Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

[Ovation]

Chekov becoming chief engineer and Uhura beaming down to save Spock during the finale were two such stupid scenes. Uhura is an officer, a linguist, and a technician. I want her to do technical stuff and if, in her capacity as an officer she gets in on the action then that's really good. With a ship full of 50+ security guards, you put Uhura in charge of a team, you don't send her down instead of one.

I have to agree with this. With Chekov, as soon as I heard Kirk tell him to put on a red shirt it was the only time in the movie I felt a little nervous. He may not be anyone’s favorite, but the character does work. It’s nice to know that he was shadowing Scotty for 6 months, and being a child genius, I’m sure he soaked up everything he learned, but there was a better way to handle this. Couldn’t we have seen him learning from Scotty sometime earlier in the film. He could have been helping him off duty or something, and then when the action picked up he should have been needed on the bridge as the ship’s best navigator.

Why? Can you not imagine it? Does everything have to be explicitly presented? That would make for a seriously dull film (in any case, not just Trek).

And that takes me to something else. The people that think striving for equality in the writing is “arrogant” and “entitled,” all the while saying in the same breath what “should be” or even “has to be” for their beloved Trek are just interesting to me. I’ve got a couple of more words I’d rather use: Imagination and Creativity. If the writing team, as artists, want to include people, then they can imagine that and create that. If they want to exclude people, then they can imagine that and create that, but let’s not act like it’s not a choice. And the very idea of IDIC means that they have quite a few choices at their fingertips, at least that’s what I think.

The filmmakers DID imagine something and DID exclude people. You just don't want to accept that which was excluded (a greater female presence)--which was their choice. One cannot have it both ways. Either they chose to populate the film with exactly what we got and you are disappointed (the precise kind of artistic choice I have defended in terms of artistic rights--independent of endorsing such choices) OR they are subconsciously, rather than explicitly, acting on sexist impulses of which they seem unaware and so the resulting gender imbalance is NOT an artistic choice (a POV repeated ad nauseam by another poster in this thread who is taking up the mantle of demanding more gender balance in Trek).

I mean, I could just imagine him sitting in their quarters, in front of one of those Vulcan meditation candle things having a hard time clearing his mind. He sees images of Vulcan being destroyed, his mother reaching out for him as she falls, Nero’s face, and then Khan as a similar villain making similar threats against “the only home I have left”… Uhura notices (let’s say she looks up while reading a book or a novel on her PADD while she’s laying across their bed) and she tells him that he needs to see a Vulcan Healer or at least maybe call his dad because he might be able to help.

The conversation could have gone from there with Spock claiming that he’s okay and that the few Vulcan Healers that are left already have too much on their plates in treating the thousands of traumatized Vulcans that remain of their species, and his father has more important things to do than to trouble himself to show up because his son can’t “cope.” He’d mention that they’ve been over this before, and Nyota would mention that she thinks he’s getting worse because, as his bond mate, she can feel what he feels and see what he sees. She can tell that it’s getting harder for him to shield her from that and that he needs help. She tries telling him that it’s the “logical” thing to do, but he just shifts back into position and tries to meditate, to handle it on his own… That’s when she quietly decides to stop talking to him because he’s not listening anyway…

This would have made me want to leave the cinema before the film was over. Turning Trek into a soap opera is not my idea of entertainment. However, even if they had chosen to do this in the film, as much as I would have personally found it, well, dull and uninteresting, I would still vociferously defend their right to make that artistic choice.

In about 3 minutes time I think a lot could have been covered there, and it would have better served the story/plot of the film than the shuttle argument. Plus it would have been in character and behind closed doors. But again, that’s just my humble opinion. By the end of the film, he could have learned that getting the help he needs before going on a 5 year mission is necessary, and that could have been one of the things he focused on in the year that goes by at the end of the film. I think this would have worked better.

