditionally patriarchal society. Don't take my word for it. Turn off you Star Trek episodes and read a book (or several) on the subject.

What's silly about it? No one is saying that women are not objectified in film, or that it is worse for women than for men. It is less common, and less impacting upon women in film, but that does not mean it does not occur or is a reality for some fans.

Also, the reasons they occur are long and varied based upon cultural impact, so it may be helpful for us to understand this point of view with some recommended reading you found helpful. Thank you

Actually, plenty of us ARE saying that it is much worse for women that it is for men. You are, quite simply, wrong. It is far MORE common for women to be objectified and far MORE impacting upon women and how they are viewed and understood both in entertainment and general society. Feel free to Google "male gaze" and read the article cited. Also, a variety of film critics, feminists, cultural critics, and feminist film critics have discussed the use and abuse of the male gaze throughout the history of visual mediums from ancient theater to modern film and how the ingrained patriarchy supports this and uses it to continue to oppress women.. If you really are interested in learning you could go to a library or bookstore and check out or buy any one of hundreds of books on this very topic. Men are objectified maybe once for every 1000 times a woman is objectified (if that). Neither you, me nor any other man is being oppressed through objectification. Women and girls are & that is the problem.

 

[fireproof78]

A rather silly argument. Women are objectified in a completely different way men are simply because we live in a traditionally patriarchal society. Don't take my word for it. Turn off you Star Trek episodes and read a book (or several) on the subject.

What's silly about it? No one is saying that women are not objectified in film, or that it is worse for women than for men. It is less common, and less impacting upon women in film, but that does not mean it does not occur or is a reality for some fans.

Also, the reasons they occur are long and varied based upon cultural impact, so it may be helpful for us to understand this point of view with some recommended reading you found helpful. Thank you

Actually, plenty of us ARE saying that it is much worse for women that it is for men. You are, quite simply, wrong. It is far MORE common for women to be objectified and far MORE impacting upon women and how they are viewed and understood both in entertainment and general society. Feel free to Google "male gaze" and read the article cited. Also, a variety of film critics, feminists, cultural critics, and feminist film critics have discussed the use and abuse of the male gaze throughout the history of visual mediums from ancient theater to modern film and how the ingrained patriarchy supports this and uses it to continue to oppress women.. If you really are interested in learning you could go to a library or bookstore and check out or buy any one of hundreds of books on this very topic. Men are objectified maybe once for every 1000 times a woman is objectified (if that). Neither you, me nor any other man is being oppressed through objectification. Women and girls are & that is the problem.

I would appreciate specific links that inform your view. That is more helpful to me.

I'm not arguing that women are not objectified more than men. Not in the slightest (one merely need to look at comic books, the adult magazine section, video games, among other media, not just film).

I am arguing that it does happen to males.

That is all I am saying.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Of course men are objectified (about .01% of the time). So? You've been repeatedly referenced to google "male gaze" and read the original essay and essays related to the topic. Read Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me. Read Inga Muscio's Cunt. Google "feminist film theory". There are a million resources on the subject from essays to speeches to books. Feel free to inform yourself and don't be so lazy and deliberately ignorant.

 

[Horizons96]

If they'd rather just make action movies with no deeper purpose, that's fine, but they should just start up their own franchise instead of pretending it is Star Trek.

Well said. Personally, I just ignore the Abrams trek and hope it goes away. How dare they. Roddenberry would be furious if he saw how his vision for humanity became a brainless, flashy fast-and-furious in space.

What's even more hilarious and predictable is that the new director for the third installment is himself one of the directors of the fast and furious movies.

People say that it's "good" that Abrams has brought Trek to the new generation. That's bullshit. He (and those associated with it) has stripped it of all moral, philosophic and accurate depictions of humanity's future to fit in with the ADHD generation that loves Lady Gaga, social media and all things shiny and shallow.
Star Trek should be serving to counter all this rubbish, not perpetuate it.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

 

[fireproof78]

Of course men are objectified (about .01% of the time). So? You've been repeatedly referenced to google "male gaze" and read the original essay and essays related to the topic. Read Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me. Read Inga Muscio's Cunt. Google "feminist film theory". There are a million resources on the subject from essays to speeches to books. Feel free to inform yourself and don't be so lazy and deliberately ignorant.

I appreciate the direct references and have read Muscio's book. I don't just google random things because that doesn't give me your point of view, the person I am discussing with. I'm trying to understand your point of view, and not just deal in broad strokes on a topic.

My other point is that objectification of men happens, period. Just because it is less doesn't make less wrong. I'd rather deal in specific cases than broad generalities.

If they'd rather just make action movies with no deeper purpose, that's fine, but they should just start up their own franchise instead of pretending it is Star Trek.

Well said. Personally, I just ignore the Abrams trek and hope it goes away. How dare they. Roddenberry would be furious if he saw how his vision for humanity became a brainless, flashy fast-and-furious in space.

What's even more hilarious and predictable is that the new director for the third installment is himself one of the directors of the fast and furious movies.

