Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Getting back to Kasidy, the writers just didn't seem capable of conceiving of her as a multidimensional character who might be in love with Ben but also have a dedication to the Maquis. They cheapened her character and reduced her to just an extension of Ben. But as with Quark, they also had a habit of dropping the ball on a lot of characters on the show.

I'll have to say I disagree on this one. She was more than just an extension of Ben and he was more than just an extension of her. Wasn't her smuggling cargo to the Maquis a demonstration of her dedication to them--to the point where she even went to prison for it? That doesn't sound like someone that's just following Ben around as he leads her by the nose to me, but that's just me.

And I don't think they dropped the ball with Quark at all. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many shows sci-fi and non-sci-fi that handle recurring, minor, and secondary characters as well as DS9 did. They are out there, but they are as plentiful as needles in haystacks, imo.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Wasn't her smuggling cargo to the Maquis a demonstration of her dedication to them--to the point where she even went to prison for it?

No. She did that for Ben.

And I don't think they dropped the ball with Quark at all. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many shows sci-fi and non-sci-fi that handle recurring, minor, and secondary characters as well as DS9 did.

Quark was neither recurring, minor, nor secondary. Armin Shimerman's name was on the opening credits for Pete's sake. Additionally, he got lots of screen time, and plenty of episodes revolved around him.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Wasn't her smuggling cargo to the Maquis a demonstration of her dedication to them--to the point where she even went to prison for it?

No. She did that for Ben.

I'll have to watch it again, but let's just say that's the case. She still, as a captain, had to make a choice. And it was within her power to make that choice.

Quark was neither recurring, minor, nor secondary. Armin Shimerman's name was on the opening credits for Pete's sake. Additionally, he got lots of screen time, and plenty of episodes revolved around him.

I didn't say that he was. Yes, he got lots of screen time and lots of episodes dedicated to him where he was very fully fleshed out. That's hardly "dropping the ball," as you say...

 

[Commishsleer]

There were practically no human female being in command positions in all the 5 Star Trek series.

I just have a bit of a problem with only 'alien' women being capable of command.
Obviously the producers of Star Trek were doubling by having women and aliens being represented in one position.

And I doubt DS9 passes the Bechel Test because I'm sure Bechel was talking about human women.

I'm not really saying DS9 or VOY were sexist. That would be ridiculous. Just that there were not many human females who even temporarily commanded a Starship/Space Station.

Just as in original BSG/Star Wars only men could be pilots

Yes and Keiko was a teacher but I'm talking about having women in charge (not just of O'Brien) just like Kira was at times. Why couldn't they have a human woman in charge of a ship ? Aren't human women capable of it? I think even women are allowed to be 'captains' nowadays. Why not in the 23rd/24th century?

Even some of the 'alien' women who were in command positions were not Starfleet (Kira and T'Pol) or once a man (Dax)
I'm sounding like Janice Lester now.

I'm sorry, but this entire post is REALLY stretching to try and make an ill-formed point. What is it about this subject that people have to engage in such hyperbole, obfuscation, falsehoods, and poorly thought out premises to support their point of view?

I'm prepared to admit to any proven falsehoods in my posts.

It would be a step forward IMO if Uhura or Darwin (if she is human) or whoever takes command of the Enterprise for even 5 minutes.
This may be a non-issue for most people because they equate T'Pol, Kira, Ro, Dax to be the equivalent of human women. On the whole I agree but it irks me just a little bit that there's only one human woman 'commander' example (practically) in the whole of Star Trek. nuBSG had plenty of women pilots (humans) and plenty of women enemies (aliens)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Wasn't her smuggling cargo to the Maquis a demonstration of her dedication to them--to the point where she even went to prison for it?

No. She did that for Ben.

I'll have to watch it again, but let's just say that's the case. She still, as a captain, had to make a choice. And it was within her power to make that choice.

Kassidy was more of a sympathizer than an actual Maquis member, and her decision to turn herself in to face justice was entirely a factor of her not wanting to have to be a wanted fugitive and never being able to see Sisko again. Ultimately she's just a freighter pilot; she's the Malcolm Reynolds/Faye Valentine sort who can sneak onto the station every once in a while, pop out of Ben's closet at 2AM for a booty call and then slink away before the security teams get there. Apart from not having the stomach for any of that, there's the little fact that, apart from the criminally insane, Federation prisons are actually pretty damn comfortable.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

No. She did that for Ben.

I'll have to watch it again, but let's just say that's the case. She still, as a captain, had to make a choice. And it was within her power to make that choice.

