In regards to what you said about about the double standard about emotional arcs and shirtlessness with men - The reason why no one cries foul when we give men these qualities or strip them of their clothes is because men don't lose their masculinity when they're given these qualities. They're still shown as tough and brave and powerful, etc. Men are allowed to be well-rounded. So far, females have been portrayed as either cold bitches or soft nurturers, and there's only the occasional exception.
Now as for allowing a female character to be feminine, I've always believed that it depends on the female character in question. As long as romance and typical feminine characteristics don't overshadow a female character's development and growth than I don't have a problem with it. There is that rare case like Kate Austen where her romantic entanglements are symbolic of something much deeper and she uses her liaisons with men to try and cope with her past. But outside of romance and her ability to nurture, you still have a woman who's got skills and a purpose. She interacts with other people and drives their stories forward - Sayid, Claire, Charlie, Hurley etc. Other than her though it's hard to find a woman who's story is primarily romantic and still manages to show signs of life outside of her pairing or triangle.
Now as for the Star Trek part of this equation, I didn't like Uhura because outside of her relationship with Spock and her flirting with Jim, I felt I knew nothing about her. She was defined solely by her romantic inclinations. And I guess it makes sense because Star Trek is all about Kirk and Spock and everyone else is kind of secondary to them when it's all said and done, but I just felt that the writers went with the old "love triangle" trope to try and define the interaction between Spock and Kirk. It didn't do much for Uhura. -- And maybe what it really comes down to for me was that I missed the Uhura from the old Star Trek who was badass without being romantically involved with either Spock or Kirk.
And I don't think any of that made sense, but it did in my head before I tried to type it all out. lol.
I just love love love to debate with you even if we don't agree. On this case I have to agree with some points and disagree with some. I do agree about Kate's purpose, though many people choose not to see when she acts like an independent character and bitches about this triangle when they overlook Juliet's role, who ends up being way worse than Kate's. I also do think Kate will have a growth out of the romantic implications and it will fullfill her arch. Who is pretty stabilished IMO.
As far as Uhura goes, I do think the fact it wasn't her movie made her character very secondary and she merely supported the cast like Sulu and Chekov (Even McCoy), but I think all characters had a time to shine it's just Uhura's role was more subtle than the guys. Sulu had a sword fight, Scotty had the moment he saved the Enterprise. Uhura pick up and translated a message that made the entire plot move forward and she was promoted because she could speak languages her superior couldn't. I just think since the focus was on Spock and Kirk she supported them the same way the entire crew did (McCoy was intrinscically linked to Kirk, the same way she was linked to Spock's journey), even though maybe it was overlooked because the guys had fights and math involved hehe. So I guess in the end, at least for me she let the audience know she is pretty much capable of being on that ship and next time hopefully she will expand her role. So I am not bothered, many characters were linked to one of the guys and were part of his emotional arch. For instance Sarek's only purpose was to be part of Spock's arch, Pike did basically nothing really telling on this movie. I think what bothers me is the preconceived notion of what a strong woman has to be and examples such as Starbuck bothers me because at least from what I've seen she didn't look much realistic. Another example of failed was Ana Lucia. Yet, they get praised.
As far as the men not getting the same punch, maybe you're right about it. But interesting enough they get more realistic when they show flaws and vulnerability while I think when women tough up too much, they become steriotypes of what a woman should be on a man's mind (If you know what I mean).
But honestly, I love love to debate with you because you always make good points and because sometimes... on very rare cases, I like to think LOL.
Now as for allowing a female character to be feminine, I've always believed that it depends on the female character in question. As long as romance and typical feminine characteristics don't overshadow a female character's development and growth than I don't have a problem with it. There is that rare case like Kate Austen where her romantic entanglements are symbolic of something much deeper and she uses her liaisons with men to try and cope with her past. But outside of romance and her ability to nurture, you still have a woman who's got skills and a purpose. She interacts with other people and drives their stories forward - Sayid, Claire, Charlie, Hurley etc. Other than her though it's hard to find a woman who's story is primarily romantic and still manages to show signs of life outside of her pairing or triangle.
Now as for the Star Trek part of this equation, I didn't like Uhura because outside of her relationship with Spock and her flirting with Jim, I felt I knew nothing about her. She was defined solely by her romantic inclinations. And I guess it makes sense because Star Trek is all about Kirk and Spock and everyone else is kind of secondary to them when it's all said and done, but I just felt that the writers went with the old "love triangle" trope to try and define the interaction between Spock and Kirk. It didn't do much for Uhura. -- And maybe what it really comes down to for me was that I missed the Uhura from the old Star Trek who was badass without being romantically involved with either Spock or Kirk.
And I don't think any of that made sense, but it did in my head before I tried to type it all out. lol.
Reply
As far as Uhura goes, I do think the fact it wasn't her movie made her character very secondary and she merely supported the cast like Sulu and Chekov (Even McCoy), but I think all characters had a time to shine it's just Uhura's role was more subtle than the guys. Sulu had a sword fight, Scotty had the moment he saved the Enterprise. Uhura pick up and translated a message that made the entire plot move forward and she was promoted because she could speak languages her superior couldn't. I just think since the focus was on Spock and Kirk she supported them the same way the entire crew did (McCoy was intrinscically linked to Kirk, the same way she was linked to Spock's journey), even though maybe it was overlooked because the guys had fights and math involved hehe. So I guess in the end, at least for me she let the audience know she is pretty much capable of being on that ship and next time hopefully she will expand her role. So I am not bothered, many characters were linked to one of the guys and were part of his emotional arch. For instance Sarek's only purpose was to be part of Spock's arch, Pike did basically nothing really telling on this movie. I think what bothers me is the preconceived notion of what a strong woman has to be and examples such as Starbuck bothers me because at least from what I've seen she didn't look much realistic. Another example of failed was Ana Lucia. Yet, they get praised.
As far as the men not getting the same punch, maybe you're right about it. But interesting enough they get more realistic when they show flaws and vulnerability while I think when women tough up too much, they become steriotypes of what a woman should be on a man's mind (If you know what I mean).
But honestly, I love love to debate with you because you always make good points and because sometimes... on very rare cases, I like to think LOL.
Reply
Leave a comment