Star Trek by the Minute, the Last Minute

[RAnthony]

For anyone who was reading STBTM over at Structured Dream, the writer has completed minute 117. I think this quote from the comments pretty well covers it.

I believe the point that this film was shamefully sexist, religious, ignorant, inconsistent, and poorly written in ways I never would have imagined...
...all have been made sufficiently by the detailed qualitative assessments in each segment.​

I haven't done an exact count, but the number of minutes with women speaking or appearing in this film amounts to less than a quarter. Considering that the only 'person of color' in the film also happens to be the only woman with a significant speaking role is just a further indictment of the film.

I stand by my original assessment. RIP Star Trek. I won't be wasting any more money participating in fannish activities that would force me to acknowledge this horribly flawed film.

I would be willing to argue points on this board, but this thread will most likely disappear as all my other negative threads have (as detailed here) as well as other posters negative threads. As usual, not holding my breath on the prospect.

-RAnthony

 

[F. King Daniel]

This is a joke, right?

 

[Jack Bauer]

I sure as hell hope so.

 

[Jeyl]

This is a joke, right?

Well, I hope not because I sure as heck agree with the women aspect of the film.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I just want to point out that calling Bad Robot sexist is truely ridiculous. Alias and Fringe both starred/star women, the latter strong to the point of psychological dysfunction.

I'll also point out STXI had female admirals on the academy board (take that, "Turnabout Intruder" ) and sexism nor racism (in fact, there was more diversity in this film than in any Trek ever, AFAIK) never entered my head at any point during the movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's a minor point put up against the kind of obsessive ranting represented by that website or paranoid assertions that threads "disappear" here, but I believe that Faran Tahir and Tyler Perry count as "people of color."

You can't force people to agree with you, RAnthony - that's your only complaint here, and I just can't see the tragedy in it as you do.

 

[UFO]

I just want to point out that calling Bad Robot sexist is truely ridiculous. Alias and Fringe both starred/star women, the latter strong to the point of psychological dysfunction.

"… Psychological dysfunction."? Sounds like a female stereotype to me!

Well, to be fair, much of the sexism (in our eyes) is probably inherited. Although TMP added a woman to the bridge crew, so "improvements" (of a sort!) can be made. My (blasphemous?) mistake in another thread may have been suggesting adding a woman at the expense of Chekov or Sulu! OK, "Nerona" anyone?

I'll also point out STXI had female admirals on the academy board ....

Well, apart form token admirals (that I don't even remember), female involvement seemed minimal.

... and sexism nor racism ... never entered my head at any point during the movie.

Granted we can get too PC about this, but did you know that beauty contests are making a comeback!? So social norms may be changing again. Besides, you may have had other things on your mind.

Uhura had to sleep with her boss to get on the Enterprise (That is the impression you could take anyway. It wasn't a good look). Of course Kirk's attitude towards females was obvious. Or was that just a requirement of the plot? Apparently there is a deleted scene where Kirk uses Gaila to get access to the computer simulation (I believe) and was only pulled because audience testing thought it made Kirk look bad! And you can bet there wouldn't have been comment one decrying it either, if the rest of the movie is anything to go by.

It's a minor point put up against the kind of obsessive ranting represented by that website or paranoid assertions that threads "disappear" here, but I believe that Faran Tahir and Tyler Perry count as "people of color."

You can't force people to agree with you, RAnthony - that's your only complaint here, and I just can't see the tragedy in it as you do.

I don't think RAnthony's alleged "obsessive ranting" is relevant to whether it is a "minor point" or not. However I find myself in somewhat uneasy agreement with Dennis' comment in a thread called "It's not Star Trek" referring to the opening post of that thread:

BTW, you have to come up with a more original, thoughtful and intelligent post than your opener here before you get to call us "senseless cows." You're not leading from strength.

Of course it can be hard to articulate exactly what is "wrong" with STXI in terms of its "Star Trekkieness". Never-the-less I thought the reaction of fans of STXI was remarkably restrained and civilised. Given that, it did seem a little strange that it needed to be closed if calling fans "senseless cows" in the opening post wasn't enough to warrant it!

