Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Paradise City]

Are we STILL talking about Alice Eve's underwear after 4 years?

It's certainly a gratuitous scene but in the scheme of Hollywood movies not particularly egregious.

RAMA

Noone is fazed by this because its sexually scandalous or that it corrupts innocence or whatever. It's just tacky. That's the general objection anyway

But the idea that it's supposed to be a functional scene and there's nothing to see here is just absolute nonsense. The "underwear scene" is just like how bikini -clad women are used in advertising. Not to get people overcome with "sexual lust" but just to imprint a striking pleasant sensibility on the subconscious. And there she was in the trailer serving that purpose. An elderly Judi Dench would not a get a scene like that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

An elderly Judi Dench would not a get a scene like that.

What about Helen Mirren ?

 

[Rahul]

Noone is fazed by this because its sexually scandalous or that it corrupts innocence or whatever. It's just tacky. That's the general objection anyway

But the idea that it's supposed to be a functional scene and there's nothing to see here is just absolute nonsense. The "underwear scene" is just like how bikini -clad women are used in advertising. Not to get people overcome with "sexual lust" but just to imprint a striking pleasant sensibility on the subconscious. And there she was in the trailer serving that purpose. An elderly Judi Dench would not a get a scene like that.

Well, I watched Baywatch for the plot...

What about Helen Mirren ?

When Helen Mirren wants to do an underwear scene, she damn well better gets her underwear scene!

 

[fireproof78]

The scene itself is not the problem. The problem is that it's one of basically only three defining character scenes for her.

The other two being "yanking a thingy out of a torpedo" (actually a good scene) and "pleading to daddy via teleprompter not to kill everybody" (nice performance, sadly no real relevance for the plot apart from turning her into a damsel in distress for the finale and, seriously, what the hell(?), having her face being overexposed with a lense-flare(!) During a close-ups of her face(!!) during her speech!)


EDIT:
@fireproof78:

The post about "hating" Zaldana was in response to "If you don't like the woman fine, but pretending that your 'try too hard' hatred for her having agency like the guys is some sort of 'pro good role models for women' activism is a like a bad joke written by someone without sense of humor." by Malaika

To which I have added my serious discomfort with the characterisation of Uhura in the new movies. (Then again, that's far from being my biggest pet peeve with these alternate characterisations. The new version of Spock as somebody who looses his temper several time each movie and beats at least one person per movie to a pulp bothers me much more...)

But I like your matter-of-fact desciption of how you see nuUhura. And while I personally don't agree with that opinion, I can see were you got that from. There was definetely no mal-intent on the writers part, they clearly envisioned her as a "strong female character". I just think they failed in the execution. And that's the part were I am hopefull, because director Justin Lin actually has a good track record regarding female characters in a male oriented franchise with Fast & Furious.

This is probably where we will agree to disagree then, which is fine

Personally, there are only a couple of characterizations that truly bothered me in the Abrams' films. First is Scotty, who felt a little too tacked on for my taste in terms of plotting in the movie, and didn't quite feel "right" (subjective, I know). STID was a little bit better but still not quite there. The other character was Chekov, whom I felt they tried too hard to make him likable and shoehorned in to the plot as well.

As for Spock and Kirk, there characters arcs are too interesting to me for me to find anything but surface level objections to their characters. Quinto's Spock strikes me as what we might have gotten had we had Jefferey Hunter instead of William Shatner as the captain in TOS. Nimoy states that he played Spock more emotionally there to counter Hunter's more stoic performance.

In any case, Spock feels very different, but a good different. He is being forced to explore facets of himself that he didn't have to face so young, in a similar way to Kirk. And regardless of what Star Wars might have us believe, the destruction of one's entire planet is going to be devastating, Vulcan or not.

But, as I said, this is likely an agree to disagree moment. I just think Abrams got more right than he did wrong.

 

[Malaika]

I'm confused, how is people saying they wanted Uhura to play a bigger role in the story, and to have more agency misogynist and sexist?
.

