• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Lindelof On Eve Scene (minor spoilers, hysteria, hyperbole)

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Thank you. It's best to be clear in writing when making an argument. Thank you for catching my mistake.

As for the edit I didn't see, I don't have any body issues. I'm not even female. As for making an argument, that is attacking the source and not proving the argument is fallacious. Circumstantial ad hominem is the fallacy you are using, if I am not mistaken.

"It's Logic Spock, I thought you'd like that."
If you're not female, why the hell would you want to look like Alice Eve on your wedding night? :guffaw:

I was painting an example.
Yeah ... We're gonna need you go ahead and stop doing that, ok? Thanks. :rolleyes:
 
I have been collecting Lego figures for years and they haven't had any effect on me, I am perfectly happy with my yellow plastic skin, removable hair, head, legs and claws for hands.
 
If you're not female, why the hell would you want to look like Alice Eve on your wedding night? :guffaw:

I was painting an example.
Yeah ... We're gonna need you go ahead and stop doing that, ok? Thanks. :rolleyes:


The completely hypothetical nature of that "example," coupled with the hysterical painting of the most dire possible (again, hypothetical) consequences is why it was unworthy of being treated seriously.
 
I have been collecting Lego figures for years and they haven't had any effect on me, I am perfectly happy with my yellow plastic skin, removable hair, head, legs and claws for hands.

Listen, because of Legos I've had to deal with a crippling disorder that you just won't understand. I've been plagued with not being able to bend at the knees for my whole life. It's been frustrating at times, but I get by. And even though I have a smile painted on my face, I wish a had a *single* tear painted under my eye.
 
Twelve pages of this conversation, and I still feel like it's been avoiding the issue, rather than dealing with it.


First of all, to be completely dismissive of the complaints regarding the depiction of women in science fiction or Hollywood films is to be closing your eyes to the actual causes and effects of socialization that take place in our world. You can pretend that the media has no effect whatsoever on women's feelings towards their body image, role in society, and expectations, but you can also pretend the sky is green - doesn't make it true. Of COURSE the depiction of women in mass media has an effect on how people think of themselves and others. And don't forget that, not only does it harm how women see themselves; it also strongly effects how men see women. Some evidence to support that last claim can be found in this thread alone.

I am a parent of two young girls, and I'm telling you, as a parent, I'm terrified of the pressures my girls will have to face. Focusing in on whether Alice Eve has appropriately realistic body measurements is completely missing the point - the problems are far more wide-ranging than that. If there is any parent of a girl on this thread, I guarantee they will sympathize with my feelings. Boys have it EASY, guys. Go to the toy store, any toy store, and compare the boy's aisle to the girl's aisle. Go to McDonald's and order a happy meal. Watch any Hollywood blockbuster, and ask yourself what role models girls have to look up to from these movies. Ask yourself what roles they play.

Men, in all of Western media, are permitted te be any number of different kinds of people - they can be physically strong, or highly intelligent, or smart and nerdy, or even fat and funny - whether, as a boy, you are funny, or strong, or intelligent, or handsome, you have many role models to choose from. If you're fat and ugly and unfunny, you've got a lack of role models, yes, but there are a large variety of options for boys to look at and say, "Gee, I want to be like that." Just to give you a personal example: as a kid, I looked up to Captain Picard, an old, bald, Shakespearian-spouting man. I was lucky that, as a book nerd, and as a very small and average-looking guy, I still could find a role model to present a set of positive values and expectations for me.

As a girl, you're fucked. What role models do you have? What lessons do you learn? You can be the object of desire for any number of men! You can wear skin-tight outfits, be super-thin, and learn some martial art! Even if you are smart, say a scientist, you better still be cute and sexy and coy! The expectations and values and role models offered for girls and young women in our mass media are limited, and frankly, appalling.

Now - is it any particular company's job to enable girls to feel more positive about their roles in life? Is it any company's job to treat women with the same respect, to offer them images of the same kinds of opportunities, as they do men? Well, no, I suppose not. I suppose McDonalds (owned by men), and every single toy company (all owned by men), and every major Hollywood studio (all run by men) have no obligation to be equitable, or to offer healthy and positive images to people, or to give a crap whatsoever about furthering justice and equality in the world. Fair enough. I don't expect Michael Bay to treat women as if they're people or anything other than bodies with boobs that young boys can jack off to on the internet.

But Star Trek? Isn't that, sort of, their selling point? Or, it used to be, anyway. In the world of filmed or televised science fiction, post-Dana Scully, post-Kira Nerys, post-President Rosyln, shouldn't Star Trek be, I dunno, trying to continue the job of creating strong, fully developed female human beings as characters that other science fiction writers and producers with more guts and imagination have already begun? I expect more from Star Trek than a rehash of appalling gender roles from the 60's.

I'm just saying, ultimately, that I agree, Star Trek, as a franchise, doesn't have any particular obligation to be smart, or fair, or imaginative, or courageous, regarding how they depict women in their movies. But considering the path they chose for this movie, I think they should be mildly ashamed of themselves. Dr. Marcus, the strong presence from Wrath of Khan, has been reduced to a visual gag regarding her sexy body, and Uhura has been reduced to being the whiny, inconvenient girlfriend of one of the strong, manly heroes. Yuck. It isn't just the shot of Marcus in her underwear. That's just a symptom of the entire underlying and unexamined philosophy of the whole boy's club that is modern Hollywood. Considering what Star Trek used to be regarding these issues, these writers (and Abrams) absolutely should be ashamed of themselves.
 
But considering the path they chose for this movie, I think they should be mildly ashamed of themselves. Dr. Marcus, the strong presence from Wrath of Khan, has been reduced to a visual gag regarding her sexy body, and Uhura has been reduced to being the whiny, inconvenient girlfriend of one of the strong, manly heroes.

Marcus was also the only one qualified on the Enterprise to disarm a "4,000 pound stick of dynamite", as McCoy put it and was a weapons specialist. Two seconds of underwear is not a visual gag reel.
 
Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

There were ways it could have not been gratuitous but it WAS gratuitous. Still as a male I don't mind seeing Eve in her underwear...
 
Twelve pages of this conversation, and I still feel like it's been avoiding the issue, rather than dealing with it.


First of all, to be completely dismissive of the complaints regarding the depiction of women in science fiction or Hollywood films is to be closing your eyes to the actual causes and effects of socialization that take place in our world. You can pretend that the media has no effect whatsoever on women's feelings towards their body image, role in society, and expectations, but you can also pretend the sky is green - doesn't make it true. Of COURSE the depiction of women in mass media has an effect on how people think of themselves and others. And don't forget that, not only does it harm how women see themselves; it also strongly effects how men see women. Some evidence to support that last claim can be found in this thread alone.

I am a parent of two young girls, and I'm telling you, as a parent, I'm terrified of the pressures my girls will have to face. Focusing in on whether Alice Eve has appropriately realistic body measurements is completely missing the point - the problems are far more wide-ranging than that. If there is any parent of a girl on this thread, I guarantee they will sympathize with my feelings. Boys have it EASY, guys. Go to the toy store, any toy store, and compare the boy's aisle to the girl's aisle. Go to McDonald's and order a happy meal. Watch any Hollywood blockbuster, and ask yourself what role models girls have to look up to from these movies. Ask yourself what roles they play.

Men, in all of Western media, are permitted te be any number of different kinds of people - they can be physically strong, or highly intelligent, or smart and nerdy, or even fat and funny - whether, as a boy, you are funny, or strong, or intelligent, or handsome, you have many role models to choose from. If you're fat and ugly and unfunny, you've got a lack of role models, yes, but there are a large variety of options for boys to look at and say, "Gee, I want to be like that." Just to give you a personal example: as a kid, I looked up to Captain Picard, an old, bald, Shakespearian-spouting man. I was lucky that, as a book nerd, and as a very small and average-looking guy, I still could find a role model to present a set of positive values and expectations for me.

As a girl, you're fucked. What role models do you have? What lessons do you learn? You can be the object of desire for any number of men! You can wear skin-tight outfits, be super-thin, and learn some martial art! Even if you are smart, say a scientist, you better still be cute and sexy and coy! The expectations and values and role models offered for girls and young women in our mass media are limited, and frankly, appalling.

Now - is it any particular company's job to enable girls to feel more positive about their roles in life? Is it any company's job to treat women with the same respect, to offer them images of the same kinds of opportunities, as they do men? Well, no, I suppose not. I suppose McDonalds (owned by men), and every single toy company (all owned by men), and every major Hollywood studio (all run by men) have no obligation to be equitable, or to offer healthy and positive images to people, or to give a crap whatsoever about furthering justice and equality in the world. Fair enough. I don't expect Michael Bay to treat women as if they're people or anything other than bodies with boobs that young boys can jack off to on the internet.

But Star Trek? Isn't that, sort of, their selling point? Or, it used to be, anyway. In the world of filmed or televised science fiction, post-Dana Scully, post-Kira Nerys, post-President Rosyln, shouldn't Star Trek be, I dunno, trying to continue the job of creating strong, fully developed female human beings as characters that other science fiction writers and producers with more guts and imagination have already begun? I expect more from Star Trek than a rehash of appalling gender roles from the 60's.

I'm just saying, ultimately, that I agree, Star Trek, as a franchise, doesn't have any particular obligation to be smart, or fair, or imaginative, or courageous, regarding how they depict women in their movies. But considering the path they chose for this movie, I think they should be mildly ashamed of themselves. Dr. Marcus, the strong presence from Wrath of Khan, has been reduced to a visual gag regarding her sexy body, and Uhura has been reduced to being the whiny, inconvenient girlfriend of one of the strong, manly heroes. Yuck. They absolutely should be ashamed of themselves.

Are you serious? I'm the mother of a young girl, and while I know what kind of pressure she will face growing up, I'm not terrified of the stereotypes that are so prevalent in Hollywood. I'm worried about the two or three people who she will want to hang out with. I'm worried about her driving a car one day. I'm worried about her finding happiness in whatever she chooses to do and with whomever she chooses to marry. I'm worried about a hell of a lot more about those things than what happens in a movie because those things only have meaning if you give them meaning. She loves to pretend to be a princess...she loves dance. She loves being a girly girl and I had absolutely nothing to do with it because I've always been and always will be a tomboy. That's her personality and if she likes playing dress-up and wearing make-up and playing with her dolls, then so be it. She's learning how to be an adult, and it won't be easy for her, but nothing ever is. And that's the one thing that, if she never listens to another word that I say, I want her to learn from me.
 
I think I'd be far more concerned about the lack of women captains (one) and women first officers (zero) in the emergency meeting than two seconds of someone in their underwear.
 
I think I'd be far more concerned about the lack of women captains (one) and women first officers (zero) in the emergency meeting than two seconds of someone in their underwear.


I had heard this was the case but when I watched the movie I saw a good representation of races a genders. I think I saw at least 3-4 women in the meeting.
 
From the start of this, with some complaints of a two second (maybe not even) part of the movie, I think all of this is serious overreaction, including Lindelof making an issue of it.

If some folks are getting up in arms about this, I shudder, SHUDDER, I tell you, to think of what those people would think of scenes in other movies which would probably be much more inappropriate for both the moment in the movie and how it depicts a woman.
 
I think I'd be far more concerned about the lack of women captains (one) and women first officers (zero) in the emergency meeting than two seconds of someone in their underwear.


I had heard this was the case but when I watched the movie I saw a good representation of races a genders. I think I saw at least 3-4 women in the meeting.

I only saw one, but really wasn't counting heads when watching the movie. I might go tomorrow and I'll definitely pay more attention to the ratio in the scene. :techman:
 
From the start of this, with some complaints of a two second (maybe not even) part of the movie, I think all of this is serious overreaction, including Lindelof making an issue of it.

If some folks are getting up in arms about this, I shudder, SHUDDER, I tell you, to think of what those people would think of scenes in other movies which would probably be much more inappropriate for both the moment in the movie and how it depicts a woman.

I have yet to hear one complaint about the twin cat women in their underwear in bed yet.

I guess I don't get why I, as a woman, should care? It's entertainment, and if the scene didn't work for you so be it. But I don't think it's such a big deal that people have to stand up for women's rights. I'm more disgusted that our society will rate a movie with excessive violence, murder and terrorism PG-13, but god forbid there be anything having to do with naked people, because that get an automatic R or worse. What, people can't have sex in the future?

My god, I watch Game of Thrones every week with my husband, and if you want to see men REALLY treating women like objects, just watch ONE episode of that show. I don't see as many people up-in-arms about that.
 
Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

When I was a little kid, I got a Superman outfit from Sears for Christmas (and, courtesy of our Careful What You Wish For Dept here's a little safety tip, kids - fastest way to get picked on in an American working class neighborhood in the 50s was probably going outdoors to play in a Superman outfit).

Anyway, the shirt had a little disclaimer silkscreened near the hem - in the days way before everything carried legal disclaimers - that read something like "Remember this costume cannot make you fly. Only Superman can fly."

Seriously. It struck me as dumb at the time. It was a costume; why would it make you able to fly?

http://randomactsofgeekery.blogspot.com/2007/03/classic-fan-nerd-toy-of-day.html

Since it's not proven that playing with Barbie dolls does children any harm, maybe Mattel could mollify overly anxious parents with some kind of disclaimer tattoo on her notoriously undersized vinyl ass.

Not all kids "get it". From http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-07/08/content_12859764.htm:

Boy dies after trying to fly like Superman
Updated: 2011-07-08 08:32
(China Daily)

One boy died and another was seriously injured when they tried to fly like Superman in Maoming city, Guangdong province, on June 11.

According to a shop owner on the first floor of the building, one 6-year-old boy jumped from the fourth floor with his arms outstretched like Superman, and was followed a few minutes later by his 4-year-old brother, the Nanfang Daily reported.
:shrug:
 
From the start of this, with some complaints of a two second (maybe not even) part of the movie, I think all of this is serious overreaction, including Lindelof making an issue of it.

If some folks are getting up in arms about this, I shudder, SHUDDER, I tell you, to think of what those people would think of scenes in other movies which would probably be much more inappropriate for both the moment in the movie and how it depicts a woman.

I have yet to hear one complaint about the twin cat women in their underwear in bed yet.

I guess I don't get why I, as a woman, should care? It's entertainment, and if the scene didn't work for you so be it. But I don't think it's such a big deal that people have to stand up for women's rights. I'm more disgusted that our society will rate a movie with excessive violence, murder and terrorism PG-13, but god forbid there be anything having to do with naked people, because that get an automatic R or worse. What, people can't have sex in the future?

My god, I watch Game of Thrones every week with my husband, and if you want to see men REALLY treating women like objects, just watch ONE episode of that show. I don't see as many people up-in-arms about that.

That's because Game of Thrones is very clearly criticizing that behaviour (this strongly and furiously feminist outlook is even more clear in the books), while Star Trek is blatantly accepting and propogating it. In fact, George R. R. Martin has done more for creating strong, fully-developed female characters in the last decade than most of science fiction has done in the last 5 decades. I'm glad you brought Game of Thrones up, as a perfect example of how to portray nudity, sexuality, gender roles, and strong female characters in a way that is brave, realistic, insightful, and fair. It serves as a wonderful contrast to Star Trek.
 
Ubik, why do I have the feeling your long post will be one-sided, although it starts as though it's going to be fair and balanced ?

First of all, to be completely dismissive of the complaints regarding the depiction of women in science fiction or Hollywood films is to be closing your eyes to the actual causes and effects of socialization that take place in our world.

Oh, that's why.

You can pretend that the media has no effect whatsoever on women's feelings towards their body image, role in society, and expectations, but you can also pretend the sky is green - doesn't make it true.

And here's the problem: if you claim there is an effect, you are in fact the one making the positive claim, and so it's your burden of proof.

Of COURSE the depiction of women in mass media has an effect on how people think of themselves and others.

"Of course" ? You say that as though there is no possible discussion about this.

And don't forget that, not only does it harm how women see themselves; it also strongly effects how men see women.

Again, starting with your conclusion. You assume that there is something we shouldn't forget.

I am a parent of two young girls, and I'm telling you, as a parent, I'm terrified of the pressures my girls will have to face.

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but your personal anecdote, based on a feeling you have, is not evidence that the thing you fear is real. My mother is terrified of elevators even though they are the safest mode of travel on the face of the earth. She takes the stairs despite her disabilities, and despite the fact that stairs are far more dangerous.

