Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

[JarodRussell]

What was it with that Khan head squishing thing anyway. Like it was his only finishing move. It's so inefficient.


Back to topic. Taking something that is extraordinary in this day and age but not have the characters talk about it is the best way to do it, in my opinion.

Think of all the films that, for instance, had a black president before Obama got elected. In none of these films it's a big deal. Only behind the scenes it is. Not only does that make these films innovative, it also makes them timeless. Because IF some day it won't be a big deal anymore, you can still watch the films without having to cringe how stupid society was back then.

 

[BillJ]

I think Star Trek could make a tiny dent in all of this. A really tiny one; but you've got to start somewhere. Why not there?

Because I simply don't expect my entertainment to be in the business of curing societies ills, I expect it to entertain me.

If you want change, make a statement: go work in women's shelters, climb the ladder of big business/government and make changes. But bitching about entertainment isn't going to change a thing as long as your going out and buying tickets.

Bitching about it constantly on a message board is going to create as much change as me going out and pissing in the street.

 

[BillJ]

What was it with that Khan head squishing thing anyway. Like it was his only finishing move. It's so inefficient.

I pointed that out to my wife when we saw it together.

 

[CrazyHorse89]

How about if it's EVERY piece of 2 hours entertainment they're likely to see? Because the latest study suggests that girls might as well give up on a equal chance at a career alongside men and aspire to be moms and girlfriends instead.

So you should definitely keep your daughters away from Star Trek, then, which features two different women who are both genius-level experts in their field in a way that makes their male counterparts look like useless chumps.

And even puts the "be a girlfriend!" thing into context with Uhura's line
"It's not just me, the Captain thinks so too!"
And Kirk:
"No, no, don't drag me into this! Seriously, though, she's right."

This is, in fact, the first time in Trek history that Uhura was a full member Team Enterprise in every sense that someone could be part of it. It almost makes up for the TFF "Fan Dance" scene.

And nobody is suggesting that every movie has to have a 50/50 gender divide but a franchise like Star Trek is a golden opportunity to do so and they screwed it up big.

How do you figure? Just counting the number of females on the bridge, it looks like about 30/70. Carol Marcus is a physicist and a weapons specialist and doesn't get all screamy until 1) Khan breaks her leg and 2) Khan sqishes her father's head like a watermelon (hell, I woulda screamed too).

Speaking of the Bechdel Test, I'm reminded that Insurrection actually managed to pass it due to this awesome piece of dialog

TROI: And have you noticed how your boobs have started to firm up?
CRUSHER: Not that we care about such things in this day and age.
TROI: Uh huh.

How inspiring!

I'd just like to point out (since I'm on Pauln6's side of the divide) that I would never defend Star Trek: Insurrection on any point.

 

[BillJ]

It's not about the quota, folks, it's about the content.

Oh my God! Somebody actually gets it.

 

[Ovation]

I think there are exactly as many women as the filmmakers intended to have and I have zero problem with that (meaning I have zero problem with the filmmakers producing a film that reflects what they, rather than anyone else, wants). I would have zero problem with that if the ratio of men to women in the film was reversed, if that is what the filmmakers wanted. What I don't want is for any artistic production to decide that it is more important to meet the requirements laid down by the Committee of the Way Things Ought to Be than to put out what they want.

Art of any type--commercial, fine, big-budget, tiny budget, (fill in the blank)--should always reflect the desires of the artist (in the broad sense of "makers of the art"). Artist wants to make a Tarantino-esque bloodbath in the Trek universe? That's ok. Wants to make a version with an explicitly pro-feminist message and theme? That's ok. Wants to make an action-adventure movie just like the one that came out last month in the cinema? That's ok. Do I have to like each option equally? Nope. It is entirely my choice whether to like, dislike, love, hate, viscerally loathe, adore…the film (or other artwork) in question. BUT, I have no right to expect satisfaction on my terms. I have the right to partake of the artistic endeavour and judge it according to my views. The artist has the right (one I will vociferously defend) to put out exactly what he or she wants--subject to whatever praise or criticism it engenders once in the public space. What I will NEVER countenance is the idea that an artist has an obligation to satisfy an arbitrary set of criteria to meet the expectations of the self-appointed guardians of The Way Things Ought to Be. When that becomes a requirement, it stops being art (good, bad or other) and becomes propaganda. The world has enough propaganda already, thanks.

God damn, this is a beautiful post.

And it's in the true spirit of Star Trek! Prejudice should be fought in all its forms... oh no, wait... It's also crap. The producers aren't deliberately choosing to use male characters for artistic reasons, they're simply tone deaf to gender balance.

The why is irrelevant. It remains their choice. You have NO right to expect satisfaction on your terms. You can hope for it, be disappointed when it doesn't happen--still aren't entitled to it.

