To Boldly Go...Backwards
I can't remember wanting to love a movie as much as I wanted to love the new Star Trek.
I grew up watching the original series in re-runs, entranced by the hard-charging, womanizing captain of the Enterprise, his coolly logical (but underneath the exterior, tormented and passionate!) first officer, and its egalitarian vision of the future.
I watched every episode. I went to all the movies. I devoured every paperback that detailed the further adventures of the Enterprise's crew. When I was thirteen, I even -- oh, this is painful -- convinced my parents to take me to a Star Trek convention in downtown Hartford. (My parents were not the most socially adroit people, but even they somehow realized that this was a severely nerdy undertaking. They dropped me off at the corner).
When the ads for the new film started running, I should have been suspicious. "Not your father's Star Trek?" What was wrong with my father's Star Trek? I liked my father's Star Trek! But still, there I was, on opening day, with a bucket of popcorn, surrounded by what looked like the entire staff of several area comic-book stores.
There was much to love about the movie. Kirk was hot, and Spock was cool, and their relationship felt just right, at once edgy and familiar. Unlike the earlier outings, where a shaken camera connoted a collision, danger, and/or black holes and time warps, the special effects were, indeed, special.
I'm not so much of a nerd that I couldn't handle the way the film chucked continuity and ignored some of the original show's rules of the road (although, note to J.J. Abrams: if a Vulcan is bonded and his spouse suddenly dies, he either dies, too, or ends up in mortal agony, and should not be depicted just calmly hanging out on a transporter pad. Okay, fine, maybe I am that much of a nerd).
I was even okay with the way the plot recycled Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (in "Khan," the villain deploys a Doomsday weapon because he believes Kirk was responsible for the death of his wife. In "Trek," the villain deploys a Doomsday weapon because he believes Spock was responsible for the death of his wife....and let me just add that, in the all-important categories of "pecs," and "scenery chewing," Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban.)
Honestly, I didn't have a problem until about midway through the film...at which point I realized that every single lady on screen was either a mother, a ho, or an intergalactic hood ornament.
We begin with mama Kirk. As the film opens, she screams and grunts her way through labor, pops out young James T., bids her doomed husband a weepy farewell, and is never seen or heard from again. How does she feel when her reckless son runs off to join Starfleet? We don't know. The movie doesn't ask.
Next up: the luscious Andorian Kirk beds at Starfleet Academy. She's green. That's about it...except somewhere, Eddie Murphy is smiling (I'd link to his bit about the dubious hygiene of green-faced girls, but it's filthy. Filthy!)
Even though Romulan war ships were, in the original series, frequently commanded by women, there's nary a chick aboard rogue Romulan Nero's vessel. This, perhaps, explains why he and his crew are in such a bad mood.
The film throws the ladies a few bones in the form of a couple of female members of the Vulcan High Council. There's a woefully underutilized Winona Ryder as Spock's human mother, and a tossed-off reference to Leonard McCoy's ex (the bitch took everything, don'tcha know, leaving him with just his...well, never mind).
Finally, there's Uhura...and what Abrams and company do with the Enterprise's communications officer will not be warming the cockles of any feminist hearts.
We first meet her at a bar, all ponytail, miniskirt, and long legs. Kirk hits on her. She brushes him off. He persists, prompting Uhura's fellow cadets to mop the floor with him (couldn't she have kicked his ass herself? Probably. So why didn't the movie let her?)
We are told, rather than shown, that Uhura is an extraordinarily capable linguist. We are told, rather than shown, that she's intercepted an important transmission, the plot device that jump-starts the film's action...as soon as Kirk tells Captain Pike about it. But Uhura's primary function isn't professional. Her job, in this brave new universe, is to look cute in a red dress, and to humanize (and by "humanize" I mean "mack on") her coolly logical, eminently reasonable mate.
In other words, she's Michelle Obama in outer space.
