When can we expect USS Kelvin novels?

[Christopher]

"Did I not demonstrate on multiple occasions, exceptional oral sensitivity?"

Come on.. you can't tell me that's not a wink to the audience?

First off, it was "aural." Second, I really don't think that the intent of these filmmakers was to portray Uhura as a slut or as someone who earned her status through sex rather than professional competence. That would be a disgustingly sexist and demeaning way to portray the character, hardly a lighthearted joke.

 

[Trent Roman]

Interesting you should mention that, since Titan was born in part out of the crapfest which was Nemesis. Why did anyone bother with that?

Whatever one might think of Nemesis (which I, for one, far prefer to Abrams' product), there was cause to develop Titan because it set a new location for Riker and Troi (and posssibly Wesley, though the editors opted not to go that route), high-profile, principal characters with long histories in the franchise. It wouldn't do to leave them in limbo, making guest appearances here and there. The Kelvin crew, however, are essentially a group of unknowns, onscreen for all of five minutes. You could make a series from them, certainly, but I don't see any pressing cause to.

That would be a disgustingly sexist and demeaning way to portray the character, hardly a lighthearted joke.

Uh... in other words, perfectly in keeping with Uhura's portrayal in the rest of the film, then.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

I think that was supposed to be "aural sensitivity" not "oral sensitivity," which makes far more sense. I suppose background noise and Kirk's earlier line in the bar made us all hear a blowjob joke instead of the correct word.

It still seems a very knowing line to me - at least they didn't have her claim to be a cunning linguist.

There was absolutely nothing about Saldana's performance to indicate that that is in any way supposed to be sexual innuendo. Uhura is all business in that scene -- she's referring to her aural capacity, which is confirmed by her reference to Spock's evaluation of her as being better able to detect subspace audio anomalies than anyone else.

It's borderline sexist to take that scene as a sexual innuendo sequence, or to presume Uhura only wanted to be aboard the Enterprise because of Spock.

That would be a disgustingly sexist and demeaning way to portray the character, hardly a lighthearted joke.

Uh... in other words, perfectly in keeping with Uhura's portrayal in the rest of the film, then.

Nothing about Uhura's portrayal was demeaning or sexist. Hell, even when she's in her underwear, so is Kirk -- and she bloody well kicks his ass. He comes across looking a lot more demeaned than she does.

 

[Trent Roman]

Please. Her first scene in the movie, she gets hit on, then a bunch of assholes hold a barroom brawl over her while she ineffectively pouts at them to stop, and outside-the-box gets dangled as extra incentive for our jerkwad of a hero to join up. Then she gets a stripping scene in which the audience in put into the position of the voyeur, and drops a quick comment about a transmission for aformentioned voyeuristic jackass to overhear. Her next scene with Spock is essentially her best one, since it demonstrates (as with her reaction to Kirk) that she doesn't put up with idiocy gladly, and can dish out as well as she gets. Then there an artificial vindication when she confirms her early comment, and in that she apparently can distinguish Romulan from Vulcan where the regular comm. guy can't (since, of course, languages don't significantly diverge over thousands of years of seperate development), which rapidly becomes meaningless because everybody else apparently has universal translators, and is her last contribution--if you can call it that--to the plot. Afterwards she does nothing but stand around the bridge in her miniskirt and occasionally suck face with Spock to satisfy the shoehorned romance requirement of modern cinema. We're told a number of times how great her talents are, but those skills never translate into action onscreen, making the praise essentially irrelevant to the story. Much like her progenitor, she's the most useless character of all the revamped TOS crew. This is all the worse, and makes the callous motivations all the more transparent, when you consider the difference between the character's profile in the marketing pushes and her actual role in the film, which is object of desire in the first half and furniture in the second.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

Please. Her first scene in the movie, she gets hit on, then a bunch of assholes hold a barroom brawl over her while she ineffectively pouts at them to stop,

In her first scene, she handily dismisses a guy who's hitting on her that she's not interested in, and then yells at a bunch of drunken assholes to stop being drunken assholes -- and does the sensible thing by not getting involved in the fight herself.

and outside-the-box gets dangled as extra incentive for our jerkwad of a hero to join up.