And I would have found it horrible. Different strokes…

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Why? Can you not imagine it? Does everything have to be explicitly presented? That would make for a seriously dull film (in any case, not just Trek).

If your audience has to do your work for you, then you’ve already failed as a writer/producer. Everything doesn’t have to be explicitly presented, but showing is the format they’ve chosen. They don’t show enough of what matters in terms of growth, as individuals or as a team, in this film, but you are free to like it and think that they have. I could also ask why show most of the things that happened in the film. They could all sit around after the fact, mentioning it, and, well, couldn’t you just imagine it? Makes for a pretty bad film in my view.

The filmmakers DID imagine something and DID exclude people. You just don't want to accept that which was excluded (a greater female presence)--which was their choice. One cannot have it both ways. Either they chose to populate the film with exactly what we got and you are disappointed (the precise kind of artistic choice I have defended in terms of artistic rights--independent of endorsing such choices) OR they are subconsciously, rather than explicitly, acting on sexist impulses of which they seem unaware and so the resulting gender imbalance is NOT an artistic choice (a POV repeated ad nauseam by another poster in this thread who is taking up the mantle of demanding more gender balance in Trek).

Yep, yes, siree, they made choices. Oh, and please don’t tell me what I do and don’t want to accept. I know they made choices, and I also know that these choices are ones that I cannot support, and so I will not. That’s simple enough, don’t you think?

However, I do think that they both made conscious choices, like to make a more male dominated/leaning film (I think one of the actors, Simon Pegg I want to say, said that JJ wanted to make a more male-centric film than ST09, and I’ll definitely agree that he succeeded), and perhaps subconscious choices, like how they used the couple of women that did have roles of some significance in an effort to “cater” to men. Honestly, I think that as they were rushing to get a script out, and they were pressed for time, they fell back on stereotypes that are somewhat or completely based on sexist and/or misogynistic views.

I went into detail on this earlier in this thread:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8220391&postcount=57

This would have made me want to leave the cinema before the film was over. Turning Trek into a soap opera is not my idea of entertainment. However, even if they had chosen to do this in the film, as much as I would have personally found it, well, dull and uninteresting, I would still vociferously defend their right to make that artistic choice.

If we are merely talking about “rights,” well then I must agree. They should have and do have every right to make artistic choices that the studio/production company also have a say in because it’s their money that is making these films, but the writers still have some choice as to how they write them and they should.

I also have the right to say that I don’t like it and why, and so does anyone else. You have the right to say that you support it if you do. So, as far as “rights” are concerned, I think we’re all doing pretty well.

If they want to make the next movie another Kirk/Spock bromance love story or if they want to make it about the “triumvirate,” then that is completely up to them. People that want to see that will, and I won’t have to worry about wanting to walk out of the theater because I won’t walk in. My only issue is that if this is where they wanted to go, then they should have made that clear with the first film, because that’s not the impression I got from it. I’m guessing I’m not alone considering the number of complaints I’ve read around the web about this last film. I guess that’s what happens when they set expectations by making a more inclusive, team oriented, first film.

I don’t think realistic drama = soap opera. That’s a major problem with STID in my view. This film skips over dealing with things in a natural way, and it doesn’t make sense. And I’m not just talking about relationships, either.

And I would have found it horrible. Different strokes…

Yes, I guess so because as anything other than a forgettable Summertime action-action-action flick, STID is horrible to me, and since I don’t like watching action for the sake of action, I honestly could have passed. Different strokes indeed.

 

[Maurice]

In any case, regardless of whether all criteria are met, what's inarguable is that there are at least three named women in 2001.

According to IMDB:

Before they meet Floyd, they are considering going to the observation deck while they wait for a flight. After Floyd leaves, they say, "It must be difficult for him."

 

[Pauln6]

So, Scotty's job is purely administrative? That's never been how it looked to me. And easy communication? Isn't that what they all wear those communicators for? He couldn't have just as easily communicated with a female 3rd in command in engineering, whose spent her entire career in engineering, and regularly works in that section of the ship?

Purely? No. Are administrative duties part of the job? Yes.

Chekov is someone Kirk has a direct working relationship with. They're going on a dangerous mission. He wants someone he knows at the post. Really didn't think I would need to spell it out to you.

But hey, you learn something new everyday.

Unnecessarily rude but I digress.

What this sounds like is that it's acceptable for Kirk to promote his mates rather than than someone he doesn't know as well. Don't get me wrong, this is exactly how the Old Boy network works in the UK with public schoolboys scratching each other's backs but it's not generally viewed as an acceptable practice whether the guy who is better qualified to do the job is a male or female. Don't forget, Chekov is an ensign, who has been qualified as a navigator for a year, and shadowing the chief engineer for only part of his post qualification duty. In no way is hre better qualified than someone who has been qualified for years and works alongside Scotty on a full time basis.

I agree it would have been better for Chekov to act as an assistant to the new chief engineer and he could still have acted as the mouthpiece to the bridge while the new chief got on with fixing stuff. The scenes play out the same pretty much but less silly.

Mind you, they did the same thing with Kirk in the first movie.

And before you look to defend either decision too strenuously, they parodied this sort of thing in the Simpsons when the admiral promotes Homer because he likes the cut of his jib.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Take a step back and replace the Starfleet cadets with NuStarbuck, Boomer, Racetrack and Kat. Are you still having a hard time imagining a bar room brawl with these women? I'm not. NuTrek is in a strait jacket of its own making.

You assume I followed BSG beyond hearing that Starbuck and Boomer were now female.

I am definitely having a hard time picturing Kirk in a barroom brawl with a female security team defending Uhura's honor.

I don't agree that having a blonde bun-headed extra with a couple of lines would be problematic. X-men featured Kitty Pryde as an extra in the first two movies before appointing a talented actress to play her as a main character in the third.

C'mon, I can hear you screaming "foul" that the Janice chosen for STiD gets replaced by a leading lady when her scenes in a sequel script get pumped up.

Having extras who are developed and elevated due to popularity (like Chief O'Brien) is more fun than introducing new characters.

That example is exactly what happened in my "Prisoner" example. But it worked for Meaney because TNG was a series, not a movie. And he had proven himself as a talented actor.

A cameo from Rand would be better than nothing.

And there was a blond Starfleet woman with a bun in "Star Trek" (2009). They even re-used the hairstyle for IDW's Rand in the comics.

If your audience has to do your work for you, then you’ve already failed as a writer/producer.

Absolutely not!

If a film connects every dot we, the viewers, are left with absolutely nothing left to discuss (or even ponder in our own minds) other than "It was good/bad."

 

[KittyDuran]

If a film connects every dot we, the viewers, are left with absolutely nothing left to discuss (or even ponder in our own minds) other than "It was good/bad."

Not to mention incredibly LONG movies...

 

[KittyDuran]

Thanks, Kitty. I've also said there are parts of the movie that I did actually like, and perhaps I'll get around to those on this thread too.

Rebuttal or not, I am interested in your thoughts.

I was going to compare Star Trek characters to a baseball team and the various roles they play (as I listen to the Reds game...).

Cool. And I'm sure that each position is critical to the success of the team. I can agree with that, if that's where you were going.

Sort of... functioning as a team but also there are certain players that the fans really love ... go to a game and count the jerseys/t-shirts with players names on the back. Kirk and Spock are those superstar players with McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov ... then throw in Carol and Keenser, and there's the starting line-up. Khan and Adm Marcus are the opposing team's starting pitcher and clean-up hitter respectively.

BTW, I really like baseball...

 

[Therin of Andor]

I wanted Bones to have more to do with Kirk and Spock but a "waste".

Well, read the opening credits of Season One TOS. It's the Kirk and Spock show.

If Bad Robot had been really strict to the beginnings of the 5YM, they might even have used Dr Piper (or "Bones" Boyce) in a supporting roll, not McCoy.

 

[beamMe]

If your audience has to do your work for you, then you’ve already failed as a writer/producer.

There is a short scene where Kirk ask Chekov about him following Scotty like a puppy for the last months.
There, mission accomplished.
The audience learned everything they need to know to accept Chekov in engineering.

 

[Ovation]

If your audience has to do your work for you, then you’ve already failed as a writer/producer.

There is a short scene where Kirk ask Chekov about him following Scotty like a puppy for the last months.
There, mission accomplished.
The audience learned everything they need to know to accept Chekov in engineering.

Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).

Ultimately, all this gnashing of teeth over how many women, how important they are, are they respected or not, etc. vs. there are enough/plenty/it doesn't matter seems to revolve around a fundamental difference of opinion over something that is not, at its heart, a gender issue--the Kirk/Spock show vs. the ensemble approach. Whatever side of the equation you fall on that issue appears largely (though not wholly) determinant in the overall debate on gender roles. I favour the Kirk/Spock show approach--they are, to me, the most important characters by far TOS (and its modern revision). If that approach is maintained, then any female character becomes secondary and, potentially, disappointing in terms of gender role or even role in general. The ensemble approach would at least imply, if not directly advocate, the importance of giving significant screen time, as well as significant character development, to all the "big seven". This would allow for far more well-developed female characters (Uhura and Marcus) in quality (as more than windowdressing--even though I think they were more than that already, clearly not everyone does). The quantity issue is harder to resolve in the absence of either changing genders of some of the "big seven" or simply omitting a few to replace them with female characters.

I don't dislike ensemble approaches per se, but I do not favour that approach for TOS/Abrams Trek. For a host of reasons, I prefer the Kirk/Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura/Chekov/Sulu hierarchical tier over the TNG-style ensemble--with those characters. I am fine with the ensemble approach to TNG characters and, if ever TNG is rebooted, I would like to see that tradition continue.

 

[KittyDuran]

If your audience has to do your work for you, then you’ve already failed as a writer/producer.

There is a short scene where Kirk ask Chekov about him following Scotty like a puppy for the last months.
There, mission accomplished.
The audience learned everything they need to know to accept Chekov in engineering.

Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).

Absolutely... the exchange (IIRC)

Kirk: Mr. Chekov, you've been shadowing Mr. Scott in Engineering (for the last few months?)?
Chekov: Affirmative, Captain.
Kirk: Good, you're my new chief. Now go put on a red shirt.
Chekov: Aye, Captain.

 

[mos6507]

Does everything have to be explicitly presented? That would make for a seriously dull film (in any case, not just Trek).

There are a series of Youtube clips that compress the plot of entire movies down to a minute or two. Here is the entire Godfather saga in three minutes. Is that your idea of a good time? I mean, is any amount of plot-compression too much? Just show a series of nonsensical explosions and call it a day?

Into Darkness had an incredibly fast-moving plot as it is. An extra few minutes of character moments would only have helped.

 

[mos6507]

Of course it's the God-damned Kirk and Spock show, they are culturally relevant to the main-stream crowd. It's like bitching about a Batman movie because it focuses too much on Batman.

Then where do these pop-culture catch-phrases come from?

"I'm a doctor, not a _fill_in_the_blanks_"

"Beam me up Scotty"

"Hailing frequencies open"

"Nuclear wessels"

Let alone the fact that George Takei is now the king of Facebook.

 

[KittyDuran]

Of course it's the God-damned Kirk and Spock show, they are culturally relevant to the main-stream crowd. It's like bitching about a Batman movie because it focuses too much on Batman.

Then where do these pop-culture catch-phrases come from?

"I'm a doctor, not a _fill_in_the_blanks_" (McCoy)

"Beam me up Scotty" (Kirk)

"Hailing frequencies open" (Uhura)

"Nuclear wessels" (Chekov)

Let alone the fact that George Takei is now the king of Facebook.