I'm willing to be patient here. I understand that, to attract an audience glutted on testosterone-heavy summer flicks, you need a certain amount of the old ultraviolence to get butts in seats, and that the lofty, utopian ideals of the original have to make way for a few brute shoot 'em ups. I understand the value of simply showing audiences an (allegedly) strong black woman, even if most of what she does is stand around looking worried; the same way I know that Michelle Obama has to tread carefully as she makes the role of First Lady her own. And hey, maybe organic gardening and pairing J. Crew twin sets with kicky belts and cute pins aren't bad places to start. Baby steps.
In spite of my disappointment, I've still got high hopes for the new Trek franchise. In a few years, my daughters will be old enough to watch TV and movies the way I watched them: for entertainment, yes, but for inspiration, too, for a vision, or a series of competing and overlapping visions, of how their future could look.
Plus, if the guy who gave us Sydney Bristow and Kate Austin can't serve up any kick-ass, take-charge ladies, then who can? It's only logical.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Andorians are blue not green...
Yeah... the cadet in question was Orion, not Andorian. Andorians are blue, with white hair and antennae.
Ok, so I'm a dork. What of it?
Yes, Orion. When the lights went up on her (it's too dark to see her skin tone at first), I laughed out loud in the theater.
I'm just glad they thought to work a good ol' "green lady" into the movie! The film is peppered with a number of similarly iconic elements from the original series - e.g., Pike in a wheelchair, Chekov's inability to say the letter "v" - things that will be familiar and comforting to old-school trekkies. A few were sorely missing though, e.g., Spock's "eyebrow" and Kirk's hilarious expressions as a foe handles his face during combat.
I thought it was nice to have a female character pick the "smart" guy over the "hot" guy for a change.
you can be sexy and smart too. I'm sure she could have fought at the bar but it was the other guys that started it to "defend her" , who cares, I give you reality shows for why the depiction of girls fighting is never seen as strength but rather uncontrolled irrational rage, this is a smart , rational girl let her be.
I agree. If she fought him, she'd have to touch him. It's evident that she'd rather walk off without a fight until the Neanderthal academy twerps showed. Fighting doesn't necessarily make you cool, unless you're Jackie Chan.
I liked it.
By having a ship from the future come back and change the timeline, it caused Kirk and the others to arrive on the ship and take their positions years earlier than in the original (so it seems).
Spock served under Pike for several years. Then, (because of failed pilot with Pike and new Kirk pilot) Kirk was Captain.
The changed timeline allows new (sequels) movies to "go where..." the old one never went before.
Woman being shown badly? What about the men?
Kirk was a rude, unruly youth, drunk and (trying) picking up chicks in bars.
Spock was ...whipped and let Uhura lead him around by his not so lost emotions and what happened to every 7 year thing?
McCoy was a crybaby.
Scotty was a screwed over disgruntled employee hanging around with a wolf-boy (what the heck was that?).
And the Romulans were Roid-Rage driven, revenge seeking, psycho mercenary types.
Ok, wait.
Maybe the last one wasn't so bad. A group of guys, left together for 25 years with just each other, all pumped up on testosterone. WHERE DO I JOIN?
You are so right (and funny). It's a movie, let us not dissect it to death. The film is not a commentary or lesson, it is entertainment. If it was fun or entertaining, they did their job!!
Not a failed pilot, the Capt. Pike story led to ST being picked up. But Jeff Hunter (Pike) wanted way too much money (some say he thought he was above the role: he did go on to play Jesus Christ) and the pilot was made into "The Menagerie" a two-parter with Kirk-in-Charge and Spock being court-martialed.
And the Romulans were close relatives of the Vulcans and, as such, were not rage-driven but were cold-blooded killers.
Speaking of bossy females -- it was Jeff Hunter's wife who vetoed his initial desire to take the role.
Did you notice that Kirk was having his behind handed to him almost every single fight?
I liked that!
Perfect last name!
Yes. After reading your statement in full, it became increasingly clear that it was not the only thing garbled about You. But hasn´t America ways for You to get rid of that? No one needs live with a name like "tbrnotb", even though having it explains the lack of strength to even use a capital on the first letter :o).
Oh please...can we just enjoy a story that's become modern folklore without dissecting it for social purity? Just image this quote from Bones: "it's a movie for God's sake.....(please fill in the rest!).
