Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 28 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2
Set Bookmark
Amy Jackson
Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 11:57pm (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S1: About a Girl

^.^

I loved the ending to this episode, as the good guys don't win, which is a dose of realism that is generally missing in most US-based television or movie media. This is also why I loved The Empire Strikes Back, because the bad guys got a chance to be
victorious.

I spent most of my younger life watching stuff where at the end of the program, the good guys have won, and the problem has been resolved to satisfaction. Very quickly, I discovered that this was not how reality works, and so I REALLY started disliking children's cartoons, like GI Joe and so on.

This extends into more adult media, so I appreciate episodes of The Orville like this one, because in a series perhaps like Star Trek, the good guys might have won, whereas in The Orville, they really caused me to sit back and go "Huh, they didn't win." And that is okay folks.

Amy
Set Bookmark
Amy J.
Wed, May 30, 2018, 12:38am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

^.^

Over the years, I think I have seen each Star Trek captain take actions that fly right in the face of the whole "We are Starfleet" idelaism and approach. And quite frankly, GOOD FOR THEM, because the idealistic approach without some pragmatic backup almost never works, and serves to get good people killed.

I believe that Discovery actually flows nicely into STOS. Of course, when STOS was being written, no one thought to come up with an explanation as to why the Klingons and the Federation were at odds with each other ... they were portrayed as the bad guys, and the US was in the midst of the Cold War, so the portrayal worked. In Discovery, we get important backstory, even if it is a bit far-fteched (the entire Starfleet and Federation would be reduced to a handful of planets and installations, and the Klingons would be stopped from razing Earth, even given what could happen to Quo'nos ...)

So, about 20 years later, Starfleet has completed the original 12 Constitution class starships, but does not have a whole lot of "arm strength" if you will, to impose its will too much, hence the idea that the USS Enterprise is sent everywhere, to resolve all of these issues. Think about it ... during STOS, Federation territory is quite dangerous, and in a number of episodes, the Federation is interested in securing mining rights and such, things that might happen if you are trying to rebuild after a massive war.

It was good to see Starfleet not being so damn straight-laced. I am sorry, I sympathize with the Starfleet optimism, but it left them completely unprepared for when the bad guys stopped hiding behind DMZs and neutral zones, and started taking pot shots at Earth every couple years (with the release of each new movie, it seemed ...) Hell folks, it took the massacres of the Dominion War to get Starfleet to start constructing real warships, rather than glorified Galaxy class hotels.

As to Season 1 itself, most of it was serviceable, with the exception of Saru going insane on Pahvo, that episode was completely stupid. I even thought they did a decent job adding to the backstory of the Terran Empire, which always seemed to get short shrift in the rest of Trek. I love it when backstory is added in, and you can see how things might have progressed from one snippet we see to the next one.

I think that overall quality was decent, even if the JJ Trek atmosphere threw me a bit. As I said elsewhere, if Gene could have done STOS with 2018 technology, it might have looked a lot closer to what we got in Discovery, so I let that slide. (Although Enterprise did a much better job of trying to LOOK like an earlier generation of Trek.)

Following the experience of STNG, I have always given a Trek series TWO years to really evaluate it. STNG's first season was really shaky, and the second season was shanked by a writer's strike (which pushed the emergence of the Borg to the Third Season), but they were interesting enough that I caught onto it, and liked it. Perhaps this will hold true for Discovery as well. The stills and such in the official trailer look interesting.

Live Long and Prosper, All!

Amy J.
Set Bookmark
Jamyskis
Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 7:18am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S3: The House of Quark

Aside from the obvious laughs, this was the first episode to really demonstrate the more assertive and layered character that Quark became from the Season 2 finale. Armin Schimerman's performance has always been great, but for the first season and much of the second, Quark, Rom and Nog were basically an extension of the "Ferengi Problem" in TNG - borderline anti-semitic stereotypes that basically serve to lampoon anarchocapitalism as the series' laughing stock and narrative punching bag. Had this been the Quark of before, he probably would have joked his way out of it with some kind of shady trade, but instead they made him an astute economist.

Of course, the fact that he was the right man in the right place at the right time was incredibly contrived, but having the Ferengi be driven by more than simple profit makes them much more interesting characters. Rom's utterance of "there's more to life than profit" is somewhat mindblowing.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Fri, Jun 2, 2017, 3:34am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@Chrome

" because someone needed medical attention and a doctor was necessary, then I don't see what the issue is in utilizing McCoy. "

Not to nitpick here, but we only see Mccoy playing his doctor role once, then him participating to the rescue mission and then piloting that ship with spock were, imo, forced pretexts to make him and spock play the action duo and be defined by their screentime together. His expertize wasnt more useful (if anything, it would make more sense for the doctor to stay behind on the ship and wait for injured people to help, and coordinate the remaining medical staff from there) , saved maybe for him piloting the ship (where spock probably was the more nonsense choice because of his injury that made him too weak to effectively rescue uhura, like, 2 minutes ago. She had to help him stay up but suddenly he's fine and can pull kirk like that using the arm on the side of his body that has a bleeding hole? Ok)

It's a pity, for me, that when the group finally reunites, Spock is still not allowed to share that many important interactions with the others. Say what you want about the other movies, but he was treated as one of the protagonists while here he doesn't even interact with the villain (or any of the villains). Too many things are only implied and he deserved to have at least one scene with his girlfriend where they discuss what happened (the fact everyone gets to talk about their relationship but Uhura also is bad because it's like erasing the woman from her own relationship while also using it to give the guys, in this case mccoy, something to talk about)
Mccoy gets it even worse because once again, he only interacts with Spock and Kirk. At least in the other movies he interacts with background characters, Sulu, and even Khan. Here he gets even less.
He doesn't even get to be sad about Kirk leaving? You can't give them the friends moment at the beginning and then make me believe that Kirk didn't tell him he was leaving, or that MCcoy doesn't care and everyone's only concern is kirk and spock possibly not working together anymore. You can't make it all only about what kirk would do without spock, all the while ignoring that MCcoy is Kirk's friend as well and he equally put himself in danger to save him in the end.
It seems beyond cannot multitasking with the dynamics in certain points and things become mutually exclusive when they don't have to be.


"Incidentally, Karl Urban (McCoy) has third billing over Zoe Saldana (Uhura) with fourth billing. So, if anything, maybe Karl Urban was a little upset at getting less time in the first 2 films? Something to consider."

What's to consider? It makes things worse. I find there is nothing to praise them for after they essentially sidelined the third lead woc from the first movies to give her spot to another white man. To give him a raise at the expense of an actress who is a bigger name than his, too. They went backwards; that's the opposite of "trek" for me.
And then, as if nothing had changed, they kept using her face, not his, in posters with the protagonists because I guess they know the actress is more popular, and that her image is more useful than that of just another guy (but this isn't enough to pay her fair)..
This only makes their deliberate choice to cave under Karl's complains and go backwards with the dynamic all the more stupid because they weren't even honest about it; it's like they did something well knowing it would make this trek go backwards and would come across as conservative, and would alienate a side of the audience.
Urban exaggerated things anyway and overinflated his character. I'm sure that when he accepted the job before filming the first movie no one told him he would be the third male protagonist so he knew what he was getting himself into. There is no reason besides nostalgia (for a guy who isn't him anyway) why he must get more screentime than the other guys. John Cho and Anton Yelchin got way less than him but I don't remember them complaining. I don't believe he wouldn't come back because regardless what he said, trek is the only big franchise he's part of and any other guy would kill to play Mccoy.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 12:19pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@Robert
"Now the reboot is tough. Yes it'd be nice to have a better male/female balance... but you're rebooting a property that was about 6 men and 1 woman. Do I think we need to crank up the affirmative action on that one? No... I don't. But to say that throwing in diversity for diversity's sake is not a good thing is about as anti-Trek as we can get."

last point is the point.

and the balance is already off so at the very least the creative team shouldn't make it all the more off by sideling the one female lead character they have, and the few relationships that include said female lead and make the story less a 'bromance show' only. Especially not when those elements had been among the most popular, talked about, attention grabbing and praised things from the first movies.

and I want to add that making Pegg one of the writers unfortunately resulted in the most predictable thing everyone knew he would do: he wrote himself a bigger role. That's why you don't make one of the actors, especially of secondary characters, one of the writers too.
It's lame enough to sideline Uhura (when she was the third lead of this trek) to give McCoy and more old-school bromance the spotlight (when you could have sacrificed the screentime of other characters or plot elements instead), but for them to give more screentime to Scotty, almost as if they wanted to make him the fourth lead in the original trio instead of Uhura/McCoy, is really testing some fans' endurance.

I don't remember anyone ever asking for more Scotty or more Scotty/Kirk bromance, and while many wanted more Bones, I didn't read all these people clamoring for another bromance with him becoming front and center, especially when his relationship with Kirk already was well developed from the start. It was enough. You really need to make it all the more about bromances when you have Kirk/Spock and Kirk/Bones already?
We can't lament oversaturation of diversity in trek (so. ironic) all the while we have no issues with oversaturation of white men and their bros dynamics.

No one says you gotta eliminate white men and bromance, but AT LEAST don't make them mutually exclusive with different things and if you absolutely need more attention for bromance and the boys, at least don't take screentime away from the few different things we already have.
Even the Uhura nd Sulu dynamic didn't get any real development in spite of the creative team praising themselves so much for spitting the group up SO that they could explore ALL these different and new dynamics (it's still up to debate what's 'new' about the spock/bones banter). I see more humanity and a hint of friendship between them in that scene from Into Darkess when Sulu says 'I'm sorry Uhura' as they have to leave Spock in the volcano. It's a small thing that makes it obvious he knows what Spock means to her and he cares about it because his colleagues are his friends too. Why we didn't get anything like that in beyond when Sulu's family was in danger (as Krall was about to attack Yorktown). Why weren't these two characters allowed to be worried about their loved ones and bond through that?

TLDR I don't think fans of the first movies who were disappointed by Beyond for its treatment of Uhura and her relationships , are unreasonable nor I think they want to foundamentally change everything. If anything, the unreasonable ones are the old-school fans who post JJ's first movie were whining that this wasn't their trek anymore just because the 3 white men weren't the most important thing anymore. Unreasonable are the people who were clamoring for this trek to say goodbye to its integrity and everything people liked in the first movies and wanted to see more of, for the sake of nostalgia. Unreasonable is not even trying to understand why many of the people who loved (loved) the first movies and made them successful, couldn't make Beyond as successful not even if a lot of them still liked it (and maybe they had such low expectations after the messy behind the scenes developments, that Beyond was at least 'not too bad')
Set Bookmark
damyen
Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 5:43am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Sorry for the typos, me device auto-correct's fault I need to disable it.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 5:04am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@Ravenna, your point about bromance is more or less the way I use the term myself in context of replying to people like Peter G. who uphold male bonding as the most important, only profound kind of relationship, all the while bring condescending over relationships that include women, especially romantic ones. So using bromance to describe those is a way to nod at this double standard and what you said about the fact that male bonding is always considered OK, great, important, precious, deep and so on but female characters and their dynamics hardly get the same respect because everything related to girls is considered "less".

Peter G.'s only made your point and showed this blatant double standard, not to mention his hypocrisy in that he's defending the bromances and being touchy about people who slight those dynamics as something less (in spite of those dynamics being, in large part, always overinflated in pop culture) when he's the first who is undermining and belittling a relationship with a woman, and making it pretty obvious he considers uhura's dynamic less important and interesting and with depth than the "dudebro" (this is a disparaging term for male bonding if I wanted to use one, not bromance), in spite of her dynamics being treated as important to the narrative and the male characters no less than bromance. In fact, besides the spock/uhura romance (a term that is accurate and not offensive, just like bromance, but that contextually the fanboys tend to use to slight romantic relationships a bit, especially like in this case where you are talking about two adult people who are in a relationships since, now, years), people like him probably ignore the kirk/uhura friendship too (because she's a woman and he was attracted to her at first. Cue those who see a love triangle with spock that, literally, doesn't exist because she was never interested about him, and he needs error was in competition with Spock. He saw they are a couple and moved on, he even shows a deep respect for their relationship. Support even) in spite of that being part of the narrative from the beginning and thend hints of bond and care between them being no less than between kirk and scotty, or kirk and bones, or even kirk a different spock. Not to mention bring far less baseless as friendship in this trek than these spock/mccoy.
He also displays blatant double standards (again, ironic when he's accusing others of having double standards for white guys) for uhura and her relationships in that he criticizes them and considers her bad for stuff he gives the guys, particularly mccoy, a free pass or even praises them for (e,g., mccoy is much much more defined by bromance than Uhura is by romance and her dynamics in general)

To make matters worse, he tries to hide his double standards and sexism behind concern trolling and phony feminist concerns: boys being defined by bromance is gold, but a strong badass competent woman who makes important contributions to the plot more than the secondary male characters do, automatically is just eye candy and a sexual object just because she dares to be in a relationship. So, apparently, if the writers sideline her and ignore her dynamics to give male bonding more screentime it's for her own good and the best for women ;) seems legit!

