Reality is almost trying to seep into those words, like a sensor ghost. We need to erect level-10 force fields to avoid an interdimensional rift between it and reality. If it appears, all bets are off.
Orci talks about Star Trek 3
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
In the old days we would have went from "turn around" to Carol Marcus wrapped in a sheet and Kirk slipping his boots back on.
Exactly. I can understand complaints about lack of chemistry between the characters/actors (I didn't think it was great), I can understand debating whether the scene was necessary (it wasn't), but I simply cannot understand all the "OMG, Trek was never/should never be so Neanderthal in its treatment of women" reactions (I'll leave aside the comparisons to rape as emanations from Cloud Cuckooland--yes I have an 8 year old, and yes he loves The Lego Movie). It simply isn't worthy of all the frothy reactions.
Who doesn't love the Lego Movie? It's goddamn delightful.
I think I saw that quote on one of the movie's posters.
Bullshit. How old ARE you?
Your misplaced feminism attacks and black fatherhood tangent has nothing to do with the thread and you should stop bringing it up here (take it to TNZ or Miscellaneous where it's more appropriate to discuss), but some misconceptions need to be cleared up first.
The issue of black fathers not living with their children's mothers has more to do with systemic poverty, inequality, and unfair incarceration policies (especially for minor drug offenses) than anything else. It has nothing to do with feminism, however, and the suggestion is a patently ridiculous attempt to shift blame onto women (while absolving society, the government, and men of responsibility) for a problem which they are overwhelmingly the victims of (and that's not limited to the black community by any means).
People aren't telling impoverished mothers to head out on their own en masse to strike a blow for women's rights, and no one thinks giving single mothers agency to adjust to their economic situation absolves fathers of their responsibility, or says that they should not play a role in their child's upbringing.
Also, while it's true that more than 70% of African-American children are born out of wedlock, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have absentee fathers in all those cases, so you should choose your words more carefully.
"Conquer" is an awfully strange word to use in the context, especially considering the high rate of sexual assault against women. Men are not delicate, innocent flowers who are pounced on by predatory females left and right, so please spare us the hyperbole.
Why is it a man's prerogative to enjoy sex with multiple partners, but when a woman does it it's considered a betrayal of womanhood, conquering behavior, and "extreme feminism" in your view? Why do women have to subscribe to your narrowminded traditional gender roles? Who appointed you their guardian and judge?To me that is not that different from prostitution.if women are so sexually empowered why not find one man to share that it, why go around conquering men when you have no real emotion attachment to them and they call youself a feminist. Sory but I do not buy it.
I don't agree with a lot of the hyperbole and fervor surrounding this scene, but stop it with this kind of talk, immediately.
Last edited:
basically this.
you say? then why things like that infamous commercial featuring an interracial couple with a kid got so much outrage?
I get that people don't like topics like homophobia and racism because it makes some uncomfortable, but some issues are far from being 'over' or just part of the past.
Honestly, if you pay a bit of attention to some fangroups in the star trek fandom (that isn't so perfect and open minded like some people like to pretend it is) or even just read random comments posted in articles about these movies, you'd realize that there are many people who might actually have racial issues with Spock/Uhura and who constantly criticize (more like bashing) her character and the actress playing her with labels and stereotypes that are usually directed at women of color predominantly . And some people don't even realize that they hold Uhura to a double standard and criticize her for things that they yet give the white characters a free pass for.
yeah...because Tos Uhura had all these important romantic relationships instead... so predictable to make her the romantic interest.
There are only two examples of her being almost a romantic interest in the prime reality: the forced kiss between her and Kirk (that even with it being forced it still almost didn't air) and that cringe worthy Sybok induced forced scene with Scotty from the final frontier (how old were them again?) that was never mentioned again.
Nuff said.
I'd be a bit more careful claiming that there's absolutely nothing 'bold' or 'fresh' about Spock/Uhura
Tell me how many black women in tv are portrayed being in a loving mutual exclusive emotional relationship with one of the main leads, especially one so iconic like Spock who is the object of sexual fantasies of a bunch of fangirls. Good luck with that!
anyway, I honestly think that Spock and Uhura were the least predictable 'het' romance the writers could come out with in the reboot. I'd find it far less a given or predictable to see Kirk in a romance with some white girl than see Uhura AND Spock in a relationship. I doubt that in tos, or some other franchises for that matter, these characters would be the first choice for that kind of subplot because hollywood seems to be still 'stuck' with some schemes and certain tropes.