Absolutely nothing about the Pike/Kirk scene, or about Kirk's scenes alone in the bar or in the Iowa fields and shipyard, indicate that he's taking her into consideration as a reason to join Starfleet.

Then she gets a stripping scene in which the audience in put into the position of the voyeur, and drops a quick comment about a transmission for aformentioned voyeuristic jackass to overhear.

"A stripping scene?" Please. She's in her underwear because sometimes, people get into their underwear in their rooms! I've been living in dorms for five years now, and I've seen it hundreds of times for both men and women. And in that same scene, Kirk is in his underwear -- she's no more objectified than he is.

Her next scene with Spock is essentially her best one, since it demonstrates (as with her reaction to Kirk) that she doesn't put up with idiocy gladly, and can dish out as well as she gets. Then there an artificial vindication when she confirms her early comment, and in that she apparently can distinguish Romulan from Vulcan where the regular comm. guy can't (since, of course, languages don't significantly diverge over thousands of years of seperate development), which rapidly becomes meaningless because everybody else apparently has universal translators, and is her last contribution--if you can call it that--to the plot. Afterwards she does nothing but stand around the bridge in her miniskirt and occasionally suck face with Spock to satisfy the shoehorned romance requirement of modern cinema.

You weren't paying attention to the character dynamics at all. Uhura is the heart of the crew in this film, their moral conscience. She's the one who keeps the guys in check, gives them kicks in the ass when they're getting stupid, and helps balance them out when they need help.

Much like her progenitor, she's the most useless character of all the revamped TOS crew.

Not really -- that particular distinction falls to McCoy, who gets Kirk aboard the Enterprise and then does nothing but spout homage one-liners. Uhura, in fact, tends up assuming much of the role that McCoy did in the original series -- she's clearly the most important character after Kirk and Spock, and she has more of a personality than any of the other supporting characters.

This is all the worse, and makes the callous motivations all the more transparent, when you consider the difference between the character's profile in the marketing pushes and her actual role in the film, which is object of desire in the first half and furniture in the second.

Which I would give a shit about, except that trailers aren't even made by the filmmakers most of the time. I really don't care what they do to promote the film, I care about the quality of the film itself. And in the film, Uhura is a strong, dynamic character with an actual honest-to-God personality -- which is more than can be said for McCoy, Sulu, Chekov, or Scotty, and more than could ever have been said for her original series counterpart.

 

[JoeZhang]

She's in her underwear because sometimes, people get into their underwear in their rooms! I've been living in dorms for five years now, and I've seen it hundreds of times for both men and women.

This is known as the "there is no nudity taboo on her planet!" defence, she's taking her clothes off because the writers want her to take her clothes off.

 

[JoeZhang]

"Did I not demonstrate on multiple occasions, exceptional oral sensitivity?"

Come on.. you can't tell me that's not a wink to the audience?

First off, it was "aural." Second, I really don't think that the intent of these filmmakers was to portray Uhura as a slut or as someone who earned her status through sex rather than professional competence. That would be a disgustingly sexist and demeaning way to portray the character, hardly a lighthearted joke.

Seems to be in keeping with the film.

 

[Sci]

She's in her underwear because sometimes, people get into their underwear in their rooms! I've been living in dorms for five years now, and I've seen it hundreds of times for both men and women.

This is known as the "there is no nudity taboo on her planet!" defence, she's taking her clothes off because the writers want her to take her clothes off.

No, that's the "I live in dorms in real life and I can tell you that sometimes people run around in their underwear" defense.

 

[William Leisner]

It's borderline sexist to take that scene as a sexual innuendo sequence, or to presume Uhura only wanted to be aboard the Enterprise because of Spock.