People say that it's "good" that Abrams has brought Trek to the new generation. That's bullshit. He (and those associated with it) has stripped it of all moral, philosophic and accurate depictions of humanity's future to fit in with the ADHD generation that loves Lady Gaga, social media and all things shiny and shallow.
Star Trek should be serving to counter all this rubbish, not perpetuate it.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

How about it is good that Abrams had social commentary in his films, with action and adventure, which was how TOS was framed from its inception.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I found Abrams Trek spoke more of a commentary on modern society than Nemesis or Insurrection ever did. There was interesting character bits woven throughout the action, that sometimes require more reflection after the fact, and a deeper engagement of the material.

I know that different people respond to different films, but I have found Abrams film to be more in the spirit of TOS with the combination of social commentary and action/adventure, with a far more modern view.

As for Roddenberry, I don't think anyone can really speak for him because his "vision" changed multiple times from TOS to TNG.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Of course men are objectified (about .01% of the time). So? You've been repeatedly referenced to google "male gaze" and read the original essay and essays related to the topic. Read Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me. Read Inga Muscio's Cunt. Google "feminist film theory". There are a million resources on the subject from essays to speeches to books. Feel free to inform yourself and don't be so lazy and deliberately ignorant.

I appreciate the direct references and have read Muscio's book. I don't just google random things because that doesn't give me your point of view, the person I am discussing with. I'm trying to understand your point of view, and not just deal in broad strokes on a topic.

My other point is that objectification of men happens, period. Just because it is less doesn't make less wrong. I'd rather deal in specific cases than broad generalities.

Let's start over. What is your point, exactly? What do you think is my point?

 

[fireproof78]

Of course men are objectified (about .01% of the time). So? You've been repeatedly referenced to google "male gaze" and read the original essay and essays related to the topic. Read Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me. Read Inga Muscio's Cunt. Google "feminist film theory". There are a million resources on the subject from essays to speeches to books. Feel free to inform yourself and don't be so lazy and deliberately ignorant.

I appreciate the direct references and have read Muscio's book. I don't just google random things because that doesn't give me your point of view, the person I am discussing with. I'm trying to understand your point of view, and not just deal in broad strokes on a topic.

My other point is that objectification of men happens, period. Just because it is less doesn't make less wrong. I'd rather deal in specific cases than broad generalities.

Let's start over. What is your point, exactly? What do you think is my point?

My point is male objectification happens-period. All objectification is bad-period.

I felt that your original point was that male objectification did not happen in film.

That is my thoughts.

 

[JeffinOakland]

I appreciate the direct references and have read Muscio's book. I don't just google random things because that doesn't give me your point of view, the person I am discussing with. I'm trying to understand your point of view, and not just deal in broad strokes on a topic.

My other point is that objectification of men happens, period. Just because it is less doesn't make less wrong. I'd rather deal in specific cases than broad generalities.

Let's start over. What is your point, exactly? What do you think is my point?

My point is male objectification happens-period. All objectification is bad-period.

I felt that your original point was that male objectification did not happen in film.

That is my thoughts.

Male objectification does happen rarely in visual mediums and it is bad. However, & this is my point, comparing the evils of male objectification vs. the evils of female objectification is like comparing a paper cut to a shotgun blast to the face. One is annoying & the other is tragic. This is because we live in a patriarchal society. Our status as members of the male majority is not threatened by men being objectified rarely. Women's fight for equality is damaged by the sheer amount and nature of objectification.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If they'd rather just make action movies with no deeper purpose, that's fine, but they should just start up their own franchise instead of pretending it is Star Trek.

Well said. Personally, I just ignore the Abrams trek and hope it goes away. How dare they. Roddenberry would be furious if he saw how his vision for humanity became a brainless, flashy fast-and-furious in space.

What's even more hilarious and predictable is that the new director for the third installment is himself one of the directors of the fast and furious movies.

People say that it's "good" that Abrams has brought Trek to the new generation. That's bullshit. He (and those associated with it) has stripped it of all moral, philosophic and accurate depictions of humanity's future to fit in with the ADHD generation that loves Lady Gaga, social media and all things shiny and shallow.
Star Trek should be serving to counter all this rubbish, not perpetuate it.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Did I stumble upon a youtube comments thread by mistake? Lady Gaga? Social Media? All that's missing is a slam at Bieber.

You'll find that quite a few folks here are a bit older than the "ADHD" generation and like the new films. Many of its most vocal supporters are over 40!!!!!!

Your other "points" have been deftly dismantled time and time again over the five years, so I won't bother rehashing.

 

[fireproof78]

Let's start over. What is your point, exactly? What do you think is my point?

My point is male objectification happens-period. All objectification is bad-period.

I felt that your original point was that male objectification did not happen in film.

That is my thoughts.

Male objectification does happen rarely in visual mediums and it is bad. However, & this is my point, comparing the evils of male objectification vs. the evils of female objectification is like comparing a paper cut to a shotgun blast to the face. One is annoying & the other is tragic. This is because we live in a patriarchal society. Our status as members of the male majority is not threatened by men being objectified rarely. Women's fight for equality is damaged by the sheer amount and nature of objectification.

Ok.

