Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

[BillJ]

She was still the less experienced officer and since Chekov was able to locate and fix the issue with the Enterprise warp core, I'd say he had the skill set he needed to be chief engineer.

 

[Pauln6]

It's arguable that Chekov as an ensign was a better engineer than all the Lt-commanders, Lieutenants, and ensigns from all three engineering shifts on a ship with thre times as many crew as Voyager but it just isn't very realistic.

Which established character from those two movies would you have used as the replacement for Scott?

For starters, I thinks it's silly that Keenser is an officer, let alone the assistant chief purely because of he is portrayed and treated in the movies and comics. I suppose one could argue that he's the same as Morn, who allegedly never shut up off-screen...

I would probably have used a new female character (or a TOS character like Ann Mulhall, Charlene Masterson, etc) but give her just a few lines of dialogue, leaving her to get on with stuff in the background and assign Chekov to assist her. Chekov can deliver most of the same dialogue but he isn't in charge.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Well, that's not what you said when you were making your sarcastic little comment about surgery, but okay. […]

Within the context of the discussion, that’s exactly what I said. That’s why I pointed out the context of the discussion.

But, I’m not going to get sidetracked, so moving on…

Sidetracked by the rest of the post that further discredits your argument? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to avoid that.

Lol. Well aren't you cute. Very wrong, but cute.

-------

Precisely correct and exactly why it works that way--Spock is a much more important character to the story and to Trek in general.

To you.

And this is my main objection. Star Trek CAN be an ensemble. It does not NEED to be (and I prefer it when it is not--clearly not everyone does, but with its strong WOM rating and critical review ratings, I'd argue quite a few people are fine with it that way).

You can argue that, and I can argue that even many of the “positive” reviews I’ve read for this film are not that complementary outside of it being an action film, which even I’d give it a pass as. Their overseas marketing campaign seems to have worked, but domestically? Well, look that the numbers. Adjusting for inflation, this movie is behind the ’09 movie by several million, and that only gets worse if you adjust for IMAX 3D. It looks like less people are going to see this film domestically. I wonder why?

Only if you accept the premise that an ensemble approach is superior. That is not inherently the case. I wouldn't even miss any member of the secondary characters if one or two (doesn't matter which) was not in the movie. The idea that they all need equal time is rubbish. They are there in service of the story and in service to the actual main characters. If there is a coherent reason for them to be there for more than their "moment", fine. But if any of the secondary characters gets less "face time" in one movie versus another at the expense of another secondary character or to give more time to the main major characters (Sulu and Chekov get less time this time around, for example, which gives more time and importance to Scotty and more focus on Kirk and Spock away from the ship--at the academy, at the meeting where Khan shows up, and elsewhere), I have zero problem with that. Secondary characters are just that--secondary.

Well, that’s changing it up. First it was we need to see the main cast and now we don’t. No one is saying anything about superior vs. inferior, just what’s preferable based on the premise that was laid out in the last film and for what someone might think a somewhat utopian future might entail. Obviously, you think it should be about 2-3 white men and no one else matters as much or perhaps even at all. I’ll have to disagree with that.

They know exactly what they're doing. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they're incompetent. As for "the real reason Eve is there"--errant nonsense. A few second's flash of her in her undies is hardly the only contribution her character makes to the story.

If this was all a part of their plan then I’ll have to give them even less credit. Maybe you think Marcus was used well, but a lot of people don’t.

Moreover, Marcus does a lot more that is deserving of admiration. Despite the inelegance of it, she still saves McCoy from the torpedo (would she even known where to begin to look if all she was was an undies model?), she has the courage to risk her career to look into something her father is doing that she suspects is illegal and immoral, she stands with her shipmates against her father.

She put McCoy in that situation when she told him to stick his hand in there, so , being a “weapon’s expert,” she owed it to him to not get them blown up. You could argue that as an “expert” that had unlimited access to these weapons and their designs, she should not have faced any problems at all. Her courage didn’t really amount to much, same with Uhura at the end of the day in my book, and she stood against her father for a few seconds until he quite easily beamed her over to his ship and moved along in facing “the real threat.”

