Joke at Abrams expense
1, 2
posted on December 29th, 2009, 6:39 pm
Nebula_Class_Ftw wrote:Star Trek 2009 was the exact opposite of Roddenberry's Star Trek. It wasn't about the action or the planet saving. It was about a better, if not perfect, future. Star Trek 2009 just recycled the characters from that to make something solely about the action and planet saving with no concern for even basics like balancing genders (Uhura gets treated like crap in Star Trek 2009 and she's barely an important character, every other important character was male.) Even Deep Space Nine with it's less perfect future vision had some good exploration and storytelling. Roddenberry would not be pleased. The new BSG thing is quite different, they managed to pull it off with only the problem (for me) of lots of religious crap. It improved upon the original for the most part, while keeping the old spirit of the show there, definitely a little darker, but still there. New Star Trek replaced the old spirit of the show with something completely different.
I don't know: Uhura may not have been central in the newest Star Trek, but she didn't have much of big 3 (or I guess, 4) role in the original TOS, and she had more lines in the newest movie sadly enough. I think you are right that it would not have lived up to Roddenberry's ideals - but I don't think all of the other movies would have either... though this one had quite a bit of physical violence and "male centered action", which wasn't really necessary for a Star Trek film. Definitely agree with the BSG stuff... and in addition, it was quite anti-science throughout
.
posted on December 30th, 2009, 7:12 pm
Especially the last episode where they send their fleet into the Sun...blaming all the bad stuff that they could have easily avoided on technology. Never mind all the horrible diseases people suffer from that can now be treated and in some cases cured, just ditch all technology and live with the hunter gatherers who wouldn't know cancer if it came with a giant label that grew out of the skin. 
Last episode was way too preachy. The other Trek movies varied a lot, the first six did suffer form same gender inequality problem as TOS, but they were directly following the cast of TOS, this new movie is a different timeline, that's a perfect excuse to why there would be another female important character that wasn't there in TOS. I think it really should've been fixed since the whole point of Star Trek 2009 was to modernize it.
Last episode was way too preachy. The other Trek movies varied a lot, the first six did suffer form same gender inequality problem as TOS, but they were directly following the cast of TOS, this new movie is a different timeline, that's a perfect excuse to why there would be another female important character that wasn't there in TOS. I think it really should've been fixed since the whole point of Star Trek 2009 was to modernize it.posted on December 30th, 2009, 8:50 pm
damn straight, cheers 
posted on January 6th, 2010, 12:17 am
First of all, the video is hilarious. Does the new vision include Star Wars style openings too? I really liked the Seinfeld bit at the end; it works because of the way the lens flair is on George's hands. And should Adams ever get it in his head to try something like that I will personally build a quantum torpedo and launch it at him.
Yes, there is gender bias in the original show, but if you take into account when made: 1966, it doesn't seem so strange. Culturally, America was still mostly absorbed by the perfect suburban family ideal. Basically that was the father works, the mother is a house wife who cooks, cleans, and raises the kids who go off to school in the morning, come home in the afternoon and play with the neighborhood kids. Women, if they worked, were secretaries but rarely held managerial positions and such. It was still a very patriarchal society. Also America was still steeped in the civil rights movement which was largely about equal treatment for African-Americans who were being treated as second or even third class citizens. African-Americans, especially in the southern states were segregated and it would have been unheard of, even in the north to some degree, for an African-American to be more than a maid or factory worker. Sure there were exceptions, but they were the exception. Thus for Roddenberry to have made Uhura, an African-American woman a bridge officer, a position of power and status, was very risque. It served as part of the statement about inequality and his vision for an "equal" future. So too was Chekov, a Russian, a statement about communism, the seclusion of the Soviet Union, and the Cold War/Space Race. The overall message was "Can't we all just get along?"
Now the gender bias you see in the new movie stems in part from that of the original on which it is based, but it draws more from the modern cultural situation in America. This situation, in part, views women as sex objects, and that is reflected in the film. For those unfamiliar with American culture, this can be seen in the institution known as "rap" music (and the culture which created and is perpetuated by it) which glorifies and idolizes women as sex objects, guns, drugs, gangs. In this culture men are portrayed as the fighting cocks (yes you can read into my use of the word) and pimps who can only accomplish anything through the use of testosterone; overall it is highly patriarchal. At the risk of coming across as politically incorrect, it should be noted that the groups who adhere to this culture are largely African-Americans and Hispanics. This is not to say all do, but it seems that the majority do and it is becoming increasingly popular with Whites.