He also is all about white male characters being the ones oppressed, apparently, and yet he derides my bringing up intersectionality to explain that applying white feminism to uhura is a bad idea, anyway, because black women, who feel represented by her, historically are subjected to different, often opposite, tropes in the mainstream so even what he finds cliché and sexist for white female characters, might be progressive for black women and therefore he might be inappropriate in his stance and come across as romanticizing something racist, all the while he tells himself he is calling sexism out (or more like he's disguising his own sexism)

It's funny how some people get offended and defensive when it comes to their own group (e, g., getting touchy about white dudes and bromances), and yet when it comes to other groups (be it women, poc, gay guys etc etc), pointing up the ignorance and prejuduces that they are displaying themselves, they get offended and call their discourse condescending "social justice warrior shit".

"Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you."
Set Bookmark
damyen
Wed, May 31, 2017, 4:06pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

And @Chrome, if you notice Kirk is different too. I don't see him bringing balance between Spock and Mccoy. Look at him, he's raw emotion and it's him and spock who antagonize each other with their different perspectives. It rather seemed that Kirk was the McCoy who clashed with Spock's logic, with Uhura and Mccoy being the ones more in the middle. Another important difference is that this Spock is in many ways what it took Nimoy 50 years to make tptb asknoveledge: he's the protagonist, too.
As much he was important, iconic and popular in the old thing the protagonist still was Shatner only, with Spock being an important and very popular sidekick. You can't have the original trio in the reboot now to be used to say something about the main guy, Kirk, when the main guy isn't just him anymore. Spick and mccoy cannot serve that purpose only anymore.
In a way, that's one of the reasons why spock has a different dynamic outside of kirk: because kirk does have that too with mccoy being his friend before spock became his friend too. And mccoy is the one he hangs out wuth the most, probably, because they are more similar than him and spock who make more a good team instead.
If Spock is too defined by his dynamic with Kirk and has no life outside that, no arc and no other connection, while kirk gets that, then he isnt a protagonist too.
What was given to Uhura essentially is similar to the reason why spock and mccoy were, in tos, more prominent characters than Sulu, chekov and others.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Wed, May 31, 2017, 3:43pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@methane the problem sacrificing relationships is that you sacrifice the humanity of the characters, and in a way, character development. Marvel has an appeal to the masses that trek doesn't have so they might be safe but trek is different. JJ infuses his stories with heart, Lin assumes the audience can have everything implied and they will understand even if, unlike him, they didn't read the script. JJ tries to use much of the action scenes as a means to say something about the characters personally, however little and however limited the screentime is to show everything; lin is more about how to use character moments as a pretext to have action scenes. All in all, it's hard for the audience to care about the characters when it seems like the director himself doesn't care about them either. I didn't even get the feeling, and I realize it may be just an impression, that Lin would have watched Beyond himself.
Heart is everything in trek, for me, and as important as the science and anything else.

@Jason R.
I think I explained my point and the "facts" I base my opinions on well enough, but it's me. You seem to still not really get what I'm really talking about, but I don't know any other way I can make my point more clear.

@Chrome
For me it's a matter of priority and making mccoy the third lead is not one, especially when we have two white male protagonists and the creative team made an attempt to make this trek more modern and includive, and balanced, by elevating Uhura to the original trio. Like you said, most of characters are guys so the balance is already nonexistent, it's wise to not push things too much and unnecessarily challenge an audience that might be tired of some things and not willing to give trek a pass, not even for nostalgia.

"Well, McCoy is one of the big three of TOS. McCoy is not a supporting character like Chekov or Sulu; his views are a central part of a Star Trek Aesop. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy represent the three methods of persuasion, ethos, logos, and pathos respectively. For example, whenever Spock stated a situation with cold logic, McCoy would give a more humanistic and compassionate take on the same situation, and then of course it was up to Kirk to bring things all together and decide using his charismatic style."

The reboot characters don't have the same dynamics they had in tos because they are different people. And honestly I'm against the insistence upon giving them these roles at any cost. New Spock is not just cold logic, he isnt even pretending to be only vulcan and denouncing his human side. For the way he is, and the experiences he had (the loss of his planet, his relationship with Uhura, the better relationship he should have with Sarek after the latter cleared the big misuranderstanding between them, and about vulcan feelings. All things mccoy knows about) it frankly makes the banter with mccoy forced if they try to make them like in tos. It feels like mccoy is just prejudiced and attacks spock for no valid reason. This spock isn't equally 'annoying' with him. He seems to just be a cool dude who minds his business and tries to survive a traumatic experience and not lose everything he has lost. His relationship with Uhura adds another possible element of hilarity in that for all mccoy's prejudices, the vulcan still is the one who is making a relationship work while him and Kirk stay single (and divorced) it would make more sense for them to use this aspect, or make him and uhura talk about the struggle of being one the best friend of someone like kirk, and one the girlfriend of Spock. Him and Uhura could be k/s voice of reason, and in some way they were in the first movies.
There are many ways they can find a place for mccoy in THIS trek and in these dynamics without having to get back to the old dynamics only at any cost.
Honestly, I can't lobby for them to turn Spock into an impersonation of Nimoy just to give Mccoy something to do, or to keep the characters the same. It goes against their integrity and frankly, Nimoy himself was very happy about Quinto's new Spock being different. He liked the idea of adding something new to the character (and he was jealous of him getting the romance )
There is nothing wrong in doing different things and in some way, that's the beauty of some reboots.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Wed, May 31, 2017, 11:16am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@Jason R.

"How about the part where it was pointed out that your central thesis, namely that Beyond was calculated to appeal to "old school" Trek fans, was factually wrong."

you are bizarre. You are addressing something that has nothing to do with the point I was actually replying to with the part you quoted ('"Except, there wasn't a single fact in your argument.")
in fact, my reply was to Peter G. saying that they had facts proving that their opinion about Uhura is factual.
What's your thing here? Taking random quotes from other people out of context and reply to arguments not even related to said quotes?

