ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

New Movie

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Oct. 31 2012, 7:39 pm

nolimits, I wasn't trolling you. I was saying we have no idea what Kirk does with his free time. We see so little of it. (as many people, including you have pointed out) If anything there's already been a lot of speculation amongst the Star Trek community as to why he's SO overly pursuant towards women as if he's over compensating for something.


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 10:22 am

I wasn't trying to win any debate points. I was trying to point out that your "scientific" post was inappropriate and that this site seems to attract whack-jobs of all kinds.


Not sure where I was unclear in my initial post.


 


I also don't know what you mean when you say "23 blah blah you're 24 falsely" or whatever. The 23 is a reference to my old college football jersey number. It has nothing to do with age or whatever else you are trying to say.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 3:22 pm

Quote: Christopher.D.Norton.writer.activist @ Sep. 12 2012, 4:01 am

>

class="MsoNormal">yea, but in the series it was like Spock was clearly a metaphor for half white half black, so of course it was perfectly acceptable by the standards of the day to have that (unlike her and Kirk kissing breaking that barrier), but it was more to show that, na-uh he's Vulcan and Vulcan don’t respond to that sh*t; so she gave up.  The most notable is in the first episode where she's serenading him for crimidy sake.

class="MsoNormal">But my point was that she was the Woman’s lib. Movement and Civil rights movement of the day incarnate; and to see her reduced to simply being supporting the male story line and only getting the job because Kirk essentially got her on the bridge b/c she clearly couldn’t get there on her own in J.J.’s version; is quite frankly insulting and telling of J.J.’s politics.

>


 


I couldn't agree more.


What other people think of you is none of your business.

A.J.Dembroski

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 5:23 pm

Here's an interesting take, maybe. I think the '09 film (which I've critisized plenty) did the Uhura character a favor.


In TOS, she was mostly weak, occassionally incompetant, continually doing what was portrayed effectively as a job anyone on the ship could do. She was the fry-cook of the Enterprise. They had all their "Universal Translator" crap (which is why ENT's take on the comm officer is FAR superior, it clearly appears Abrams took a lot more from Hoshi Sato than the original Uhura), and all she really did was open channels and put shit on screen. The actress herself has complained about how miniscule her role really was.


Outside of that, she's sing now and then, and flirt with someone. She was a pair of legs capable of showing off the skirt, that's about the extent of it. Roddenberry's idea of a political statement with her was so shallow and pathetic it was borderline comical.


In 2009, Uhura is not only competant, she's exceptional. She's a career woman who does a critically important job, and is portrayed as among the best in her field. I believe "unmatched" is the word Spock used. 


She was a support character in TOS, she's a support character in 2009... but portrayed as significantly more competant and more vital a crew member than TOS ever did.

It seems to me the OP has watched more documentaries praising how "ground breaking" Uhura was than actual episodes of TOS. 

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 7:21 pm

Quote: A.J.Dembroski @ Nov. 01 2012, 5:23 pm

>

>Here's an interesting take, maybe. I think the '09 film (which I've critisized plenty) did the Uhura character a favor.

>In TOS, she was mostly weak, occassionally incompetant, continually doing what was portrayed effectively as a job anyone on the ship could do. She was the fry-cook of the Enterprise. They had all their "Universal Translator" crap (which is why ENT's take on the comm officer is FAR superior, it clearly appears Abrams took a lot more from Hoshi Sato than the original Uhura), and all she really did was open channels and put shit on screen. The actress herself has complained about how miniscule her role really was.

>Outside of that, she's sing now and then, and flirt with someone. She was a pair of legs capable of showing off the skirt, that's about the extent of it. Roddenberry's idea of a political statement with her was so shallow and pathetic it was borderline comical.

>In 2009, Uhura is not only competant, she's exceptional. She's a career woman who does a critically important job, and is portrayed as among the best in her field. I believe "unmatched" is the word Spock used. 

>She was a support character in TOS, she's a support character in 2009... but portrayed as significantly more competant and more vital a crew member than TOS ever did.

It seems to me the OP has watched more documentaries praising how "ground breaking" Uhura was than actual episodes of TOS. 

>


This exactly. While the existence of the character might have been groundbreaking, the character herself was not.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 8:30 pm

Curious.


I think in the movies they wanted to make Uhura like Hoshi -- a linguistic savant or something. For better or worse; I have no problem with her character in the movie, but I can see why some people might.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Nov. 02 2012, 3:51 am

Quote: ServalanFan @ Nov. 02 2012, 4:22 am


"I hope Uhura in these movies is a woman of the 21st century and just not a girlfriend of Spock and stealing shuttlecrafts to save her man. I'd like to see her or any qualified woman take the conn and make command decisions. Not just stealing kisses or following Spock around. I'll wait and see what happens in the next movie. I think she'll be OK though


Even when it comes to homosexuality, it really has just become acceptable to show non-fey people as homosexuals in the last 10 years or so. Cite me another series 20 years ago where someone admitted they were homosexual and everyone was OK with it and carried on like normal in the TV series.


My preference is not to see any bedroom action of any gender in the next movie. I don't want them taking the time away from the story-telling, character building, plot. 


End-of-rant. I've had to make up for lost time."


""""""""""""""""""""""""""


There'll be Sex! There'll be violence! There'll be explosions! It's god Abrams we're talking about here! Sprinkle in a little fixed-up Khan/Gary and we're good to go!


CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER!!!





Glad to see so many people are back now too! lol sometimes it must take a thread like this to draw/attract everyone back! People say they despise these boards but in fact they wouldn't be coming back here if they weren't interested/attracted to a place like this to begin with!


Jeffe525

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Nov. 02 2012, 9:39 am

RE: Christopher.D.Norton.writer.activist post, page 1...


Wow! That was a mouthfull, Christopher! Ok, well I've only been posting here for a day, so I don't have an opinion regarding intolerance. However, I will say this:


I agree with your comments about Rodenberry's original vision of portraying a future devoid of hunger, disease, and intolerance. TOS tackled those big issues and forced viewers to look at themselves. Many of these issues seem oversimplified by today's standards, even though most of us still struggle with them. I think ST has evolved to, among other things, show that things like tolerance, empathy, and mutual understanding have less to do with our declarations and more to do with our willingness to struggle with these concepts; to constantly debate them and to analyze our actions with brutal honesty whenever our defined limits of these concepts are tested.


Lets not forget that ST is about us, not our Great-Great-...-Grandchildren. Rodenberry and those that have taken the reins since have placed the challenge and burden upon us with the hope that we can change and set an example for them, to sustain a better human culture among a larger community.


As far as your take on Uhura (old or new), I completely agree... Her main role is to provide eye-candy. It also can't be avoided because regardless of Rodenberry's (or Abram's) vision of the future, both have to live in this world; a world where making TV shows and movies need to make money. Sex sells, and while I can honestly say that loved Troi, Seven, and T'Pol as characters (and the actors that played them), it's obvious that their unique costumes served one purpose: to pay the bills.


I also agree with your opinion that Uhura was little more than a glorified extra. However, that's pretty much true for the entire TOS crew with the exception of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. That's because the subplot tool was unheard of in the 60's. Studios were more concerned with trying to book well-known guest stars, and saw little value in developing more than a few main characters. That was the formula that viewers seemed to respond to, hence the standard for those times. In a way, I think we are lucky to have gotten the level of development from the minor characters that we did.


And as far as Abram's Uhura... Abrams did many things to ST2009 to try to give it a new look (like making the bridge look like an Apple store) while preserving a retro feel (like Uhura's dress, highlighting the Captain's eyes, etc.). It worked well for some, but I can see how it falls flat with others. But I have to disagree with the assuptions that he was being sexist. In the movie, Uhura (like most of them), was a cadet; NONE OF THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE BRIDGE! And even though Kirk told Pike that Uhura decoded the Romulan message, it was her superior skill, not some good-ole-boy sex-trade hand out that got her in the COM chair. And as a Trekker, Spock's recommendation is based in solid logic, which originates way above his belt.


Christopher, if it makes you feel better, I heard (sorry, can't remember where)that Uhura will have a larger role (including a fight scene) in ST Into Darkness. I hope it's ok if I think that's sexy. ;-)    

Jeffe525

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Nov. 02 2012, 10:50 am

... and regarding the whole LGBT discussion...


1. Quoting facts and statistics without citing legit sources is not credible to me, and the statements alone should not be accepted as valid knowledge by any free-thinking person; such unfounded statements should remind us of the joke, "80% of statistics are made up on the spot."


2. If nolimits and others are trying to argue that LGBT issues have not been given enough attention by ST, I completely agree. This is a huge social issue of our time, one that ST should be all over and taking the lead on. If TOS had shied away from such hot issues, its legacy would have died then and there.


FYI: Gordi La Forge was originally conceived of as a gay character (I believe that was revealed in the TNG Lookback Documentary). I don't know why it was changed. Comments?


   

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Nov. 02 2012, 5:54 pm

1. Quoting facts and statistics without citing legit sources is not credible to me, and the statements alone should not be accepted as valid knowledge by any free-thinking person; such unfounded statements should remind us of the joke, "80% of statistics are made up on the spot."


That's fine -- you can choose what to believe and what not to believe. Fact is I can't recall the exact source; but the statistic of 10% is something that stuck in my head from school. Statistics are far more likely to stick in people's heads than who said them; that's just human nature. But if anything, it comes out in support of LGBT being essentially more normal than people used to believe.


2. If nolimits and others are trying to argue that LGBT issues have not been given enough attention by ST, I completely agree. This is a huge social issue of our time, one that ST should be all over and taking the lead on. If TOS had shied away from such hot issues, its legacy would have died then and there.


All I'm saying is I'm not sure that it did "shy away". I think Johnothan Frakes expressed disappointment that Soran (the androgonous person that he ended up snogging because he can't control himself) was not played by a man; although I get the feeling that has more to do with some women being more visibly androgynous than men tend to be.


I think for the most part they leave it open. It's not like they ever deny the possibility of gay relationships -- for my part, aside from that I've never been a fan of romance anyway, I would love to see them portray more diversity among their characters. As I said, my main objection to Rejoined was not the nature of Dax and Kahn's romance, it was that they had no chemistry and so came off as two quite boring protagonists.


The problem when people say "Why none of this?" / "Why none of that?" regarding a series is that there is always that danger of what I would call "Captain Planet Syndrome"... Token characters can come off as wooden. That is why I still say that to explore homosexual or other romance on Star Trek would be great, but only in a well-rounded character where it does not become their one defining trait if you know what I mean.


For example when fans said, we are in the middle of the Cold War -- why are there no Russian characters? Roddenberry & co. responded by introducing Chekov. And Chekov turned out to be a good character even though TOS did tend to suffer from "Captain Planet Syndrome" a bit. I would love to see the region of Oceania represented on Star Trek which to my knowledge it has not been so far -- or even to see something more representative of the human world. But ultimately with a limited cast you can't represent every demographic.


FYI: Gordi La Forge was originally conceived of as a gay character (I believe that was revealed in the TNG Lookback Documentary). I don't know why it was changed. Comments?


I did not hear that about Geordi, but certainly Travis Mayweather from Enterprise was originally going to be gay. Also Andrew J. Robinson started portraying Garak as slightly bisexual. Whether people want to believe that he was is up to the audience. Certainly slashers have much to say about Garak, Bashir, Kirk & Spock although I do not believe that they are gay myself. And Star Trek books have been very good about matter-of-factly mentioning same-sex relationships.


I mean basically all I was also saying is, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. As you know "Star Trek" itself only shows a tiny percentage of the implied universe. I don't know why if indeed they changed Geordi or Mayweather, but I can think of half a dozen possible reasons; some of them are valid, some less so.


But anyway that's as much as I'm going to get into this topic for now because I think it has already been explored ad nauseum.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Jeffe525

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Nov. 02 2012, 7:31 pm

Some good points, OtakuJo. (And everyone else should take note; the above post is clear and and extremely organized as to respond separately to each of my previous points)


Regarding statistics...  I wasn't trying to single you out OtakuJo. My point is that stats (in general) are too often cherry picked to boost the strangth of someones argument. Too often they are used out of context or stripped of important caveats, and too often they are accepted by the masses as irrefutable facts rather than what they (usually): The result of a slim sampling. Not to pick on you in particular, but most stats (especially those representing social norms) have extremely finite shelf-lives. Sorry for the rant, maybe I'm just a bit tense after a long, turbulent political cycle packed full of misleading stats :-)


I like the ST examples you cited that deal with LGBT issues. I guess overall, I feel that ST has often skirted the issue rather than put it in our faces, like TOS wasn't afraid to do. Recalling TOS "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (2 half-black, half white men trying to kill each other), most would agree that it was one of the cornier ones, but there's no denying the message.


And I agree that ST shouldn't highlight sex as a main story-driver (Kirk, R.I.P., forgive my blasphemy), but I think some have pointed out that if LGBT isn't an issue in the 24th century, then it shouldn't be a big deal to have a human same-sex couple among the main characters.


It just seems to me that the huge amount of conversation happening on this thread is evidence enough that the issue has yet to be properly vetted on Trek.


Good talk!

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum