Ever thought of simply scrolling past, when you've got no better reply than this?
Your post: same question.
Seriously, neither of those responses added anything of value; both could as easily have been omitted and not have been missed at all.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Seriously, neither of those responses added anything of value; both could as easily have been omitted and not have been missed at all.
Right, so it's okay to change characterisation, themes and technology from the original series, but it's not okay to evolve from outdated depictions of women?
Films are made in order to make money. Females make up half of the population. Alienating women is counterproductive to making money. Having several reviews highlighting the issue could turn away potential viewers.
An argument that the film does not depict women poorly and that the reviews got it wrong is a reasonable response. An argument which is simply a justification that it's okay because TOS did it is ludicrous.
Look I don't know what the big deal is.
Sure I wish the bikini shot wasn't in it.
But look at the outfits Troi wore in TNG and just about any guest female, look at the catsuits of 7 and T'Pol. The whole T'Pol/Trip story line - yes Trip is very important so I will give him naked massages scenario.
At least Marcus was rejecting Kirk when she was bikini clad.
The few women portrayed in STID were scientists or fired guns, went on landing parties. Not relying on men to protect them all the time as it was in TNG and ENT and TOS
Eh. I know that a lot of other women were offended by the Carol Marcus undies scene, but IMO, it was a throwaway scene and wasn't any longer than we saw in the trailers. You also see what an immature tomcat Kirk still is because of his reaction.
I'm more weirded out by the scene's gratuitous use in the trailer than its actual use, in context, in the movie.
I also feel that "Uhura in Love" is actually pretty progressive. Up to now, we've only seen professional, strong women as having to give up love. Uhura is devoted to her boyfriend but she's still a professional officer and conducts herself accordingly. She and Spock have an equal relationship as partners. She does show her emotions, but she also acts like a grownup and does her job. I don't see the problem. The idea that professional women have to be emotionless spinsters is outdated. In the end, too, Uhura was there to help finish the job of subduing Khan, she was not the damsel in distress.
The women in STID were all there because of their brains and competence and Uhura was as competent with a phaser as any of the men. The women weren't glorified secretaries and glorified switchboard operators (like in TOS) or touchy feely mother figures (like in TNG).
I really don't see the problem. If you look at it in a certain light, STID was in some ways more progressive in its handling of women than previous Trek has managed to be.
I'm more weirded out by the scene's gratuitous use in the trailer than its actual use, in context, in the movie.
I also feel that "Uhura in Love" is actually pretty progressive. Up to now, we've only seen professional, strong women as having to give up love. Uhura is devoted to her boyfriend but she's still a professional officer and conducts herself accordingly. She and Spock have an equal relationship as partners. She does show her emotions, but she also acts like a grownup and does her job. I don't see the problem. The idea that professional women have to be emotionless spinsters is outdated. In the end, too, Uhura was there to help finish the job of subduing Khan, she was not the damsel in distress.
The women in STID were all there because of their brains and competence and Uhura was as competent with a phaser as any of the men. The women weren't glorified secretaries and glorified switchboard operators (like in TOS) or touchy feely mother figures (like in TNG).
I really don't see the problem. If you look at it in a certain light, STID was in some ways more progressive in its handling of women than previous Trek has managed to be.
Breathe and tell yourself its just a movie.
I do hope you come back and expand on this. What's wrong with the casting ?
Speaking as a devil's advocate here since I love TWOK...is Montablban's Khan rather low key during half the movie until frustration sets in? Is it also not a shame that Kirk and Khan never meet in person in TWOK? If Khan were really bent on revenge from ground one, would he approach Kirk in such a gentlemenly manner as he does when he first tells Kirk he wants revenge upon him and also the Genesis device? So is Cumberbatch's Khan a better modern villian? He has a slow, stewing anger when he actually talks to Kirk and McCoy, but when he first appears, his guns are blazing(Starfleet HQ, then Kronos)...really taking that revenge seriously.
RAMA
RAMA
Last edited:
Of all the things I like about STID, casting might be right at the top. From one of my favorite actors: Cumberbatch, to Frickin' Peter Weller(Buckaroo Banzai is an Admiral!!), as well as some of the smaller roles(and some very cute girls as Starfleet officers). The regular cast is impeccable, and Greenwood as Pike is still one of my favorite characters in Trek history.
In TWOK, Kirk and Khan never even meet in person, even though Kirk is the hero and Khan is the villain. That left the audience totally confused. Bad film.
A missed opportunity...and I'm saying did STID do it RIGHT...making Khan more fierce as well as meeting Kirk in person. Khan even uses Kirk as a means to an end in STID...but then viciously attacks him. It feels like the movie one upped TWOK.
RAMA
Yikes. And to think I spent all that time very mildly annoyed about not putting quite enough salt on my popcorn when I could have been raging over... nothing?
TWoK established that both characters had a backstory. If an audience member wanted to see that backstory, he or she could buy a VHS copy of Space Seed. (In conjunction with the movie, Paramount had released a VHS copy of the episode.) [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series_(VHS)]
Classic Trek Khan was a ruler of people. As a successful ruler - who never experienced internal dissension in his territory - , he had to have the ability to negotiate for what he wanted.
I think using Khan was a mistake. Khan isn't the Joker. What is the Joker? He is a master criminal who is a nemesis to Batman. Nolan could craft a Joker whose backstory we never learn and make a film that works, regardless of the plot holes. Both characters were born into, lived in, and worked in a world of the same technologically level.
What is Khan? He is the product of the Eugenics Movement in 20th Century Earth, who with hundreds of others managed to conquer both Asia and the Middle East. Their inability to be satisfied with their conquest lead to the Eugenics War, where they were out competing each other to be the top dog. How does one work that into a film, without boring the hell out of a contemporary audience?
** First, there has to be an explanation for what Eugenics is. I doubt very many nowadays would know what the Eugenics Movement was.
** Then, there has to be a reason why a person in the 23rd century should be afraid of a man and his small band of followers from the 20th century. They are outmatched technologically. (The only reason that Khan was able to commandeer the Enterprise is because Kirk, acting like a fool, gave Khan access to the engineering specs on the starship. Even Spock questioned Kirk's judgement on that one.) It was believable in the 1960s that a man and his followers could escape with nary a record trace. It is less so today, where it seems every action of ours is being tracked and recorded. Even our choice of entertainment is leaving a record of us behind for someone to find. We are losing anonymity for the sake of advancing our technology. Realistically, if a 23rd century ship came upon the SS Botany Bay, the crew would identify the occupants and quarantine those people asap.
** Thirdly, the 23rd century would have means to counter the superiority of Khan. The purpose of Eugenics was to create people who were superior. Well, technology augmented to our living frames can do the job just as well. So, there would be a fight between naturally augmented humans and cybernetic augmented humans. Would that excite the audience to see this fight? And would this still be Star Trek?
I feel the threat of Khan reflected the fears of people who grew up in the WW II era where people knew about the Eugenics Movement of NAZI Germany and the fear of Asian imperialism coming into America were commonplace.
Iron Man 3 faced a similar challenge with the Mandarin. The Mandarin reflected the fears of 1960s America - fears that didn't make sense to a contemporary audience. So, the filmmakers took a risky step with the character, and upended the whole Mandarin character arc.
Classic Trek Khan was a ruler of people. As a successful ruler - who never experienced internal dissension in his territory - , he had to have the ability to negotiate for what he wanted.
I think using Khan was a mistake. Khan isn't the Joker. What is the Joker? He is a master criminal who is a nemesis to Batman. Nolan could craft a Joker whose backstory we never learn and make a film that works, regardless of the plot holes. Both characters were born into, lived in, and worked in a world of the same technologically level.