as for your point, I read that before and it really doesn't matter what is written in that bit you posted, nor it is 'factual' invalidation of the point I'm making, especially when it clashes with what actually happens in the movie and the way it was promoted. Beyond is a very nostalgia movie that is essentially praised as such and reccomented to old fans for that reason. Denying that is pure delusion. Them trying to bring back the old trio dynamic pivoting away from the new reboot one, breaking the romance up to have an excuse to focus on bromance only, sidelining Uhura to give McCoy more to do, were only some of things the old-school fans who hated the first movies wanted and Beyond gave them (in part, when it comes to Spock/Uhura, but the point still stands) and along the reasons (as some comments in this page also show) why they prefer Beyond over the other movies . Don't play me disingenuos.
We don't know what paramount meant with Orci's script being too treky (I read his incipit for the third movie and I can speculate it was too nerdy and science fiction for them, and I guess bringing back both Shatner and Nimoy was too much nostalgia and fanservice even for Paramount), but it's obvious Lin and Pegg catered to old fans (or the haters, for that matter, since a lot of old fans liked these movies) more than reboot fans in Beyond.
The way they kept preaching about the spock/bones bromance, or Lin would repeat like a broken record that he was a fan of trek as a kid (not really trying to reassure trek fans you aren't a non-fan like JJ, eh?) and how much he loved McCoy and the original trio. Totally not a tease for old fans, and especially old fans who didn't like the first movies for certain reasons.
Come on, they were literally ass-kissing reboot haters everywhere.
Didn't work making their movie the most successful, and maybe their attempts actually backfired, but they sent a message loud and clear and it was very deliberate.

of course, it depends on what you consider pandering to old-school fans too. My argument is only about some aspects of it; I don't deny there could be old fans who don't like Beyond and who would need a different kind of 'fan pandering' for the movie to cater to them too. I also don't deny the movie is still 'commercial' in some elements obvioustly put there for those who wouldn't be interested about 'just another star trek movie' (e.g., Jaylah's badass character with cool make up. She doesn't even interfere with the old trio since she doesn't interact with them that much, so she is the perfect, reassuring, female lead character for fanboys) But the point still stands that Beyond is the most safe movie of the 3, made to placate the haters more than giving reboot fans a real sequel of the thing they liked, and that is the most likely by a side of the old-school fans who didn't like the movies for certain reasons.
Now you don't feel it pandered to people like you and it's totally fine, but perhaps you should try to understand that people like you maybe were never the ones I was referring to with my original point.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Wed, May 31, 2017, 3:55am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

And it exactly is just a desire of some people to keep trek like it was 50 years ago. Since bromance was the only kind of relationship tos allowed, the moment you see a different kind (and no, kirk's episodic flings don't count), some have a nervous breakdown exacerbated by the fact that, essentially, JJ elevated Uhura to the original trio level or Mccoy's level. Uhura and Mccoy are more secondary characters compared to kirk and spock who get more screentime because of their importance to the protagonists. Any perceived difference even bromance and romance when it comes to what is "good" for the character is just people rationalizing their not bring used to have to "deal" with male/female relationships being allowed to have the same importance for the narrative than the bros. I suspect there is a feeling in some that spock having a girlfriend "undermine" the importance of the bromances because now you have Uhura being someone who is important to Spock too, and the guys aren't the only ones who counter to Spock's logic.

These criticisms, concern trolling and double standards for romantic relationships are in large part all about wanting the characters to remain in an immutate state of no evolution (e.g., urban getting praised for his impersonation when he really doesnt get his character is a different version and he should add something new), and for them to be children where the only relationship allowed is "bromance" between three white dudes.
I have no problem with bromances and keeping with the spirit of the original series, but these are supposed to be adults and they need to be shown as being capable of having different kinds of relationships as well, even it brings some old school fans out if their comfort zone.

These characters are supposed to be grown up, well rounded individuals and the notion that Uhura can't be a strong woman, skilled officer and fine lady just because she is in a relationship and has some screentime used to develop that aspect, just like mccoy&Co have screentime for their bromances, is not only sexist but worse than people who think that Spock cannot have a girlfriend and friends at the same time or the first is undermining the second.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Wed, May 31, 2017, 3:06am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Peter G.

"I'm so happy that modern 'liberalism' involves dictating to people what they *cannot* do when they discuss issues. Do you realize how patronizing it is to tell people that if they don't employ the particular social justice theory you believe in that they "can't analyze fiction"? I'm additionally interested in how you divined the color of my skin from my post. That's a good trick."


Did I hit a nerve? If so, good.

You call me patronizing etc when you are the one who wants to establish how everyone, including the demographic Uhura represents, should feel about the character. Who is patronizing? That's you.

Your feminist concern trolling argument is fail. It was stupid for you to bring that up, in the first place. You can't complain now because I demolished it from different angulations.
I called you out on your ignorance, and your defensive reaction only proves the point further.

If you don't 'care' about some things, such as how racism affects the way people perceive media and different experiences shaping what different groups will find progressive or not, it's fine; what I object to is your presumption that everyone should think like you in order to be 'feminist' and progressive. You are the one who opened a can of worms with the " SJW excuses" YOU put in the discussion to rationalize your bias, and you painted yourself into a corner doing so.


"You also seem to be implying that my personal opinion is little more than a preference, like which flavor of food I like. Did it not occur to you that a person's opinion may also be based on facts, and may or may not otherwise be *correct*? It's totally legit if you think my facts are off or what I say isn't true, but it's pretty shoddy to tell me I should restrict myself to stating what I like and nothing more."

Except, there wasn't a single fact in your argument. I'm the only one who made examples of facts that actually happen in the movies to support my argument, and explain why I disagree with you and I believe you are holding uhura up to sexist double standards. You are just saying that your opinion, in this case your perception of the female character, is a fact because you say so.
And it's too late for you to get touchy now because I called you out on your ignorance when you are the one who was patronizing in your preaching about feminism and ridiculous excuses like that when it's pretty obvious you don't care about Uhura and women in general (let alone poc). At least be honest and admit it because it's insulting you want to pretend your personal opinion is another thing.
Just don't go in the SJW territory yourself if you cant handle counterarguments and people noticing fundamental flaws in your reasoning.

In either case, you don't come across as someone who can handle different opinions. Sorry to ruin your party but I am assure you that if you get outside this page and post in other fanboards, you will find fans who are more rude than me. I suggest you to stay away from the female fans and woc in particular, especially if you are going to get defensive and call them "liberal agenda' when they disagree with your ridiculous concern trolling, and won't "thank" you for erasing their experiences when you condescendingly try to lecturing them about why it's perfectly pro women and progressive to..erase women to make it all about white men and their bromances and keep trek just like it was 50 years ago.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Wed, May 31, 2017, 2:23am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

methane
You guys are really on denial about this.
If you really think placating a minority of old trek fans is what makes this trek suchess, in spite if beyond proving the opposite, I dunno what to tell you.
Blaming its failure on other things is an attempt to rationalize the fact that the movie you liked the most is the one liked least by the rest of people. It doesn't compute to some that the majority of fans might have simply not liked beyond as much as they liked the other two.
The funny thing is that if things were reversed, and beyond was fanboys' least favorite, I totally bet no one would make excuses for it. You guys would be gloating about its failure.


"Of course, none of the women's screentime was spent talking to a boyfriend or being shirtless on screen. Apparently this is what Damyen missed. "

No, that's not what I missed but nice try. You guys keep trying belittling uhura for her relationship with spock using concern trolling about feminism, and it's pathetic. You can't ask for the original trio and mccoy to get more screentime to get definited by their bromance front anD center, and then pathetically concern troll about Uhura's relationships asking them to get deleted, and for her to essentially lose what you want the guys to have, in the name of feminism.
There is nothing wrong in uhura having 'girlfriend time' , as much there isnt in the men having 'friend time'. You cant have it both ways snd trying to justify your bias and double standards behind feminism is all kinds of FAIL.
you dont care about women represenration. You just dont want them to get in the way of the original trio and 'steal' screentime for those dynamics you prefer. Erasing her relationships to give more screentime to the guys is not pro women, it's just childish fanboy agenda.
There is no difference between Uhura getting screentime for her relationship and Mccoy getting screentime for his. Bromance isn't and shouldn't be the be all end all of the relationships spectrum. Grow up.


And Beyond did good with women only in appearance and in a way that is safe for fanboys. The new female characters don't interfere with the old trio and the boys dynamics, so they are OK. Uhura gets important face time with krall, but it's mostly a consolation prize after the writers demoted her from her third lead status to replace her with two white men (both mccoy and scotty btw).
She's ridiculously kept away from Spock and Kirk to give Mccoy more to do, and this speaks volumes. If you really need the writing to be all about the boys and erase women and their relationships to make the male characters and their relationships important, not only it screams insecurity and immaturity..but it suggests those male characters and dynamics must be really weak.
In either case, beyond went backwards about JJ's most new and progressive element that was the new dynamics and making Uhura, not another white man, the third lead.
The rest is a pointless argument that desperately tries to rationalize your bias and ignorance. If you like a more old school trek fine, but don't pretend your conservative 'needs' are progressive and pro women (and pro woc in this case) because it's pathetic.

Honestly it's like talking with kids with temper tantrums because they don't like girls coming to their boys only party. Trek fans like to paint themselves as progressive and modern, but they like trek when IT ISN'T THAT.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Tue, May 30, 2017, 6:07pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

I suggest you to Google for an editorial called "uhura is not a white girl" written by a black woman who eloquently explains why the white feminism discourse is incorrectly applied to characters like uhura, and why it frustrates woc who see their few examples of representation being erased in the name of what is selfishly considered progressive for white girls only, according to their own experiences only. It's never too late to learn about different perspectives over things we maybe take too much for granted.

I wouldnt put feminists on some pedestal anyway; many so called feminists end up turning themselves into the persecutor too holding women to higher standards. White feminism is well know for being out of touch with minorities, and their erasure of woc, disabled women and women in the LGBT. They preach anout women having the right to make their own choices, only to object to them and push them to make the choices the want them to make. The patriarchy limited women, but some feminists end up doing the same thing.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Tue, May 30, 2017, 5:48pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Peter G.

"It's prejudiced to say that we wanted a real female character who could stand on her own two feet rather than a mere love interest of a main character?"

It's prejudiced because Uhura is a "real female character who can stand on her own two feet", whether that means. Nothing of what you said makes your opinion a fact, especially when your description flies in the face of what is actually done with her and showed on screen, so it's legit that someone reading that will only see sexism (and bad fanboy cliché, full offense) of the most predictable kind.
I supported my stance with examples of important scenes with her that have nothing to do her being Spock's girlfriend, yet you guys insist ignoring that just because of her relationship. You keep belittling her character for having a human connection, that barely gets enough screentime anyway, in spite of the male characters, for instance Mccoy, being much more defined by their relationships than Uhura is. Even in Beyond, Spock was the one pining post break up, and the one portrayed as being irrational when she was in danger. They even subverted the damsel in distress trope. Im talking about what happened in the movies, while every argument made against her here is just unsubstantial 'because i say so' rants that talk more about personal preferences and bias than anything else.

And to make the matter even more ridiculous and paint yourself into a corner you are using the feminist card to justify your sexism! Oh the irony! you are projecting your sexism on the character and trying to hide it behind what is, for a lack of better word, concern trolling. There are bad female characters who are just love interests, and then there are female characters who are more than love interests, but fanboys label them as such because they dislike the relationship. You are trying to pass yourself as, ladies and gentlemen, feminist savior who wants the best for women! Lol! Please give me a break... you are late to the party too because this kind of concern trolling is very old.

There is also an extra fail element here you are totally unaware of, read below

"Uhura in the TOS was single not because it was making a statement about single working women, but because simply there was no reason for her not to be single."

Not only you don't know what feminism is, but you are showing total ignorance about what black feminism is. For one, Uhura absolutely was single in tos for no other reason than racialized sexism. I suggest you to educate yourself about the racial cultural context of the 60s, and why the kirk/uhura kiss was so controversial. Also read what Nichelle Nichols said about the matter since you are at it (along other things, she said that spock/uhura was tptb's inspiration too but they couldn't have an interracial couple. COULDN'T. ). You can't be so naive.
Secondly, black feminism is not the same as white feminism because, to simplify it, black women are subjected to different tropes than white women are subjected to. Let's make an example: the damsel in distress is not feminist for white women now because they are always represented like that, but for black women who are constantly dehumanized, and whose stereotype to endure is more the 'strong independent woman who don't need no man', that trope is actually progressive because it asknoveledges them as human beings who need love and protection too.

So the plot twist here is that your concern trolling about Uhura being a love interest is not only insubstantial and prejudiced for the character, but it's is totally fail because EVEN if uhura was just a love interest, that would still be progressive for her as a black woman character and still an improvement of the original because, contextually, to black women, and women of color in general, not being the love interest and being 'single' is not new. It's the annoying cliché they fight against. For white women it's cool and empowering to get represented by single ladies and a badass strong female character stereotype, but for women part of other minorities it's not the same thing because they were actually represented with that stereotype already, and for reasons that have more to do with racism than feminism.
You can't analyze fiction without intersectionality, especially when you want to talk on the behalf of minorities you are not part of, and that you don't get to decide what they should think is progressive or not.
Talking about your personal preferences only is much more dignified, honest and safe.

Trek fans were supposed to be better..
Set Bookmark
damyen
Tue, May 30, 2017, 1:07pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Peter G.,

I totally get what you are saying, but creative teams are naive that way and I honestly think they thought that Into Darkness would placate old fans who didn't like the movie by:
1) having an iconic villain from a popular movie
2) make it heavy on the Kirk/Spock bromance to reassure people they were the same best friends they were in tos
Of course, they failed. It didn't work; reboot haters still hated them, or hated them even more.
And they were warned by some critics that the nostalgia, their attempt to get old fans on board (in a bad way) was undermining what was great about the first movie, and might have alienated that side of the audience that had liked the first movie so much and was responsible for its success against all the odds. They were warned that they were losing track and wasting the potential of their thing. I think this, stid fan pandering, hardly is something I'm alone noticing.

Beyond did it worse, but perhaps in a way that was more acceptable to those old fans they were trying to pander to; I guess because they tried to bring back the old trio, while stid still balanced the old and new without giving up their new dynamic. Maybe the writers are stupid, but I wouldn't overrate fans and their ability to be coherent even about what they like and dislike because, to me, they really aren't. Trek fans can at times be an epic tale about people who want to have the cake and eat it too, and it's not wise for a creative team to read fanboards too much.


I stand by my opinion, having watched tos and the old movies, that the original trio is a myth. It is in the same box of fans preaching about how vulcans can have sex only once every seven years, or Spock (and vulcans) have no emotion. Or that Uhura was a linguist in tos, and she was single because they wanted her to be a feminist icon and not because racism meant she couldn't be a love interest for any of the white male characters. Trek fans see Tos through rose colored glasses, and confuse their own headcanons with canon so much that, I bet, even when they actually watch the show again years later, they are still persuaded that some things are like they remember them versus how they really are. It's a lost cause and I'm not very interested about this kind of argument, anyway.


"In the case of Uhura I don't think women were done any favors, let's just put it that way."

if you guys want to see it that way it's, honestly, more your choice than anything else. Uhura is a fine strong female character and there is nothing wrong about her. They really upgraded her role compared to what Nichols was given to in the whole series and old movies.
If you want to complain about the secondary characters in general fine, but I don't think the female one is the problem here as she still gets to do more than McCoy, Scotty, Sulu and Chekov. If you think that a woman undermined by a relationship while a male character isn't (and it really doesn't matter to me if one relationship is friendship between the men, and another is a romantic relationship between a man and a woman) then probably hollywood did a number on people for real if they internalized sexism to the extent it doesn't matter how female characters are even written anymore, because they are always going to get criticized and their character development ignored or minimized anyway.


"bromance" (which by the way is already a prejudiced term),"

after the actually prejudiced descriptions of Uhura's relationship with Spock in this page, it is a bit ironic you ger touchy and think 'bromance' is a prejudiced term.
It's funny how fanboys will bend over backwards to belittle the female characters and their dynamics, yet when someone does that with the male characters (and I didn't even do that) they get defensive.



"It's fine to discuss the merits or flaws of NuTrek, and I'm sure many points can be listed in each category, but the idea that STID and Beyond had problems because they abandoned the new fans to go back to the old ones is simply not right."

but that's what they did. I don't know how that can be denied.
beyond is popular among old fans who didn't like the first movies the most. Those people, even in this page, wrote everywhere they like the movie because it feels more like 'their trek', especially for giving McCoy more to do, and pivoting away from the new trio with Uhura to be more 'traditional trek' .
Beyond could have been a big success if only that side of the audience hadn't been only a vocal minority and, unfortunately for them, the movie wasn't enough liked by the old and new fans who already liked this trek and wanted them (expected them) to continue what had already worked for them in the first movie. These people don't want the old thing back. They can watch tos anytime; they liked and praised JJ for doing something different. Hence, that audience, that more silent majority - who doesn't even care about doing what we both are doing right now, but will buy a ticket to watch a new movie or buy the comics and the dvds - made Beyond the least successful because it catered to different fans and a different audience.
I don't understand why it is so hard for some to admit that maybe ones who liked the first movies and made them big didn't care about Beyond enough to make it as successful. That's why it wasn't. Any other reason might be as valid in the grand scheme of things, but the main reason why it failed is way more simple than anything I read people talking about so far.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:25am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Jason R.
"Damyen, wait, you're suggesting that STB was created to placate "old school" fans of the show? Seriously?"

that's what they did. In fact, it's liked by old-school tos fans and reboot haters the most, so you could say that they archieved that. Most of the reviews were along the lines of 'if you are an old fan you will like this the most', and so was the creative team.

If you don't see the nostalgia and fan pandering being heavy in Beyond, and how the movie went backwards to do that (and how it might have alienated reboot fans even more than stid did with its nods and fan pandering), I don't know what to tell you. Honestly, I'm not sure about what had been your argument from the start.
I take you don't like the reboot, at all, and maybe don't like Beyond either? It seems you are just here to say that you don't like the reboot and it should die for you already.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:15am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Jason R, again - this is your opinion. I, for one, don't find her a mediocre actress and I fully agree with the people who consider her one of the best things about this reinvented trek. You, of course, disagree, but I don't honestly see how it's relevant to my point since I'm obvioustly not talking about your feelings and opinions, and it seems rather derailing, and bit pretentious, for you to discount my original point on the basis of you thinking that everyone, basically, shares your opinion when I'm talking about people who DON'T.

"I'm am not talking about merely her role in the plot, incidentally - I am saying that if you look at how the movie treats Uhura, what we learn about her character, her inner feelings and beliefs and what her character is given to do in terms of dialogue and development, it largely revolves around Spock and exists in reference to him."

let's be real, that's no worse than McCoy; this is exactly what he's too: what we learn about his character, his inner feelings and beliefs, and what his character is given to do in terms of dialogue and development, it largely revolves around Kirk (and Spock) and exists in reference to them and him being part of the bromance only. That's the only attention he gets. Unlike Uhura, he doesn't even interact with other characters.
You keep avoiding this point by onstensibly ranting about Uhura, as if I'm going to suddenly forget about how McCoy is developed and join in your selective criticism, but the fact that you like him and find it funny doesn't justify the fact you are basically giving to character you like a pass for something you are criticizing in a character you don't like. You are painting yourself into a corner with that.

Personally, just like you find Saldana overrated I guess that, while I have nothing against Urban as an actor, but I find him overrated. Why? Because everything he seems to do is an impersonation of DeForest Kelley, which might work as a reccurring 'living' homage to him, but it seems to completely miss the point of the alternate reality and, actually, make him the weakest of the new cast. He also is too obsessed about his interactions with Kirk and Spock being the be all end all of his character.


"Yes, she is a talented communications officer, the same way Kirk is a talented swashbuckling jerk, or Spock is a talented scientist, but you'll agree there is way more to those latter two characters than their occupations or intellectual abilities."

but Kirk and Spock are the protagonists; Uhura and McCoy aren't that so they will never get developed as such.
In fact, (again another thing you are ignoring) you really can't say we see McCoy's skills as an officer being more emphasised than Uhura's, whose skills still end up being used to make important contributions to the plot, that have little to do with her relationship to either Kirk or Spock, or both e.g., her intercepting the transmission that was key in the first movie; her being the only bridge officer whose presence made sense in the mission to the klingons' home word because she speaks the language (and is trained for combat, unlike McCoy whose presence in this kind of mission would be unfitting.. and it was in fact a bit forced in Beyond); her being willing to sacrifice herself when she wanted to negotiate with the klingons alone if only to give her fellow crew mates more time; her saving Spock and Kirk; her sacrificing herself to save kirk and give the crew more time by separating the saucer section with her still inside, with someone would could kill her any moment. Ultimately, her being the character who interacts with Krall the most and ultimately discovers his identity, making it possible for Kirk to find him and defeat him. She even saved Spock when he thought he was the one saving her! I wouldn't say she makes no contribution to the plot beside being 'Spock's girlfriend' and, honestly, if you reduce a female character only to that - all the while not using the same standard to judge a male character like Mccoy who truly is no more than 'Kirk's friend', it says more about your own bias and sexism, than how the character might be written and perceived by most.

and, I don't remember Spock or Kirk's 'skills' ever being used that much or to the extent you think they are better than Uhura, anyway. I don't think the general audience who isn't familiar with trek already will even know that Spock is a science officer (and what his job is really about), let alone understand what makes Kirk the best option as a captain compared to Sulu or Spock.
I think you are overinflating the male characters on one side of this argument, and totally belittling and underrating the female one on the other side.
It seems a wasted effort anyway. I only see personal preferences here; nothing more.

"If the NuTrek movies were meant to develop Uhura as the third part of a new trifecta, she was in every way the least of the three."
if so, she would be like McCoy. He never was a lead character at the same level of Kirk and Spock; anyone who believes otherwise should maybe rewatch the old movies and the show because they always were the Kirk/Spock show. Even him not being in the posters is everything but something new to the reboot. The 'holy trinity' had always been a more fanon thing than actually canon, anyway. Even Nimoy complained he wasn't equally recognized as the lead male character like Shatner was, I dunno how Deforest could ever persuade himself into believing that he was instead (I don't think he was).
Again, your complains about Uhura are unsubstantial, at best, and rely too much on preference that results in a honestly hypocritical argument, anyway. It's like you recognize some problems as such only when it comes to her character, only to justify the same things when it comes to the male ones.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Tue, May 30, 2017, 6:27am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Jason R, I think maybe we can both agree that it's precisely because the movies can't rely on the nostalgic old-school fans only, who would watch any trek by default even if only to complain about it, it would be more wise for the creative team to create something new that is more modern and has a chance capturing the interest of nowadays audiences, regardless if they are trek fans or not. It's more wise for them to continue what had worked and made the first movies successful, instead of going backwards to get the, honestly useless, appraisal of a side of the audience that is still a minority no matter how vocal it might be on the internet (and Beyond proves it, again). They honestly can't be so surprised that Beyond didn't go as well as the other movies after they made a conscious choice, at least for me, to tell people who liked the first movies that this one wasn't made for them. The promotion of this movie was a disaster too, from Lin saying they'd ignore stid to the clips they released too.. they seemed to really try their best discouraging people who liked the first movies, which makes no sense. It would be one thing if they aknoveleged their movie is a self-serving product made to placate their own fanboy nostalgia, but playing oblivious why it didn't make enough money and didn't bring back the audience that made the first movies successful is, frankly, very naive. I'd expect better from people who are in the business and should have more avareness compared to biased fans.

and if I follow your logic, why bother making a reboot at all then if trek is dead and people won't care about it anyway? I'm sure that's what they thought when someone wanted to make a reboot and they were discouraged by executives. And yet, JJ's trek ended up being successful until the writers caved under the fan pressure and ruined it. Beyond is even worse because they already had the experience of Star Trek Into Darkness getting criticism for the fanpandering and nostalgia, so for them to make the next movie even more about that seems counterproductive. They were warned.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Tue, May 30, 2017, 3:26am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Jason R. That Zoe Saldana is a mediocre actress that's your opinion, I'm unsure on what basis you think it's shared by everyone and it was the reason why she got sidelined in the last movie, especially when that flies in the face of her actually being quite popular among fans and critics. You assertion that they 'giving her nothing interesting to do' seems to be unsubstantiated too especially in light of her doing more than the secondary male characters, including Mccoy. Tell me what's so much more interesting in a male character whose only purpose is comic relief and being the friend of the main guy who exists only to further his personal story, instead of his own. Even when Mccoy helps saving Kirk, canon doesn't asknoveledge that because it ostensibly wants to give all the credit to Spock in order to further the kirk/spock dynamic.

" I am saying the people who watched the movies won't be fans shortly because they'll abandon the new movies rather quickly and forget them even sooner. Box office returns seem to bear that out. These new films will be forgotten within a few years."

Yeah, but so far those people had been a vocal supporting fandom for 8 years. The comics about this trek went past 60 issues and still renewed because they sell well (and its mostly fans of this reboot who buy them since its unlikely old fans and reboot haters are interested) There is no reason to believe that if the movies will continue without discouraging those fans they won't still make them successful. BEYOND not doing too well isn't to blame on this trek not having fans, or people losing interest. It's to blame, rather, on fans of this trek getting disillusioned by Beyond hinting at the creative team losing track of what worked in the first movie, and them letting nostalgia influence things too much. They didn't like this movie enough or like the previous ones, simple like that. If you give people movies they like and then give them a sequel that doesn't even feel like a continuation of the story they liked, it's not surprising those people will lose interest. Thats what happens to every product, from movie franchises to tv-shows. I dunno why it's so hard to understand. It's like some people try to blame Beyond failing on everything but the most obvious reason.