Ultimately, as I posted in another thread, the basic issue that seems to fuel many of the disputes is centred on the ensemble vs. Kirk/Spock focus. There are more things involved, of course, but many complaints seem to stem from the idea that the secondary characters didn't have enough to do. The other complaints are often a lack of more thorough examinations of ideas and the absence of other characters (female for some, alien for others)--something a TV series would be far more well-equipped to cover. But we don't have a TV series and this creative team has not embraced the kind of ensemble approach that some viewers would have liked. That's not an error or mistake, it's an artistic choice.

Like I said before, you won’t get me to disagree with you on the fact that they made choices. They definitely did that. I’m not sure that I’d call it art, though. But, that’s just me.

You can have the last word on this part of this discussion because I think it has gone around in circles a few times.

 

[beamMe]

For starters, I thinks it's silly that Keenser is an officer, let alone the assistant chief purely

I don't.
But perhaps you wouldn't think him silly if he were a she.

I would probably have used a new female character (or a TOS character like Ann Mulhall, Charlene Masterson, etc) but give her just a few lines of dialogue, leaving her to get on with stuff in the background and assign Chekov to assist her. Chekov can deliver most of the same dialogue but he isn't in charge.

There is no need to bring in a new character - male or female - to take over for Scott.

 

[Ovation]

Within the context of the discussion, that’s exactly what I said. That’s why I pointed out the context of the discussion.

But, I’m not going to get sidetracked, so moving on…

Sidetracked by the rest of the post that further discredits your argument? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to avoid that.

Lol. Well aren't you cute. Very wrong, but cute.

-------

Seeing how you conveniently edited out the one portion of my post (in bold, so it would be easy to notice) that also discredits your argument--can't see how he's wrong here.

To you.

Wrong. To Trek. Kirk and Spock are by far the most important characters in all of Trek. That isn't opinion. It's fact.

Well, that’s changing it up. First it was we need to see the main cast and now we don’t.

No change at all. Secondary characters are secondary and if they have little or no screen time, that's fine. But they are more important than tertiary characters (which is what a hypothetical character in engineering (female or male), to whom Chekov should report for the sake of "realism" , would represent). IF there is a choice between a secondary or a tertiary character getting the limelight, secondary always wins. That is standard filmmaking.

No one is saying anything about superior vs. inferior, just what’s preferable based on the premise that was laid out in the last film and for what someone might think a somewhat utopian future might entail. Obviously, you think it should be about 2-3 white men and no one else matters as much or perhaps even at all. I’ll have to disagree with that.

Even in an ensemble approach, Kirk and Spock would be the most important characters. Nice crack about "white men", by the way. If Kirk and Spock were Latino and Asian women, respectively, I'd make the same argument. What matters most are the actual main characters. In Trek, that's Kirk and Spock. Tough shit for the other characters, but that's the way it is.

If this was all a part of their plan then I’ll have to give them even less credit. Maybe you think Marcus was used well, but a lot of people don’t.

Here's the part you oh so conveniently cut from the rest of the post: As it was, that scene acted as a further blow AGAINST Kirk's womanizing attitude. He's made to feel uncomfortable and that discomfort demonstrates A) his attitude is not all that acceptable and B) Marcus is confident enough to order him to "Turn around" rather than meekly stand there to be ogled at length. The scene does NOT suggest Kirk's behaviour deserves a frat boy "high five" or "fist bump". If it did, then I'd be the first to complain. (triple highlight now--in case you simply missed it last time)

Moreover, Marcus does a lot more that is deserving of admiration. Despite the inelegance of it, she still saves McCoy from the torpedo (would she even known where to begin to look if all she was was an undies model?), she has the courage to risk her career to look into something her father is doing that she suspects is illegal and immoral, she stands with her shipmates against her father.

She put McCoy in that situation when she told him to stick his hand in there, so , being a “weapon’s expert,” she owed it to him to not get them blown up. You could argue that as an “expert” that had unlimited access to these weapons and their designs, she should not have faced any problems at all. Her courage didn’t really amount to much, same with Uhura at the end of the day in my book, and she stood against her father for a few seconds until he quite easily beamed her over to his ship and moved along in facing “the real threat.”

Except Marcus had already said earlier that these weapons were something to which she was DENIED ACCESS, which is why she snuck on board in the first place. As for Uhura's courage, what did she have to do? Take out the Klingon in single-handed combat? Only Khan managed that. Or are you still clinging to the ludicrous notion the filmmakers deliberately saddled her with an ineffectual weapon so she could just be a damsel in distress? Quite the compelling critique, that one.

Ultimately, as I posted in another thread, the basic issue that seems to fuel many of the disputes is centred on the ensemble vs. Kirk/Spock focus. There are more things involved, of course, but many complaints seem to stem from the idea that the secondary characters didn't have enough to do. The other complaints are often a lack of more thorough examinations of ideas and the absence of other characters (female for some, alien for others)--something a TV series would be far more well-equipped to cover. But we don't have a TV series and this creative team has not embraced the kind of ensemble approach that some viewers would have liked. That's not an error or mistake, it's an artistic choice.

Like I said before, you won’t get me to disagree with you on the fact that they made choices. They definitely did that. I’m not sure that I’d call it art, though. But, that’s just me.

You can have the last word on this part of this discussion because I think it has gone around in circles a few times.

It's a film? It's art. The quality of a thing does not alter the existence of a thing.

 

[Pauln6]

For starters, I thinks it's silly that Keenser is an officer, let alone the assistant chief purely

I don't.
But perhaps you wouldn't think him silly if he were a she.

I would probably have used a new female character (or a TOS character like Ann Mulhall, Charlene Masterson, etc) but give her just a few lines of dialogue, leaving her to get on with stuff in the background and assign Chekov to assist her. Chekov can deliver most of the same dialogue but he isn't in charge.

There is no need to bring in a new character - male or female - to take over for Scott.

I think Keenser makes a poor officer because he is basically portrayed as a grease monkey and barely utters more than a handful of words and Scotty treats him like a pet. Gender makes no difference but if he was clearly defined as female it would indeed help the numbers.

I think people keep conflating the issues just to play devil's advocate. I've stated repeatedly that the issue is equality.

 

[shapeshifter]

So few will miss him after he gives his life to save Scott? (That's a theory I have about his future. )

 

[KittyDuran]

So few will miss him after he gives his life to save Scott? (That's a theory I have about his future. )

Now, now... I actually like him in STiD, seems to have a purpose (job) and doesn't seem to be an afterthought - lets just throw in a cute alien. We do see him at the end of ST09 in Engineering and in uniform but what's his job? STiD sort of answers that.

 

[mos6507]

Here's the part you oh so conveniently cut from the rest of the post: As it was, that scene acted as a further blow AGAINST Kirk's womanizing attitude. He's made to feel uncomfortable and that discomfort demonstrates A) his attitude is not all that acceptable and B) Marcus is confident enough to order him to "Turn around" rather than meekly stand there to be ogled at length. The scene does NOT suggest Kirk's behaviour deserves a frat boy "high five" or "fist bump". If it did, then I'd be the first to complain. (triple highlight now--in case you simply missed it last time)

If the film tried to send an anti-chauvanism message, it's doing a pretty poor job of it since now it has spawned all these members with Alice Eve avatars.

 

[BillJ]

I've seen two and one has Janeway's head.

Admittedly, I don't really pay attention to avatars.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Here's the part you oh so conveniently cut from the rest of the post: As it was, that scene acted as a further blow AGAINST Kirk's womanizing attitude. He's made to feel uncomfortable and that discomfort demonstrates A) his attitude is not all that acceptable and B) Marcus is confident enough to order him to "Turn around" rather than meekly stand there to be ogled at length. The scene does NOT suggest Kirk's behaviour deserves a frat boy "high five" or "fist bump". If it did, then I'd be the first to complain. (triple highlight now--in case you simply missed it last time)

If the film tried to send an anti-chauvanism message, it's doing a pretty poor job of it since now it has spawned all these members with Alice Eve avatars.

