It’s almost that time of year again
I had a dream about a cowboy movie last night and I woke up to write it down so I would remember
i’m actually really pleased that my three main characters’ ages all work out to be prime numbers…it doesn’t have much plot significance but it does have some worldbuilding significance so haha, nice coincidence there.
wow…so apparently my hope that the whole setting up the torture scene thing would be a fakeout is for nothing.
i don’t want to repeat my opinions on ostensibly heroic characters being torturers. frankly it shouldn’t be controversial at all, but yet you already see people in the tags cheering on hanji and levi. i’m fucking disgusted, but that’s protagonist-centered morality for you.
i haven’t loved snk for a very long time. i don’t know if this is enough to make me give it up, but yikes, it really did hit one of my biggest “NO” buttons.
this has also become the point where “it’s an extreme situation!” no longer becomes an acceptable justification for me. an author is behind this extreme situation. an author decided to create a situation where torture is somehow morally right. this extreme situation isn’t happening in a vacuum.
(my only solace is that this isn’t as nasty as it is when superheroes torture, because superheroes are supposed to hold to higher moral ideals. i can understand why characters in snk-land wouldn’t hold those some ideals, but i feel like this is crossing a line.)
Imagine organization xiii involuntarily breaking out into a song and dance number while in any one of the Disney worlds. Afterwords everyone is just so uncomfortable that no one talks about it again.
if the first shot of ur male main character involves him in bed with a naked woman he just had a one night stand with who’ll probably not have any lines (unless it’s to compliment the man) and who in all likelihood will never reappear in the story, all in an effort to make ur male character seem “cool but emotionally distant/fragile”
1. i already hate him
2. i already hate you
I think this is pretty misleading. I can’t comment on the top two characters, since I haven’t seen the original or Next Gen since I was little, but I know that Kira Nerys and Katherine Janeway had episodes where they were made out to be more sex objects than characters. Also, you kinda forgot all about Seven of Nine in this picture.
On the opposite side, which I can’t comment on the sequel since I haven’t seen it yet, but I know in the “original” remake, Uhura was still a pretty strong and independent character. Yes, you see her in her underwear once. Big deal. Yes, they did have a character just for the sex appeal. You didn’t see her after that scene, and it wasn’t really that focused on in the scene.
I’m not trying to debunk all sexism in the world of cinema, but before you attack a series/movies because of a few scenes, you may want to do some research into what you’re attacking…
Um, nope, sorry, I was trying to let this go but such blatantly false information can’t be spread.
The only time Kira came even close to being portrayed as a sex object was when it wasn’t actually her - i.e. when her form was used in Bashir’s holoprogram in ‘Our Man Bashir’, when Vic used her image to make Odo more comfortable romancing the real Kira in ‘His Way’, and Intendant Kira from the Mirror Universe (which doesn’t even count really, because she used her sexuality deliberately, as a weapon).
In the rest of the series we see her in a bikini once and she’s clearly uncomfortable with it, and hidden by fog, the rest of the time she’s in tasteful casual clothes or her uniform.
And Captain Janeway as a sex object? I’m sorry what? I literally cannot think of an example. Maybe when Q appears in her quarters while she’s having a bath?
Even then there’s a huge difference between having a female character semi-naked (which in the series we usually saw like, her shoulders or back) and what the reboot does to ALL of its female characters.
The entire point of this post wasn’t that the TV series were entirely devoid of sexism, but that its female characters were given important roles - including COMMANDING THE SHIP - while the most defining aspect of the reboot women is that they’ve all posed in their underwear for the audience to appreciate.
I talked about this more coherently during Reboot Week, including an entire post about the Carol Marcus Underwear Incident and the reasons new Uhura doesn’t live up to the same standard as the original.
I would have let your comments slide as yet another personal willing to let this bullshit slide because ‘the women only showed up in their underwear once!’ except for THIS inflammatory remark “before you attack a series/movies because of a few scenes, you may want to do some research into what you’re attacking.”
Because excuse you, but the person who made this graphic, not to mention all the people reblogging it because they agree with it, did a HELL of a lot more ‘research’ into the bullshit they’re calling out than you did.
Next time why don’t you think a little more about what you’re saying before you try to call people out? Because it seems to me that the only person who needs to do more research about this issue is you.
Not to mention the fact that all the women above, the pictures are of them in the captain’s chair, leading people, and that is the biggest point. Even when in uniform, with the damned little short sleeves, let’s point out that we never get to see a woman in reboot outranking a man, while in the original Treks we saw them as powerful leaders. That is the point of this post, as thevalkyriedirective said above; the way we are to see women, in older Treks as concomitant beings, while in reboot as sexually appealing objects.
My goodness, this is the entire point of the graphic!
Saavik, Beverly, Nerys and Kathryn could all be sitting in their undies too, but they’d still be in the Captain’s chair, they’d still be in charge, and so far the reboot hasn’t given us women who are even close to their TV counterparts.
YES! This is exactly what I have been saying! JJ Abrams and his shitbag production shits basically turned Trek into Star Wars, turning powerful nuanced female characters that demanded your attention into sexualized punctuation marks in a white man’s epic story.
This is the basis of JJ Abrams BS and Roddenberry would be lighting Abrams on fire if he was still alive.
This is not even to mention that Abrams hired a white british actor whose the direct beneficiary of a slave-holding plantation family to plan an Indian character! Like that isn’t incredibly insulting.
I mean Montalbon wasn’t Indian either, but he was far more progressive than Cumberbatch (who is a piece of shit anyways, I can’t believe people think he’s cute, he looks like a beady-eyed badger).
It’s an insult to the decades of work all those who’ve done Trek have contributed to.
Also, the older Star Trek series, at least from TNG onward (I’ve actually never watched the entire original series), consistently showcased women being friends and mentors to each other, having relationships that had nothing to do with male characters. I don’t remember specifically in the first reboot movie, but I know for certain that Nyota Uhura and Carol Marcus never speak to each other or to any other women. Even in the scene of the meeting of admirals or whatever, the ones shown are almost all men.
The shows were full of many different kinds of women, and while they weren’t always perfect, and it’s not hard to find some pretty appallingly sexist stuff, it’s always been clear to me that a real effort was being made to do things differently and better than the status quo. Even better, the shows generally improved over time.
Women in earlier Star Trek works have never been treated as poorly or been as excluded as they are in the reboot. I loved Star Trek as a girl, and I love it now—I even found the reboot entertaining—but when my daughter asks about Star Trek, I’ll put her in front of DS9 where she can see Kira and Dax being awesome long before I’d sit her in front of the reboot to see Uhura reduced to Spock’s nagging girlfriend and Carol Marcus put on display for the titillation of men in the audience.