Have you read the thread?
Asking for more Uhura is not sexist but turning what was done 'more' with her into problematic stuff because you have blatant double standards (already discussed in the thread with examples of how the dudes actions are judged), that's sexist. Reducing her character to the 'whore' who slept her way up etc etc IS sexist. Criticizing her character according to stuff that didn't even happen or isn't what was actually portrayed on screen is mysoginy and projecting your own problematic self on what the writers actually said and did.
Some people here obviously dislike her (one of the partecipants for example prefers the secondary dudes over her and where they underrate her character, they overrate those guys) but instead of just admitting their personal preference, they just pretend they dislike her because she is objectively portrayed as a bad example for women! They are just 'concerned' for poor Uhura and, in a comical plot twist, if YOU don't perceive her as a manipulative whore and sexual object you are the sexist one. Lol this is the definition of concern trolling that is, I might add, very common with representation for women and, in this case, poc.
This thread provided plenty of counter arguments why the sexist perception of Uhura is not what happened, not to mention the counter arguments explaining that what she is accused for is a behavior that the male characters have and for whom they get a pass. But of course some will keep having monologues and pretend that the others didn't reply to all their points already and they have explained why their arguments come across as problematic.

--------
Eta: actually, asking for more Uhura is sexist too for some people here since I was told that 'we are not in the 60s' anymore!' and this, apparently, means - in another interesting plot twist - that sidelining the only female character of the iconic crew, who was made almost third lead in the first movies by the other team, in favor of two secondary white dudes (that, perhaps, weren't made prominent by the other team because, unlike her, they weren't inspired for reasons that have little to do with their genitalia and everything to to with their redundancy) is totally fine and progressive and you are sexist if you think otherwise (but of course wanting their fave underdeveloped unoriginal redundant secondary white dudes to get more prominent no matter the dynamics already exablished in these movies, that is not bias because, after all, being a white dude means you get more attention by default and not because the writers want to be 'politically correct')

 

[Malaika]

Back to the reason why I came here today, here is two interesting interviews by Quinto and Urban (I don't see them posted so sorry if this is a repeat) that kind of show their different approach at playing their characters.

First, the interview by Quinto (read it all beyond the quote below, it's worth it)
http://www.energytimes.com/pages/features/0516/quinto.html

..emotions seep into Quinto’s Spock in a much more discernible way than they ever did in Nimoy’s classic interpretation.
Quinto said he and Nimoy often discussed the differences between each portrayal of the character. “My intention was always to embrace the emotional side and create a version of the character who’s less at ease with the duality that exists within him and, in the first film anyway in 2009, still wrestling with the power that the emotion has over him.”

In the second film, the actor said, his Spock was “a bit more settled, but also unable to deny or avoid the power of that emotional demand of action when his tribe is threatened.” For this summer’s installment, Quinto promised a completely different level of “emotional exploration” in the character. “For me, it is the easiest flow between the two versions of himself that we’ve been able to carve out,” he said, “but you can be the judge of that.”

As Quinto explained it, Spock learned how to integrate his emotional side with his logical self. The character is aware of his emotional inner life but is not “completely beholden to it or at the mercy of it, like a lot of human beings can be,” Quinto said. Nimoy’s Spock, he added, was a “bit more all business, all logic,” while he and J.J. Abrams, director of the 2009 film, chose to blur the lines between the character’s emotions and logic.​

We have touched this point before, the fact that maybe new Mccoy, unlike new Spock who really tried to be his own version (and got Nimoy's blessings in doing so) is little 'new' and too much an impersonation of DeForest, and Karl's explanation comfirms to me what I already thought (and the idea he is playing him as a younger version of Deforest rather than an alternate young version of the character, that is what he IS)

http://calgaryherald.com/entertainm...twist-in-the-new-star-trek-but-probably-didnt

“It was quite a nerve-wracking experience because obviously I have a long term appreciation and affection for Star Trek,” said the New Zealand actor Saturday afternoon at the Stampede Corral during the Calgary Expo. “It was one of the TV shows I watched as a kid. I had such a great respect for what those guys did. When we shot the first film, we didn’t have a mandate to deliver some sort of carbon copy of what had come before, it was really just make the character your own. For me, though, I felt as a long-time fan of the show, if I was to go into the cinema and see a McCoy that wasn’t intrinsically somehow bearing a resemblance, if not the spirit and manner, to the original, I would probably have felt let down. To me it was really important to think about what the late-great Deforest had done and really get the essence of that and present what a younger version would be.”

“I won’t lie to you,” he added. “There were certainly some points there were it was difficult to ascertain where that line was.”​

I get where he is coming from and, in fact, I myself speculated that he might feel more pressure because he is a fan and because the original actor is not here to give him advices. If Deforest were alive, he'd probably encourage him to do his own thing more, just like the other actors - especially Nimoy - did with this young cast.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Good lord. This thread needs a new STB trailer...

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

This thread needs its own trailer it's entertaining reading all the diverse opinions.

 

[Shalashaska]

Don't worry. This is the internet. Where rampant sexism, racism, homophobic slurs and general nastiness is called "trolling", and anything voicing concerns makes you a "femnazi SJW". This place is comparatively tame. Remember: It's all just about ethics in gaming journalism...

I don't even mind trolling, most of the time I find it hilarious how mad people can get, but when these people are out here defending everything in this damn film like its their own work and others are calling you a damn sexist for wanting MORE in a female character than the usual Hollywood bitchy girlfriend, then yeah, it's irritating. Especially when they're 100% serious.

But whatever, I'm sick of it, let's move on.

Good lord. This thread needs a new STB trailer...

Hopefully it's not like this for the next three weeks, I don't think I can take it

 

[Rahul]

Have you read the thread?
Asking for more Uhura is not sexist but turning what was done 'more' with her into problematic stuff because you have blatant double standards (already discussed in the thread with examples of how the dudes actions are judged), that's sexist. Reducing her character to the 'whore' who slept her way up etc etc IS sexist. Criticizing her character according to stuff that didn't even happen or isn't what was actually portrayed on screen is mysoginy and projecting your own problematic self on what the writers actually said and did.
Some people here obviously dislike her (one of the partecipants for example prefers the secondary dudes over her and where they underrate her character, they overrate those guys) but instead of just admitting their personal preference, they just pretend they dislike her because she is objectively portrayed as a bad example for women! They are just 'concerned' for poor Uhura and, in a comical plot twist, if YOU don't perceive her as a manipulative whore and sexual object you are the sexist one. Lol this is the definition of concern trolling that is, I might add, very common with representation for women and, in this case, poc.
This thread provided plenty of counter arguments why the sexist perception of Uhura is not what happened, not to mention the counter arguments explaining that what she is accused for is a behavior that the male characters have and for whom they get a pass. But of course some will keep having monologues and pretend that the others didn't reply to all their points already and they have explained why their arguments come across as problematic.

--------
Eta: actually, asking for more Uhura is sexist too for some people here since I was told that 'we are not in the 60s' anymore!' and this, apparently, means - in another interesting plot twist - that sidelining the only female character of the iconic crew, who was made almost third lead in the first movies by the other team, in favor of two secondary white dudes (that, perhaps, weren't made prominent by the other team because, unlike her, they weren't inspired for reasons that have little to do with their genitalia and everything to to with their redundancy) is totally fine and progressive and you are sexist if you think otherwise (but of course wanting their fave underdeveloped unoriginal redundant secondary white dudes to get more prominent no matter the dynamics already exablished in these movies, that is not bias because, after all, being a white dude means you get more attention by default and not because the writers want to be 'politically correct')

So apparently a teacher-student relationship is all fine as long as the students has good grades? And if you feel that's a bit cringeworthy that automatically makes you a sexist/racist/misogynist/...? Got it...

 

[Shalashaska]

I really do wonder what some people in this thread's view of the world is.

 

[Malaika]

So apparently a teacher-student relationship is all fine as long as the students has good grades? And if you feel that's a bit cringeworthy that automatically makes you a sexist/racist/misogynist/...? Got it...

are we really still having this conversation?

