Everytime I go to that cinema, I lose an object I'm attached to.

May 13, 2009 10:48

Star Trek contained simultaneously everything I've always loved about the franchise (explosions in space!) and everything that eventually turned me away from it (explosions. In space). As it happens, the former vastly outweighed the latter, and it is indeed an amazing film, albeit one with exactly the same number of FedEx arrows as the original ( Read more... )

movies, sf

Leave a comment

Comments 26

huskyteer May 13 2009, 09:42:19 UTC
Oh, nuts! Last time I went to the fleapit in Bromley I dropped my wallet, but astoundingly it was still under the seat when I raced back.

Reply


pmoodie May 13 2009, 10:50:06 UTC
I'm still trying to deal with the terrible fact that someone other than The Shat is playing James T Kirk.

But several discerning people have said it's a good film, so I suppose I'll just have to swallow my ire and go see the thing.

Reply


ginasketch May 13 2009, 11:21:46 UTC
I replied to you. First I said yes then 2 minutes later I realized I couldn't. I have picture book stuff to work on.
Sorry.:(

If you're going next week though the answer is yes.

Reply

innerbrat May 13 2009, 11:36:28 UTC
Oh well! Thanks anyway and I'll try and get tickets for next week.

Reply


timjr May 13 2009, 12:15:18 UTC
I hear you about the FedEx arrows. I really enjoyed the film, but it didn't stop me from going 'You know, we still only have one female main character. And while she kicks ass, her job is also, basically, the bridge's receptionist'. Oh, and also '...why does the Starfleet uniform include mini-skirts for women?'

Reply

innerbrat May 13 2009, 12:21:09 UTC
The trouble is, that they had all these gorgeous progressive-for-the-time characters, and all this vision, and then they failed to advance it. Uhuru's job was restricted by what it's always been, and the skirt was a necessity for fan-level faithfulness (people would have complained if it hadn't been there), and the worst thing is that there's been so much falling back in terms of women and people of colour and women of colour, that it STILL looks progressive.

And the ship was - OK, it was awesome, but Uhuru USED to be awesome in her own right, without needing to shag a male character to justify her existence.

Reply

sdelmonte May 13 2009, 13:06:40 UTC
Haven't seen the film yet (though I have been spoiled for a lot by pros who really aren't nice about cut tags). But...

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

And if my fellow purists wanted to complain, I would point out that in the two pilot episodes, the women had the same uniforms as the men.

Reply

matgb May 13 2009, 16:44:43 UTC
shag a male character to justify her existence

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

Completely agree that there wasn't a diverse enough cast (as I said below), but I also think that they did a good job with what they had, and the way they treated Uhura makes me think they're likely to do better now they're not tied to existing cannon.

Reply


jezrana May 13 2009, 13:22:03 UTC
Part of the reason that the moments of fail in the movie were so disappointing to me is that it could have avoided them. Abrams was willing to say "oh, by the way, I'm doing this with the plot and if purists don't like it they can cry moar", but not willing to say "oh, and another way it's going to be different is that there are more female and POC characters in visible, dynamic roles, and if purists don't like that they can cry moar".

And, y'know, he apparently didn't set out to make a Star Trek that was different in those ways, and I can accept that and enjoy the Star Trek he did make, but. Still.

Reply

matgb May 13 2009, 16:35:06 UTC
See, I have a different take. This was film one, where it branches out and establishes a new parallel timeline, but with the same characters. He was thus limited by the characters prominent in the source material. Sure, something could've been done to actually change it, but this way works as it's Proper Trek (I'm not a huge fan, but miss_s_b is ( ... )

Reply

van May 13 2009, 17:33:09 UTC
I don't know. Scotty's little alien friend was not part of the original series, but they were able to invent a role for him. (Or her, it's not like we're told the gender, but the actor playing the alien is male.) I think most people realize that they couldn't suddenly turn Spock into a woman, or have some magical new female officer.

But it wouldn't have been hard to make the Vulcan science commission guy a woman, or the Starfleet officer who gave Kirk his commission a woman, or the captain of the USS Kelvin a woman, etc.

Reply

matgb May 13 2009, 17:43:30 UTC
All true, yes, and perhaps that does deflate things a bit. Definitely not a perfect film, but I think the signs are it'll improve.

We'll see I guess, it's not like there's any doubt at all that there'll be a sequel or 5.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up