The most evolved Star Trek series in terms of strong female characters (and much else) is, of course, Deep Space Nine. Any Star Trek product that comes after Deep Space Nine, and does not treat women characters with the respect that Kira was treated, should be ashamed of itself. That includes any future television series and movies.
Why does Abrams keep playing it safe?
- Thread starter brian577
- Start date
That's wrong, VOY also features strong women, namely Janeway and B'Elanna (OK, Janeway is more complicated as her role is too often that of a caring mother: usually very sensitive and quite aggressive when her ship/family is attacked). For me the problem with these three female characters is that they are in one way the very opposite of the fairly feminine Troi and Crusher.
Only Dax and Hoshi are normal women in the sense of having moved beyond this weak-strong/feminine-assertative category which is anything but an indication of gender equality.
It's like with the notion that more female CEOs automatically applies more gender equality. This is wrong if women have to behave as badly as men to get into these very positions and right if women change the way you can behave in a position of power.
Only Dax and Hoshi are normal women in the sense of having moved beyond this weak-strong/feminine-assertative category which is anything but an indication of gender equality.
It's like with the notion that more female CEOs automatically applies more gender equality. This is wrong if women have to behave as badly as men to get into these very positions and right if women change the way you can behave in a position of power.
Heh, Angelique was more than likely very happy to be offered an acting part where she got to wear so much
This is far more sexist than any catsuits (which do not reveal anything) or people sitting in decon in underwear. It always amazes me how people who complain about the utter sexism of VOY and ENT can totally suppress that every second episode of the first show of The Great Pig of the Galaxy featured a woman in Theiss wear.
About the catsuits, if it was men wearing them, you could tell wether they were right handed or left handed. Absolultely Seven was given a great many quality episodes, and she was portrayed as a strong woman, but, the doesn't change the outfit they dressed her up in.
The Decon scenes, shining headlights, the decon oil, sweat and underwear, was all very deliberate to cause arousal.
Yes, the Theiss wear in TOS for Alien Babe of the week, was definitely over the top and bordering on abuse, but, the miniskirted crew members were portrayed clothing-wise less sexist then the Catsuited crew members in later shows.
The miniskirts were shown to be optional in both TOS (whats-her-face from the Garry Mitchell episode) and STXI, where we saw women on the bridge in pants. And the spy cam pics from STXII show Uhura in both the miniskirt from STXI and a uniform with pants (one of STXII's Stargate Atlantis ripoff costumes). The women on the Kelvin all wore pants.
How is it sexist if Uhura chooses to wear a miniskirt?
How is it sexist if Uhura chooses to wear a miniskirt?
You are not asking seriously, are you? Sexism has always been a systemic problem. No woman is forced to wear miniskirts or more generally to be beautiful. It's not a matter of individual choice but of social pressure.
On a family meeting I once got into a discussion with a few women in their fifties and it was about dyeing your hair. I asked them precisely the very same question you asked, why do you simply choose to not dye your hair if you do not want to, it's not like men bother to do when they grow old? Obviously it was a pretty dumb question.
On a family meeting I once got into a discussion with a few women in their fifties and it was about dyeing your hair. I asked them precisely the very same question you asked, why do you simply choose to not dye your hair if you do not want to, it's not like men bother to do when they grow old? Obviously it was a pretty dumb question.
Wow, really? I've never heard of that. Any women I know who dye their hair, do it because they want to (And fret about it when they are unable to do it right away for whatever reason). Any that don't want to conform and dye their hair don't. Now, it may be true, that Social pressure makes them feel old with grey hair, but, they dye it because they want to, in my personal experience.
Of course they do it because they want to, otherwise they would not do it. That's tautological and trivial. The crucial question to ask why they want what they want. Third-wave feminists have pointed out that today some implicit rules for women are self-made, i.e. no longer this old patriarchal BS but women basically forcing themselves to do certain things (body hair might be one example).
Sure, these are trivial compared to the oppressive implicit oppressive rules for women set by men (always be pretty) but you get my point, the desire to do something does very often not originate out of you. Take a stupid example, booze and cigarettes. When you first consume it as a kid it literally tastes horribly and the only enjoyment you derive from it is entirely social.
