Log in

No account? Create an account
heart + stomach
Advancing the sum total of human knowledge and endeavour!
Everytime I go to that cinema, I lose an object I'm attached to. 
13th-May-2009 10:48 am
Star Trek contained simultaneously everything I've always loved about the franchise (explosions in space!) and everything that eventually turned me away from it (explosions. In space). As it happens, the former vastly outweighed the latter, and it is indeed an amazing film, albeit one with exactly the same number of FedEx arrows as the original series.

The night was promptly ruined by my losing my mobile phone. As everyone reading this is reading it from a position of 2009 or later, I don't need to explain the problems. My flat phone number is available on my facebook, and you'll just have to email me if you need me.

Gina, this means you! Did you get my text message and are we meeting up tomorrow?
13th-May-2009 09:42 am (UTC)
Oh, nuts! Last time I went to the fleapit in Bromley I dropped my wallet, but astoundingly it was still under the seat when I raced back.
13th-May-2009 10:50 am (UTC)
I'm still trying to deal with the terrible fact that someone other than The Shat is playing James T Kirk.

But several discerning people have said it's a good film, so I suppose I'll just have to swallow my ire and go see the thing.
13th-May-2009 11:21 am (UTC)
I replied to you. First I said yes then 2 minutes later I realized I couldn't. I have picture book stuff to work on.

If you're going next week though the answer is yes.

13th-May-2009 11:36 am (UTC)
Oh well! Thanks anyway and I'll try and get tickets for next week.
13th-May-2009 12:15 pm (UTC)
I hear you about the FedEx arrows. I really enjoyed the film, but it didn't stop me from going 'You know, we still only have one female main character. And while she kicks ass, her job is also, basically, the bridge's receptionist'. Oh, and also '...why does the Starfleet uniform include mini-skirts for women?'
13th-May-2009 12:21 pm (UTC)
The trouble is, that they had all these gorgeous progressive-for-the-time characters, and all this vision, and then they failed to advance it. Uhuru's job was restricted by what it's always been, and the skirt was a necessity for fan-level faithfulness (people would have complained if it hadn't been there), and the worst thing is that there's been so much falling back in terms of women and people of colour and women of colour, that it STILL looks progressive.

And the ship was - OK, it was awesome, but Uhuru USED to be awesome in her own right, without needing to shag a male character to justify her existence.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
13th-May-2009 01:22 pm (UTC)
Part of the reason that the moments of fail in the movie were so disappointing to me is that it could have avoided them. Abrams was willing to say "oh, by the way, I'm doing this with the plot and if purists don't like it they can cry moar", but not willing to say "oh, and another way it's going to be different is that there are more female and POC characters in visible, dynamic roles, and if purists don't like that they can cry moar".

And, y'know, he apparently didn't set out to make a Star Trek that was different in those ways, and I can accept that and enjoy the Star Trek he did make, but. Still.
13th-May-2009 04:35 pm (UTC)
See, I have a different take. This was film one, where it branches out and establishes a new parallel timeline, but with the same characters. He was thus limited by the characters prominent in the source material. Sure, something could've been done to actually change it, but this way works as it's Proper Trek (I'm not a huge fan, but miss_s_b is).

But, they really strengthened Uhura's role and made her, and her abilities, vital to the plot. From now on, as the new franchise expands, they can actually bring in new characters and expand the bridge crew without hurting the premise, because from now on it's following a different reality and doesn't have to observe existing source material.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe they won't/aren't planning to bother. But they had a massive ensemble cast to deal with as was, and I don't see they could have removed any of the key personnel without annoying too many people. Now, they can supplement them (and make sure the 17-yr-old annoyance that was Chekov gets a superviser, etc).

I hope they will, and do it well, but I understand why they've done it the way they have.
(Deleted comment)
13th-May-2009 02:58 pm (UTC)
And what was up with the lens flare everywhere? I couldn't see half the screen sometimes.
13th-May-2009 05:30 pm (UTC)
I'm not even the sort of person who tends to notice the poor treatment of women in scifi (I know, shame on me) and even the sheer lack of women bothered me. I can handwave it in TOS because it was the 60s and actually having a full-time black woman was pretty ballsy (and originally, as we all know, Roddenberry had a female first officer that the network nixed). But in recreating the series, it seemed exceptionally flawed to have just Uhura. There are two mothers (one who dies and the other who is only seen giving birth). The only other female of any note is Gaila, Kirk's green Orion girlfriend.

People argue that they can't just "invent" characters, but they invented Scotty's little alien guy. They could've made the head of the Vulcan science committee a woman. They could've had the officer giving Kirk his promotion a woman. (There were women on both the Vulcan council and the Starfleet one, but neither were the leaders.) They could've made the captain of the USS Kelvin a woman. They could've made any of people assign the cadets to ships women.

They could've given Nurse Chapel one 10 second line and close up =_=

I really did enjoy the movie, I really did. But I also really expected it to address the sexist image from the 60s head on and ridiculously over compensate. Instead, it feels like they didn't address it at all. Most of my friends are flailing about how much more badass Uhura is, and while she is badass, it's just not remotely enough.
(Deleted comment)
14th-May-2009 01:39 am (UTC)
Kinda off topic.

I just wanted to say that I feel like I get so much from reading your journal. You're very thoughtful, and you have terribly interesting things to say. So when I saw my name on that original post, it made me really happy to see that I could contribute something back.

Keep on rocking! I love your posts.
14th-May-2009 06:40 am (UTC)

Thank you so much for this comment.
This page was loaded Jan 18th 2018, 11:31 pm GMT.