Kassidy was more of a sympathizer than an actual Maquis member, and her decision to turn herself in to face justice was entirely a factor of her not wanting to have to be a wanted fugitive and never being able to see Sisko again. Ultimately she's just a freighter pilot; she's the Malcolm Reynolds/Faye Valentine sort who can sneak onto the station every once in a while, pop out of Ben's closet at 2AM for a booty call and then slink away before the security teams get there. Apart from not having the stomach for any of that, there's the little fact that, apart from the criminally insane, Federation prisons are actually pretty damn comfortable.

Just a freighter pilot? It's like you are making an effort to reduce her somehow. She was a freighter captain, and unlike Malcolm (I don't know about Valentine) she was in charge of the ship she was on. So, it's not the same at all.

Then you go into using terms like "booty call." I think you are being trashy and demeaning in the way that you are choosing to describe their relationship. You act like she and Ben were teenagers trying not to get caught by their parents or something. They were two adults. And as if security was going to come knocking on the the door of the Captain and Commander of the Station to ask about his off-duty and private relationship behind closed doors. Lol. The head of security was too busy trying to get Kira to have an attitude over the captain having a girlfriend and then wife.

I don't know what kind of shows you like to watch, but adults do have relationships with each other that are loving, long-term, and far more than just "booty calls." Even how they met goes against that. Sisko's son liked her, meaning that he spent time with the woman and thought she would be a good match for his lonely father (he even said as much). I'm sorry if you cannot see that, but it's true for Kasidy and Ben, and it's true that people can and do fall in love, frankly, in general.

 

[Tosk]

And I doubt DS9 passes the Bechel Test because I'm sure Bechel was talking about human women.

The Bechdel Test makes no specification whatsoever that a character must be a human. So Nerys, Jadzia, Ezri, etc count.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Quark was neither recurring, minor, nor secondary. Armin Shimerman's name was on the opening credits for Pete's sake. Additionally, he got lots of screen time, and plenty of episodes revolved around him.

I didn't say that he was. Yes, he got lots of screen time and lots of episodes dedicated to him where he was very fully fleshed out. That's hardly "dropping the ball," as you say...

The problem was that turning away from multidimensional characterizations and having all the protagonists adopt similar "good guy" values is not indicative of an "edgy" show. This is drifting even further off-topic, so I'll just refer you to here for what Shimerman has said about Quark becoming "domesticated" over the course of the show. Domesticating Quark, making him as adorable as he was by the end, was what I meant by dropping the ball.

 

[Pauln6]

Does it count as "gender balance" when slightly more than a third of the female characters are exemplars of gender stereotypes?

Compared to what else we have currently I'd so, "Only a third? That's pretty good!"

Compared to Star Trek, it isn't.

Because when it comes to gender stereotypes, "zero" is still preferable to "one third."

Star Trek has plenty of its own gender stereotypes! Plus Defiance is in a civilian setting. Plus Trek has half as many women. Defiance does exactly what it should. It has a wide mix of characters.

Think about what you are saying. Do you want only homosexual relationships and no heroic, masculine males? It's the mixture that's more important.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Which is why I mentioned the difference between gender and GENDER ROLES. You continue to be obsessed with numbers -- representation, quotas, percentages -- and are entirely indifferent to the nature of that representation, the implications of gender roles, the dynamics of the relationships between men and women in a working/personal relationship. You are, in other words, advocating the PRACTICE of affirmative action without having any concept whatsoever what affirmative action is supposed to accomplish.

For the record, I myself as a male have no problem with a female chief engineer, and wouldn't have minded one being appointed in Scotty's place, but that would have entailed putting a new character in a major role in the movie that would have resulted in less screen time for one of the big seven-a great thing if this was a TV show, but fatal for a movie (and also resulting in the hue and cry about the main characters not getting enough screen time.) Until somebody decides to bring Star Trek back to TV, this is how it's likely to be, unless you want the movie to be three hours long.

It offends me when a qualified character gets bumped to make way for one of the big 3

Then you should probably stop watching Star Trek, because that particular practice has been the basic premise of almost every Trek episode in history. "We have a crew of 400 people on board, most of whom are qualified specialists in their field with years of experience, so of course the Captain, the first officer, the ship's doctor and two random security officers will be part of every away team."[/QUOTE]

Seconded, with a repeat of what I said above about each of the main seven needing to get something to do in the movie.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Which is why I mentioned the difference between gender and GENDER ROLES. You continue to be obsessed with numbers -- representation, quotas, percentages -- and are entirely indifferent to the nature of that representation, the implications of gender roles, the dynamics of the relationships between men and women in a working/personal relationship. You are, in other words, advocating the PRACTICE of affirmative action without having any concept whatsoever what affirmative action is supposed to accomplish.