Sexism is not merely chauvinist assholes whose numbers slowly diminish, it's also (and in my opinion at least today mainly) this systemic stuff.
Sure, these are trivial compared to the oppressive implicit oppressive rules for women set by men (always be pretty) but you get my point, the desire to do something does very often not originate out of you. Take a stupid example, booze and cigarettes. When you first consume it as a kid it literally tastes horribly and the only enjoyment you derive from it is entirely social.
Sexism is not merely chauvinist assholes whose numbers slowly diminish, it's also (and in my opinion at least today mainly) this systemic stuff.
In that case, everything men do from working out, wearing cowboy boots, anything masculine that men choose to do is systemic sexism. As a matter of fact, anything anybody does to "better" themselves can be described as systemic sexism.
But I do believe that we are going off topic, Uhura wears her miniskirt, it shows leg, aye, and it may be a little impractical but you surely cannot damn this movie nor JJ Abrams for that one detail. With Uhura in XI we are presented with a strong, independent woman who does a hell of a lot more than she did in 1966. I believe that actions, not clothing (though I will admit it is a very important detail) determine whether a character is stereotyped to hell or not. She wasn't. Neither was Amanda or Kirk's mom. I think this entire debate boils down to this: should we judge a book by it's cover? If a woman dressed as a stripper walks down the road, do you cringe and think of her as a slut or do you consider the fact that she may have no other choice to feed herself?
Or take me, I live in South Texas. I wear cowboy boots a lot, baseball cap, most of the time I do indeed look like a redneck. Hell, I drive a big, black Ford F150 and I blast country music. Do you write me off as an ignorant hick?
What if I add in that that truck was given to me by my grandmother on her deathbed (it was my grandfather's), that I'm majoring in Environmental Science, been on the Dean's List three times, and have a GPA of 3.45?
Does that paint a different picture or is my outer image more important to you?
But I do believe that we are going off topic, Uhura wears her miniskirt, it shows leg, aye, and it may be a little impractical but you surely cannot damn this movie nor JJ Abrams for that one detail. With Uhura in XI we are presented with a strong, independent woman who does a hell of a lot more than she did in 1966. I believe that actions, not clothing (though I will admit it is a very important detail) determine whether a character is stereotyped to hell or not. She wasn't. Neither was Amanda or Kirk's mom. I think this entire debate boils down to this: should we judge a book by it's cover? If a woman dressed as a stripper walks down the road, do you cringe and think of her as a slut or do you consider the fact that she may have no other choice to feed herself?
Or take me, I live in South Texas. I wear cowboy boots a lot, baseball cap, most of the time I do indeed look like a redneck. Hell, I drive a big, black Ford F150 and I blast country music. Do you write me off as an ignorant hick?
What if I add in that that truck was given to me by my grandmother on her deathbed (it was my grandfather's), that I'm majoring in Environmental Science, been on the Dean's List three times, and have a GPA of 3.45?
Does that paint a different picture or is my outer image more important to you?
It can also, of course, be both. And neither.
Grace Lee Whitney told me that Rand wore a skirt to show off her legs at her Grace's own request, after being asked to put on Sally Kellerman's pants at her first TOS publicity photo shoot.
And Nichelle Nichols requested a skirt uniform variation for her "Mr Adventure" scene in ST III.
I'm with the OP on this one. If Abrams had any guts at all, he'd take some real chances, and genuinely shake things up. For example, he could recast all the roles with younger actors; kill off some recurring characters off altogether; wipe out whole civilizations thus changing the whole structure of Trek's established universe, essentially rebooting the history of the whole damn franchise. Hell, if he was really gutsy, he might go so far as to re-imagine Trek's iconic designs, maybe even making changes to The Enterprise itself.
But he just doesn't have the guts to do any of that, and instead has opted to play it safe.
Oh wait. That's...
But he just doesn't have the guts to do any of that, and instead has opted to play it safe.
Oh wait. That's...