"All these members" being the two I've seen so far, one of whom is a woman who copy pasted Janeway's face on to a body (in this case Alice Eve's), as she does with all of her recent avatars. So clearly, a groundswell of chauvinism there.

Speaking of "pretty poor," that was a pretty poor attempt at an argument. He lays out a thoughtful analysis of the scene in question and all you can come back with is an exaggeration of the amount of avatars people are displaying? Seriously? How about rebutting his points instead of sidestepping the issue, which seems to be a recurring problem with certain people in this thread. If your argument is so solid and indisputable, why keep avoiding anything that challenges it?

 

[Ovation]

Wouldn't be the first time such an attempt was not read as intended (though I turn off the avatars, so I was not aware of this set of avatars). From a much better (IMO) film than any Trek movie, Eastwood's Unforgiven, there is a scene that is intended to convey the effects of aging on a gunslinger. He sets up a target and tries to hit it with his revolver. He misses each time. He then goes into his house (more like a hut) and retrieves a double short-barreled gun and blasts the target (a bottle or can--it's been awhile). The scene is meant to convey a loss of skill and, in context, should not elicit any positive reaction. However, when I saw this at the cinema, a number of people in the audience erupted with shouts of "Yeah!", "Damn straight" and other such hollers. Totally out of sync with the intention.

As for the Eve scene, there is clearly some intentional titillation. But that's not ALL there is to it. If it were, Kirk would not be made to feel uncomfortable about having looked at her. It is the discomfort that redeems the moment. Not all attempts to pass a message succeed and given all the commentary on it, it is clear that this attempt was not an unqualified success. Nevertheless, and this is the point I am trying to make, there is clearly an attempt at criticizing Kirk's attitude in this scene and, as such, it does not deserve to be dismissed as purely gratuitous.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

As for the Eve scene, there is clearly some intentional titillation. But that's not ALL there is to it. If it were, Kirk would not be made to feel uncomfortable about having looked at her.

Exactly. I had a post that touched on similar points as yours in yet another thread on this subject back when STiD premiered in the US:

Apart from obviously being there for titillation too, the Carol Marcus underwear scene did serve a purpose. Throughout the preceding parts of the film, we see Kirk being confident to the point of arrogance and extremely flirty with women. He was having a meaningless one night stand with the cat babes, he gave F-Me glances to the women at Starfleet HQ and the bar, and he was making juvenile comments about Carol's appearance when she boarded the shuttle to join the crew on Enterprise. But now he tries the same schtick by glancing at Carol while she changes, and she'll have none of it. She's not intimidated or impressed by his glances, and gives him nothing in return except the sign to quit gawking and an order to turn around.

Kirk is flustered by this and doesn't quite know how to react, except to do what she tells him. This plays into his continuing decline in confidence throughout the film as he is rejected or slapped down by his superiors and peers. He's not able to get by on winging it or impressing people with his overconfidence any more. He has to work to get what he wants and to earn respect.

It also establishes Carol as a strong presence who is not embarrassed about who she is, won't fall for any cheap flirty tricks, and doesn't put up with anyone's BS. This makes Kirk admire her even more and foreshadows their eventual love for each other. Carol is not like the other women Kirk has been attracted to. She's not a cheap date or a one night stand. She's an intelligent, strong, talented individual whom he respects for those qualities, and not just for her looks for a change, though that appeals to him as well.

Kirk hasn't met a woman this formidable and intriguing to him since Uhura rejected him completely in the bar in the first film. Gaela (the Orion) he used to further his own ends in the Kobayashi Maru test and then uncaringly disposed of without a second thought, but Uhura he kept pursuing for three years until he came to understand that she loved Spock, and Spock was someone he came to admire as well.

Oddly enough, the underwear scene is sort of a shorter and more blunt version of Bond and Vesper's witty banter on the train in Casino Royale that established her to be his equal, and that didn't shy away from sexual implications either. It might seem counterintuitive to convey these kinds of ideas through a two-second underwear shot, but IMO it works in film and TV tradition of "show, don't tell."