She's in her underwear because sometimes, people get into their underwear in their rooms!

"Sometimes hot chicks really do strip down to their skimpy white undies!! But accusing a young human being who happens to be female of basing her life choices on less than pure logic? That's SEXIST!!!"

 

[Christopher]

I think Sci has it exactly right and I can't put it any better. Yes, okay, she gets an underwear scene, which is titillating, but even in that scene, she's still a strong, competent, intelligent woman who's completely in control of the situation. And it's worth noting that of the three characters in that scene, Uhura's the one who spends the least time in her underwear. It's a highly selective interpretation of the facts to cite that scene as evidence that Uhura is somehow being portrayed in a more demeaning fashion than the film's other characters.

 

[Sci]

It's borderline sexist to take that scene as a sexual innuendo sequence, or to presume Uhura only wanted to be aboard the Enterprise because of Spock.

She's in her underwear because sometimes, people get into their underwear in their rooms!

"Sometimes hot chicks really do strip down to their skimpy white undies!!

Sometimes guys strip down to their skimpy white undies. The only thing part of being a Resident Assistant more awkward than having to issue a warning to a guy in his underwear is having to do it to a girl. (No, wait, I take it back: The really awkward part is when you knock on a resident's door because they're being too loud, they both answer in their underwear, and you realize just what that noise was. But I digress.)

And since literally all three characters in that scene were in their underwear, and since no particular effort was made to make Uhura's state of dress seem all that titillating -- especially compared to Kirk and Gaila -- I can't say I found it particularly demeaning.

But accusing a young human being who happens to be female of basing her life choices on less than pure logic? That's SEXIST!!!"

Yes, it is, because there's absolutely no evidence that scene to imply that her desire to be posted aboard the Enterprise was due to Spock's presence. That wasn't "I am so upset we'll be apart!," that was, "Where the fuck do you get off trying to stand in the way of my career?" Furthermore, you fail to note that it was Spock who was being emotional, basing the Uhura's posting on his emotions and his relationship with her instead of basing it on her qualifications. Uhura lists all of the excellent technical qualifications she has that should qualify her to serve aboard the new flagship (which is established multiple times to be the most prestigious post).

To take an accomplished, career-driven woman and reduce her desire to excel in her chosen career to "she just wants to be by her boyfriend" is fundamentally sexist.

 

[William Leisner]

It's a highly selective interpretation of the facts to cite that scene as evidence that Uhura is somehow being portrayed in a more demeaning fashion than the film's other characters.

You mean the "highly selective" fact that she's the only one who strips to her skivvies without knowing who's watching her? The "highly selective" differences between a romantic partner, and a roommate, and an unseen voyeur?

 

[Christopher]

^And when she finds out who's watching her, does she act in any way humiliated or vulnerable? Does she do anything to make herself appear as a victim? On the contrary. She's not at all clueless or weak. She quickly detects Kirk's presence because of her acute hearing and her ability to recognize Gaila's guilty behavior. She promptly throws him out and is unmoved by all his bluster. Yes, Kirk tries to treat her as a sex object by spying on her, but she transcends the attempt and remains an agent rather than an object.

I think it's sexist to assume that the woman must automatically be the victim in any interaction involving nudity or sexuality. There is absolutely nothing about the way Uhura is written or played that presents her as a victim or a passive object in any way, and the fact that she's seen removing her clothes at one point does not take away from that. Imagine the scene with the sexes reversed but played exactly the same way. Imagine a man coming into his dorm room and stripping to his skivvies, unaware that there's a woman hiding under the bed watching him. He realizes it, she comes out from under the bed in her own underwear, and the man reacts merely with annoyance and forces the woman out into the hallway while she's still in deshabille. I just bet that in such a case you'd say it was the woman who was demeaned there and not the man, even though the scene played exactly the same way apart from the respective sexes of the participants. And that's a double standard.