As for bromance, its presence is not the problem but oversaturation and redundancy is. When you have a dynamic like kirk/spock, combined with mccoy/kirk friendship, no doubt adding even more bromance can alienate that part of the audience that liked the first movies for providing a different dynamic too. For trek it's even worse because it's a repetition of the old thing so the oversaturation and lack of originality is even more obvious.
The general audience is sick and tired of Hollywood making white men and their friendships the single most important thing. It doesn't hurt to see something different since bromance obviously isn't the be all end all of relationships in the real world. As much as people can love Mccoy, he still is just another white male character in a cast that is over saturated by male protagonists already. Sidelining the female lead character is a bad idea and no doubt alienates a good chunk of the audience that, unlike you, likes her and wants to see more of her not less, especially if what they get in turn is more stuff about the boys only.
With guardians of the galaxy being a hit, again, and the avatar sequels being in the works, Saldana's popularity is only going to rise. Sure, using her image for promotional posters is useful, but the audience is not stupid. If some fans believe that sidelining her to give Mccoy and Scotty more to do is a good marketing move that will capture the interest of those who are making other franchises successful nowadays, I don't know what to tell them besides that they are very naive. Perhaps if either of them had been a Tom Cruise I could understand the reasoning more, but they aren't that popular and they are just..guys. In a cast that has many.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Mon, May 29, 2017, 4:54pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Jason R., you are entitled to your opinion, but so are the many fans and critics , and novels and comic writers, who liked the first two movies more, and who love Uhura and the new dynamic. Her being sidelined was one of the most criticized things in this movie, and rightfully so because we aren't in the 60s anymore and you can't expect people to be still so compliant to hollywood erasing women and minorities. The people who are fans of these movies are no less fans than you, and they don't deserve less respect, especially when it's their support and money that made the first movies successful. Of course those are going to want a sequel to follow up and continue the story they liked; I would be surprised of the contrary, to be honest. Water is wet.
You wouldn't even get Beyond if it were for the whining fan boys who hated these movies because they aren't 'their trek', and I find it bizarre that you are suggesting that being an old fan means that the creative team owes you something, and you are more important than the old and new trek fans that like the reboot and made it more successful than any trek movie in years.

Not to say that old fans should get ignored (though again a lot of them like the reboot snywat), but were the old fans who hated the first movies, and loved liked Beyond for the nostalgia, an influential majority, the last movie would have been the most successful. It is not.

"indeed give her anything to do other than be Spock's trumped up love interest."

this seemingly childish need to bash and sideline the female character in order to make the guys more important speaks volumes about why our fandom has such a bad reputation. I bet you are in the same group of the "fans" who hate Discovery because it's too "politically correct". You guys totally missed the point of star trek.
So what? She still gets more character than McCoy. I'm going to put myself at your same level, since you insist making it a competion, and say: at least Uhura shows her skills and helps saving the day, and she still is an inspiring character for women and poc. The gumpy doctor is another straight white male secondary character whose screentime and only purpose in the movie is entirely dependent on being 'the best friend of main guy", and a sort of third wheel in the kirk/spock bromance - particularly when the narrative seems to erase his friendship with Kirk at convenience to pretend that Spock is Kirk's only friend. As I don't see anyone complaining about Mccoy getting screentime only through Kirk/Spock, and this somehow accepted fanon that he has no purpose in the story outside of his relatioships, your attempt to belittle Uhura for getting more screentime thank to her own dynamics with Kirk and Spock seems pointless.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Mon, May 29, 2017, 9:58am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

It looks like in the official comics Spock and Uhura are not only together still, but they took a sabbatical on new vulcan while the new enterprise gets completed. It seems most of the people understood they were only on a break and got back together (which is a good move IMO), so I, honestly, don't get why the denial amongs some fanboys here. Maybe you guys fell asleep in the scene where she calls him 'old romantic' after he said he had work to do, but he joined her at the party because being with her is more pleasing to him. You can't do more subtle explicit with Spock than that! It is also very funny that McCoy notices them together and eyes her 'tracking device necklace', totally judging Spock who seems to silently plead him to not tell her.
Set Bookmark
damyen
Mon, May 29, 2017, 9:41am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

I finally rewatched this movie on dvd (got from a friend) and I can honestly see why it is the least successful of the 3: this movie is fun, but nothing special. It really lacks JJ's touch and the more fresh approach of its predecessors.

This franchise sadly became another example of how nostalgia can be counterproductive and make a reboot doomed if not correctly balanced. For instance, pivoting away from the more contemporary, better mass appeal, Kirk/Uhura/Spock trio, that was realistically established in the first movies, to bring back the old trio with McCoy, was a bad move. Sure, making 3 white men and bromance ~the most important thing might be ressuring and pleasing to the nostalgic fanboys, but it might backfire with a general audience that may, inevitably, find that move sexist (moreso because Saldana arguably is the only A list actor of the main cast, so it would be wise to keep her as the third lead). To the majority of fans of these movies, the new dynamics are the canon now so seeing this one ignore them to the extent they did might be frustrating and separate this movie too much from the first ones.
I'm all for giving McCoy more screentime (as long as it isn't forced), but the new trio worked and I think that instead of ignoring it and sidelining Uhura, they should have made it a quartet, and therefore better balance the new with the old.
I have a feeling that even breaking Spock/Uhura up (an important dynamic established since the first movie, that was loved and embraced by new and old fans) might have made the movie feel like it was 'pandering to haters' all the more, not to mention further sideling Uhura to make bromance the only thing that matters.
Speaking of which, it was funny to read all the guys in this page who convinced themselves that they are 'over'. It's obvious from start to the end that they were just on a break and they got back together in the end. If they make more movies, fans of that relationship might see more of it.
Set Bookmark
Amy
Fri, Jun 7, 2013, 2:26pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I enjoyed your posts Digedag.

Speaking as someone who saw her first Trek movie in a theater this year (I wasn't into Trek in '09), I'd say the movie was fun.

I'd like to think this is my Trek now. This is something I can relate to because it's happening in real time for me. As the actors age, so will I. Regardless of whether or not STID worked as a movie, it definitely worked as my yardstick for the world of Trek.
Set Bookmark
Amy
Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 4:25pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S7: Chrysalis

I am a little surprised to see that no one seems to realize what this episode was all about: it is a counterpiece to "Melora".
"Melora" was based on "The Little Mermaid", but in the end the heroine decided to be herself and not to give up her natural gifts.
"Chrysalis" is based on "Sleeping Beauty", and here, too, we have a more modern, not to say feminist interpretation of the fairy tale. After waking up, the sleeping beauty does fall in love with her rescuer, only after a while she realizes that she is beginning to revolve around him, to try to be what he wants her to be, mostly out of gratitude; so it becomes obvious she must learn to be herself and live her own life first and foremost. Julian, also having a more modern approach, understands and lets her go.

DS9 shows that Star Trek is going with time - even in a newly told fairy tale, the woman is no longer satisfied with a partner; she first wants and needs to love herself, because otherwise her love for whoever is by her side will be frail and, in the end, not truthful. An admirable new interpretation of two fairy tale classics.
Next ►Page 1 of 2
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.