 

[Amaris]

For anyone who was reading STBTM over at Structured Dream, the writer has completed minute 117. I think this quote from the comments pretty well covers it.

I believe the point that this film was shamefully sexist, religious, ignorant, inconsistent, and poorly written in ways I never would have imagined...
...all have been made sufficiently by the detailed qualitative assessments in each segment.​

I haven't done an exact count, but the number of minutes with women speaking or appearing in this film amounts to less than a quarter. Considering that the only 'person of color' in the film also happens to be the only woman with a significant speaking role is just a further indictment of the film.

I stand by my original assessment. RIP Star Trek. I won't be wasting any more money participating in fannish activities that would force me to acknowledge this horribly flawed film.

I would be willing to argue points on this board, but this thread will most likely disappear as all my other negative threads have (as detailed here) as well as other posters negative threads. As usual, not holding my breath on the prospect.

-RAnthony

I really, really feel concern for that reviewer's sanity. I'm not kidding. His obsession borders on the extreme and unhealthy.

 

[thumbtack]

Not to mention the OP's.

 

[Devon]

I really, really feel concern for that reviewer's sanity. I'm not kidding. His obsession borders on the extreme and unhealthy.

It was accurately described by "nuFan" in the official review thread as a "psychotic hissy fit."

 

[Amaris]

I really, really feel concern for that reviewer's sanity. I'm not kidding. His obsession borders on the extreme and unhealthy.

It was accurately described by "nuFan" in the official review thread as a "psychotic hissy fit."

That sounds accurate, alright.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This isn't being a fan. It isn't even obsession. It's a waste of life on a par with panhandling so that you can drink Sterno.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Just like Languatron and his weird anti-NuBSG hysteria.

 

[Gaith]

This isn't being a fan. It isn't even obsession. It's a waste of life on a par with panhandling so that you can drink Sterno.

Agreed. Does the reviewer make some decent points? Sure, and I too was uncomfortable with several aspects of the movie. But to do a minute-by-minute catalogue?! At least do something witty that'll actually be seen, a la RLM PT reviews.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Just like Languatron and his weird anti-NuBSG hysteria.

Damn! I was going to mention langy! (First thing that popped into my head.)

That's just scary.

 

[UFO]

This isn't being a fan. It isn't even obsession. It's a waste of life on a par with panhandling so that you can drink Sterno.

Agreed. Does the reviewer make some decent points? Sure, and I too was uncomfortable with several aspects of the movie. But to do a minute-by-minute catalogue?! At least do something witty that'll actually be seen, a la RLM PT reviews.

Maybe you folks are taking this too much to heart? I mean, everyone's allowed a hobby. Besides, when William L Shirer wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", there weren't too many reviewers saying: "Sure its an in depth analysis, but he could have made it funnier."

 

[Flake]

TOS has Uhura and 6 men so what do folks expect?

Perhaps Rand and Chapel will turn up in the next one to even things up a bit but frankly there are 7 great actors/actresses vying for not much screentime and I am happy with the way things are.

 

[FarStrider]

Well, to be fair, much of the sexism (in our eyes) is probably inherited. Although TMP added a woman to the bridge crew, so "improvements" (of a sort!) can be made. My (blasphemous?) mistake in another thread may have been suggesting adding a woman at the expense of Chekov or Sulu! OK, "Nerona" anyone?

Uhura had to sleep with her boss to get on the Enterprise (That is the impression you could take anyway. It wasn't a good look). Of course Kirk's attitude towards females was obvious. Or was that just a requirement of the plot? Apparently there is a deleted scene where Kirk uses Gaila to get access to the computer simulation (I believe) and was only pulled because audience testing thought it made Kirk look bad! And you can bet there wouldn't have been comment one decrying it either, if the rest of the movie is anything to go by.

Uhura did not sleep with her boss to get on the Enterprise, and the fact that you interpret that scene that way makes you the sexist, not the writers. Why do you think Kirk goes looking for her if she's not supposed to be there; there are 6 other ships at space dock that she could have been assigned to, but he KNEW she was on the Enterprise? Obviously because of her grades and class rank she was assigned there in the first place. And when Spock assigned her to the Farragut, she hunts him down and logics him back into putting her into the place she had earned for herself. That shows her agency. . .she strong enough to stand up to Spock

And thinking back to the movie, most of the crew (not the main 7) who had speaking lines were women. . .