It was bold and gutsy... and the fans mixed response to it also seems to suggest that. It was controversial (and a great choice because of that) for a number of reasons, not just the fact that it's Spock in a romantic relationship and some trek fans have established, somehow and for some weird reason, that he was a monk ...when really they might just be a bit stuck with the old idea from the 60s that everything must revolve around Kirk, and his nerdy friend can only be the hero's weird sidekick. In this era things are different. We love nerdy men and a man doesn't need to be a Romeo and sing love songs to his Juliet to be convincing or feel autentic in a romantic relationship (the same way women don't have to be the damsel in distress in need of their prince charming saving them). Hopefully, things have evolved enough to at least attempt to have more multidimensional characters and we're past the point of wanting to obsessively give them definite 'roles'.
In the context of the reality where these fictional characters 'live', the point still stands because racism might be simply expanded to alien races there. In their world, their relationship is more 'unique' and new than two humans or two vulcans dating each other. They might be perceived the same way Sarek and Amanda were and thus both parties 'judged', and possibly criticized by their people, for choosing to date an alien instead of someone of their own race/species. (in fact you do see how racist the vulcans were with Spock because of his mom)
It's interesting that everything is relative in that star trek can show an optimistic future but it can't be perfect because people are flawed no matter the era. So the way I see it, I find it quite plausible that in the context of star trek you might have less racist and homophobic people in terms of human relationships that are all part of the norm there (and of course you have to show it too).. but then people are still prejudiced about all the 'new' relationships and dynamics (resulted from the fact that people there travel from one planet or galaxy to another and the concept of 'people' is itself expanded beyond the confines of the human race) that are perceived being 'different' from their norm.
I also think that the fact that Quinto and Saldana are themselves part of two minorities in hollywood and them being the ones chosen to play the romantic subplot of this franchise (compared to the straight male actor and the white actress you see in most of the movies especially of this genre) is worth to notice too as something positive, I think.
Last edited:
Just to throw this in for what it's worth, the percentage of inter-racial marriages in the U.S. is going up. Inter-racial marriages make up 15 percent of all new marriages, now, compared to just under 7 percent in 1980. The Pew Research Center did a survey about inter-racial marriage in 2011 where it asked what effect people thought this trend had on society. Forty-four percent said it made no difference. Forty-three percent said it was a change for the better. Only 11 percent said it was a change for the worse. (Survey size = 2003. Margin of error roughly +/- 3 percentage points.)
Hell, Hotwire even has an ad with a gay couple who have a child, now.
The Spock and Uhura relationship may not be passé, but they're not breaking any new ground or making a statement about anything, either. I glanced at a site that listed over twenty TV shows on the air today that feature inter-racial couples as regular characters.
Hell, Hotwire even has an ad with a gay couple who have a child, now.
The Spock and Uhura relationship may not be passé, but they're not breaking any new ground or making a statement about anything, either. I glanced at a site that listed over twenty TV shows on the air today that feature inter-racial couples as regular characters.
The word you're looking for isn't "odd". It's "gratuitous". It's not characters acting due to any justifiable motivation. It's an a scene put in for the same reason Budweiser features bikini girls. And because the intention on the part of the filmmakers is so obvious, it pulls you right out of the picture, just as Spock yelling "KHAAAAN" did for other reasons.
It's a movie. I can live with it.
I didn't see Into Darkness until this past weekend, and I was really surprised how much has been devoted to the forums here over the past year, that in the film were only on screen for perhaps two seconds. It was not nearly as bad as posts here on the board had led me to believe.
I was surprised that I liked the film as well as I did, because I didn't much care for ST2009 at all. I think my problem with 2009 was there was too much about introducing us to characters we already knew. Into Darkness just drops us into the action and says "try to keep up".
That, and I was thoroughly high while watching STID.
That, and I was thoroughly high while watching STID.
I was surprised that I liked the film as well as I did, because I didn't much care for ST2009 at all. I think my problem with 2009 was there was too much about introducing us to characters we already knew. Into Darkness just drops us into the action and says "try to keep up".
That, and I was thoroughly high while watching STID.
I thought ST09 was fine for what it had to do, but you know, my opinion of ST09 went down a bit after STID for pretty much the reason you give above. ST09 now seems lumbering in comparison to STID. They are structured very differently. So --
that means one of them must not really be "Star Trek"!
And not just that, though I agree. It also is no worse than anything else we have seen in Trek before hand.
To me, that is the more frustrating part. People get mad at Abrams for changing things to Trek and then get annoyed that he takes the inspiration from TOS, which could be just as gratuitous (see any interview with the costume designer from TOS) and but TOS gets a pass. Abrams does not.
It was dumb scene, they have apologized for it, and in the grand scheme of Trek, it is hardly the most offensive.
Similar threads