The post is advocating the worst type of status quo - it's ok to make a movie with all the black folks are downtrodden menials if that's your artistic intent? Thank the stars Uhura survived that kind of crap.

Yes. It is entirely ok--if that is what the filmmaker wants. Of course, the filmmaker is also subject to all the criticism such a choice would generate. But the filmmaker should NEVER be prevented from that choice because it doesn't meet someone else's expectations.

But more to the point, since when has gender equality been arbitrary? It's one of the most fundamental things that should have been rectified in Star Trek's utopian future decades ago. TMP probably came the closest but even there all the security guards were male.

The filmmaker doesn't have to take any of that into account. He can't expect to avoid criticism about it, either. And representations of gender balance in art are always arbitrary. You might believe that gender balance won't be an issue in some utopian future (I don't find Star Trek all that utopian, incidentally), but that doesn't mean it won't be.

Lastly, I don't expect fiction and entertainment to present me with a society that meets my expectations of justice, equality and so on. Nice if it does (as long as that's what the artist wants AND as long as it makes sense within the artwork). But it was a requirement, I would enjoy a far, far narrower set of artwork (in the broad sense of art) than I actually do. I am quite capable of distinguishing between fictional situations and reality. Watching the Three Stooges did not lead me to start banging people on the head with frying pans and watching non gender-balanced fiction did not turn me into a misogynist. Doesn't work that way.

You seem to think my endorsement of an artist's right to create what he or she wants, regardless of the expectations of others, represents an endorsement of all the resulting choices. Two different things.

The difference is that Star Trek has always had some kind of agenda at its heart: feminist, liberal, egalitarian, whatever. If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.

Again, entirely up to the filmmaker. And why specify women here? Kirk is set up in the same fashion in each film. Why not, especially in reference to a "progressive future", say "don't use people as sexual objects to ogle at."?

Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek 2009 are not overtly sexist, but they certainly contain problematic gender dynamics. I don't think modern-Trek should treat one half of the population as window dressing or (God knows the old versions certainly did). It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.

Not really. What would really be "letting down young boys and girls" are parents who allow entertainment to substitute for the hard work of teaching values to their children. If any parent feels strongly enough about a particular value, they will take time to pass that value on to their children and ensure they've understood it. If that is done, then the children should not be so easily swayed away from that value by a 2 hour bit of entertainment. Indeed, if the lesson is well-learned, the children will raise the value conflict on their own (if they're too young, the parents are free to point out the conflict). However, the filmmakers have NO OBLIGATION to produce something that won't "let down" any particular "young boy or girl". No obligation whatsoever. We, as the audience, are NOT entitled to be satisfied on that score--ever. We merely have the right to agree or disagree with what we see and say so.

Who said anything about obligations?

Unfortunately, children and adolescents are very impressionable and live in a world of 24-hour media which presents masculinity and femininity, men and women, and sexuality in a very specific way. Even with the best parenting and the strongest will, children cannot help but internalise and externalise the culture around them. Wouldn't it be brilliant if Star Trek, a show about the future, and a semi-utopian future at that, actually had a place for women who were not glorified mannequins?

Now, that's my opinion. I don't think that all movies should do this or that because it's politically correct. What I'm saying is that I think certain films could do this and that in a bold, fresh, and innovative way. A way, coincidentally, that gives young people a positive alternative to the status-quo.

I agree. I simply don't think it should be done because there is an obligation to do so and while you may not specifically feel obligation is at play, it is certainly at play in a number of things I've read, here and elsewhere, in relation to the issue of gender balance, gender dynamics and so on in this film.

 

[Ovation]

Because the latest study suggests that girls might as well give up on a equal chance at a career alongside men and aspire to be moms and girlfriends instead.

Funny stuff. My wife works for a major tele-communications company while I stay home, which is becoming more and more common here in the States. My daughter is studying Criminal Justice with an eye on a career in Law Enforcement.

So... I honestly don't know what planet your living on.

My wife is a highly placed senior director of clinical research at a pharma company while I work part time by teaching mostly online courses in order to be the stay at home parent. Funny how that works.

Gotta go make dinner now. Later.

 

[JarodRussell]

The main problem regarding gender balance in nuTrek is that they took the characters of a show from the 60s and transported it into the 21st century. That's why you have the black girl in miniskirts still acting basically as the receptionist (and love interest), but nothing more substantial.

Then there's the sexism coming from the writers, because they think the story and script are elevated by threesomes and women dressing down for no reason during a dialogue.

Deep Space Nine had better gender and ethnic balance.
Voyager had better gender and ethnic balance. Heck, Captain and chief engineer were finally women. Only in season 4 they lost the ball when they introduced Sex Object of Nine in skintight catsuits to boobs the ratings, err, boost the ratings.


Let's not talk about Enterprise, because that was silly. Hoshi, the receptionist again, and T'Boob. And then the mirror universe episode where they suddenly run around with bare bellies to sex it up.