Kirk and Uhura were played entirely equally in the scene. Yes, he got to voyeurize her for a few seconds, but how many female cadets got to voyeurize him after she tossed him out into the hallway in his underwear? Neither character acted like a victim. Neither character acted ashamed of their semi-nudity (and it's naive to assume that a culture hundreds of years in the future would share the nudity taboos of present-day America, by the way). And ultimately, Uhura was the one in control of the situation.

 

[William Leisner]

But accusing a young human being who happens to be female of basing her life choices on less than pure logic? That's SEXIST!!!"

Yes, it is, because there's absolutely no evidence [in] that scene to imply that her desire to be posted aboard the Enterprise was due to Spock's presence.

Oh for Christ's sake.

Yes, Sci, when you when you narrow everything down to that 15 second interaction, there's absolutely no evidence. If you ignore the entire rest of the fucking movie, if you feign ignorance of everything else that's revealed about these characters, if you convince yourself the turbolift scene and the transporter scenes happen in a vacuum with no basis in anything that's come before in these characters' history, if you are ignorant of the concept of "subtext" and simply accept everything presented to you at face value, and if you pretend to have no fucking clue about human nature... then, yes, you can argue there was absolutely no emotional component in Uhura's request.

Of course, your accusations of sexism would still be utterly baseless and personally insulting.

 

[William Leisner]

^And when she finds out who's watching her, does she act in any way humiliated or vulnerable? Does she do anything to make herself appear as a victim? On the contrary.

Ah. So being a victim is dependent not on what is done to a person, but how that person reacts to it! The perpetrator is only responsible insofar as he can get a certain reaction, and without that reaction, he's blameless for his actions. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

[Christopher]

Ah. So being a victim is dependent not on what is done to a person, but how that person reacts to it! The perpetrator is only responsible insofar as he can get a certain reaction, and without that reaction, he's blameless for his actions. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Yes, actually. People can try to demean us, but we have the power to refuse to surrender control. In our world, there are always going to be men who try to demean or victimize women, so by your logic, every woman is doomed to be a permanent victim for the rest of her life. I reject that categorically. I say that women have the power to define themselves, to refuse to let themselves be diminished no matter how anyone else tries to define them.

And that's not just a gender thing. We all go through life facing challenges, facing people who try to use us or diminish us. That doesn't make us helpless. Power isn't about being free from others' attempts to diminish us, because those attempts will always happen. Power is about how you define yourself, about having the will to transcend those attempts.

And Bill, your profanity-laden attack on Sci is beneath you. When you have to resort to childish cussing instead of reasoned discourse, it's tantamount to surrendering the argument. I think you need to dial back your temper here.

 

[LightningStorm]

How about everybody dial it back a bit and keep it about the posts (or the movie) and not the posters.

 

[Christopher]

^Indeed. And maybe we can get back to talking about Kelvin novels. We've gotten drastically off-topic.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Christopher, did you get my PM?

I'd like to see a Kelvin/Robau novel, in either universe, because it's a cool-looking ship and they are in the middle of nowhere. What exactly was the Kelvin doing before they were intercepted by the Narada?

Starfleet didn't seem to have too many ships in this incarnation. Six destroyed in orbit of Vulcan and "the rest of the fleet" in the Laurentian system. Who puts ALL of their ships on a training exercise at the same time?

 

[Christopher]

Starfleet didn't seem to have too many ships in this incarnation. Six destroyed in orbit of Vulcan and "the rest of the fleet" in the Laurentian system. Who puts ALL of their ships on a training exercise at the same time?

Heck, at least they bothered to justify the absence of the fleet. In TMP, we were expected to believe that the Enterprise was the only Starfleet vessel within three days' travel of Earth.

And did they actually say anything about a training exercise? I think the Academy commandant said the fleet was "on maneuvers" there, which I think refers to something fairly routine, but I'm not sure of the specifics of the phrase's usage or if that's what he actually said. It's possible that there was some massive crisis underway in the Laurentian system.