Of COURSE You can! - And no one will deprive You of the right to do that.
So why is it so important for You to point out that what You don´t like has to be wrong?
For someone who claims to like Star Trek the way it was, the author sure criticizes some very basic elements of a show launched in the late 60s. If you think Uhura looks cute in the red dress, that's fine, but let's deal with the movie that's actually on the screen. In it, her primary job function was in communications. Spock's are of expertise is science, and Sulu's area of expertise was originally mathematics, but we never actually SEE them do that either.
Perhaps you'd have felt better of they'd have cast a Yeoman Rand in this movie, so that there would be an OFFICIAL irrelevant short skirt on the bridge.
Irrelevant? Yeoman Rand? NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
She was the object of my 7 year old dreams! Plus, she was supposed to have this big romance with Kirk, until her Grace Lee Whitney's personal demons took over, basically ending her career. Who knows how things may have been different?
I'm almost embarrassed to admit I know this, but Kirk's green girl candy at the Academy was an Orion, not an Andorian. As all real Star Trek geeks know by heart, Andorians are blue and have antennae.
Star Trek was a great show, but went "boldly where no MAN had gone before", sorry.
That's why I prefer the new Battlestar Galactica.
There's room for fans to love the new Battlestar - frakkin' awesome - as well as Star Trek and Star Wars. I'll throw in Firefly and Farscape for good measure. And yes, in its initial incarnation Shatner intoned "man", but by Star Trek: TNG it was "where no ONE has gone before". That gender-related issue was put to rest by 1987.
Star Trek Next Generation, keeping up with the times, went "boldly where no ONE has gone before."
errr,
Yes, the 1960 Star Trek went where no man when before. But there were 4 series after that. Perhaps you were not aware that the captain in Voyager was a female. So was the chief engineer. And if you don't think BSG used female sexuality to be entertaining, then we were not watching the same show.....
Three years AFTER Star Trek, Armstrong said "one small step for a man, one Giant Leap for Mankind". The word "man" referred then (and still does depending on the context) to the human race, not to a gender. (The same way 'cows' refer to both bulls and cows of the bovine species).
"Man" is simply a more poetic way of saying Human. "One" is actually the narrowminded statement because it implies that all other races other then mankind count as "no one". More in line with the idea that America was not discovered until European men had landed on it.
I beg to differ: Movies create the demand for testosterone, not react to it.
Star Treck has always been - or strove to be - a lot about compex relationships. And that goes for the man - woman tumbles right up to the disillusionment of clear and straight good and bad. Sure the crew was heroic. But there always was a note of "but" behind what they did. They could fail at a task. And because of that they were not less but more real and people we vould slip into. The modern day heros and womanizers are always right and always destroy what lies before them because it would be dangerous not to. No mrals, no qualms, not even mere reflection of maybe becoming the bad guy by killing who the hero perceives to be evil.
What I loved most about the early Star Trecks was Kirk and Picard DID defend themselves but did NOT blast everything into oblivion claiming it was evil after it was swallowed by the black hole of a moral vacuum. That became less even during Deep Space Nine and seems to have vanished with the rebirth. Now it is the usual "we are good so killing everything in sight is our right" most everyone else tries to sell too. No amount of special effects can fill that void. Star Treck lost what made it special. - The idea that even enemies can find common ground BEFORE they start shooting and the real strength lies
Star Trek new movie spoiler - freshly-minted Captain Kirk did give the Romulans an opportunity to surrender EVEN though he was facing the man who killed his father. And let's remember - from young Kirk's perspective - who attacked who.
Are we now truely playing "You started it - no You - no You - ....."?
This is not some rationalization of WW3 or attacking yet another country. It is my personal opinion about what Star Treck meant to me.
And by the by: What else but making it right to attack first does the story tell YOU when the rimulans act more bloodthirsty than those terrible iranians who decided to accept the invitation talk right after it was offered? - The romulans DO play the aggressive role. But what happens then? - A justification for Krik attacking even sooner. That is exactly what I meant.
What YOU seem to see is that Kirk held back. What I see is someone constructing a story in such a way to make us believe holding back is dangerous.
