Star Trek-Into Darkness

[Blackthorne]

What is wrong with women being cute?  Seriously!  Gah - this is a whole other ball of wax!

Hey, sorry things suck 929572.  Hope they get better.


Bt

[KatieHal]

There's nothing wrong with them being cute--there is something wrong with that being the only reason they're there or the only notable thing about them (or, in this case, their uniforms).

[Blackthorne]

There's nothing wrong with them being cute--there is something wrong with that being the only reason they're there or the only notable thing about them (or, in this case, their uniforms).

Is that the only reason they are there or is that perception?  And, so what IS the problem if that is the reason?  There shouldn't be any shame in being aesthetically pleasing - for either sex.


Bt

[KatieHal]

In terms of the uniforms--personally, I find them to be low on practicality, particularly when compared to the men's uniforms. What was so wrong with TNG's take, where the men and women's uniforms were pretty much the same? (The one-piece uniform aspect on the other hand, also a bad practical decision.)

As for the characters having their only purpose there as being cute or pretty--I should hope you're aware of the problem with that. I really enjoyed the movie, but there are distinctly far more larger roles for men than women in the movie. Part of that is that they're recreating roles whose gender has been determined by the previous versions of the franchise, but that doesn't mean they couldn't make these roles as big for the women in the reboot. I just hope to see roles like Uhura and Carol get more to work with and stand on their own in the future movies, and see some original characters to this timeline who are also interesting, female roles.

[Numbers]

What I want to know is why they changed those amazing uniforms that they wore in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Those costumes were just so colorful, and full of life.

[br305893]

In terms of the uniforms--personally, I find them to be low on practicality, particularly when compared to the men's uniforms. What was so wrong with TNG's take, where the men and women's uniforms were pretty much the same? (The one-piece uniform aspect on the other hand, also a bad practical decision.)

As for the characters having their only purpose there as being cute or pretty--I should hope you're aware of the problem with that. I really enjoyed the movie, but there are distinctly far more larger roles for men than women in the movie. Part of that is that they're recreating roles whose gender has been determined by the previous versions of the franchise, but that doesn't mean they couldn't make these roles as big for the women in the reboot. I just hope to see roles like Uhura and Carol get more to work with and stand on their own in the future movies, and see some original characters to this timeline who are also interesting, female roles.

Gender Roles in Star Trek would make an interesting college class.

[Blackthorne]

Well, what IS an interesting role for a female, honestly?  One where she's like "a man", per se?  Sometimes, and I'm only saying this in interest of discussion on this remember, I find that line of thought as insulting as women damning other women for being mothers and stay at home moms.

Practicality?  Yeah - maybe - Uhura, if you recall from this film, was dressed in a very different outfit when she confronted the Klingons.  And Carol Marcus - well, she was a weapons specialist and a science officer.  Sure, she was played by Alice Eve, who totally had a gratuitous bra and underwear shot, but it was her skills and intellect that added to the story.


Bt

[KatieHal]

An interesting role is one that has dimension to it, that isn't flat. Also that gets due attention and time. Uhura & Carol both had good scenes, but I think they were underused. Uhura less so--and yes, her outfit then was different, and I'll point out, not a 'cute skirt uniform'. It was a better costume! Carol's role was partly relevant to the plot, but also she was largely just...there. And then suddenly was there in her underwear for no reason. Actually her role felt like it was maybe intended to be larger but had some scenes cut, perhaps.

And any role, male or female, can be more than two-dimensional--from weapons expert to stay at home mom. I'd never damn anyone for that--I'm not a mom myself but I know it's certainly NOT an easy thing to do.

Mostly, from this movie, I'd just like to see their roles go further in future movies.

[Bludshot]

It really isn't that difficult. Just give Uhura something to do that isn't related to being a LI of a major character.  The movie half succeeded in giving her a scene with the Klingons, but that led nowhere and never came up again.

[KatieHal]

Or what Bludshot said, which is a much briefer way to put it.

[Blackthorne]

Yeah, I do wish Uhura had more to do in the film, honestly, but she was pretty bad-ass in her scenes.  I was honestly tense during that scene with the Klingons - and when she got involved in that final sequence, only for a moment, I was like "YEAH!".  I do feel like they were just setting up Carol Marcus - but she did get her leg broken pretty harshly by Khan.


Bt

[KatieHal]

Carol went through some tough stuff, it's true. Which is another reason I all the more wish she'd been able to be more active--scientific weapons expert, right? So, y'know...do something cool with weapons, lady! You've got a bonafide super villain on your hands, come up with something!

[Blackthorne]

Somebody needs to get Janeway up in this piece.


Bt

[br305893]

@KatieHal

http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/star-trek-writer-sort-of-apologizes-for-misogyny-in-the-film

[KatieHal]

Hehe, I'd read another post about that somewhere, yeah. Well, at least he seems to get it.

[stika]

Not even star trek is safe

[GrahamRocks!]

Just came back from seeing it with my Grandma. I actually liked it quite a bit!
Again, like The Great Gatsby, I wasn't expecting to like it all that much. For one thing, it was a sequel to the Star Trek reboot which I haven't seen yet. And two, I've watched very little if any at all of TOS (I was raised with TNG and VOY) and thusly, my Trekkie knowledge is rather low.

Still, from asking my Grandma and working up what little knowledge I had of Kirk's Crew I had, I was able to enjoy it regardless. Khan was creepy, and I'm glad that they didn't have a time paradox at the end.

However, there is one thing that confused both of us when we came out of Movie Tavern:

[spoiler]Okay, maybe this is explained in the previous film, but how in the name of Erana is Spock able to talk to HIMSELF in the past?! And yes, I think that IS "our" Spock, since Old!Spock said that he must follow the path set before him, which I think means that he's "our" Spock from the future. Which means that if something happens to Young!Spock (like say, he dies), then Old!Spock will cease to exist and not grow to that old of an age in order to communicate with his his younger self in the first place. Also, Old!Spock says that yes, they met Khan before, and yes, they did defeat him, but "with a price" which, of course, is talking about Spock sacrificing his life to save the Enterprise in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan in the same way Kirk did in this film. At first, Grandma said that "It might just be a relative with the same name", but after thinking about it, she took it back as it was obviously "our" Spock in the past, otherwise why would Old! Spock tell him that he must follow the path set out for him?

Help! I'm confused! My brain cannot comprehend how it is possible that the Future!self can talk to the Past!self without some sort of paradox![/spoiler]

Also, "that scene"? Eh, she didn't have anywhere to change so she had to. It was there for all three seconds, so I wasn't mad.

[KatieHal]

Yeah, watch the previous movie--it's good, and the entire plot of that movie answers your question. 

Basically, the rebooted universe is an alternate timeline, and old!Spock crossed over into it from the previously known & established timeline of the original series & movies.

[Cez]

I watched the film last weekend. Was very entertaining.

If anything, I think the weapon specialist girl was terribly miscast. I didn't buy it.

But I've never been much of a trekkie, so I don't know the full story behind these things. It did make me want to replay Star Trek 25th Anniversary adventure game tho --which I loved!

[snabbott]

It did make me want to replay Star Trek 25th Anniversary adventure game tho --which I loved!

And GrahamRocks, Star Trek generally deals with temporal paradoxes as alternate universes - so changes in the reboot wouldn't necessarily have any effect on the "classic" Star Trek universe. That's probably the only reason the reboot didn't cause massive nerd rage.