The scene that was pulled was the one where Kirk apologizes to the wrong Orion girl, because that made him look racist (all green girls look alike), plus that scene didn't add anything to the movie, so they were right to pull it. . .


~FS

 

[UFO]

Uhura had to sleep with her boss to get on the Enterprise (That is the impression you could take anyway. It wasn't a good look).

Uhura did not sleep with her boss to get on the Enterprise, and the fact that you interpret that scene that way makes you the sexist, not the writers.

Even NuSpock recognised it had the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, rather belatedly I thought. I couldn't imagine SpockP even getting near such a position, whatever the reality may be. Call me out dated it you like.

Why do you think Kirk goes looking for her if she's not supposed to be there; there are 6 other ships at space dock that she could have been assigned to, but he KNEW she was on the Enterprise?

That didn't occur to me but I do seem to recall something like that happening.

Obviously because of her grades and class rank she was assigned there in the first place.

I assume he asked someone or looked up the crew list etc. Wasn't Kirk there when Uhura was assigned to a different ship? Granted he may have missed it. But no one knew which ship they would be on until the last moment and Uhura's "reassignment" occurred afterwards as you point out. Besides, why assume that the "best" pupil would be assigned to the "best" ship? If thats true how did Sulu get on board? And how did Kirk know they didn't already have enough communications personal on the Enterprise? I don't think Kirk can assume Uhura would be there (she may have been needed elsewhere, its not a school prize giving). The writers, on the other hand, probably did.

And when Spock assigned her to the Farragut, she hunts him down and logics him back into putting her into the place she had earned for herself. That shows her agency. . .she [is] strong enough to stand up to Spock.

Unfortunately there are a number of alternative ways of viewing that. As I said, not a good look.

And thinking back to the movie, most of the crew (not the main 7) who had speaking lines were women. . .

I will accept your claim until I see evidence to the contrary. I remember the chief engineer being male but other personal didn't stand out to me.

The scene that was pulled was the one where Kirk apologizes to the wrong Orion girl, because that made him look racist (all green girls look alike), plus that scene didn't add anything to the movie, so they were right to pull it. . .

Thats interesting. Sadly I don't have the blue ray version but my source must have got it completely wrong because that is a very different event. You are sure there was no deleted scene where Kirk uses his relationship with an Orion girl (I assume Gaila) to allow him to rig the Kobayashi Maru simulation?

Assuming your description is correct, I would have considered it one of the more important scenes in the movie. It would have been one of the few (perhaps only) scenes where Kirk, or anyone, does something "wrong" and then shows contrition. I'm disappointed you don't value it for that reason. I hope my memory isn't failing me on that point but I am aware of at lest five moral/social issues that are just accepted in the movie as no big deal or somehow justified.

I don't sweat the small stuff. I would be happy to watch the next film if they can do better in that department. If not, then sadly it won't be to my taste particularly as a ST movie.

 

[Amaris]

This isn't being a fan. It isn't even obsession. It's a waste of life on a par with panhandling so that you can drink Sterno.

Agreed. Does the reviewer make some decent points? Sure, and I too was uncomfortable with several aspects of the movie. But to do a minute-by-minute catalogue?! At least do something witty that'll actually be seen, a la RLM PT reviews.

Maybe you folks are taking this too much to heart? I mean, everyone's allowed a hobby. Besides, when William L Shirer wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", there weren't too many reviewers saying: "Sure its an in depth analysis, but he could have made it funnier."

I get what you're saying, but any movie, regardless of how well it's made, can be picked apart if you do a minute by minute review, particularly if it's as anal and pedantic as the one cited in the OP. It's not an in-depth analysis either. An in-depth analysis wouldn't make so many casual mistakes as this one, and it's for a reason. As it's also not wholly accurate, it is so filled with the emotional invective of it's reviewer, who positively despises it, that the review makes mistakes any casual observer would be able to rebut. All in all, that's not healthy, to fixate so much anger and bitterness on a movie.