you're stuck on that but CANON never said it was a teacher-student thing, and it never said that even if their relationship happened while she was still his student, such things are forbidden at the academy or they have the same connotations in their world and fictional reality than in your own. Your argument is pretentious. The fact that she was one of the top students would, no doubt, contradict your idea that she slept her way to the top using a relationship because that fact, alone, hints that SHE DIDN'T NEED TO.
Uhura used past tense and said 'was' one of your students, nothing in the scenes suggests they started dating while she was still his student. Nothing in the scene suggests that your 'interpretation' is factual or what the writers intended.
The official site of the movie, if anything, listed her as the teacher assistant of his course at the time of the events in the movie AND the comics approved by Orci, not canon but still relevant in terms of what kind of interpretation has more basis for the writers apparently (and I know that it is because when Orci read someone over trekmovie make the same pretentious arguments you are making, it was one of the times he got so frustrated by some fans' nonsense he said he had to close his iphone) , confirm that they started dating when she no longer was one of his students and he had no influence on her academy records. He also is merely 3 years older than her and at the time he was a graduate student himself (this confirmed by the bios in the official app, they enrolled in starfleet the same year which opens a lot of possibilities here)
Again, the stuff mentioned above is surely not canon but since we're only talking about your interpretation here (over stuff that didn't happen and wasn't implied in canon or you just don't know) , it's relevant to propose an interpretation that is approved by who wrote these movies that contradicts yours that is, again, not factual to begin with because it's based on nothing but your prejudices.

and again, you still harpy on Uhura and try too hard to paint their relationship as favoritism (for no other reason than your own bias) ALL THE WHILE you ignore, give a pass, omit, the relationship(s) in the movie that actually had something that is surely more close to 'favoritism' than what was displayed with S/U.
But you won't direct your 'outrage' at Jim Kirk or how blatantly unprofessional the male characters are. But the woman? a slut. For being someone who has an adult mutual loving relationship with a guy who actually overcompensates precisely to not show favoritism even where there is no favoritism.

all these things are what make your arguments cringeworthy sexist, misogynistic, double standard. Nice try making it seems that if people don't see the scene through your sexist glasses then they are the ones sexist who don't care about Uhura (this is comical!) If you perceive Uhura as a whore who slept her way up to the enterprise that's on you and it says more about you than what ACTUALLY happened in the movie and how she's written.

I really do wonder what some people in this thread's view of the world is.

same. oh we agree about something, it seems.

 

[Rahul]

all these things are what make your arguments cringeworthy sexist, misogynistic, double standard. Nice try making it seems that if people don't see the scene through your sexist glasses then they are the ones sexist who don't care about Uhura (this is comical!) If you perceive Uhura as a whore who slept her way up to the enterprise that's on you and it says more about you than what ACTUALLY happened in the movie and how she's written.

Again: Any student-teacher relationship makes me cringe, and diminishes my appreciation of both participants. And I don't really care if it's legal in Starfleet or not (it shouldn't be. And in the real world isn't).

If that makes me a "sexist misogynist who only sees her as a whore" I would really recommend you look all of these words up in a dictionary. Because as of now, this arguments seems an awful lot like that schoolgirl that has an affair with her 50 years older highschool teacher and insists all of this is perfectly natural und shouldn't be critized in any way and we just don't understand their special snowflake love.

All of which could have easily been avoided by the way, because in the original series, Spock and Uhura weren't teacher and student but just colleagues. But they changed it, and now it has the sex appeal of Indiana Jones fucking his oblivious students.

And this is only one (although one of the most obvious) mishandling of the characters. I'm not happy with nuSpock either, but mostly for other things as I mentioned (his tendency for violent outbursts for example). But that will apparently make "racist against aliens" or some shit...

 

[Nerys Myk]

Because as of now, this arguments seems an awful lot like that schoolgirl that has an affair with her 50 years older highschool teacher and insists all of this is perfectly natural und shouldn't be critized in any way and we just don't understand their special snowflake love.

We're talking about adults though. People in their twenties. Not some high schooler and a teacher in their fifties. So I'm going with false equivalency here. The "ick" factor isn't quite the same with a twenty one year old college senior and an instructor who's not quite thirty, Especially since Spock no longer seems to be her instructor and might not be on staff at the Academy anymore.

I'm not happy with nuSpock either, but mostly for other things as I mentioned (his tendency for violent outbursts for example).

Spock's tendency for violent outbursts while under duress is well established.
As seen in pictures five and six of this collage of Spock showing emotion.

 

[Longinus]

Spock's tendency for violent outbursts while under duress is well established.
As seen in pictures five and six of this collage of Spock showing emotion.

You mean when he was drugged and when he was suffering from pon farr?

Having normally stoic character occasionally show emotion is effective storytelling tool, if done rarely. It comes as surprise and shock to the viewers. But if done too often, then it just changes the character, he is no longer stoic, he is emotionally unstable. I don't like this new Spock, he doesn't feel like Spock to me. Your mileage may vary.