For the record, I myself as a male have no problem with a female chief engineer, and wouldn't have minded one being appointed in Scotty's place, but that would have entailed putting a new character in a major role in the movie that would have resulted in less screen time for one of the big seven-a great thing if this was a TV show, but fatal for a movie (and also resulting in the hue and cry about the main characters not getting enough screen time.) Until somebody decides to bring Star Trek back to TV, this is how it's likely to be, unless you want the movie to be three hours long.

It offends me when a qualified character gets bumped to make way for one of the big 3

Then you should probably stop watching Star Trek, because that particular practice has been the basic premise of almost every Trek episode in history. "We have a crew of 400 people on board, most of whom are qualified specialists in their field with years of experience, so of course the Captain, the first officer, the ship's doctor and two random security officers will be part of every away team."

Seconded, with a repeat of what I said above about each of the main seven needing to get something to do in the movie.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

The problem was that turning away from multidimensional characterizations and having all the protagonists adopt similar "good guy" values is not indicative of an "edgy" show. This is drifting even further off-topic, so I'll just refer you to here for what Shimerman has said about Quark becoming "domesticated" over the course of the show. Domesticating Quark, making him as adorable as he was by the end, was what I meant by dropping the ball.

Well, part of being a protagonist is being the “good guy.” I think they all dealt with that in different ways. And besides, what constitutes “good” was challenged in a number of ways throughout the series with a variety of races, including humans in episodes like In The Pale Moonlight. That’s “edgy” enough to me.

But getting on to Quark, I have to disagree with Mr. Shimerman to a good extent. I think the character changed more (or at least just as much) because of how he was challenged by Ferengi that weren’t misogynistic and what you might consider “bad guys.” His mother and brother had an effect, I think, and the former didn’t spend time with “humans” at all. My favorite challenge to the traditional Ferengi misogyny Quark had been trained to have was the episode that had the ambitious female Ferengi posing as a male working for Quark. He got to see how excellent she was, and by the time he found out that she was female, it challenged his thinking, and in particular, what he had been taught to believe about females. And for him, that clearly was a dilemma.

He’s a liar, a schemer, and even a cheat, but he’s also able to recognize a good investment when he sees one, and a great entrepreneur, regardless of gender. He had grown to like her and admire what she brought to the table by the time he found out that she was a woman, and by then he couldn’t deny the proof that she was just as capable as any man. Deep down inside, I think Quark was always a “good guy” who knew better than to show it very much. Had he not been that way, then I don’t think he would have secretly given her the startup money to live out her dream as a profitable businesswoman in the Gamma quadrant. I don’t think Humans and Cardassians caused him to make that choice; the Ferengi woman did, and it changed him a bit… for the better.

 

[Jeyl]

Star Trek will never move into gender equality as long as it sticks with the original crew. The only way to improve it is to go with a new crew, not go with the classic crew and try their best to give each character a moment in the spotlight, because than they're just spotlight characters.

 

[Commishsleer]

Star Trek will never move into gender equality as long as it sticks with the original crew. The only way to improve it is to go with a new crew, not go with the classic crew and try their best to give each character a moment in the spotlight, because than they're just spotlight characters.

So its just not possible for Abrams to produce a gender equality Star Trek movie because he's got Kirk, Spock et. al.
So its not Abrams fault at all, he just stuck with the wrong people (spotlight characters).

What is gender equality anyway, do you have to have 50% women, 50% of lines given to women (the Shatner equation) or is it possible for there to be gender equality without a strict quota?

 

[mos6507]

The whole idea of Ilia with her pheromones and her ability to ensnare men with her sexuality in a teenage boy's dream. You can't probably get more sexist than this particular fantasy of GR's .
IMO its only Kambatta's sweet-portrayal of llia that counteracts Ilia's sex goddess role.

IMHO, Deltans represent the swinging 60s free-love mindset. However, while that may have worked on Delta IV, GR was smart enough to realize that it would be disruptive to bring that attitude aboard a Starship, which is why Deltans had to swear celibacy. Unfortunately he had a blind-spot about romance in the workplace when it came to his own life.

 

[mos6507]

The whole point of the film is that he has to grow in order to become the captain he was meant to be, and after finally fumbling through things for a while he accomplished that at the end by realizing vengeance is wrong, being humbled and apologizing, sacrificing his life for his shipmates, treating Carol as a valued officer and member of the Enterprise family and not a potential conquest, and making an impassioned memorial speech, ethics mission statement, and a call for exploration at the end.