 

[M'Sharak]

If they'd rather just make action movies with no deeper purpose, that's fine, but they should just start up their own franchise instead of pretending it is Star Trek.

Well said. Personally, I just ignore the Abrams trek and hope it goes away. How dare they. Roddenberry would be furious if he saw how his vision for humanity became a brainless, flashy fast-and-furious in space.

What's even more hilarious and predictable is that the new director for the third installment is himself one of the directors of the fast and furious movies.

People say that it's "good" that Abrams has brought Trek to the new generation. That's bullshit. He (and those associated with it) has stripped it of all moral, philosophic and accurate depictions of humanity's future to fit in with the ADHD generation that loves Lady Gaga, social media and all things shiny and shallow.
Star Trek should be serving to counter all this rubbish, not perpetuate it.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Did I stumble upon a youtube comments thread by mistake? Lady Gaga? Social Media? All that's missing is a slam at Bieber.

You'll find that quite a few folks here are a bit older than the "ADHD" generation and like the new films. Many of its most vocal supporters are over 40!!!!!!

Your other "points" have been deftly dismantled time and time again over the five years, so I won't bother rehashing.

Please don't feed the Zealot.

 

[BillJ]

Well said. Personally, I just ignore the Abrams trek and hope it goes away. How dare they. Roddenberry would be furious if he saw how his vision for humanity became a brainless, flashy fast-and-furious in space.

What's even more hilarious and predictable is that the new director for the third installment is himself one of the directors of the fast and furious movies.

People say that it's "good" that Abrams has brought Trek to the new generation. That's bullshit. He (and those associated with it) has stripped it of all moral, philosophic and accurate depictions of humanity's future to fit in with the ADHD generation that loves Lady Gaga, social media and all things shiny and shallow.
Star Trek should be serving to counter all this rubbish, not perpetuate it.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

I'm 43 and I assure you that I do not have ADHD. Also, I've been a fan of Star Trek since 1975.

Guess what?

I love the Abrams films. They have brought back fun and adventure to a franchise sorely in need of it. I have a feeling that Gene Roddenberry of 1966 would be very proud of the work J.J. Abrams has done. The Gene Roddenberry of 1987? The man who was ill and suffering from decades of substance abuse. The man who screwed his friends out of co-creator credit on TNG. The man who most people aren't even sure was running things, that he could've been a puppet of Leonard Mazlich, the family lawyer. I don't know?

 

[Jedi_Master]

So....

What would nuTrek need to do to recover it's "progressive" label?

 

[BillJ]

What would nuTrek need to do to recover it's "progressive" label?

I'm still not sure Star Trek was ever as progressive as some folks seem desperate to believe.

For me (and me alone, I speak for no one else), I find the Abrams films just as progressive as the material that came before it. I still think many folks have a bee in their bonnet because Abrams went back to Kirk and Spock instead of continuing on in the 24th century.

I don't think for most it has ever truly been about it being "progressive", I think it has more to do with the characters the new films revolve around.

 

[Jedi_Master]

What would nuTrek need to do to recover it's "progressive" label?

I'm still not sure Star Trek was ever as progressive as some folks seem desperate to believe.

For me (and me alone, I speak for no one else), I find the Abrams films just as progressive as the material that came before it. I still think many folks have a bee in their bonnet because Abrams went back to Kirk and Spock instead of continuing on in the 24th century.

I don't think for most it has ever truly been about it being "progressive", I think it has more to do with the characters the new films revolve around.

I tend to agree with you, but I am curious as to what those that do NOT agree with you think needs to be done.

 

[BillJ]

I tend to agree with you, but I am curious as to what those that do NOT agree with you think needs to be done.

Good luck! They tend to not have any real answers to those questions.

 

[Smellmet]

Well said. Personally, I just ignore the Abrams trek and hope it goes away. How dare they. Roddenberry would be furious if he saw how his vision for humanity became a brainless, flashy fast-and-furious in space.

What's even more hilarious and predictable is that the new director for the third installment is himself one of the directors of the fast and furious movies.

People say that it's "good" that Abrams has brought Trek to the new generation. That's bullshit. He (and those associated with it) has stripped it of all moral, philosophic and accurate depictions of humanity's future to fit in with the ADHD generation that loves Lady Gaga, social media and all things shiny and shallow.
Star Trek should be serving to counter all this rubbish, not perpetuate it.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Another 40 year old fan chiming in who's been a fan since '79. I'm not going to delve into the progressive angle as I think it's getting covered quite well in this thread, but suffice to say, at the very least, I'm just happy to see Trek given the 'blockbuster' treatment it so deserves. Down the years I've grown tired of them churning out low budget movies, some of which have been seriously mediocre to say the least, in a way I'm glad the wheels finally fell off and they got found out off with the TNG movies because I wouldn't have been treated to the fun spectacle that I believe JJ Trek most certainly is.

 

[CorporalClegg]

So....

What would nuTrek need to do to recover it's "progressive" label?

Find the nearest insurance broker and ask for a bumper sticker.

 

[Amaris]

"Laser effects, mirrored balls—John Williams must be rolling around in his grave!"