Don't be absurd. ST09 actually gave Uhura a personality, which is far more than TOS could say. And ST09 deliberately undermines the patriarchal image of the alpha male getting the girl -- if you'll recall, in ST09, Kirk literally never manages to hook up with anyone, while the "beta male" of the film is the one who is in a committed relationship that is clearly based on something much deeper than mere lust.
I feel like ST09 gave Uhura the personality of woman using her sexuality to climb the social ladder... on to the Enterprise. The guy she has this deep relationship with is one of her instructors at the academy. Does it make a difference who is nabbing the girl if the game is still to nab the girl? How about having a bar fight to see who gets to nab the girl. So yeah, I still think this movie was super patriarchal and heteronormative. Gender dynamics don't appear to have changed much from our time.
1. Star Trek has never been as intelligent, socially aware, or tolerant as it has liked to think of itself as being.
2. That the primary goal of the film series is to deliver a well-executed action/adventure story does not mean that they can't do social commentary. See The Dark Knight.
3. That ST09 focused on establishing the characters over social commentary does not mean it lacked intelligence.
1. I'll certainly grant you that one. Its the idea that it could live up to that promise that frustrates fans like me.
2. You're right about that too, but ST09's world view, if we actually look into it, is authoritarian, patriarchal, and all around Star Wars-ish. I don't have a problem with epic adventures for their own sake either, but I want to be able to expect more from Trek.
3. I don't feel any characters were established well in this film aside from repeating their catch phrases, and Kirk being a violent frat boy *explative*.
Because, of course, a popular film cannot be socially aware. After all, most people aren't as smart as you and I.
What was that you were saying about egalitarianism?
There's the populism of the Facist/authoritarian/reactionary variety and the populism of the liberation/egalitarian/revolutionary variety, and this film has more of the former than the latter. Of course you can make a smart film with mass appeal, that's what ST has tried to do in it's best moments, but this film is cynical because it operates under the assumption that you can't. It goes for the lowest common denominator; offering titties, explosions, non-sequiter action sequences and not much else.
TOS gave us bigoted Vulcans, too. So did DS9 and VOY and ENT. Let's face it: Some Vulcans have always had chips on their shoulders about non-Vulcans, and that's been present from the first time Sarek was described as refusing to speak to Spock after he joined Starfleet in TOS.
Heck, ST09 painted Sarek in a much kinder, less bigoted light than TOS did.
I got nothin here. I've clearly been defeated here, and I withdraw my earlier comments. I suppose its the fact that they're depicted as
violent bullies that made it jump out at me. That just seemed unbelievable. Thanks for responding to my posts!