 

[CrazyHorse89]

I think Star Trek could make a tiny dent in all of this. A really tiny one; but you've got to start somewhere. Why not there?

Because I simply don't expect my entertainment to be in the business of curing societies ills, I expect it to entertain me.

If you want change, make a statement: go work in women's shelters, climb the ladder of big business/government and make changes. But bitching about entertainment isn't going to change a thing as long as your going out and buying tickets.

Bitching about it constantly on a message board is going to create as much change as me going out and pissing in the street.

Actually, the media is a very important site for all of these issues. It has a huge impact on the way that young people view themselves, others, and the world around them. Star Trek is not a major offender on this front, but it has certainly had its fair share of minor infractions. I enjoy it-in all its incarnations-and that's why the gender thing bothers me.

And this is not bitching. I'm simply having a discussion about a certain aspect of a certain film with a number of interesting and enlightened people, many of whom I happen to disagree with. If everybody took your suggestion as a benchmark, nobody would discuss anything.

 

[BillJ]

If one took up your suggestion as a benchmark, nobody would discuss anything about anything.

You obviously haven't noticed the dozens of other threads about this movie. There becomes a time when someone runs a subject completely into the ground to the point that people begin to push back, not because they hate women or think they should be subservient but because the discussion serves no real purpose without people being willing to back up what they say.

If I thought Star Trek Into Darkness showed women in a poor way, I wouldn't buy tickets to it. I wouldn't buy tickets for my wife (who is a pretty staunch feminist, laughs at this discussion and the Alice Eve underwear controversy), my mother-in-law and tell my daughter she should go see it.

There are totally times one should be willing to take a stand and refuse to support something because it offends them. This simply isn't one of those times.

 

[Pauln6]

When playing Dungeons & Dragons we use random tables! But you know what, would I think it was cool if Scotty's assistant in engineering was transgender and nobody batted an eyelid? Hell yes.

Considering how little we know about Keenser...

Or, for that matter, the Ensign who took Chekov's post on the bridge.

In the comics Keenser is male. Darwin is female all right.

I agree that the background characters on the bridge are not too bad. We're generally just missing women in speaking roles and senior positions. They missed numerous opportunities - Marcus, Spock's new commanding officer, Cupcake's assistant, a female deputy chief engineer, leaving out Chapel and Rand again, or flipping the role of the parents so the mother is more active.

 

[Pauln6]

It's not about the quota, folks, it's about the content.

Oh my God! Somebody actually gets it.

It's about both, silly.

 

[Ryan8bit]

And then the mirror universe episode where they suddenly run around with bear bellies to sex it up.

At first I read that as "beer bellies" and was really confused. Now I'm just partly amused by the misspelling.

 

[JarodRussell]

And then the mirror universe episode where they suddenly run around with bear bellies to sex it up.

At first I read that as "beer bellies" and was really confused. Now I'm just partly amused by the misspelling.

Haha, oh my!

Bear bellies, pretty furry.

 

[CrazyHorse89]

If one took up your suggestion as a benchmark, nobody would discuss anything about anything.

You obviously haven't noticed the dozens of other threads about this movie. There becomes a time when someone runs a subject completely into the ground to the point that people begin to push back, not because they hate women or think they should be subservient but because the discussion serves no real purpose without people being willing to back up what they say.

If I thought Star Trek Into Darkness showed women in a poor way, I wouldn't buy tickets to it. I wouldn't buy tickets for my wife (who is a pretty staunch feminist, laughs at this discussion and the Alice Eve underwear controversy), my mother-in-law and tell my daughter she should go see it.

There are totally times one should be willing to take a stand and refuse to support something because it offends them. This simply isn't one of those times.

But none of us are saying that people who don't give a flying-giraffe about the gender balance in Star Trek or Alice Eve's underwear shouldn't be able to express their annoyance, bemusement, or opposition to those who do.

I think that this is an important issue, and for many women it's symptomatic of a wider one which they don't have the luxury of being able to ignore. In my opinion, the 'gendered construction' of Star Trek hasn't been done to death: at least not any more than the Box Office results, Khan, or the effects of salt water on a fictional starship.

 

[Pauln6]

The main problem regarding gender balance in nuTrek is that they took the characters of a show from the 60s and transported it into the 21st century. That's why you have the black girl in miniskirts still acting basically as the receptionist (and love interest), but nothing more substantial.

Then there's the sexism coming from the writers, because they think the story and script are elevated by threesomes and women dressing down for no reason during a dialogue.

Deep Space Nine had better gender and ethnic balance.
Voyager had better gender and ethnic balance. Heck, Captain and chief engineer were finally women. Only in season 4 they lost the ball when they introduced Sex Object of Nine in skintight catsuits to boobs the ratings, err, boost the ratings.