What prize do I get?

 

[Ovation]

Does everything have to be explicitly presented? That would make for a seriously dull film (in any case, not just Trek).

There are a series of Youtube clips that compress the plot of entire movies down to a minute or two. Here is the entire Godfather saga in three minutes. Is that your idea of a good time? I mean, is any amount of plot-compression too much? Just show a series of nonsensical explosions and call it a day?

Into Darkness had an incredibly fast-moving plot as it is. An extra few minutes of character moments would only have helped.

Considering that among my five favourite films is Lawrence of Arabia, I have very little problem with the length of a movie. But even Lawrence (a cinematic masterpiece) does not explicitly show everything required to advance the story. There are moments when the viewer is expected to make the appropriate inferences to keep up. I prefer to let the director decide what is explicit and what is implicit. If I have trouble "keeping up" with the plot because I cannot logically infer what has not been explicitly presented, I complain about it. No iteration of Star Trek has ever been too difficult for me to "keep up". They aren't perfect (far from it) but they hardly present unresolvable puzzles that leave the audience completely confused for huge stretches.

If you want an example of a movie that needed more explicit presentation of various plot points, watch the theatrical cut of Highlander 2. THAT is a movie with too much plot compression.

 

[M'Sharak]

If your audience has to do your work for you, then you’ve already failed as a writer/producer.

There is a short scene where Kirk ask Chekov about him following Scotty like a puppy for the last months.
There, mission accomplished.
The audience learned everything they need to know to accept Chekov in engineering.

Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).

An argument could probably be made that the potential for Chekov to take over at least temporarily for Scotty was being set up even during the first movie. Not all of the mirroring/symmetry going on there involved Kirk and Spock.

 

[Ovation]

There is a short scene where Kirk ask Chekov about him following Scotty like a puppy for the last months.
There, mission accomplished.
The audience learned everything they need to know to accept Chekov in engineering.

Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).

An argument could probably be made that the potential for Chekov to take over at least temporarily for Scotty was being set up even during the first movie. Not all of the mirroring/symmetry going on there involved Kirk and Spock.

True enough. But then, that would require people to carry over something from the previous film in order to better understand the new one. Can't be having that kind of nonsense.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I'd bet there was one reason and one reason only why Chekov was written to take over for Scotty in this movie: it was a nod to the old fandom explanation for why Khan recognized Chekov in TWOK even though he wasn't on the show at the time of "Space Seed," namely that he was a member of the crew but was working in engineering at the time and thus not seen on the bridge. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

 

[M'Sharak]

Pretty much (in terms of explaining why Chekov could do the job--whether he should be doing it is a little less convincing, to me, but I chalk it up to the standard "must use each of the main cast in at least one 'moment' onscreen" rule that has been a part of cinema for, oh, over a century).

An argument could probably be made that the potential for Chekov to take over at least temporarily for Scotty was being set up even during the first movie. Not all of the mirroring/symmetry going on there involved Kirk and Spock.

True enough. But then, that would require people to carry over something from the previous film in order to better understand the new one. Can't be having that kind of nonsense.

Ooo, sorry - you're right, of course. Just forget I ever mentioned it.

[anncr]
We apologize for the interruption, and now return you to our regularly-scheduled showing of "Star Trek Into Darkness Meets The Bechdel Test".
[/anncr]

 

[Kruezerman]

May I ask a question? Why should they pander to anybody? Why make it seem like they HAVE to put women into the movie because they HAVE to? When did telling a story with good characters and going on an adventure take a backseat to bureaucratic number crunching? Because as a minority that is more important to me, no, don't put "me" in there because you can or you have to, but because I fit in there. If I am truly equal, then it shouldn't matter if I am "represented" in a movie. Just take me away for a couple hours. Don't degrade me by making me a statistic that has to be put in.