"Star Trek" movie toy report from Toy Fair Germany...
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
It would be a "big old spoiler" if the Romulans interference at one point caused the creation of the "Mirror Universe" and Spock has to undo this.
The MU is one of those things that would be easily and dramatically communicated to new viewers as part of a time-travel tale without a lot of backstory but would, as Orci has said, be viewed by long-time fans on a completely different level.
The MU is one of those things that would be easily and dramatically communicated to new viewers as part of a time-travel tale without a lot of backstory but would, as Orci has said, be viewed by long-time fans on a completely different level.
Where did you find that?
What about the golden coloured uniforms from the Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before? Will we not see that in the new film?
We must stop Führer Abrams embargo of Spielwarenmesse International Toy Fair Nürnberg fotografieren!
Sorry, my Kraut gene came through there. And yes, I didn't use a translator because I am that bad at Deutsch.
Sorry, my Kraut gene came through there. And yes, I didn't use a translator because I am that bad at Deutsch.
And often Didn't.
Why not?
You make seem to this sound like a good thing.
Am I the only sci fi fan who still likes seeing T&A on screen?
Nope, I'm right there with you. I never understood the ardent hatred directed at Seven of Nine, or T'Pol. Hot babes are a rich Star Trek (one GR's own) and Space Opera tradition. There's no reason there can't or shouldn't be a bit of "T&A".
Sharr
I'm all for equal opportunity when it comes to revealing clothes! Starfleet should make shirt wearing optional for the men. 
As a female science fiction fan, that's my main complaint about some shows. They NEVER forget to give men their eye candy but sometimes forget that we female fans (or gay male fans!) enjoy having our own eye candy too. TOS did manage to at least have Shatner rip his shirt in fisticuffs occasionally, or lounge about shirtless in his quarters, so I give them credit for that. Sadly, Shatner never turned me on that much, even when he was at his prime. How I wish Spock could have gotten into some shirt tearing fights!
As a female science fiction fan, that's my main complaint about some shows. They NEVER forget to give men their eye candy but sometimes forget that we female fans (or gay male fans!) enjoy having our own eye candy too. TOS did manage to at least have Shatner rip his shirt in fisticuffs occasionally, or lounge about shirtless in his quarters, so I give them credit for that. Sadly, Shatner never turned me on that much, even when he was at his prime. How I wish Spock could have gotten into some shirt tearing fights!
Spock was pretty good at keeping his shirt on.
A mini skirt for Uhura - best Star Trek XI news ever! 
There's a happy medium to be found here. Yet the arguments always seem to be in favor of one of the two extremes. SO I'm going to argue against BOTH perspectives being put forth here.
First off... it's 2008. And that means that somehow HUMAN NATURE has changed??? Not a chance. Men are designed (whether you argue "by nature" or "by God" is irrelevant to this topic) to be turned on by women's bodies for a reason... to keep the species from dying off. To expect that men will somehow stop liking seeing attractive women in revealing costumes just because "it's 2008" is INSANE.
On the other hand, the tendency to OBJECTIFY women... to treat them PRIMARILY as sexual objects... that's really not acceptable. It wasn't really acceptable in the past, either... certainly it wasn't in 1966.
Roddenberry's original vision of Trek was interesting in that he insisted on having women in positions of authority and responsibility. Yet, they were still very much WOMEN, with all the sexually-charged attitude and behavior that is really hard-wired into all (most?) of our male brains as being what we find attractive.
Granted, Roddenberry really did a lot of his stuff based upon having a hard time thinking of women in any way OTHER than sexually... his casting-couch is legendary to this day!... but hey, he at least tried to combine that with treating them as real human beings!
I'm all for seeing women who are gorgeous (that's genetics AND effort, mind you!) who choose to dress in a way that's sexually-exciting to the average man... within reason of course. That's not "sexist"... it's HUMANIST. (I'm unusual in that I don't see that there necessarily has to be a condition of something being "humanistic" that makes it necessitate the belief that humanity is the highest and most nobel form of intelligence... to me, humanism simply means "revelling in what we are as a species...")
Similar threads