 

[shapeshifter]

Honestly, Ovation's thoughts on the matter should be required reading at the Academy. Spot. On. Accurate. Period.

 

[BillJ]

Honestly, Ovation's thoughts on the matter should be required reading at the Academy. Spot. On. Accurate. Period.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Pauln6]

Wouldn't be the first time such an attempt was not read as intended (though I turn off the avatars, so I was not aware of this set of avatars). From a much better (IMO) film than any Trek movie, Eastwood's Unforgiven, there is a scene that is intended to convey the effects of aging on a gunslinger. He sets up a target and tries to hit it with his revolver. He misses each time. He then goes into his house (more like a hut) and retrieves a double short-barreled gun and blasts the target (a bottle or can--it's been awhile). The scene is meant to convey a loss of skill and, in context, should not elicit any positive reaction. However, when I saw this at the cinema, a number of people in the audience erupted with shouts of "Yeah!", "Damn straight" and other such hollers. Totally out of sync with the intention.

As for the Eve scene, there is clearly some intentional titillation. But that's not ALL there is to it. If it were, Kirk would not be made to feel uncomfortable about having looked at her. It is the discomfort that redeems the moment. Not all attempts to pass a message succeed and given all the commentary on it, it is clear that this attempt was not an unqualified success. Nevertheless, and this is the point I am trying to make, there is clearly an attempt at criticizing Kirk's attitude in this scene and, as such, it does not deserve to be dismissed as purely gratuitous.

I think it's a valid point that the most popular movies work on multiple levels. Unforgiven was a masterpiece but I do think that the deeper message might have been lost on those who just liked all the shooting. But if they enjoy the movie on a much more superficial level, good for them. Movies are there to entertain after all.

The most infamous scene n Basic Instinct is important to establish how Catherine Tremmell blatantly manipulates people by targeting their weaknesses. We know from the earlier scene that she is wearing no underwear, we know from the other characters' reactions that they can see up her skirt. The full frontal was not necessary to the scene, it was there to shock and titillate and I have no doubt that the movie's takings went up because people wanted to see THAT scene.

FYI - it's a scene where the genders of the characters were necessary. If she'd been interviewed by Scott & Bailley or if Tremmell had been a man flashing his junk through his shorts, the scene would have been very different.

The core of the underwear scene may have been to sow the seed of attraction for Kirk and show that Carol might be his match. The full frontal of Carol in her undies was there purely to titillate.

I'm not overly bothered by it. It was obviously gratuitous but so are many other scenes in other shows and movies that are equally so. It was a running joke in Merlin that the male characters were running around topless every week for no particularly good reason. I'm fine with a bit of gratuitous nudity personally as long as that isn't all the characters are good for and indeed, for Carol, it isn't.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The full frontal of Carol in her undies was there purely to titillate.

It was obviously gratuitous but so are many other scenes in other shows and movies that are equally so.

So, everything that was said about multiple levels to the scene was obviously wasted on you then.

 

[Pauln6]

For starters, I thinks it's silly that Keenser is an officer, let alone the assistant chief purely

I don't. But perhaps you wouldn't think him silly if he were a she.

I would probably have used a new female character (or a TOS character like Ann Mulhall, Charlene Masterson, etc) but give her just a few lines of dialogue, leaving her to get on with stuff in the background and assign Chekov to assist her. Chekov can deliver most of the same dialogue but he isn't in charge.

There is no need to bring in a new character - male or female - to take over for Scott.

There was no need to age Chekov to shoe-horn him into the franchise early either. They made the choice to do so. I'm simply saying my preferred choice would have been for them to use a supporting character to avoid the sheer stupidity of promoting a junior, newly qualified officer to be chief engineer on a ship with over 400 crew.

For what it's worth, I also think that using Bones in place of a weapons expert was stupid in STVI and it was stupid in STiD. My preference would have been to put together a proper landing party of qualified individuals: Carol the physicist, Chekov, the weapons technician (based on his background from TMP), Cupcake the weapons disposal expert, and McCoy in case they were biological weapons. Much of the scene can be engineered the same but the decision to spotlight lead actors feels less silly if they are not doing somebody else's job for no plausible reason. Cupcake could have been injured while opening the casing forcing McCoy to step up into a fish out of water scenario. It would feel better than sending the ship's surgeon down because of his steady hands when a bomb disposal expert has steady hands AND expertise.

In ST09, I would have preferred a full landing party to go the Narada consisting of Kirk, Spock (mind meld, understands some Romulan), Uhura (fluent in Romulan), McCoy (Pike may need medical attention) and two security guards. It seemed stupid to send only 2 people when they had no idea what they were beaming into.

In ST09 I would have tried to use Chekov's planetary science credentials (TWoK) to reveal more information about the destruction of Vulcan or big up his navigation skills to warp in close to the planet.

I would probably have used Janice Rand in the transporter scene (TMP) and I'd have sent her as a security escort to Delta Vega, instead of wasting an escape pod, to test her loyalty to Pike or Kirk when Spock Prime reveals his story. In STiD I would have included her in the security team sent to Qo'Nos.

In Trek09 I would have recruited Chapel from Life Sciences when the medical team is injured. In STiD I would have featured Chapel carrying out the research on Harrison's blood.

Sulu is the character that they seem to be using organically so far, albeit his role is still quite small.

I personally like to see them use the skills the characters have traditionally displayed. If you are going to give them the same name but with different skill sets and different personalities, it isn't really the same character. In Chekov's case, this is literally true, obviously.

I deliberately look only to tweak the scenes that we already got (although I would have used a shape-shifting Garth instead of Khan, personally and I would have featured Kirk sending one of the main characters to their death instead of going himself - it was a lesson Troi had to learn and I think it would have been a good lesson for him at this point in his career. Bye bye Keenser...). No, my choices were not 'necessary' but they are little tweaks that that would have increased my enjoyment. Other people are perfectly entitled to say that they enjoyed the movies exactly as they were and both opinions are valid but it's nice to debate views on what changes people would have liked to see to improve the movie in their eyes.

 

[Pauln6]

The full frontal of Carol in her undies was there purely to titillate.

It was obviously gratuitous but so are many other scenes in other shows and movies that are equally so.

So, everything that was said about multiple levels to the scene was obviously wasted on you then.

Sort of. I have no particular interest in seeing Alice Eve in her undies. The other levels I got just fine.

But I digress - I apologise if I wasn't clear - they didn't have to show her body fully on screen to achieve the same effect. The scene with Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark is constructed similarly, but Karen Allen didn't flash her boobs because it wasn't actually needed to make the scene work. Subtlelty would have worked, it just would not have titillated as much.

 

[M'Sharak]

Here's the part you oh so conveniently cut from the rest of the post: As it was, that scene acted as a further blow AGAINST Kirk's womanizing attitude. He's made to feel uncomfortable and that discomfort demonstrates A) his attitude is not all that acceptable and B) Marcus is confident enough to order him to "Turn around" rather than meekly stand there to be ogled at length. The scene does NOT suggest Kirk's behaviour deserves a frat boy "high five" or "fist bump". If it did, then I'd be the first to complain. (triple highlight now--in case you simply missed it last time)

If the film tried to send an anti-chauvanism message, it's doing a pretty poor job of it since now it has spawned all these members with Alice Eve avatars.

"All these members" being the two I've seen so far, one of whom is a woman who copy pasted Janeway's face on to a body (in this case Alice Eve's), as she does with all of her recent avatars. So clearly, a groundswell of chauvinism there.

There might have been another. I recall two Alice Eve/bikini underwear avs appearing promptly after that trailer was released. The Janeway version went up a bit later, and both of the "originals" have since been replaced with different images.

If there were ever more than those three avs, they must have belonged to people who don't post here much. (There was, however, a non-av image which had been rendered wholly inoffensive by way of depicting Carol covered head-to-toe in a black burqa.)