Last edited:
Destroying Vulcan was certainly playing it safe since this new universe now meets the TOS quota of featuring Vulcan only once. And I don't think anyone really cares for it's destruction since everyone is so happy in the end, including both Spocks.
Not playing it safe would have been to destroy the Earth, the planet that has been the focus of many Star Trek movies as being the one planet that must be saved no matter what. At least with no Earth we could spend more time out there instead of finding more ways to come back to it. TOS never visited their present day Earth, and Star Trek really isn't about Earth either.
Not playing it safe would have been to destroy the Earth, the planet that has been the focus of many Star Trek movies as being the one planet that must be saved no matter what. At least with no Earth we could spend more time out there instead of finding more ways to come back to it. TOS never visited their present day Earth, and Star Trek really isn't about Earth either.
A totally fanwankish and half-assed reboot which attempted like the previous movie to copy some patterns from TWOK is not bold in any way. As much as I dislike the writers (everything else about STXI was great ), this is not entirely due to them. The continuity obsession of the franchise is a structural problem which is independent of individual writers and the big budget of the movie which warrants risk-averse creative choices was a decision of the studio.
So if, according to you, Star Trek isn't about Earth or Vulcan, then what does it matter which planet got destroyed? You make little sense.
And I don't recall anyone being happy about Vulcan's destruction at the end of the movie.
Not sure what you're getting at here. The whole point of Nero's and Spock's incursion into the past and creating a new universe was so that the writers would not have to be slavishly devoted to 40+ years of Trek canon that came before it.
No idea what you don't get. The movie included far more references and typical TOS aliens (Romulans, Klingons, Orions, Vulcans)) than any other Trek movie before and there was no reason to address the reboot in-universe-wise. Nothing against a small Nimoy cameo but not making him the core of the movie and simply telling your story without rationalizing the design and actor changes in the story via time travel would have been a bold, clear cut.
This movie, like the previous one an attempt to emulate TWOK, did not end the continuity obsession of the franchise but made it even stronger.
This movie, like the previous one an attempt to emulate TWOK, did not end the continuity obsession of the franchise but made it even stronger.
And again I will point out that the new universe was created so that the writers didn't have to address previous continuity. Now with that said, they still wanted the feel of TOS, because without that, there'd be no reason to call this new universe Star Trek, whether it's a new timeline or not.
but they still had to address how that new universe was created, which involved addressing previous continuity.. It would have been much cleaner if they just said "This is a different universe, no point of divergence, no connection to prime universe. It just *is*." That would have alleviated some problems, I think.
Instead, we have loads of fans speculating on plenty of silly continuity issues, such as:
- why nero's ship looks nothing like established romulan tech
- why does Captain Robau wear a blue uniform instead of a gold uniform
- how can the Kelvin, a simple survey ship that predates the prime enterprise by 30 years have a crew of 800, over twice as much as the original enterprise
- Since when is the sky of vulcan blue?
- There is a window on the Kelvin bridge instead of a solid wall with a viewscreen as on all other Starfleet vessels of the future or past that were ever shown. This is not a one-off phenomenon, considering that the redesigned Enterprise has such a window too. So there is something different about the parallel universe designs, only that the Kelvin predates this universe
- these Romulans do not look like any other Romulans of the prime 24th century. They have lost the V-shaped forehead bones that all members of their race had since TNG.
- How old is Captain Pike? In TOS: "The Menagerie" Commodore Mendez states that Pike is about Kirk's age. But in Star Trek 09 Pike is Kirk's fatherly friend, at least 25 years older!
Source:http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/inconsistencies-trekxi.htm
These are just a few examples of things can't be explained by nero's actions or the effect he has by his actions. They are not a huge deal but they do violate continuity of the prime universe 24th century. There are other violations to the prime universe continuity but why bother listing them all...
Now, perhaps some of these can be explained away, but the point is, however petty they may be, they ARE being debated and discussed when they shouldn't have had to be debated or discussed in the first place. If the point of making the new universe was so that the writers didn't have to address previous continuity, well, then they failed miserably.
It would have been much easier and they could have avoided these issues if they just didn't connect the two universes at all instead of making a halfassed attempt to please everybody.
Last edited:
Although it was in the "Countdown" comics, this was because the ship was modified with Borg technology.
It was thirty years before, who says the uniforms never changed?
Who says the Enterprise was the biggest ship built by Starfleet?
I'll give you that one.
Most people write this off with that it's an update of the designs to fit a 21st century aesthetic. Somebody said that it actually gives a reason to putting the bridge up top (and exposed) like that.
The Klingons changed from looking human (but brown) in TOS to having ridges in TMP. And yet nobody complained.
Mmm, that's a toughie for both sides of the argument. On one hand, I could say that I'll wait to see a full birth year and go from there, on the other if what you say is true, well, it could construed as somebody just making a generalization.
Welcome to the Star Trek fanbase, purists to the first door on the left, Trekkies to the right, Trekkers in the bar getting wasted to Saurian Brandy and Jager shots.
I edited the post a bit shortly before your post showed up, so you might not have read it all.
The point wasn't that these inconsistencies needed explanations... This was the point:
The other poster was saying that the new universe was created so they didn't have to deal with previous continuity. But because they decided that Universe B had to branch off from Universe A, they are dealing with previous continuity whether they wanted to or not.
If they had just done a regular reboot, instead of connecting the two universes, there would be no continuity issues whatsoever.
That's all I was saying.
The point wasn't that these inconsistencies needed explanations... This was the point:
The other poster was saying that the new universe was created so they didn't have to deal with previous continuity. But because they decided that Universe B had to branch off from Universe A, they are dealing with previous continuity whether they wanted to or not.
If they had just done a regular reboot, instead of connecting the two universes, there would be no continuity issues whatsoever.
That's all I was saying.
Why does everything look different in TMP? Not some BS handwave "refit" but the shift from a 60's TV series to a big budget movie in the late 70's. The same applies to STXI in the late 00's.
Robau wears blue? So did Archer! And maybe the colour codes changed?
The Kelvin in bigger than the TOS Enterprise? They built them bigger in those days.
A window at the front? Whim of the designer.
Vulcan's sky is blue? Watch ENT's "Strange New World" where Archer asks if Vulcan has blue skies, and T'Pol replies, "Sometimes."
Narada looks different? It's a mining ship, when every other Romulan ship we've ever seen has been a military vessel.
Pike's age is a major TOS goof - watch "The Minagerie" - they say Pike is "about [Kirk's] age." Now do the math. 13 years pior is "The Cage" and Spock served under Pike for 11 years. Pike thus became captain of the Enterprise at roughly nine years old! (lets see that origin story!
)
Look at the vide in my sig. Despite what sites like EAS would want you to think, STXI is not the first time Trek has made a ton of MAJOR changes for the sake of the current story. Stuff like warp speed's massive slowdown between TOS and Voyager cannnot be explained except to say those is charge rewrote the Trek universe. 99% of the stuff in STXI is simply the result of it being made in 2009 and not 1969. The actors look different, so does the technology.
Robau wears blue? So did Archer! And maybe the colour codes changed?
The Kelvin in bigger than the TOS Enterprise? They built them bigger in those days.
A window at the front? Whim of the designer.
Vulcan's sky is blue? Watch ENT's "Strange New World" where Archer asks if Vulcan has blue skies, and T'Pol replies, "Sometimes."
Narada looks different? It's a mining ship, when every other Romulan ship we've ever seen has been a military vessel.
Pike's age is a major TOS goof - watch "The Minagerie" - they say Pike is "about [Kirk's] age." Now do the math. 13 years pior is "The Cage" and Spock served under Pike for 11 years. Pike thus became captain of the Enterprise at roughly nine years old! (lets see that origin story!
)Look at the vide in my sig. Despite what sites like EAS would want you to think, STXI is not the first time Trek has made a ton of MAJOR changes for the sake of the current story. Stuff like warp speed's massive slowdown between TOS and Voyager cannnot be explained except to say those is charge rewrote the Trek universe. 99% of the stuff in STXI is simply the result of it being made in 2009 and not 1969. The actors look different, so does the technology.
Similar threads
