It is entirely possible that she will have some additional story purpose and he will be 'merely' a husband and father in the story. I suppose my assumption of it being the other way round is because Clarke's casting was notified first and because of their track record.
Correct me if I'm wrong, here. . .but didn't Orci and Kurtzman write and co-produce Xena: Warrior Princess? I'd say that their "track record" for strong women characters is much better than you give them credit for. . .
I don't have any objection to wives, mothers, or parents in movies in general. My concern is that in a sci fi franchise with all the possible roles that exist, when every female role of any significance so far has been shoehorned into wife, mother, or girlfriend as the MAIN focus of the character, it could be seen as evidence of bias.
Or it could be seen as evidence that strong female characters don't have to kick ass or be sexless to be strong. . .Why do you automatically assume the worst?
Gaila may have been a cadet and (off-camera) her story purpose was to help Kirk beat the no win scenario but how much of her role covered (or in her case uncovered) her non-sexual purpose? How much of Uhura's role didn't consist of one-on-ones with Spock or Kirk hitting on her? How much of Amanda's role was about her being a teacher? How much of Winona Kirk's role was about her being a Starfleet officer? For those characters their principle roles were chained to their relationships with the men and children. That's fine but that doesn't mean that every female character should also have to be in the same boat.
Let's see. . .Uhura's initial entrance to her room had nothing to do with being hit on by Kirk or Spock. . . the Kobayshi Maru scene. . . the fact that she's on the bridge, and takes over the communications station. . .or the fact that without her knowledge the ship would have warped into a trap. . . as for the others, what do any of what you say have to do with the overall plot of the movie? Amanda's a teacher? And? She's also the wife of an Ambassador and the mother of one to the heroes. . . that's why she was in the movie. . .not because she is a teacher. . .
Since Uhura's main focus will now be her relationship with Spock they need some other women who don't have a man as their main reason for existing. We have Alice Eve. Does anybody want to take a bet that she won't be someone's love interest?
And
here you REALLY are making assumptions. . .you don't know the story, you don't know what role any of the characters will play in the movie, but because you seem to have a specific "feminist" axe to grind, so even if the characters are germane to the overall plot of the movie, even if they are well played and well-rounded, because they are "wives, mothers, or girlfriends" they are not good enough for you. . .
This is why I lamented the absence of Number One and T'Pau so much - neither of them was in any way sexualised in the sixties show but they didn't make the cut.
Again with the assumptions. . .
I'm not saying anything new. Actresses have been complaining for decades about the lack of decent roles for women. It's just disheartening that Trek of all franchises seems to be falling into the same, tired, cliched trap.
More assumptions. . . if female characters are “strong,” i.e., interesting or complex or well written — “strong” in the sense that they figure predominantly in the story, than what does it matter if she is a wife, mother or girlfriend? The sexless, joyless, career professional, who can kick anybody's ass and doesn't need a man or any other human relationships is just as limiting as any tired, cliched roles you are assuming will be in the next Star Trek movie. . . Feminism: you are doing it wrong. . .IMO
~FS