Let's not talk about Enterprise, because that was silly. Hoshi, the receptionist again, and T'Boob. And then the mirror universe episode where they suddenly run around with bear bellies to sex it up.

I think I agree that DS9 had the best approach to gender but even in DS9 there were twice as many recurring male characters as women.

Voyager suffered a bit too much from the Smurfette principle. Its high profile women were in more senior positions than ever before but none of Janeway's senior staff were women until Chakotay put Torres forward and they didn't give the women below them a whole lot to do. Seska was a great villain though - it's a shame they felt the need to sexualise elements of her character.

The catsuits and mini skirts are so iconic I can't bring myself to hate them but more power to Aisha Hinds as Darwin - she certainly has some meat on her bones. I would have preferred them to re-use Ilia, personally, but I hope they feature Darwin again, and in the comics as well.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When playing Dungeons & Dragons we use random tables! But you know what, would I think it was cool if Scotty's assistant in engineering was transgender and nobody batted an eyelid? Hell yes.

Considering how little we know about Keenser...

Or, for that matter, the Ensign who took Chekov's post on the bridge.

In the comics Keenser is male. Darwin is female all right.

Doesn't mean they were BORN that way.

I agree that the background characters on the bridge are not too bad. We're generally just missing women in speaking roles and senior positions. They missed numerous opportunities - Marcus, Spock's new commanding officer, Cupcake's assistant, a female deputy chief engineer, leaving out Chapel and Rand again, or flipping the role of the parents so the mother is more active.

Carol was RAISED by her mother, who (I'm only guessing here) didn't turn out to be a crazy megalomaniac. There's also the previous film in which Spock is depicted as being strongly influenced by his mother through most of his childhood, so much so that it is an insult (more likely a history of insults) against his mother's heritage that leads him to turn his back on Vulcan and seek a career in Starfleet. Amanda is, in fact, a far more important figure in Spock's characterization than just about anyone else on the Enterprise.

As for missed opportunities: Carol Marcus disarms a photon torpedo and saves McCoy's life. Uhura stares down a Klingon warrior in his own language and eventually stabs him in the leg when the shit hits the fan; later, she personally beams down with a phaser and helps Spock defeat Khan.

As for Chapel and Rand, let's be honest with ourselves: you cannot and SHOULD not attempt to introduce those characters unless you've got some time to really develop them into something dynamic. Both of these made it through three seasons of TOS and appearances in the movies without getting so much as a background story. In these films, they wouldn't even be ancillary characters, just repeat extras with an unusually large number of lines (sorta like Cupcake).

You're also ignoring one other thing: as far as background characters, the casting directors don't generally think that deeply into who they're giving that particular role to. You put out a casting call for extras and you get thirty eight and ninety two men; what's the ratio gonna look like in the actual film?

 

[BillJ]

But none of us are saying that people who don't give a flying-giraffe about the gender balance in Star Trek or Alice Eve's underwear shouldn't be able to express their annoyance, bemusement, or opposition to those who do.

I think that this is an important issue, and for many women it's symptomatic of a wider one which they don't have the luxury of being able to ignore. In my opinion, the 'gendered construction' of Star Trek hasn't been done to death: at least not any more than the Box Office results, Khan, or the effects of salt water on a fictional starship.

It's been a running theme on this board for the decade plus I've been here.

Personally, once your buying tickets to the movie, buying comic books, toys, soundtracks... you're a hypocrite. Because your sending a message with your money that what your seeing is acceptable.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Seska was a great villain though

THAT is a matter of opinion.

The catsuits and mini skirts are so iconic I can't bring myself to hate them

I can. Not the miniskirts so much, since that at least passes for standard uniform (plus I got the distinct impression they're wearing shorts under those skirts, which seems like it would be more comfortable) but the Voyager/ENT catsuits are just stupid and never seem to belong anywhere. Seven of Nine looked just fine in a regular uniform, and T'pol had exactly zero reasons NOT to put on a regular Starfleet uniform when she resigned from the Vulcan service.

They essentially became noticeably less-useless versions of Deanna Troi, with the ironic distinction that Troi eventually remembered where her uniform had gone to and finally started wearing it. Seven and T'pol have no excuse.

I would have preferred them to re-use Ilia, personally

This is 2259. Isn't she, like, ten?

 

[Therin of Andor]

In failing to show on screen an equivalent mix of male and female characters in equal numbers, both movies fail to demonstrate a reasonable level of gender equality in the 23rd century (or the 21st century).

How do you ever cope when watching reruns of TOS episodes?

As an aside, after you remove Uhura and Carol from the mix, do you think there are enough women remaining? And where are they?

Darwin - remember the bald woman of colour who wasn't the typical shape of a catwalk model - was steering the ship. Sitting in the same seat we once saw bald Persis Khambatta, former Miss India, occupying.