I totally agree with that in principle. I just don't think Kirk demonstrates having grown much as far as gender relations goes. And we're so busy connecting the dots on the Trek II homage that his sacrifice doesn't feel organic at all.

The cut scene in Trek '09 where he apologizes to the Gaila-lookalike would have done a lot to make him seem to grow, but the fact JJ cut that scene out says it all about his low-priority he is on character-development.

How will we live down being compared to a fun billion dollar grossing critically and fan acclaimed film series?!

It's a weak argument to keep sarcastically quipping about box-office figures to prove a movie has critical merit.

And yeah, you are supposed to laugh at the turbolift scene. I guess the audiences I saw the film with aren't as highbrow as you, because we all thought it was funny and not the abomination before Goddenberry you apparently felt it was.

Congratulations. You outed me. I'm a film-snob and you are one with the common-folk who want nothing more than to enter the theater and forget their cares. How dare I ask for anything more from a movie than a few yuks and 2 hours of escapism?

You see? I can do belittling sarcasm too. It doesn't really further the argument, though.

I and others have accepted it and have come up with deeper meaning behind that scene too, so don't presume to think your rigid and humorless take on how things should be is the norm.

You "came up with it" because it's largely a figment of your imagination and not something that's really evident in the story and how it's presented. If that were the case, JJ wouldn't have all but apologized for it on the talk-show circuit, so he's kind of already confessed that it was gratuitous. I know you feel it is more, but you are grasping at straws.

 

[BillJ]

The cut scene in Trek '09 where he apologizes to the Gaila-lookalike would have done a lot to make him seem to grow, but the fact JJ cut that scene out says it all about his low-priority he is on character-development.

That scene made him look racist in the "they all look alike to me" vein. The scene was wisely cut from the film.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Just a freighter pilot? It's like you are making an effort to reduce her somehow.

Reduce her from WHAT though? Not every character in every story has the chops to be an actual action hero even if had a good enough reason. Think Mary Jane, not Black Cat.

She was a freighter captain, and unlike Malcolm (I don't know about Valentine) she was in charge of the ship she was on. So, it's not the same at all.

But Malcolm Reynolds was also a gun slinger and Faye Valentine was a bounty hunter, both of which embraced the outlaw lifestyle as a matter of personal taste. Kassidy Yates may be sympathetic to the Maquis, but she's no outlaw.

Then you go into using terms like "booty call."

It applies. If Kassidy wanted to be an outlaw AND still date Ben Sisko, that's what their relationship would boil down to. That, too, didn't seem to suit her, so instead they ended up getting engaged.

You act like she and Ben were teenagers trying not to get caught by their parents or something.

But they weren't, which is why Kassidy turned herself in.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Compared to what else we have currently I'd so, "Only a third? That's pretty good!"

Compared to Star Trek, it isn't.

Because when it comes to gender stereotypes, "zero" is still preferable to "one third."

Star Trek has plenty of its own gender stereotypes!

The last two movies managed to steer clear of them to a fairly large degree.

Defiance does exactly what it should. It has a wide mix of characters.

And a third of the females characters (or more) are gender stereotypes. If you think perpetuating stereotypes is what science fiction SHOULD do, then it's no wonder you disapprove of STID.

Think about what you are saying. Do you want only homosexual relationships and no heroic, masculine males? It's the mixture that's more important.

That's just it, though: I could count on one hand the number of openly homosexual characters depicted in science fiction between two men. The most prominent of these is Captain Jack Harkness from the Doctor Who universe. That Captain Jack is a homosexual (well, sort of a pan-sexual, but still) is interesting in itself; that he's also a highly developed character with a fascinating origin story -- in addition to being a total badass -- is what makes the character compelling.

In the context of the portrayal of homosexuals in scifi -- and that's what we're talking about, portrayal -- you would prefer we add an additional gay character and not mind if one of them is portrayed as a limp-wristed nancy boy serving as Torchwood's interior decorator.

When it comes to portrayal, a single GOOD character is worth fifty stereotypes. Quality is more important than quantity in that regard.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The whole idea of Ilia with her pheromones and her ability to ensnare men with her sexuality in a teenage boy's dream. You can't probably get more sexist than this particular fantasy of GR's .
IMO its only Kambatta's sweet-portrayal of llia that counteracts Ilia's sex goddess role.

IMHO, Deltans represent the swinging 60s free-love mindset.

Unlikely, considering TMP was made in 1978.