What is Khan? He is the product of the Eugenics Movement in 20th Century Earth, who with hundreds of others managed to conquer both Asia and the Middle East. Their inability to be satisfied with their conquest lead to the Eugenics War, where they were out competing each other to be the top dog. How does one work that into a film, without boring the hell out of a contemporary audience?
** First, there has to be an explanation for what Eugenics is. I doubt very many nowadays would know what the Eugenics Movement was.
** Then, there has to be a reason why a person in the 23rd century should be afraid of a man and his small band of followers from the 20th century. They are outmatched technologically. (The only reason that Khan was able to commandeer the Enterprise is because Kirk, acting like a fool, gave Khan access to the engineering specs on the starship. Even Spock questioned Kirk's judgement on that one.) It was believable in the 1960s that a man and his followers could escape with nary a record trace. It is less so today, where it seems every action of ours is being tracked and recorded. Even our choice of entertainment is leaving a record of us behind for someone to find. We are losing anonymity for the sake of advancing our technology. Realistically, if a 23rd century ship came upon the SS Botany Bay, the crew would identify the occupants and quarantine those people asap.
** Thirdly, the 23rd century would have means to counter the superiority of Khan. The purpose of Eugenics was to create people who were superior. Well, technology augmented to our living frames can do the job just as well. So, there would be a fight between naturally augmented humans and cybernetic augmented humans. Would that excite the audience to see this fight? And would this still be Star Trek?
I feel the threat of Khan reflected the fears of people who grew up in the WW II era where people knew about the Eugenics Movement of NAZI Germany and the fear of Asian imperialism coming into America were commonplace.
Iron Man 3 faced a similar challenge with the Mandarin. The Mandarin reflected the fears of 1960s America - fears that didn't make sense to a contemporary audience. So, the filmmakers took a risky step with the character, and upended the whole Mandarin character arc.
Yikes. And to think I spent all that time very mildly annoyed about not putting quite enough salt on my popcorn when I could have been raging over... nothing?
I approve of the rage. At least he/she is passionate about Star Trek.
But its the same cast as 2009. Has the rage been going on for 4 years? Cool.
I myself rage over Kirk's death in GEN but the rage comes and goes. I'm still able to post though. Some days I forget about it and just get on with life.
Some days I forget about it and just get on with life.
Then your obviously not a "true believer"!
I liked it a lot, gave it an A in the poll. But I wish they could find a way to make a ST movie that finds the happy medium between "cerebral" and "2 hrs of blowing $h!t up".
That would have to be low budget and play to the local art houses, unfortunately...
I feel like that as well (though my vote was more in the "B" range). I think STID very much succeeds as an incredibly fun spacey-wacey action-Jackson blockbuster, but like ST09, it does not hold up very well under intense scrutiny. That, of course, turns off a certain set of fans. Me, I think Star Trek should be fun, because that is, in fact, how it started: as a space-set adventure show. But as a fan, I also very much believe in the franchise's overriding ethos of telling big, idea-based stories, which is where I felt STID fell a bit short. I definitely didn't find it to be a failure, mind you, but I feel like a bit more polishing to the script could have brought that balance you speak of.
For me, the Trek film that comes closest to achieving the cerebral vs. action balance is probably TUC. Its political allegory is not so subtle, to be sure, but I feel it's woven in quite well with the story, which has stakes for the characters that make it involving for the audience addition to throwing in some (reasonably) thoughtful commentary on the early uncertainty of post-Cold War international relations. I feel like Trek could do something similar with terrorism today, and had a good chance with STID, which did include aspects such as the militarization of Starfleet, etc., but it didn't all quite come together as well.
Your opinion aside, and although in retrospect it's odd to not have them meet face-to-face, I think it actually works in the movie's favour, and most people don't seem to mind.
There have been no "big ideas" in Star Trek movies that are any more relevant to the current day or as substantive as the political/moral positions expressed in STID. I'm not sure that Trek has staked out a position on an issue that's strayed further from the safe and generic than this movie since perhaps "A Taste Of Armageddon," and that's a long time.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