 

[BillJ]

You mean when he was drugged and when he was suffering from pon farr?

This one is suffering from genocide committed against his people and the death of his mother. Besides, Spock never seemed all that emotionally stable to me. Witness him wanting to break McCoy's neck in "All Our Yesterday's" over a woman.

 

[Longinus]

Witness him wanting to break McCoy's neck in "All Our Yesterday's" over a woman.

Eh, in that episode it was an important plot point that Spock behaved uncharacteristically, because his cell structure had been altered by the time travel device (or something like that, can't remember.)

 

[Ovation]

You mean when he was drugged and when he was suffering from pon farr?

Having normally stoic character occasionally show emotion is effective storytelling tool, if done rarely. It comes as surprise and shock to the viewers. But if done too often, then it just changes the character, he is no longer stoic, he is emotionally unstable. I don't like this new Spock, he doesn't feel like Spock to me. Your mileage may vary.

You're right. He is not the same. He's lost his mother in a traumatic fashion. His home world was destroyed right in front of him, at the same moment. He's a decade or so younger than when we meet the original. Clearly he is not the same. Of course you don't have to like the new version but it seems implausible, having experienced what I have described, he would be nearly indistinguishable from the original. Giving us a different version was kind of the point of the whole project.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You mean when he was drugged and when he was suffering from pon farr?

Having normally stoic character occasionally show emotion is effective storytelling tool, if done rarely. It comes as surprise and shock to the viewers. But if done too often, then it just changes the character, he is no longer stoic, he is emotionally unstable. I don't like this new Spock, he doesn't feel like Spock to me. Your mileage may vary.

Not those specifically, but he was emotionally compromised. Almost every Spock-centric episode has him emotionally compromised in some way. It is, as I've said elsewhere,key to who he is. That's why writers in TOS went to that well every chance they got. I've a feeling Nimoy liked it too. The stoic, emotionless Spock wouldn't be interesting without those "breaks". The films don't come out every week for three quarters of a year like a TV show. So if the writers want to play with Spock's complexity and conflict they'll need to show it every chance they get. Spock "breaking" every three to four years is less that his "breaking" three or four times every year. Perspective.

Eh, in that episode it was an important plot point that Spock behaved uncharacteristically, because his cell structure had been altered by the time travel device (or something like that, can't remember.)

I don't think so. Spock didn't go through any sort of "treatment" before leaping.
Transcript time:

SPOCK: Thank you, Mister Atoz.
(Kirk hears a woman scream from behind a doorway) KIRK: Spock. Bones.
ATOZ: Wait! I haven't prepared you.
(Kirk runs through the doorway and disappears. He appears in a street where people dressed as cavaliers are manhandling a wench)
ATOZ: You must be prepared!
(Spock and McCoy go through the doorway)

Zarabeth thinks they've been prepared and that's why they can't go back

MCCOY: What do you mean impossible? We've got to get back.
SPOCK: Zarabeth explained it to me. When we came through the time portal, it altered our physiological structure. If we attempt to return to the library, we shall die.

For some timey whimey, nonsensical, never actually explained reason, he reverted to the state Vulcans were at in that time period.

MCCOY: Are you trying to kill me, Spock? Is that what you really want? Think. What are you feeling? Rage? Jealousy? Have you ever had those feelings before?
SPOCK: This is impossible. Impossible. I am a Vulcan.
MCCOY: The Vulcan you knew won't exist for another five thousand years. Think, man. What's happening on your planet right now, this very moment?
SPOCK: My ancestors are barbarians. Warlike barbarians.
MCCOY: Who nearly killed themselves off with their own passions. Spock, you're reverting into your ancestors five thousand years before you were born!

So there's no real reason other than the writers wanted a Spock/Zarabeth romance.

 

[Longinus]

You're right. He is not the same. He's lost his mother in a traumatic fashion. His home world was destroyed right in front of him, at the same moment. He's a decade or so younger than when we meet the original. Clearly he is not the same. Of course you don't have to like the new version but it seems implausible, having experienced what I have described, he would be nearly indistinguishable from the original. Giving us a different version was kind of the point of the whole project.

Yeah, this is a bit like 'if Bruce Wayne's parents had not been killed by a thug, then he would not have become a cape wearing vigilante." Sure, might make sense. Also ruins the character.