Interesting comment.
Scent, too much of what you loved about Star Trek is what drove the franchise into the ground. Too much Counselor Troi and outreach to genocidal leaders. The political correctness put Star Trek in such a corner that new sources of conflicts had to be complete cartoons such as the Farangi .. who were bad because, *gasp* they were capitalists! (Which of course they were not - they were thieves - real traders and capitalists cannot afford to be obnoxious, ugly, or have treacherous reputations).
I thought the movie was excellent, loved the casting, But what's up with the line "not your father's Star Trek", implying women didn't watch? My sisters and I have always been huge fans, love TOS, TNG, DS9 and (most) the movies. THAT was offensive - the movie was great.
To justmeinAz - I've never seen Thelma & Louise, Fried Green Tomatoes, Beaches or any of that other cr@p - talk about stereotypes!
Your loss. You've missed a couple good movies there. My point was not that those movies were bad because of poor male representation. My point was that such a metric for the quality of a movie is ridiculous.
Thelma and Louise is a fantastic film. Do yourself a favour and see it. The others meh, (especially Beaches), you can live without. :)
Grow up and get some perspective. It's a movie, it's for fun and entertainment. Period.
I looked over all of the comments and noticed comparisons to other TV series. Nobody mentioned what to me is the best of all, J. Michael Straczynski's "Babylon 5." It stands out from all the rest because its stories are character driven, and that includes the ensemble cast of unforgettable aliens.
Watched 3 episodes, couldn't get into it. Now, Battlestar Galactica...THAT was a frakkin great TV show!
Meanwhile movies like Thelma and Louise are full of nothing but the worst male stereotypes imaginable, and that movie's probably a frequent flyer in your DVD player. This movie was about the origins of Kirk and Spock. They've always been the leads, and they always will. No surprise that they should be the stars in their own prequel, and obviously no intended slight to women, either. I know no one in real life who's brought out the feminist axe over this movie. My girlfriend and my sister loved it. I suggest you try identifying with the characters as individuals, rather than as categories of human beings. Sounds to me like a very pale lens through which to view the world.
Exactly. Imagine the problem this columnist must have with "Lord of the Flies".
I noticed and agree with everything you said (although I don't really mind if in future movies/episodes the women don't necessarily *literally* kick ass - that'd be just adding one more one-dimensional stereotype to your list). Not one competent woman in command or position of authority in any scene in the whole movie. Sigh. But I gotta have hope that will be remedied because (despite unoriginal plot & superficial antagonist) this Star Trek reboot was really good & looks promising.
"Intergalactic hood ornament"? At last a name for my new band that does tripped-out music about cars! But seriously, folks....I remember alien gals in the original TV show who would've been censored had they been from the normal TV solar system (as a 12 year old guy, my interest was strictly academic).
But ...I thought Uhura seemed like a strong enough woman's role, given the essential James Kirk character is famously self-absorbed and flamboyant (he was a raving HAM, let's face it!). I think the James Bond comparison is apt....the cheese factor is kinda central or at least a link to the original that seemed integral to this film...and the cheese worked both ways, in my opinion.
Sigorney Weaver has since shown us what a confident woman can do in space, but this franchise is rooted in characters from an earlier era.....and didn't Gene Rodenberry's multi-cultural vision at least nudge the boundaries of women's roles? I agree that the Romulans might have been spookier and Romulan women a nice addition......and, sure.....more Wynonna would've been cool (maybe she's in the director's cut?)
Anybody else think that dude sitting next to Kirk in the early bar scene (looong face) looked like Tom Waits on acid?.....maybe it's just me.
you mean Tom Waits if you're on Acid? Yeah, I see that. Lol, I really do
I just meant he looked like Tom Waits in some kind of alternate universe or something, but thanks! I kept thinking he'd open his mouth and grab KIrk's drink with his tongue, but he was strictly for "atmosphere", I guess.......ya gotta love that!
Ha! I can totally see Waits in that character. Maybe he was really under all that CGI..
I hope so. He's been in a lot of spaced out movies.....and bars!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
