What is Star Trek and its future?

[Tim Walker]

While I am posting this I have on the second season of Babylon 5. The episode with the giant Explorer type ship.

Interesting conversations about something strange out on the Rim.

The sort of things I would like to see in the future.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Except we were actually told this by the writers themselves. They put Carol stripping down just to see Carol stripping down. There wasn't even the illusion of an alternative reason to have her do that, and the only explanation anyone has ever mustered is actually contradicted by the wardrobe in the movie itself.

That contradicts what I said, how?

 

[stardream]

I didn't have a problem with the 'underwear' scene as such. Its just that if I (and a lot of women) needed to change clothes with other people in the room (even if they turned away) there are magic tricks and techniques we use so we don't have to strip down to our underwear. Sometimes it takes some creative moving about but after years of practice we have it perfected. I think the scene annoyed me more than anything else.

 

[fireproof78]

I would argue that it can because there has been a history of scantily clad women throughout Star Trek, most glaringly Seven of Nine. At least Uhura and Carol Marcus contributed to the story, at least in some way.

Well I have little time for the 7 of 9 catsuit either.

But that one was a little more complicated.

JJs straight and simple, had to tell a chick we need you to be half naked, for no apparent reason.

As has been noted by others, the only difference between the two is subjective. Marcus' is changing her clothing (as was Uhura in 09) and told Kirk to turn around. T'Pol and Seven were both in those catsuits for the majority of the time they were on screen.

So, I question why Abrams' films are more egregious a violation than any thing else in Trek history.

This is an interesting concept, but not one that I think is entirely born out within the Trek narrative. I mean, there is personal freedom to do what you would like (cook, maintain a vineyard, trade in goods, etc.) but there is also a hint of social planning that underpines some of the Federation colonization and society.

I'm not saying that it is all a part of it, but the Maquis subplot in DS9, Servin's followers in "Way to Eden" and other parts that I can't qute remember do not always speak to the idea of full freedom that you are discussing.

I'm not saying that it would not be interesting to explore. Just that Star Trek has not always presented that ideal either. It is a utopian world, but the question should always be asked "Who's idea of utopia?"

Well it wouldn't be as simple as I want freedom.

I'm gonna start slamming herion in paris.

Just the same the maquis choose to settle on lands that were known to be in disputed territory. The took their risks, and then later backed out.

You would still have to work within a federation frame work.

The point is that framework does in theory allow more freedoms than viewers would think.

But, my overall point is that the Federation framework, even portrayed in TOS, is one of planned societies and controlled environments. So, the question of freedom still comes to my mind because the Federation has some interesting concepts of utopia, to my mind.

The point being that freedom within the Federation is a concept that has context, and that includes social planning.

Regardless, while I will agree that Carol Marcus standing in her underwear on the shuttlecraft or T'Pol and Trip oiling each other up in decon were pointless, titillating attempts, how is Andrea walking around in a revealing jumpsuit for 50 minutes not just as pointless or titillating? Sherry Jackson is a beautiful woman. She didn't need to be wearing the costume she did. Just like the decon scene was pointless. Just like Dr. Marcus in her underwear was pointless. My point is: if you're going to be judgmental, be judgmental all the way. It's hypocritical not to look at one or two examples and not see that it's always been there.

Actually when I think of Andrea in TOS I can put in context of the story. Roger Corby created Andrea and her appearance as well as they way she is dressed is clearly a non-verbal way of telling the audience what Corby was thinking when he created her. The question then becomes (to clarify it further) would any woman in TOS' 23rd century actually dress like Andrea in public? For me Andrea is clearly an expression of Roger Corby's fantasies. And Christine Chapel does seem to pick up on it.


On another note I think violence can be viewed similarly. Graphic violence is titilation of another sort. It can have shock value. But a story can be rather dark and edgy without resorting to truly graphic violence to get the point across.

I am inclined to agree about violence. This is one of the reasons (among several) that I don't go to horror films as they often use violence, blood, and gore for the shock value and not add to the story in any meaningful way.

I always prefer action and violence to be derived from something in the story forcing the character to act or from the character themselves and a motivation from within for them to act. A quick example would be Kirk in "Conscience of the King" and his desire to act upon Kodos comes in to question as justice or revenge. His actions from there are framed in that mindset.

Similarly, I get frustrated by scenes like Yoda vs. Dooku because it doesn't feel like it derives from either the story or character. It is just in for the "cool" factor, but I can't even justify it by any other means.

 

[Warped9]

While I am posting this I have on the second season of Babylon 5. The episode with the giant Explorer type ship.

Interesting conversations about something strange out on the Rim.

The sort of things I would like to see in the future.

I love B5. And that was indeed a cool scene.

 

[Tim Walker]

While I am posting this I have on the second season of Babylon 5. The episode with the giant Explorer type ship.

Interesting conversations about something strange out on the Rim.

The sort of things I would like to see in the future.

I love B5. And that was indeed a cool scene.

Yes, the Explorer class Cortez boldly went....

Something for Trek to emulate.

 

[OpenMaw]

That contradicts what I said, how?

OH, I get what you're trying to say, I just don't buy it. In fact it sounds like something a 15 year old would come up with. Probably at night in his bed.

It's not some conspiracy. It's the actual truth of the scene. The writers admitted that Carol gets into her skivvies for no reason other than their adolescent fantasies. You don't have to buy it, it's been given freely.

 

[Autistoid]

OH, I get what you're trying to say, I just don't buy it. In fact it sounds like something a 15 year old would come up with. Probably at night in his bed.

I've a feeling that scene was in the script long before it was filmed. and the actress in question has been nuder. So we're not talking about something sprung at the last minute on some innocent jut off the bus. And I've no illusions as to why it's in the film. It's a fun little scene. But its not the big deal you seem to think it is. Especially given Star Trek's history with the female form. It's history of skin, sex and sensuality is well documented. By comparison the scenes in ST09 and STID are pretty tame.

Again I'm not a feminist, nor am I some idealist.

She could get tag teamed by a gang of klingons for all I care.


The point is that it's completely out of context within the film.

It has no interaction within the film, it's their because the audience doesn't need to take the character seriously.

To me that is horrid judgement in film making.

 

[Autistoid]

As has been noted by others, the only difference between the two is subjective. Marcus' is changing her clothing (as was Uhura in 09) and told Kirk to turn around. T'Pol and Seven were both in those catsuits for the majority of the time they were on screen.

So, I question why Abrams' films are more egregious a violation than any thing else in Trek history.

Because anything else happened back in the past.

More importantly my point of bringing it up, was that it was a rare flaw in JJabrams movies, instead of with the rest which were full of flaws.

I'm not making a moral argument, I'm making one of quality of film, and building characters that are credible.




I've rambled about SEven and TPol before.

The problem is that neither character would of choose to dress like that if they understood the social context of their clothing.

I person can dress how they like, and girls wear clothing that highlights their figure there's no reason for this to change.

Just as men wear clothing to make themselves appear taller, with broader shoulders and bigger arms, women will always choose lighter clothing than men.

The point is it has to make sense within the character.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I understand your point, but it's not something new in Trek.

The original idea for uniforms in Star Trek was that both sexes wore tunic and trousers. It was a perfectly logical idea. But the advent of colour and the notion to make the show sexier as well as reflecting a changing element of society was to introduce the miniskirt uniform. A miniskirt as opposed to a mid thigh or knee length skirt. And it wasn't an alternate uniform (an option for women in some services today), but the standard uniform for women.

It served no logical in-universe function. On some level one could argue it served as a representation of women feeling empowered and in control of their own sexuality, but overall it was primarily eye candy.

Back in the day it might not have seemed quite so out of place because of the women's movement during the '60s, but as seen from today's perspective it can strike one as strange. In some respects it's akin to how women are so often portrayed in comic books.

 

[Autistoid]

^^ I understand your point, but it's not something new in Trek.

The original idea for uniforms in Star Trek was that both sexes wore tunic and trousers. It was a perfectly logical idea. But the advent of colour and the notion to make the show sexier as well as reflecting a changing element of society was to introduce the miniskirt uniform. A miniskirt as opposed to a mid thigh or knee length skirt. And it wasn't an alternate uniform (an option for women in some services today), but the standard uniform for women.

It served no logical in-universe function. On some level one could argue it served as a representation of women feeling empowered and in control of their own sexuality, but overall it was primarily eye candy.

Back in the day it might not have seemed quite so out of place because of the women's movement during the '60s, but as seen from today's perspective it can strike one as strange. In some respects it's akin to how women are so often portrayed in comic books.

Your mistakening me for some feminist that cares about such things in general.

If you want every female character in your show to be sexual objects to make things interesting cool with me couldn't care less.

However if you want me to take a character seriously, as anything other than a setpiece you better be relatively intelligent about how the character is made.


That being said comparisons to TOS are insane.

IT's not even on the level of consideration to modern social norms.

 

[Warped9]

However if you want me to take a character seriously, as anything other than a setpiece you better be relatively intelligent about how the character is made.

But you see there have been women (and men) over the years who have made this very statement in regard to the way women were dressed on TOS. They felt the miniskirt uniform undermined the idea of a woman professional.

As I said upthread it becomes a matter of perception. The miniskirt uniform in itself does not undermine the characters as presented in context of the story and the fictional universe. It doesn't draw any unusual attention from the male characters in universe. But it can be perceived as conveying something different when viewed out of context of the fictional universe.

In fairness TOS didn't start this by a long shot. Connie Francis in 1956's Forbidden Planet wore a miniskirt, and scantily clad women have adorned the cover of SF pulp magazines and books for decades prior to TOS with no justification other than being eye candy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That contradicts what I said, how?

OH, I get what you're trying to say, I just don't buy it. In fact it sounds like something a 15 year old would come up with. Probably at night in his bed.

It's not some conspiracy. It's the actual truth of the scene. The writers admitted that Carol gets into her skivvies for no reason other than their adolescent fantasies. You don't have to buy it, it's been given freely.

As I said, I've no illusions about why it`s in the film. What I don't buy is Austoid's " hur hur" version of it happening,

 

[Nerys Myk]

OH, I get what you're trying to say, I just don't buy it. In fact it sounds like something a 15 year old would come up with. Probably at night in his bed.

I've a feeling that scene was in the script long before it was filmed. and the actress in question has been nuder. So we're not talking about something sprung at the last minute on some innocent jut off the bus. And I've no illusions as to why it's in the film. It's a fun little scene. But its not the big deal you seem to think it is. Especially given Star Trek's history with the female form. It's history of skin, sex and sensuality is well documented. By comparison the scenes in ST09 and STID are pretty tame.

Again I'm not a feminist, nor am I some idealist.

She could get tag teamed by a gang of klingons for all I care.


The point is that it's completely out of context within the film.

It has no interaction within the film, it's their because the audience doesn't need to take the character seriously.

To me that is horrid judgement in film making.

You keep mentioning that you're not a feminist, like someone has mistaken your objection to that scene as being based on some feminist idea. Trust me, this is not the case. No one is mistaking you for a feminist, idealist and certainly not for someone whose's opinion on filmmaking can be taken seriously.

That said, explain to me how it's "out of context" with the film. Expand on why it has no "interaction" and why it causes the audience not to take the character seriously? Is it the undwear? The dialog? Kirk's presence? Why is this scene different than any other scene featuring a character in underwear? Ripley in Alien or Walt in Breaking Bad for example.

 

[wulfio]

Ripley in underwear is part of the narrative. Carol in underwear and the extended shot was for the sake of Carol being in underwear for an extended shot because she's sexy as hell. Second, it allowed them to use trope of the guy leering too long out of the corner of his eye, in which Carol says "turn around", and we queue the audience laugh! It's filler that eats up screen time.

I honestly don't care about this argument. I like boobies. But seeing you guys talk in circles for 4+ pages on such a simple concept is a bit silly.

That scene was extraneous at best, and in poor taste at worst. Feeling compelled to defend it is just fanboyism. Just call a spade a spade would ya... It was a totally cliche irrelevant scene, and complete filler. Autistoid is not drawing comparisons to prime Trek. So it's not a nuTrek vs. Prime trek debate. He's just talking about film making. And in the context of film making, it's a bit closer to Bay than Spielberg.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Bummer. I was hoping for Austoid's take. Now you've ruined it.

Good points though.

 

[wulfio]

lol sorry to ruin your fun.

 

[fireproof78]

Ripley in underwear is part of the narrative. Carol in underwear and the extended shot was for the sake of Carol being in underwear for an extended shot because she's sexy as hell. Second, it allowed them to use trope of the guy leering too long out of the corner of his eye, in which Carol says "turn around", and we queue the audience laugh! It's filler that eats up screen time.

I honestly don't care about this argument. I like boobies. But seeing you guys talk in circles for 4+ pages on such a simple concept is a bit silly.

That scene was extraneous at best, and in poor taste at worst. Feeling compelled to defend it is just fanboyism. Just call a spade a spade would ya... It was a totally cliche irrelevant scene, and complete filler. Autistoid is not drawing comparisons to prime Trek. So it's not a nuTrek vs. Prime trek debate. He's just talking about film making. And in the context of film making, it's a bit closer to Bay than Spielberg.

My only point is that Trek has done it before. That's all. The scene is dumb, and could be easily cut and, in my mental version, it is.

The fact that I can excise that scene with no impact upon my impression of the character or the film itself speaks to that point.

I just don't see it as any more problematic or anti-character than, say, Bashier checking out Dax's legs in "Trials and Tribble-ations."

 

[stardream]

Wasn't it all Damon Lindelof's idea? There was a reason the Lost fans referred to him as 'Demon'.

 

[Campe]

Well, let's just put it this way: I, for one, am glad that sex, sexiness and sexuality are still things in the final frontier. If they didn't, how would we, as a society, survive?