Let's face it, Adams set out to create an "action" film, something which has always been secondary in Star Trek; it is there but it's not the main point. He did this in order to attract an audience, which right now seems to want big explosions and the like. Women, in our current thinking, do not make good "action heroes"; their primary purpose in action films is to add some form of sexual intrigue for the main male character. In this new Star Trek that is Uhura's role.
I am of the firm belief that anyone looking to revive Star Trek should work within the existing, well established universe and build on it; tell us part of the story which hasn't been told. They should not try to create a new universe just so that they can twist things to their liking nor should they alter existing ships and item designs just because they feel that it gives the film a new "look" to draw in new fans. Guess what, fans like the established, they want the established; while you [Adams] are worrying about drawing in the new you are also driving away the old. If someone wants to make a film which has a plausible plot and slots into the canon, then I will be more than glad to go see it. However I simply refuse to watch something which betrays the spirit of Star Trek, offers up a plot thinner than paint thinner and more implausible than Paris Hilton comprehending vector calculus.
I really liked the Seinfeld bit at the end; it works because of the way the lens flair is on George's hands. And should Adams ever get it in his head to try something like that I will personally build a quantum torpedo and launch it at him.Yes, there is gender bias in the original show, but if you take into account when made: 1966, it doesn't seem so strange. Culturally, America was still mostly absorbed by the perfect suburban family ideal. Basically that was the father works, the mother is a house wife who cooks, cleans, and raises the kids who go off to school in the morning, come home in the afternoon and play with the neighborhood kids. Women, if they worked, were secretaries but rarely held managerial positions and such. It was still a very patriarchal society. Also America was still steeped in the civil rights movement which was largely about equal treatment for African-Americans who were being treated as second or even third class citizens. African-Americans, especially in the southern states were segregated and it would have been unheard of, even in the north to some degree, for an African-American to be more than a maid or factory worker. Sure there were exceptions, but they were the exception. Thus for Roddenberry to have made Uhura, an African-American woman a bridge officer, a position of power and status, was very risque. It served as part of the statement about inequality and his vision for an "equal" future. So too was Chekov, a Russian, a statement about communism, the seclusion of the Soviet Union, and the Cold War/Space Race. The overall message was "Can't we all just get along?"
Now the gender bias you see in the new movie stems in part from that of the original on which it is based, but it draws more from the modern cultural situation in America. This situation, in part, views women as sex objects, and that is reflected in the film. For those unfamiliar with American culture, this can be seen in the institution known as "rap" music (and the culture which created and is perpetuated by it) which glorifies and idolizes women as sex objects, guns, drugs, gangs. In this culture men are portrayed as the fighting cocks (yes you can read into my use of the word) and pimps who can only accomplish anything through the use of testosterone; overall it is highly patriarchal. At the risk of coming across as politically incorrect, it should be noted that the groups who adhere to this culture are largely African-Americans and Hispanics. This is not to say all do, but it seems that the majority do and it is becoming increasingly popular with Whites.
Let's face it, Adams set out to create an "action" film, something which has always been secondary in Star Trek; it is there but it's not the main point. He did this in order to attract an audience, which right now seems to want big explosions and the like. Women, in our current thinking, do not make good "action heroes"; their primary purpose in action films is to add some form of sexual intrigue for the main male character. In this new Star Trek that is Uhura's role.
I am of the firm belief that anyone looking to revive Star Trek should work within the existing, well established universe and build on it; tell us part of the story which hasn't been told. They should not try to create a new universe just so that they can twist things to their liking nor should they alter existing ships and item designs just because they feel that it gives the film a new "look" to draw in new fans. Guess what, fans like the established, they want the established; while you [Adams] are worrying about drawing in the new you are also driving away the old. If someone wants to make a film which has a plausible plot and slots into the canon, then I will be more than glad to go see it. However I simply refuse to watch something which betrays the spirit of Star Trek, offers up a plot thinner than paint thinner and more implausible than Paris Hilton comprehending vector calculus.
1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests