Well, if you read the thread, I said that I didn't think it was intentional, but rather a kind of misogyny that is acted on without thought. If you think that doesn't exist, then that's what is sad because it does.
Of course it exists, but going out of your way to find it in the most innocuous things is neither fair nor productive and does more damage than good. Also, for someone who gets upset over people allegedly speaking on your behalf when clearly they weren't, perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions about what they know or don't know.
Unfortunately, I'm not going out of my way. And I'm not making assumptions, I said "
if you read the thread," which clearly isn't assuming anything, however you were acting like you didn't.
And heinous? Please use that word when I accuse them of being murderers. You'll be waiting for quite a while, though.
I think accusing them of misogyny or racism, two things they've been accused of (not both by you, just in general), are pretty serious.
Well, here's the thing. A person can be as loving towards all as can be, but that doesn't make them immune to certain actions that are rooted in racism or misogyny, even if they are not that way themselves.
I think that a better depiction of women in these movies, learning from mistakes they made in this one, is a serious topic. You seem to think Uhura was handled well in this film, maybe even Marcus too, but I do not, especially Uhura.
It's the very definition of the word. How many times have phasers and other technology been inconsistently depicted in Star Trek over the years? To make a leap of logic to misogyny from inconsistent writing (which this wasn't even an example of either) is ridiculous.
I don't think it is, Locutus. Speaking of "over the years," how many times has it been that the woman can't fight off the bad guy alone, but a guy has to come in to finish the job? You could say that Spock needed her help, and that evens things out, but from the way it played out, I don't think it does.
Really? You thought my using an obviously hypothetical response from your future self to my comparison was seriously trying to put prior words in your mouth? How does that work, exactly?
It works by trying to make it seem like I am making points that I am not. And what's the "your future self" business all about?
And when was that explained within the film?
When Khan was stunned by Scotty and immediately opened his eyes on the ground to show that he was not stunned at all, only acting like he was to gain an advantage.
Do they have to put a big neon sign calling attention to it for it to count?
They need to do better than they did. While people are making excuses for them on this thread, I know I'm not the only one who saw an issue there. Also, we don't know that he didn't actually succumb to the stunner, since people are throwing out theories. Maybe he just recovered really fast and woke up as soon as he hit the ground. You see, making up stuff can go both ways.
Clearly just a damsel in distress tied to the train tracks.
Wow, you just keep putting words in my mouth while you are quite clearly in a huff. While I never called her a damsel in distress, I honestly am not sure that she "saved the day" as someone else said she did. I think there were some problems with the way she was used in this film, and I hope they do better in the next one. As I mentioned before, I think she was handled well in the first film, but I guess you're too busy with your blind anger to have read that.
No anger, blind or not. I just don't care for unfair accusations to be thrown people's way for ridiculous and lazy reasons, like not being able to think of any other explanation besides misogyny for the two different phaser stun scenes.
[/quote]
It seemed like an angry response, but I'll take your word for it that it wasn't.
"Ridiculous" and "Lazy," are interesting words. That's how I'd describe much of what happened in STID. If you want to defend it, though, then that is your right.
