Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.
- Thread starter Cara007
- Start date
Hey now...
Maybe Kirk is a man that likes shaved...uh "Caitians". Not every guy likes a fury Caitian.
Yeah, and TMP and TVH are two of the most successful Star Trek movies in the whole line up.
By treating women like this, are we honoring Star Trek as a franchise, or honoring the mind set of the male demographic from the 60's era television? Because if using the 60's mindset is the best way to bring Star Trek back, you might as well bring back the obvious sexism as well.
If you adjust for inflation, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek (2009) are the two most successful Trek films if you go by theatrical gross.
But, to me, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the most financially successful of the movies making back nearly eight times its production budget.
Just depends on how you want to define "successful".
Look I sort of agree with you but it as only for 10 seconds screen time. In fact I forgot there was a sex scene in the movie at all.
I as more offended by Kirk leering at Marcus in her underwear. But again it was only about 5 seconds screen time.
* And yet a lot of fans bitch that TMP is the "Slow Motion Picture". That's bloated and boring, and nothing happens.
* TVH is "Time After Time" with the serial numbers filed off. The "Fish out of water time traveler" story, with Star Trek tropes and characters pasted over.
That's the thing for all the cries about sexism in the new movies: do we really see it?
We see competent, professional, women who are comfortable with their bodies, who don't fall for Kirk's pick up lines. These aren't you nurse Chapels or Yeoman Rands. These are women that know their jobs, can hold their old against any man on the ship, and don't take bullshit.
I don't think nudity and / or skippy costumes automatically equal sexism. I think you have to take in the whole character and account for the total package.
Transporter tech or maybe Schick offers a line of ladies phaser-razors (say that 5x fast)
The scene didn't bother so much for that. It being there doesn't even bother me: basic walk and talk scene. What bugged me was setting it on the shuttle. A locker room or her quarters would have made more sense to me. Still, it's not a terrible scene.
Last edited:
I've been watching Season 1 of TNG lately and I'm amazed at how sexist it was.
The amount of times the camera focuses on Trois cleavage is incredible. I didn't realise it when I first watched Season 1. I saw more closeups of Trois boobs in one episode than I saw of any women in the movies including ST09 and STID.
You never saw anything particularly revealing but its sort of funny looking back now on the boob zoom.
The amount of times the camera focuses on Trois cleavage is incredible. I didn't realise it when I first watched Season 1. I saw more closeups of Trois boobs in one episode than I saw of any women in the movies including ST09 and STID.
You never saw anything particularly revealing but its sort of funny looking back now on the boob zoom.
Some months ago I rewatched Q Who. During this encounter with a completely unknown but obviously hostile race, Picard orders a meeting. And then I believe he has another meeting later on. I can't think of any better way to suck the drama out of a story than to constantly interrupt it with everyone leaving to have a long discussion instead of actually driving the story forward.
And just to clarify my earlier post, I was confused about how Orci and co are unable to write a script with depth because they're men, which is what the OP implied.
TMP was successful in booting Gene Roddenberry off the producer's chair.
TWOK was successful in telling a story that was actually about something.
TSFS was successful at telling a story without a key cast member, something that has not been done since.
TVH was successful in showing that you can follow up two dark and depressing movies with a light hearted and fun movie.
TFF was successful in proving that you can discount a movie from the series and suffer no consequences from the continuing narrative.
TUC was successful at giving the classic crew one last outing.
Generations was successful in putting the "Kirk vs. Picard" debate to rest once and for all. Kirk wins, Picard suuuuuuuuucks.
First Contact was successful for following TWOK's formula in continuing a story from an episode of their said series, having our hero be flawed and also being a horror story.
Insurrection is successful at existing.
Nemesis was successful at killing the original Star Trek universe.
Trek09 was successful in proving you can make a Star Trek story based solely on the general movie goers interpretation of what the franchise is even though they've never seen it.
Into Darkness was successful at proving Benedict Cumberbatch makes things better for international audiences.
And Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof are successful at proving that no matter how much time you have at your disposal in perfecting a script, they still can't write a competent story that makes any kind of narrative sense.
I think Q, Who is one of the few times that the "conference room" detour actually works. Part of it is the exposition we're given and part of it is that Stewart and deLancie are such good actors that they can sell the peril of the situation even from the conference room.
Unfortunately, among the regular cast there just wasn't any other actor as talented as deLancie to play off of Stewart.
The story made sense to me.
But for those that don't like the script, it really isn't fair to try and place it all at the feet of Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. People act like they work in a vacuum and there are no suggestions or demands from the studio or the director.
They are a piece in a much larger puzzle.
While I definitely understand that having meetings after almost being sliced and BBQ'd by an almost invincible force is very out of place, they could have worked if the story had been re-touched just a bit. There are a lot of good moments in those meeting room scenes that sets up the final moments of this episode.
Riker: You brought us here. You exposed us to them. You cost us the lives of our shipmates!
Q: Oh, please.
And Q isn't brushing Riker off because the lives of the crew means nothing to him. Q may have brought the Enterprise into this sector, but it was Picard who decided to stick around and explore a bit even with Guinan's warnings. It all cultivates in Q's lesson at the end which makes the best sense.
Again, I agree that how these meetings factored into the story weren't done well, I don't agree that they should have been cut out.
That's a shame. I on the other hand, loved it and can't wait to see the writers return for Star Trek XIII in 2016.I wish this guys don't return for the third film. No offence, I am not saying they are awful but they don't just work for a franchise like Star Trek. Orci and his friends are male fan writers so it is only logical that their writing in film lacks depth, substance and is filled with too much explosions, twisted sex scenes, unnecessary nudity and all the shallowness there is with little story.
They also care too much about showing off a woman's hotness and using her as a sex object than writing her as a strong formidable woman.
Star Trek films should have a very deep story with a lot of philosophical and intellectual influences. Star Trek has never falling into the mindless summer action flicks that no one will remember again once the summer is over talk less of before the year is over.
Orci and his friends are more suited for the popcorn action flicks with all the cars and the girls like Transformers and Fast and the Furious. They just don't fit Star Trek.
I advice Paramount to get real credible and intelligent science fiction writers like Micko Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson to at least write the story for Star Trek and then get an Oscar winning or nominated indie screen writer or a screen writers with a large body of work that has been met with high critical acclaim to write the script for the next film.
I have been so torn with how I feel about Into Darkness but now that the year is almost over, I can now say the film was a missed opportunity and the fault is with story.
I don't except Paramount to listen to many fans. All they care about is making money and the only way to make money is to have explosions explosions and explosions with really hot girls that do nothing.
Its sad especially with Gravity out. Gravity was a beautiful and well in depth sci-fi film that will be remembered for a long time. It is what Star Trek Into Darkness should have been.
Gravity was an enjoyable disaster movie in space, and nothing like Trek - which has endured for 50 years now.
Sex is fun and continues to be whatever your age. And Prime Kirk is no different, despite fans' attempts to dispel that image. Look no further than "The Conscience of the King" where 34-year-old James T. Kirk beds the 19-year-old daughter of a mass murderer, or "Requiem for Methuselah" where he gets uncomfortably grabby with an android, then petty and jealous about her, leading to her death.
Kirk was a creation of Gene Roddenberry, who was as sex-mad as it gets.
Last edited:
The story made sense to me.
A story can make sense, but the narrative, plotting, pacing, and execution can bring it all crashing down.
For example, what was the narrative purpose of that moment where Kirk asks McCoy what Spock would do if Kirk was in Spock's position? McCoy said he'd leave Kirk to die as if to imply that Spock would under no circumstance violate any rule even if it meant saving the life of someone important. There is no moment in this film that pays off this exchange nor is there any moment where Spock himself violates any kind of rule to save Kirk in the end. It's a long drawn out moment that never pays off.
And despite trying to give Uhura a "purpose" in this film, why even bother having her attempt to be diplomatic with the Klingons when it all turns into an action scene anyways? Doesn't this do more to show how useless she is since Kirk's plan to "run out shooting" was what they ended up doing anyways? All that scene does is show that Uhura sucks at her job. But at least she can use a knife and fire a Klingon weapon!...
And what was up with Kirk's "revenge is bad" speech in the end when every act of revenge helped ensure the characters got what they wanted? If none of these characters acted on revenge in any way, things would be much worse off. And this is the same guy who, after agreeing that he wouldn't outright kill Khan, still physically assaulted him even though he was unarmed and had already accepted his surrender.
Also, if Khan designed these torpedoes, why would he leave the explosive components inside of them? There was already a sensor dampening thing in it to prevent people from seeing what was inside of it, so why leave the explosive components if no one can see them? And if you know the torpedoes have your crew inside and you set up booby traps to detonate said torpedoes if they were tampered with, why did Khan not tell the crew how to properly disarm the torpedoes to ensure his crew's safety? He literally risked the lives of his own crew that the film beats us over the head that he cares so much about... for no reason.
And why Klingons? Shouldn't Starfleet be more angry with the Romulans for destroying seven of their ships, Vulcan and almost Earth after the last movie? What's the point of calling the ship VENGEANCE when it's not even fighting the people who were the cause of making Starfleet more military based? I think someone in Starfleet, knowing that Nero was from the future would want to take action against the Romulan Empire and ensure that Nero and all those like him wouldn't take such action against the Federation again. Unlike the Klingons who have, well, just atacked us on numerous occasions, the last film established taht we are not at peace with the Romulan empire and if you want to bring in other TOS elements, there are officers in Starfleet who have a very open grudge against the Romulans over the Earth/Romulan war almost a century ago. To assume no one would care about the Romulans because Nero was from the future is like assuming every single person in Star Trek is rational and understanding. Even Star Trek with all it's Utopia preachiness isn't all 'that' perfect.
Yeah. The story can make sense, but that's all it has going for it.
The story made sense to me.
Yup, really had no problem following any of it, as it seems, everyone else was able to also.
What bothered me about it was that everything would stop so that they could give some exposition and give the more minor characters some lines. And I'm talking here about all the series, not just TNG. The worst at this was Voayger (which I'm actually a big fan of) where they would discuss important issues with the chef and the botanist.
It does pay off all the way through the movie. It helps to define the differences in Kirk and Spock.
You complain when they don't give women anything to do, you complain when they do. Just because Uhura was unsuccessful negotiating with Klingons doesn't mean she sucks at her job.
Because Kirk is still learning. One of the things I love about TOS as opposed to the Modern Trek series, is that Kirk is a flawed individual but someone who can learn from his mistakes. See: Arena, The Devil in the Dark
I'm really starting to run out of energy for this non-sense. It's tiresome to watch people try to misrepresent a movie they dislike.
I agree that Modern Trek would've been better off if they had used the conference room scenes more sparingly.
It reminds me of when Damon Lindelof said that they had talked about an early idea where Uhura has to negotiate with a Klingon fleet that's heading to Earth while Spock is fighting Khan. And some fans got very angry about how such an important job is given to Uhura. I'm sure many of them were the same ones who go on about how "She's just defined by her relationship with Spock."
Similar threads
