?

Log in

No account? Create an account
heart + stomach
Innerbrat
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
eeep!
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?
Opinions 
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.
Sorry.:(

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.
13th-May-2009 01:06 pm (UTC)
Haven't seen the film yet (though I have been spoiled for a lot by pros who really aren't nice about cut tags). But...

I am a purist. And the one thing I wanted to see changed was the uniforms. I love the old show but stopped liking the pajamas once the movies came up with something I preferred. But beyond that, given that this is basically a reboot, JJ could have simply said, "the minidresses are silly and sexist and if we can change the look of the Enterprise, we can give Uhura pants or a sensible skirt."

And if my fellow purists wanted to complain, I would point out that in the two pilot episodes, the women had the same uniforms as the men.
13th-May-2009 04:44 pm (UTC)
shag a male character to justify her existence

See, SB thought that that relationship was really well done and really well portrayed. We both thought her character was significantly strengthened and it was her intercept/translation of the Klingon stuff that let Kirk figure out what was going on.

Completely agree that there wasn't a diverse enough cast (as I said below), but I also think that they did a good job with what they had, and the way they treated Uhura makes me think they're likely to do better now they're not tied to existing cannon.
13th-May-2009 05:29 pm (UTC)
Sorry, I misphrased it. It's not that Uhura wasn't actually awesome; she was, but the ship with Spock, as fabulously well acted as it was, wasn't needed, especially tied in with the fact that she used that relationship to get on to the Enterprise.

I've always in general fallen down against ships, especially when the alternative is a good strong friendship, because adding romance to that often weakens it. It's the way I roll, character wise; I love a good friendship more than a relationship. That's why I love Mal and Zoe's dynamic better than Zoe/Wash, why I'll never ship Tim/Daisy or Mulder/Scully (*shudder*) Rimmer/Lister.

As wickedtrue says, the greatest dynamic of the show and the entire film that isn't Spock/Uhura, is from this fantastic, strongly linked, team-centric group of friends. That the only woman in that group is sleeping with one of them says to me that she's not an equal member.
13th-May-2009 11:35 pm (UTC)
Well technically... Spock put her on a different ship, a posting lesser than the one she had earned, because of their relationship in the first place.
(Deleted comment)
14th-May-2009 06:39 am (UTC)
Yep! And you know I'd be trying to out-letch them over Nurse Chapel.

And - wow, I can deconstruct both these behaviours as 'not doing the cause any favours' for presumably obvious reasons. I won't, though.
(Deleted comment)
14th-May-2009 08:58 am (UTC)
Uhura wasn't not sex-positive, but I know what you mean. And wish it wasn't in every single thing.
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.
13th-May-2009 05:33 pm (UTC)
I don't know. Scotty's little alien friend was not part of the original series, but they were able to invent a role for him. (Or her, it's not like we're told the gender, but the actor playing the alien is male.) I think most people realize that they couldn't suddenly turn Spock into a woman, or have some magical new female officer.

But it wouldn't have been hard to make the Vulcan science commission guy a woman, or the Starfleet officer who gave Kirk his commission a woman, or the captain of the USS Kelvin a woman, etc.
13th-May-2009 05:43 pm (UTC)
All true, yes, and perhaps that does deflate things a bit. Definitely not a perfect film, but I think the signs are it'll improve.

We'll see I guess, it's not like there's any doubt at all that there'll be a sequel or 5.
13th-May-2009 05:54 pm (UTC)
Grah, I'd forgotten the annoying furry alien. Why did we need an annoying furry alien?
13th-May-2009 05:55 pm (UTC)
For the same reason we needed Kirk to be chased by two nonsensical snow aliens on the ice planet: attracts kids and sells toys.
13th-May-2009 06:16 pm (UTC)
I thought that was just a tribute to Empire Strikes Back. Run away from the Hoth ice monster, Luke Jim! Soon you will meet an old mystical guy who will tell you to go to Dagobah the StarFleet Outpost to meet Yoda Scotty and an annoying alien who sits on things.
13th-May-2009 05:50 pm (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but the thing is, I wouldn't have minded if they'd made it less Proper Trek. It would have made it a very different movie, sure, but one that I think I might have enjoyed a little more. Which isn't to say I didn't still enjoy the way they did it.
13th-May-2009 11:06 pm (UTC)
See that's the thing. I wouldn't have minded. SB probably wouldn't have minded. You wouldn't have minded.

I suspect most of us on LJ, being compared to most, significantly better informed and aware of these issues, wouldn't have minded. But a Hollywood studio has to make a small fortune to recoup production costs, and others would've minded.

And I guarantee there's a legion of fans out there who would've kicked up a stink about it if they'd done too much. That this is true annoys me. That the studios have to keep those arseholes happy in order to make cool big budget films? That's part of life.

I'll judge the franchise on the next film, this one was blatent establishment + fan service, and it's worked.
13th-May-2009 02:20 pm (UTC)
*nodnod* Pretty much.

Gaaaah the space thing.

It irked me how it flipflopped.

Silencevacuum, explodaboom! Silencevacuum, whiiirrrrrrr vrrrrrooom I'm a space shuttle! Silencevacuum, EXPLODABOOM! PEW PEW LAZERS PEW PEW EXPLODABOOM.
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.
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 Jul 19th 2018, 9:34 am GMT.