If there is any parent of a girl on this thread, I guarantee they will sympathize with my feelings.

And interesting assumption. Shall we take a poll ?

Boys have it EASY, guys. Go to the toy store, any toy store, and compare the boy's aisle to the girl's aisle. Go to McDonald's and order a happy meal. Watch any Hollywood blockbuster, and ask yourself what role models girls have to look up to from these movies. Ask yourself what roles they play.

I am not convinced that boys or girls take role models from fiction. I am more under the impression that they take role models from real life: parents and friends.

As a girl, you're fucked. What role models do you have? What lessons do you learn? You can be the object of desire for any number of men! You can wear skin-tight outfits, be super-thin, and learn some martial art! Even if you are smart, say a scientist, you better still be cute and sexy and coy! The expectations and values and role models offered for girls and young women in our mass media are limited, and frankly, appalling.

That is a gross exaggeration, and otherwise not worth arguing with.
 
I think it's important to see why Marcus is valued. Is it because she is able to deactivate the torpedo, or is it because she looks nice? I think if you asked Jim Kirk that question, he would only come to appreciate her as a member of the crew after he valued how she looked. So she gets in the door, so to speak, because of her looks, not her credentials, and that is a sad commentary on the 23rd century.

In and of itself, attraction is not a bad thing. When girls get the message that this is the only thing that gives them worth, then I think the culture should examine itself. Now you can dispute that all you want, that girls get this message from television and movies. I understand it is not the only influence. But where does that peer pressure come from? What sets the trend for clothing? My guess is advertisements and wanting to look like a particular star. What sets the attitude of girls before they ever enter into middle school? This is trying to get to the root of that. But there is overwhelming scientific evidence, some presented in this thread, that girls respond differently than boys to these perfect images of their physique. A boy's worth is not tied to his physical appearance. The needs of girls are not the same as boys. They are not the same, I suggest not equating the two.

As I said, this is not the only place we need to do work. But Star Trek being a more progressive, inclusive universe, I don't expect a 2013 version of that universe to reflect Gene Roddenberry's sexism. This is supposed to be a hopeful future.

Context matters. And when Kirk is in bed with two women, it shows him as a womanizer. We are not shown why he is in bed with them, except that he flirts with every pretty face that walks by (the scene with Spock where they talk about the 5-year mission, the scene with Bones talking about the Kobiashi Maru). I don't think that is more than a pop culture representation of James Kirk. William Shatner's portrayal, and in the scripts themselves, was to learn about the people he was on the Enterprise with. He didn't have cheap hook-ups every time he went out into space. He listened to them. He fought with them. So even if this is keeping in the tradition of Kirk, this frat boy is not the James Kirk I remember.

Complaining is not limiting anyone's freedom. It is a discourse, loud and messy as this one has been, about what to do with this scene. It's about education of what is actually being discovered in science, and using that information. Do I think there needs to be new decency standards? In terms of financial penalties for showing a model that is sickly underweight, yes. This movie would not qualify. Do I think we need to ban Barbies? No, I think we need to create a public swell to make sure that the dolls change their shape. I am not asking for women to dress from head-to-toe and have fat dolls to play with. But I think we are putting them in a situation where media images, in combination with other factors, are causing pain.

Now as a man, I am insulted by these images. I am insulted that I am seen as some drooling frat boy that just wants to see naked women and get drunk all the time. My experience with this movie was that I laughed and muttered "completely useless scene." I wanted to walk out of the theater, and stopped myself, because I knew I would have to pay again to see the rest of it. When we see men's magazines, women are plastered all over them. It's as if I never have a thought that doesn't include naked women. I never want to know how about health or politics or comedy. Someone says "We cater to men," it automatically means beer, pizza, tv, sports, and women. It means I can't watch other popular science fiction without being offended. It means that I cannot watch a comedy about men without seeing those images (Hangover III) or having a stupid Dad that just goes along with whatever the wife says because she bitches a lot and he can't take her incessant whining. If that appeals to you, fine. It doesn't to me. And I avoid things that say "we cater to men" for that purpose. This movie caters to men.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top